Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Reso 98-2011
RESOLUTION NO. 98 -2011 CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE EL CAMINO REAL /CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN, EXCLUDING THE KAISER PERMANENTE PARCELS (EIR 11 -0001) AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco ( "City ") Planning Division staff and the City's consultant, Dyett and Bhatia, have prepared the El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, to guide and facilitate future growth and development of an approximately 98 -acre planning area in the El Camino Real corridor, between Southwood Drive to just north of Sequoia Avenue, with a focus on creating pedestrian- oriented, high density mixed -use development, with a range of commercial, residential, and civic uses, including parks, plazas, and gathering spaces for the community, which Area Plan includes specific proposed amendments to the South San Francisco General Plan, amendments to the South San Francisco Zoning Map (Rezone), and amendments to the South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance (collectively, "Area Plan" or "Plan "); WHEREAS, the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required to evaluate the impacts of the proposed Plan; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation was originally issued on July 5, 2010 and a draft environmental impact report was prepared and circulated for public review from February 25, 2011 to April 11, 2011; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held study session on the Plan at their meeting on May 30, 2010, and held a duly noticed meeting during the review period on April 7, 2011 to take public comment on the DEIR; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR (FEIR) for the Plan consists of the DEIR, as well as all comments received on the DEIR, written responses to those comments, and minor revisions to the DEIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and carefully considered the information in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR (collectively, "EIR ") at a duly noticed public hearing held on May 5, 2011, made the findings and recommended certification of the EIR, as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment of the City in the identification, discussion and mitigation of the Plan's environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the Plan cannot be approved unless a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted which evaluates the benefits of the proposed Plan against its unavoidable impacts, and an earlier Statement of Overriding Considerations was made by the City and also applies to the Plan as follows: 1. The City of South San Francisco approved an update to its General Plan and Environmental Impact Report in October 1999. The City Council made a statement of overriding considerations in its approval of the General Plan update, because the measures identified to mitigate for traffic congestion along US 101 and regional air pollution would not be sufficient to reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. 2. The Plan, due to increased population and employment growth, would cause an increase in traffic and would cause intersection LOS standard established by the South San Francisco General Plan to be exceeded. The impacts would be significant and unavoidable at five intersections 3. Therefore, the Statement of Overriding Considerations that was made for approval of the General Plan would also apply to decision - making on the Plan by the City. 4. Additionally, the Plan offers specific benefits as stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Plan (attached as Exhibit C and incorporated herein). WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and carefully considered the information in the EIR at duly noticed public hearings held on May 25, 2011, and July 27, 2011. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR, including all amendments and updates thereto; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the draft El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, dated February 2011, including the Addendum thereto, as presented and attached to the July 27, 2011 City Council Staff Report; the draft El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan General Plan Amendment, prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, dated February 2011; the draft El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendment, prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, dated February 2011; the El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan EIR, including the Draft and Final EIR and all appendices thereto; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council and Planning Commission Joint Study Session on September 16, 2009; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's study session on May 30, 2010; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's meeting of April 7, 2011; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's meeting of May 5, 2011; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's meeting of May 25, 2011; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's meeting of July 27, 2011; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2) ( "Record "), the City of South San Francisco City Council hereby finds as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2. The El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, as well as the Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including the EIR for the El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan (Exhibit A), the CEQA Findings (Exhibit B), the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit C), and the Map of the Kaiser Permanente Parcels (Exhibit D) are each incorporated by reference as part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin. 4. Based on the City Council's independent judgment and analysis, the City Council makes the findings regarding the Plan's significant impacts and project alternatives set forth in Exhibit A, and the Plan's benefits set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the CEQA Findings attached as Exhibit B, adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached as Exhibit C, and certifies the EIR attached as Exhibit A (EIR 11- 0001), for the majority of the El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, excluding the Kaiser Permanente Parcels (as illustrated in Exhibit D. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 27 day of July 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mark Addiego, Pedro Gonzalez, and Karyl Matsumoto, Vice Mayor Richard A. Garbarino and Mayor Kevin Mullin NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None ATTES : City Cl- Exhibit A EIR for the El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH # 2010072015 City of South San Francisco April 2011 El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH # 2010072015 Prepared for the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO by DYETT & BHATIA Urban and Regional Planners 755 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, California 941 1 I t 415 956 43004i 415 956 7315 APRIL 2011 Table of Contents I Introduction 1 -1 Purpose I - I Organization I - I Process I -2 2 Comments on the Draft EIR 2 -I 3 Response to Comments on the Draft EIR 3 -I Agencies 3- I Organizations /Individuals 3 -4 Oral Comments 3 -4 4 Revisions to the Draft EIR 4 -I Appendix A: Revisions to the Draft Area Plan and Associated General Plan and Zoning Amendments A -I Introduction This Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared by the City of South San Francisco (City) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City is the lead agency responsible for ensuring that the proposed El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments (Plan) comply with CEQA. PURPOSE The Final EIR incorporates the Draft EIR (for which a NOP was published July 5, 2010 and a public scoping meeting was held July 16, 2010) and includes Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR, and minor corrections and clarifications to the Draft EIR. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the Final EIR only contains responses to significant environmental issues raised in the comments received on the Draft EIR. It is intended to disclose to City decision makers, responsible agencies, organizations, and the general public, the potential impacts of implementing the proposed Plan. This program level analysis addresses potential impacts of activities associated with approval and implementation of the Plan, which is described in Chapter 2: Project Description, of the Draft EIR. The primary purpose of the Final EIR is to respond to comments received on the Draft EIR during the 45 -day public review period. The review period for the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2010072015) was from February 25, 2011 to April 11, 2011. This document, combined with the Draft EIR, constitutes the Final EIR on the project. This Final EIR amends and incorporates by reference the Draft EIR, which is available as a separately bound document from the City of South San Francisco Planning Division, 315 Maple Ave., in South San Francisco and online on the City of South San Francisco website at http: // www.ci.ssf.ca.us /index.aspx ?NID =367. ORGANIZATION This document contains the following components: • Chapter 2 lists all of the agencies and individuals that submitted either written or oral comments on the Draft EIR; reproduces all comments and provides a unique number for each EIR comment in the page margin. • Chapter 3 provides responses to comments, numbered, and in order according to the comments in Chapter 2. • Chapter 4 lists revisions to the Draft EIR by chapter and page, in the same order as the revisions would appear in the Draft EIR. Actual revised pages of the Draft EIR appear at the end of the section, also in the same order that they would appear in the Draft EIR. • Appendix A lists revisions to the Plan and associated General Plan and Zoning Ordin- ance amendments. PROCESS El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report Upon publication of the Final EIR, the Planning Commission and City Council will hold public hearings to certify the EIR and to consider adoption of the proposed Plan. The Commission and Council will determine the adequacy of the Final EIR, and, if determined adequate, will make findings and certify the document as compliant with CEQA. Copies of the Final EIR have been provided to agencies and other parties that commented on the Draft EIR or have requested the Final EIR. The Final EIR is also available at the City of South San Francisco, Planning Division, 315 Maple Ave., in South San Francisco. Com- ment # Date Agency /Organization Commenter Agencies (Federal, State Regional, Local) (A) A I March 15, 2011 San Francisco International Airport John Bergener A2 March 28, 201 1 City /County Association of Governments of San Mateo David Carbone A3 April 11, 201 1 Department of Transportation Becky Frank A4 April 12, 201 I (re- ceived after close of comment period) Town of Colma Colette Meunier Organizations /Individuals (B) BI April 5, 2011 South San Francisco Rotary Club Dennis Rosaia B2 April 11, 2011 Kaiser Permanente Linda Jensen Oral Testimony (C) C I April 7, 2011 Planning Commission Hearing on Draft EIR Oral Comments 2 Comments on the Draft EIR This chapter contains copies of the comment letters and oral comments received on the Draft EIR of the proposed Plan. A total of five comment letters were received during the 45 -day comment period. One additional letter was received after the close of comment period. CEQA does not require that lead agencies respond to late comments. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21091(d).) While no response to this late comment is required, one is included in Chapter 3. Additionally, oral comments were received at a Planning Commission public hearing on the Draft EIR. Each comment letter is numbered, and each individual comment is assigned a number in the page margin. Responses to each comment are provided in Chapter 3 of this document. Please note that only comments on the Draft EIR are addressed in this Final EIR. Where appropriate, the information and /or revisions suggested in these comment letters have been incorporated into the Final EIR. These revisions are included in Chapter 4 of this document. Where comments address the merits of the proposed Plan rather than on the Draft EIR, this is noted in the response. Comments Received on the proposed Plan (COMMENT LETTERAI AIRPORT COMM' EDWIN M LEE MAYOR March 15, 2011 Mr. Gerry Beaudin, AICP Senior Planner City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department Planning Division P. O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Subject: El Camino ReaUChestnut Avenue Area Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report — City of South San Francisco Dear Mr. Beaudin: San Francisco International Airport Thank you for notifying San Francisco International Airport (SFO or the Airport) of the availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan (the Plan). We appreciate this opportunity to coordinate with the City of South San Francisco (the City) in considering and evaluating potential land use compatibility issues that this and similar projects may pose for the Airport. Airport staff has reviewed the Plan's DEIR that was made available for public review on February 25, 2011. This letter presents the Airport's comments on the proposed project. As described in the DEIR, the Planning Area encompasses approximately 98 acres in the geographic center of the City along El Camino Real, and includes lands formerly owned by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the Kaiser Hospital site, and the City's Municipal Services Building. The Planning Area envisions a new mixed -use district oriented toward pedestrian and transit access, with medium to high density development. At project buildout, the Planning Area could contain up to a total of 1,500 residential units and 2,500 jobs. Located approximately three miles northwest of the Airport, the Planning Area is subject to the policies of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP) for SFO. The SFO CLUP addresses issues related to compatibility between airport operations and surrounding land use development, considering noise impacts, safety of persons on the ground and in flight, height restrictions /airspace protection, and overflight notification. Land use development within the Airport Influence Area is currently governed by the CLUP adopted by the City /County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C /CAG) in 1996, amended 1998. The SFO CLUP is in the process of being updated and is anticipated to be completed by mid -2011. Since JON CITY AND COUNTS' OF SAN FRANCISCO LARRY MAZ2OLA LINDA CRAYTON PRES JAENT ELEANOR JOHNS RICHARD 1, GUGGENHIME VOCE PRESJD NT AMPORT OJRECTOJC Post Office Box 8097 San Francisco. California 94128 Tel 650 321.5000 Fax 650.821.50005 www_liysfo.com PETER A. STERN JOHN L. MARTIN AI -2 AI -3 AI -4 AI -5 Mr. Gerry Beaudin, AICP March 15, 2011 Page 2 of 3 the CLUP update is likely to be completed and adopted before the Final EIR, it is advisable to consider the policies of the draft updated CLUP in preparing the environmental documentation. Future development within the Planning Area should be consistent with CLUP policies with regard to height, noise, and safety compatibility. This is supported by South San Francisco General Plan Policy 2 -I -22, which states: "Require that all future development conforms with the relevant height, aircraft noise, and safety policies and compatibility criteria contained in the most recently adopted version of the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the environs of San Francisco International Airport." In order to protect airspace used for aircraft departure and arrival procedures, the height of new development surrounding the Airport must be maintained below defined critical airspace protection surfaces. Figure 3.9 -1, provided by SFO in August 2010, illustrates that the ground elevation of the Planning Area is estimated to be at least 160 feet below SFO's composite critical airspace protection surface. According to a preliminary airspace analysis, the maximum permissible building height at the former San Francisco Public Utilities Commission site, where the greatest discretionary building heights would be allowed, is approximately 240 feet above mean seal level (AMSL). At the Safeway /Chestnut Center site, the maximum permissible building height is approximately 220 feet AMSL. The finished height of any proposed development should be maintained below critical airspace protection surface limits With regard to noise impacts, the Planning Area is situated outside of the Airport's 65 dB CNEL noise contour. However, the Planning Area is still subject to intermittent noise from aircraft departing SFO, in addition to other sources of ambient noise. Proposed land uses should meet the interior noise requirements of the 2007 California Building Code and the South San Francisco General Plan. The Planning Area is not situated within a runway end safety zone for SFO, and therefore the proposed project does not pose an airport land use compatibility issue with regard to safety. A minor correction may be needed to a statement on page 3.9 -6. The end of the second paragraph reads: "CLUP guidelines regarding noise are presented in Section 3.2." This should more appropriately refer to Section 3.5. The Airport appreciates your consideration of these comments. If I can be of assistance as the City considers airport land use compatibility as they relate to this project or future projects, please do not hesitate to contact me at (650) 821 -7867 or at iohn.bergener(a,flysfo.com. Sincerely, John Bergener Airport Planning Manager San Francisco International Airport Bureau of Planning and Environmental Affairs Mr. Gerry Beaudin, AICP March 15, 2011 Page 3 of 3 cc: Nixon Lam, SFO, Manager of Environmental Affairs Dave Carbone, Airport Land Use Commission 1 COMMENT LETTERA2I Atherton • Belmont • Brisbane • Burlingame • Colma • Daly City • East Palo Alto • Foster City • Half Moon Bay • Hillsborough • Menlo Park • Millbrae • Pacifica • Portola Valley • Redwood City • San Bruno • San Carlos • San Mateo • San Mateo County • South San Francisco • Woodside March 23, 2011 Gerry Beaudin, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Ave. South San Francisco, CA 94083 ALUC Chairperson: Richard Newman Aviation Representative City /County Association of Governments of San Mateo County ALUC Vice Chairperson: Ann Keighran, Council Member City of Burlingame, California C /CAG k44 11 02- Dear Gerry: RE: C /CAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) Staff Comments on the Relevant Content of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the El Camino Real/Chestnut Land Use Plan and Associated General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above - referenced document. The following are ALUC Staff comments regarding the airport/land use compatibility- related content of the DEIR and the ALUC /CCAG review process. ALUC /C /CAG Review of the Proposed Land Use Policy Actions The proposed land use policy actions (i.e. Land Use Plan and the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments) must be submitted to the ALUC and the C /CAG Board of Directors for review /action as required by state law. That review process will include detailed review by the ALUC, which will forward a recommendation to the C /CAG Board of Directors, acting A2 - 1 as the state - mandated Airport Land Use Commission, regarding the consistency of the proposed actions with the relevant airport land use compatibility policies, criteria, regulations, and guidelines for the environs of San Francisco International Airport (SFO). The Board (Commission) will take the official action to determine the consistency of the proposed actions Relevant Airport/land Use Compatibility Content Addressed in the DEIR The airport/land use compatibility issues of concern to the C /CAG Board are (1) height of structures /airspace prutection, (2) aircraft noise impacts, and (3) runway end safety issues. Each issue related to the proposed project is addressed on the next page. C /CAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) Staff: David F. Carbone, Transportation Systems Coordinator /Airport Environs Planning, County of San Mateo Planning and Building Department. 555 COUNTY CENTER, 5" FLOOR, REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 • 650/599 -1406 • 650/594 -9980 A2 -3 Letter to Gerry Beaudin, City of South San Francisco, Re: C /CAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) Staff Comments on the Relevant Content of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the El Camino Real /Chestnut Land Use Plan and Associated General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments March 23, 2011 Page 2 of 4 r Height of Structures /Airspace Protection. The 98 -acre El Camino Real/ Chestnut Land Use Plan area is located within the airspace protection boundaries for SFO, in A2 - the El Camino Real corridor, from just south of Chestnut Ave. to the South San Francisco BART Station. All maximum building heights in the Planning Area (based L upon height above mean sea level (AMSL)) must be below the lowest critical airspace protection surfaces. As noted in the DEIR (in several places), an update of the comprehensive airport land use compatibility plan (CLUP) for the environs of SFO is in progress. It is therefore advisable to consider the relevant text in the draft CLUP document in preparing environmental documentation for the Planning Area. Based on this approach, ALUC Staff requests that the text in Section 4.4 on p. 3.9 -6 be rewritten to read as follows: "4.4 Height of Structures /Airspace Protection The Planning Area is subject to the height limits /airspace protection criteria for San Francisco International Airport (SFO). The Airport has prepared a set of maps to illustrate the critical aeronautical surfaces that protect the airspace for specific types of flight procedures. The maps are included in the draft SFO CLUP update document. The aeronautical surfaces include those established in accordance with FAA Order 8260.3B, U.S. Standards for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) and a surface required for One - Engine Inoperative (OEI) procedures for aircraft departures on Runway 28 Left (to the west). These surfaces indicate the maximum feasible building height at which structures in the Planning Area can be considered compatible with airport/aircraft operations. In order to be deemed consistent with the relevant airport/land use compatibility polices and criteria contained in the draft SFO CLUP update, the maximum height of proposed new or remodeled structures in the Planning Area must be the lowest of (1) the height shown on the SFO Critical Aeronautical surfaces map contained in the CLUP update or (2) the maximum height determined not be a "hazard to air navigation" by the FAA in an aeronautical study of the proposed construction prepared pursuant to the filing of FAA Form 7460 -1, "Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration ", by the project sponsor." This federal notice requirement and height determination also applies to proposed construction based on certain maximum height parameters specified in the relevant FAA regulations (14 CFR Part 77, Section 77.9(a) and (b)(1))." Letter to Gerry Beaudin, City of South San Francisco, Re: C /CAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) Staff Comments on the Relevant Content of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR1 for the El Camino Real /Chestnut Land Use Plan and Associated General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments March 23, 2011 Page 3 of 4 I This rewritten text is more "height of structures" specific than the current text in Section 4.4 and supports the text in the second paragraph on p. 3.9 -7. Aircraft Noise Impacts. The El Camino Real /Chestnut Land Use Plan area is not located within the 65 dB CNEL aircraft noise contour or higher contour level, as shown on the most recent FAA- accepted Noise Exposure Map (NEM) (2001) for SFO nor within the 65 dB CNEL aircraft contour as shown on the SFO 2006 NEM map A2 -4 (five -year projection). Therefore, implementation of mitigation actions for airport exposure noise is not required for future development on the project site. However, the Planning Area is still subject to intermittent noise from aircraft operations and other sources of ambient noise. Proposed land uses should meet the interior noise level requirements specified in the latest version of the building code and the City of South San Francisco General Plan. Runway Safety Issues /Zones. The El Camino Real /Chestnut Land Use Plan is not A2 - located within any runway end safety zones for San Francisco International Airport. Therefore, runway safety is not an airport land use compatibility issue for future development on the project site. Requested Other Minor Text Changes A2 - p. 3.5 -12 Add the following sentence at the end of the last full paragraph regarding the Airport/Community Roundtable: "The City of South San Francisco is a founding member of the Roundtable." A2 -7 p. 3.9 -6 Revise the second sentence in the first paragraph to read as follows: "The updated Plan will include the 2001/2006 FAA- accepted Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs)." A2 -8 p. 3.9 -7 Delete the following sentence on the second and third line of paragraph two: "The proposed Plan would adhere to policies set forth in the 1996 CLUP (Amended in 1998)." A2 -9 p. 3.12 -15 Revise the second sentence in the fourth paragraph to read as follows: "The updated Flan will include the 2001/2006 FAA- accepted Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs)." Letter to Gerry Beaudin, City of South San Francisco, Re: C /CAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) Staff Comments on the Relevant Content of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the El Camino Real /Chestnut Land Use Plan and Associated General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments March 23, 2011 Page 4 of 4 If you have any questions about these comments, please contact me at 650/363 -4417 or via email, at dcarboneAco.sanmateo.ca.us David F. Carbone, ALUC Staff cc: C /CAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) Members Richard Napier, C /CAG Executive Director Richard Newman, C /CAG ALUC Chairperson John Bergener, SFO Planning Manager ALUCstaffcom IetSS FEICam i noRealChestn utArea Plan DE I R0311. doc Sent By: CALTRANS TRANSPORTATIO PLANNING; 510 286 5560; 1 COMMENT LETTER A3 i 'A' i i mein [ ntitaM. TRANaktilerAII6ii ANTI FN 71 1'CY' DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR'TAU N 111 GRAND AVENUE P: O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND. CA 94623 -0660 PHONE (510) 286-5536 FAX (510) 286 -5559 TTY 711 April 11, 2011 Mr. Mike Lappen Planning Division . City of'South San Pianciaco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Mr. Lappen: El Cameo Real/Chestnut A v enue Are Plan.= Draft•Enviroliisa hnpaet Report Thank you for contintiing,.to includii :the. Cal Department ofT° ' ..... (Department) m. the environniental review .ptticess• 5* die EI•Cansino Real (i CR.)ICha:•, :venue Area Plan project. The following comment it based .oni the•Dritft •EnvirOtaMental Impact Repot : (DE1R). Cultural Resources . r Th© Cultuml• Eesoin+aee . 1 . - a eit 'aid:Mitigation measures. in the f ult ources Section of the :DEIR. satisfies c n l:1e `. or cultura'ie urces wilt : •atate right of way (ROW) for the Department. Shouittiio Mt a€ctivities w1tliin tile state IGW::itake place as Part (Otitis PrOJect, A3 -1 these. mitigation.meaaute$ shalt be implemented•( rr an archscalogic :.If there should be an inadvertent. aechaeologi ;'Or : discovery. within the state ROW ,.:: : Department's Office of Cultural•ResoUrce Studies` l' :i tacted at (510) A.s aeologisst.wiiil evaluate finds .within .within The Dot require s :i*tiew of any potential data recovery plans within the• stater: ROW. Sincerely, c: State Clearinghouse : j4. Please feel .free to•call.er: il:Saner Pinegah of ihq Eitiff at (510) ,,4644 or san¢ra futega i dat :Ca gov with. any questions rcgacditur this letter.. BECKY. FRANK District Branch Chief .:. '. Federal a Grants / Rail Coordinator Apr -11 -11 3:09PM; SM082265 SM -82 -20.65 -21.17 SCH#20100720I5 Page 1 / 1 EDMUND a. menvng e..Clei ��ee Floe yamr powerf Be enema *Wiwi! 1 COMMENT LETTER A4 I A4- I April 11, 2011 TOWN OF COLMA PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1190 El Camino Real *Colma, California 94044 (650) 985 • FAX: (65Q) 985-2578 Mr. Gerry Beaudin, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Franclsco, CA 94083 VIA Email (web-ecd(asstnet) RE: Environmental Impact Report (EIR) – El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Dear Mr. Beaudin, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan (Plan). After review of the DEIR, the Planning Department offers the following comments on behalf of the Town of Colma: r In the Traffic and Circulation section, the DEIR concludes that future development under the proposed Plan wili cause an increase in traffic and would cause the level of service (LOS) standards at various intersections in and around the Plan Area to exceed the standards established by the South San Francisco General Plan. Of specific interest to the Town of Colma, due to the relative proximity to the Town's boundaries, are the following intersections • El Camino Real and Hickey Boulevard • El Camino Real and McClellan Boulevard According to the analysis in the DEIR, the LOS at the aforementioned intersections will be impacted at buildout of the Plan. At the El Camino Real/McCleJlan intersection, the LOS is currently at level E at the a.m. peak, and an F at the p.m. peak. At buildout of the Plan in 2030, the intersection would be impacted and service reduced to level F during both the a.m. and p.m. peak. The mitigation measure proposed will not reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. The impacts, then, are considered "significant and unavoidable." The Town of Colnria's boundary is located a block away —from this intersection, near the intersection of McClellan Boulevard and Mission Road. —Our concern is that the significant increase in residential density and employment I growth contemplated in the Plan Area will also result in significant traffic volume A4-2 Letter to SSF Comments on [HEIR — El Camino ReaI /Che5tnut Avenue Area Plan April 11, 2011 Page 2 of 2 increases an Mission Road and Lawndale Boulevard (the extension of McClellan Boulevard in Colma). These key intersections were not analyzed in the DEIR, and should be evaluated to determine potential impacts and possible mitigation measures, In addition to the El Camino Real/McClellan Boulevard intersection, we are interested in the analysis of the El Camino Real /Hickey Boulevard intersection. The South San Francisco /Colma border is located just north of the intersection. As vehicles travel north on El Camino Real through the Hickey intersection, the number of northbound lanes are reduced from four lanes (including two right turn lanes) to two. Traveling southbound, the number of lanes increases from two north of Hickey to three lanes south of Hickey. In addition, no shoulder, deceleration lane or sidewalk is present along the two -lane segment of El Camino Real from north of Hickey Boulevard to Arlington Drive. Physical constraints and the required financial commitment have prevented the widening of El Camino Real in this area. At Plan buildout, and as other areas such as the Treasure Island Mobile Home Park are redeveloped with Medium Density Residential uses in accordance with the South San Francisco General Plan, there will be a significant increase in traffic volurnes along El Camino Real. The intersections north of Hickey Boulevard have not been evaluated in the DEIR, and impacts associated with Plan buildout could detrimentally affect the Town of Co!ma's circulation and transportation network. We request that the DEIR include the impacts of Plan buildout along El Carnino Real north of Hickey Boulevard, At a minimum, analysis should be provided for the intersection of Arlington Drive and El Camino Real, Thank you again for the opportunity to review and comment. We look forward to continuing discussion on the Area Plan as it progresses through the review process. Sincerely, tte Meunier, AIC Acting City Planner cc, Laura Allen, Colma City Manager (electronically) Brad Donohue, Deputy Public Works Director (electronically) 'COMMENT LETTER B I B1-1 April 5, 2011 City of South San Francisco Planning Commission Planning Division City Hall 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 RE: El Camino Reaiithestnut Avenue Area Plan & Associated General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Dear Planninn, Commission Members: AP [hank you for this opportunity to provide you with comments on then Camino Real/Chestnut. \venue Area Nan & Associated General Man Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment. The overall vision set forth in the Area Plan is a very exciting one for our City The Rotary Club of South San Francisco looks flirward to being part of its implementation by sponsoring the de\ eloprnent of an attractively designed affordable senior housing community consisting of approximately 100 units. We believe that our participation in the Area Plan will significantly enhance community support for the overall program For this reason, we believe it is important that the Plan include realistic pal ameters that accommodate the feasibility of such an atTordable senior housing community. We have engaged HKIT Architects, who have designed approximately 60 properties containing 5,500 unit of affordable senior housing. We have also selected an experienced development partner, American Baptist llomes of the West, (ABHOW), which has successfully developed 23 senior housing communities comprising over 4,150 units, including 12 affordable senior housing properties. MUT and ABHOW have assisted us in preparing the following comments, which are intended to stiugest modifications required to accommodate the feasibility ref 100 unit affordable senior housing community. 1 There is no specific mention of a senior housing component or of affordable housing in the Plan, only high density multi-unit residential in general Given both current and ibreseeable market conditions, the 15 story residential towers shown at the location of the property most suitable for affordable senior housing will most likely not be financially feasible for a number of years This Fact reflected in soul.t1/4 111PIANt17...%, MIMS TEM SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ROTARY CLUB DISTRICT 5150 P,C BOX 563 SOUTH SAN FR A Nicrsco CA 94080 the site development listed as Phase 5 in the city's program. The site's master -plan indicates a single development approach to each of the 3 residential towers thus requiring a joint venture for the affordable senior housing component with a market rate multifamily development. We would like to see the affordable senior component acknowledged and located as a potential separate element in the master -plan along the creek side that can be developed independently from the eventual market that will drive the viability of the high density residential towers. The 2 residential components can then complement each other and perhaps join at a common phased parking structure. The desired high site density would then be achieved over the entire site development as a goal, while allowing the senior component to be built and financed in a time line and economic climate that reflects the opportunities available to nonprofit developers versus the larger more volatile markets that drive typical multifamily developers. As the Area Plan is presently written, there is no practical way for an affordable low- income housing development to move forward independent of the other developments in the Plan. Funding cycles and development timelines unique to affordable housing should be given more consideration when adopting a final Plan. 4. The proposal to include a minimum density of 80 units per acre at this site also presents problems for the development of senior affordable housing. Given the current sources of public funding for such housing such as the F1UD Section 202 and Low - Income Housing Tax Credit programs, it would be difficult to create a feasible financing structure that would allow for much more than 100 units. Also, the limitations of these federal sources of funding and the per -unit costs of developing a mid -rise or high -rise property would likely require that an unusually large amount of city funding be secured. We would suggest that an affordable housing overlay zone be included for this site that would allow for a minimum density of 50 units per acre. This zone could also specify that only 40 percent of the site in question could be eligible for this use, with the balance to be developed at 100 units per acre. If this zone were created, the senior affordable housing development could move forward quickly and independently while still allowing the site as a whole to meet the original 80 unit per acre minimum density target. Alternatively or additively, a master planning process could also be used to allow for the inclusion of these affordable senior units in a manner that is 5. The concerns above also relate to the Plan recommendation that the portion of the site in question be developed as the last of five phases. We urge that the City provide for badly needed affordable senior housing to move forward on the fastest time frame possible. 1 urge you to consider modifications to the draft Area Plan that will accommodate the feasibility of a well-designed 100 unit affordable senior housing complex. The Department of Health and Human Set Administration on Aging agency reports that 1 out of every 2 elderly households earn less than our Area Media income. The average time on the waiting lists of senior housing communities in the City is 25 years. With the rise in the number of baby-boomers, the demand of they type of housing proposed will increase exponentially in the corning years. The South San Francisco Rotary Club is excited by the prospect of being part of this important element of our Cityls fitture We hope to play an important role in helping to make the vision of the Area Plan come to fruition. We look forward as well to working with the City on appropriate standards for much needed affordable senior housing, Thank you for your attention and consideration, feasible and that is compatible with the overall goals and intentions of the area plan. KAISER PERMANIENTE 1COMMENT LETTER B21 B2-I L April I L 2011 Mr, Mike lumen Economic Development Coordinator Department of Economic and Community Development City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Re: El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan - Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Lappcn: 1 150 Veterans Boulevard r?.edieeNad City, CalliQrnia 94063-2087 (650)299-2000 pa Kaiser Permanente Meal Center Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan ( The Kaiser Medical Center currently occupies over 204 acres within the 98 acre El Camino/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan ( Plan") area and currently provides state of the art integrated medical care services to 33% of South San Francisco residents. Our substantial presence in the local and broader South San Francisco community will remain and will respond to the needs of our members and the larger healthcare market for the foreseeable future and the life of the Area Plan. Kaiser Permanente ( would like to share some concerns about the DER, the Project Description and the environmental analysis contained in the DEIR. Our major concern is that the Area Plan and proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment does not adequately acknowledge or address the presence of the Kaiser Medical Center, nor acknowledge that it will remain. expand. adapt and change over the life of the Area Plan as a key and vital component of the Plan. While the Arca Plan mentions the presence of the Kaiser Medical Center. and City staff clearly eclmowiedges in public study sessions that the Medical Center is one of the regional attractions and features of the Area Plan, the Medical Center appears to he an almost tangential afterthouelit when reading the Area Plan. This results in a somewhat confusing Project Description in the DER in which it is unclear what role the Kaiser Medical Center plays in the Area Nan, E Fxacerbating this problem is that the Area Plan. Zoning Code Amendment and DER contain elements that are too prescriptive and unnecessarily restrict redevelopment opportunities [Mam-1:10.3 REV le.011 B2-2 B2-3 Mr. Mike Lappen April 11, 2011 Page Two prior to any specific project-level planning by Kaiser. We are concerned that this prematurely restrictive language has resulted in an environmental analysis in the DEIR that will preclude further discussions between Kaiser and the City prior to adoption of the Area Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding appropriate, mutually beneficial modifications to the Area Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Specifically, with respect to the Zoning Ordinance Amendment Kaiser is concerned that the Medical Center is split between two different zoning designations, the El Camino Mixed Use North, Medium Intensity and the El Camino Mixed Use North, High Intensity zones. With its unique integrated care delivery model. Kaiser needs to retain the flexibility to provide all types of medical services anywhere on its campus. As proposed, hospital uses are not permitted in the El Camino Mixed Use North, High Intensity portion of the Medical Center thereby prematurely precluding Kaiser from expanding on to property that it has acquired for expansion purposes. At some date in the not so distant future Kaiser will need to replace portions or the existing hospital in order to meet regulator) requirements and to provide the best possible health care to its members. The proposed zones are unduly restrictive and usurp the role of the Planning Commission and City Council in determining the master planned future boundaries of Kaiser's South San Francisco Medical Center. Additionally, many of tl specific development standards contained in the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment and the Area Plan appear specifically aimed at residential and commercial development. Health care and medical centers in particular are highly specialized developments needing to meet specific federal and state safety, privacy, financial and other regulatory demands. While Kaiser appreciates that until it has a better sense of its long-range plans for the Medical Center, and is prepared to engage in a specific planning level process, it is premature to include such standards in the Area Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendment. The current development standards are not necessarily appropriate as they are too prescriptive and restrictive. At a minimum, Kaiser would appreciate additional language included in the Area Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendment that recognizes the unique role of Medical Center development and an acknowledgement that the proposed development standards will not be applied literally. We seek confirmation that the addition of the statement or principle requested by Kaiser for the development of alternative development standards and design guidelines for the Medical Center are within the scope of the 1)1.1R. E f3ased on the foregoing we believe that it is important for Kaiser and the City to begin meeting immediately to discuss appropriate modifications to the Area Plan and Zoning B2-4 Ordinance Amendment to ensure that these amendments do not restrict Kaiser's ability to L expand its operations in South San Francisco pursuant to a reasoned dialogue with the city and Kaiser's own environmental review process. Kaiser respectfully requests that the City instruct staff to modify the DEIR in accordance with these concerns. pa-1457704 Mr. Mike Lappet] April 11, 2011 Page Three Conclusion As one of the largest employers in the City, Kaiser Perrnanente would like the flexibility to remain and grow its Medical Center in the City of South San Francisco Once again, thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the DE1R P[case id me know if you have any questions or wish to discuss these matters further and 11, wk 1t to meeting with you in the near future. Sincerely, Linda Je sen Sr. Vice President & Area Manager - San Mateo pa- i 457704 (ORAL COMMENTS C I CI -I CI -2 L SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS MADE AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING ON THE DRAFT EIR Planning Commission Hearing April 7, 201 1 Hollis Harris My name is Hollis Harris, Vice President of Capital Projects for Kaiser Permanente and I am here tonight speaking for Kaiser Permanente. We have been in South San Francisco for over 60 years as Kaiser Permanente. We opened our first hospital at Grand and Spruce and moved to our current site in 1975 and have been growing that site since then. We actually had an earlier involvement in South San Francisco that Doctor Garfield, one of our founders, had an original practice here in South San Francisco servicing the long shoremen who worked out at Oyster Point. So we feel very committed and very much a part of the community. In fact 33 percent of your residents are Kaiser Permanente members and we are proud of that fact, quite proud of that fact. We fell asleep at the wheel a little bit and missed the fact that the Draft EIR was out. We caught wind of it and found it earlier this week. So we don't have specific comments to make but I just wanted to say we will be submitting a letter by Monday the deadline with our comments as we are scrambling to figure them out. We look forward to working with staff and the Commission on the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance changes to the Plan. That's all I have to say. I did it under three minutes. Thank you. Patrick Brosnan My name is Patrick Brosnan and I am looking at it from the point of view of, my family, we own some apartments at the corner of Grand and Mission. And just from my looking, I just started looking at it a few days ago, and my concern is with traffic, especially between Oak and Grand Avenue. It seems that the very high density residential, I think about 500 units are going in there, it seems that the only place to really approach, for cars to approach those buildings is on Mission Road. So that is concerning to us that there are so many residents right there and I don't see any other area that they can approach other than Mission Road, right off of Grand. That seems like a lot of traffic for such a small road. As far as the Environmental Report, that is what really jumps out at me. Charles Bona My name is Charles Bona and I am with the Mission Road Dental Center located on Mission Road. We have been located there for about 30, 40 years. This is very important to us and I don't know why we didn't get more notice about this Environmental Impact Report. I really feel like we are being pushed on the 11t to come up with things that seem to give a little concern for those tenants, those people who are currently owners of property within the confines of the 98 acres. And so I just wanted to say that I am not familiar with this process to a great degree but I wish we had more notice on this because I don't know what the impacts going to be because I don't know enough details. Perhaps we are going to have a lot more of an opportunity to work with the staff as it finalizes and gets down to the nitty gritty, but I just wanted to make this comment at this time. Anna Macedi My name is Anna Macedi and my comment is as a resident of South San Francisco, I did not receive a notice of this meeting. I would think that this project affects every resident of South San Francisco and not those within that specific area being planned. So I would've hoped that you C 1 -4 would have taken that into consideration because the area you are discussing is already a traffic L area so I don't see how this would benefit or improve the area at all. So I would hope that you take that into consideration. E E George Flynn By the information just given, it sounded like the traffic concerns were involved directly in the C 1 -5 Environmental Impact Report. L It sounds like the Environmental Impact Report grievances, arguments, whatever, it sounds like the end of that is going to be on May 11th? And it sounds that looking from the presentation that that includes the traffic impact and all of that. Is that correct? Richard Hedges If I may, not trying to usurp the chair or the Commissioners. Just to make a comment about EIRs in general. But first Mr. Lohring wanted me to comment and I do too about how well you have handled this, how well your explanation was in particular about what the EIR is doing tonight. And I want to thank you for that. I think that EIRs in a lamen's opinion are much like constitutions. They are the rule of law or the rule of development for the City. They lay out the C 1 -6 future plans and what can be developed in an area. For example, if you would look at another city who went through a similar process that you are going through right now, San Mateo, with the corridor plan over a long period of time that laid out the rules about what would be developed there and later was incorporated into the City plan, overall General Plan by vote of the population, overwhelmingly 85 percent I might add. What I heard the most concern about tonight was traffic and that's always a concern for folks who live near any development. And what I would say tonight would have been the time for you to look at the modeling used for the documents, traffic in the EIR, for instance the model, you might find fault with it if a supercenter was going in and the modeling used was for a grocery store. Those would be the things you would bring up tonight to try to overturn. So it is simply not the night if you have some long term concerns about the development as you said. I think you explained it very well. 3 Response to Comments on the Draft EIR This chapter includes responses to each comment, and in the same order, as presented in Chapter 2. The responses are marked with the same number -letter combination as the comment to which they respond, as shown in the margin of the comment letters. AGENCIES Al: San Francisco International Airport A1-1: The current and most recently adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP) for San Francisco International Airport (SFO) was adopted by the City /County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C /CAG) in 1996, amended 1998; therefore it was considered when preparing the Draft EIR. According to Dave Carbone from C /CAG, via phone correspondence on March 16, 2011, the public review draft of the SFO CLUP update is not yet ready for release, and adoption of the SFO CLUP update is not anticipated until the end of 2011. Adoption of the proposed Plan is anticipated to precede adoption —and possibly publication —of any update to the CLUP. Accordingly, the Plan is evaluated in light of the existing, and only available CLUP. As further described in Response A1-3, development within the Plan area will comply with the City's General Plan, including Policy 2 -I -22. A1-2: Comment noted. As the comment states, Figure 3.9 -1 illustrates that the ground level elevation of the Planning Area is estimated to be at least 160 feet below SFO's composite critical airspace protection surface. Since nowhere in the Planning Area are heights greater than 160 feet permitted, SFO's composite critical airspace protection surface limit will not be exceeded. The former San Francisco Public Utilities Commission site is approximately 50 feet above mean sea level. The maximum permitted height on that site is 160 feet with discretionary review; therefore the maximum permitted height of structures on that site would be approximately 210 feet above mean sea level, which is below the critical airspace protection surface limit of 240 feet for the site. The Safeway /Chestnut Center site is approximately 40 feet above mean sea level. The maximum permitted height on that site is approximately 120 feet with discretionary review; therefore the maximum permitted height of structures on that site would be approximately 160 feet above mean sea level, which is below the critical airspace surface limit of 220 feet above mean seal level for the site. Therefore, as the Draft EIR states, the proposed Plan does not conflict with heights established for SFO's airspace. A1-3: This information is provided in Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR. As stated on page 3.5 -18 of the Draft EIR, new development under the proposed Plan would have to adhere to noise standards in Section 20.300.010 of the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, future development would also have to adhere to Title 24 and noise policies set forth in the South San Francisco General Plan, which would effectively mitigate noise impacts. A1-4: Comment noted. This information is provided on page 3.9 -6 of the Draft EIR. El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report A1 In response to the comment, the section reference on page 3.9 -6 has been updated. A2: City /County Association of Governments of San Mateo A2 -1: This is a comment regarding the process established by Public Utilities Code Section 21676, rather than the Draft EIR. In order to comply with the process, a request was sent on March 30, 2011 to Dave Carbone of the C /CAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) to review the Plan at the next ALUC and C /CAG meeting. The Plan is on the ALUC agenda for May 19, 2011 and on the C /CAG agenda for June 9, 2011. A2 -2: See response to Comment A1-2. A2 -3: In response to the comment, the regulatory setting under San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan on page 3.9 -6 has been updated. A2 -4: In response to the comment, reference has been added to the Summary of Impacts on page 3.9 -7 to indicate that detailed noise analysis is located in Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR. A2 -5: In response to the comment, the Summary of Impacts on page 3.9 -7 has been updated to include reference to runway end safety zones. A2 -6: In response to the comment, the description of the Airport /Community Roundtable on page 3.5 -12 has been updated to include reference to the City of South San Francisco. A2 -7: In response to the comment, the regulatory setting under San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan on page 3.9 -6 has been updated. A2 -8: In response to the comment, the Summary of Impacts on page 3.9 -7 has been updated. A2 -9: In response to the comment, the regulatory setting under San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan on page 3.12 -15 has been updated. A3: Department of Transportation (Caltrans) A3 - 1: Comment noted. A4: Town of Colma A4 - 1: Comment noted. The comment restates portions of the analysis, but does not raise a significant environmental issue with the analysis. No further response to this comment is required. A4 - 2: The comment restates certain information provided in the Draft EIR's traffic chapter, expresses a general concern regarding the increase in traffic, and requests analysis of additional intersections. The scope of the Draft EIR's traffic analysis, including the specific intersections to be evaluated, was developed in consultation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and nearby agencies and jurisdictions, including the commenter, were invited to participate in that scoping process. Per Chapter 3: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR CEQA Guidelines § 15082(a), upon deciding that an environmental impact report was required for the Plan, the City of South San Francisco prepared a Notice of Preparation which was mailed to responsible agencies, including the Town of Colma, on July 5, 2010. Under CEQA, when a responsible agency fails by the end of the prescribed 30- day period to provide the lead agency with either a response to the notice or a well - justified request for additional time, the lead agency may presume that none of those entities have a response to make. (CEQA Guidelines 4 15082(b)(2) and 4 15103.) The City of South San Francisco did not receive a response to the Notice of Preparation from the Town of Colma. In addition to the Notice of Preparation, the City of South San Francisco also conducted a scoping meeting to determine the scope and content of the environmental information that responsible agencies may require. The notice of the scoping meeting, held on July 16, 2010, was provided in the Notice of Preparation. The Town of Colma did not attend the scoping meeting. The City did, however, work with Caltrans to establish the scope of the traffic study. Caltrans' responses to the Notice of Preparation were included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. These responses and correspondence from the lead agency's consultant is provided in Chapter 4 for reference. Pursuant to Caltrans' request, the lead agency expanded the scope of the traffic study to evaluate additional intersections that Caltrans believed could have potentially significant impacts resulting from adoption of the Plan. Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City of South San Francisco prepared a Notice of Availability which was mailed to the Town of Colma on February 25, 2011. The Notice of Availability specified the 45 -day public review period, beginning on February 25, 2011 and ending at 5:00 pm on April 11, 2011. During the public review period, a Planning Commission Public Hearing was conducted on April 7, 2011 to receive oral public comments on the Draft EIR. The Town of Colma did not provide any oral comments at the Public Hearing. At the end of the public review period specified in the Notice of Availability, comments had not been submitted by the Town of Colma. A comment letter from the Town of Colma was received on April 11, 2011 via email at 5:32 pm, after the end of the public review period. Per CEQA Guidelines 4 15207, if any public agency fails to comment within a reasonable time as specified by the lead agency, it shall be assumed, absent a request for a specific extension of time, that such agency or person has no comment to make. Although the lead agency need not respond to late comments, the lead agency may choose to respond to them. As the comment letter from the Town of Colma was received after the end of the public review period, the City of South San Francisco is not required to respond to the late comment letter. Therefore, the response to comments being provided is for information purposes, as CEQA does not require a response. The City worked with the respondents to the NOP, including Caltrans, to develop the study area for the transportation and circulation analysis for the Plan. The study area intersections were chosen based on their location relative to the Planning Area and the potential for impacts on the transportation network. The City of South San Francisco and Caltrans developed and approved the list of study area intersections, with five intersections along El Camino Real, including the intersections at Hickey Boulevard El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report and McClellan Drive. There were no public comments received requesting any additional intersections be evaluated. While the intersection of El Camino Real /Arlington Drive was considered for inclusion in the traffic analysis study area, it was determined that Arlington Drive only provides access to a self - contained residential neighborhood. Therefore, Arlington Drive is a low volume local street. The intersection provides a traffic signal that controls traffic and allows protected turning movements into and out of the neighborhood. Given the low volume of traffic on Arlington Drive, and the existing signalization, the El Camino Real /Arlington Drive intersection would not be expected to be significantly impacted by the Plan. In addition, it is not expected that turning volumes at the El Camino Real /Arlington Drive intersection will significantly increase with the development of the Area Plan. Notably, Caltrans, which has jurisdiction over El Camino Real (State Route 82), did not request evaluation of this intersection. The Hickey Boulevard intersection to the south provides regional access to the freeway network with its interchange at I -280. Travel patterns and traffic volumes along El Camino Real north of Hickey Boulevard are significantly lower than south of Hickey Boulevard, as indicated in existing and proposed future northbound left turn and eastbound right turn peak hour volumes at the El Camino Real /Hickey Boulevard intersection. Furthermore, intersections north of Hickey Boulevard are farther removed from Planning Area, and accordingly would be expected to have lower impacts than those intersections evaluated in the Draft EIR. For the reasons stated in the Draft EIR and this response, the scope of the traffic analysis is adequate, and analysis of the additional intersections as requested in the comment is not necessary. ORGANIZATIONS /INDIVIDUALS B I : Dennis Rosaia (South San Francisco Rotary Club) B1 -1: The comment letter does not raise a significant environmental issue or address the adequacy of the EIR. As the commenter notes, the comments are on the proposed Plan and associated General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments, rather than the Draft EIR. The comment letter will be made a part of the record and provided to and considered by decision - makers as part of their deliberation as whether to approve the Plan. No further response is required as part of the Final EIR. B2: Linda Jensen (Kaiser Permanente) B2 - 1: As stated in the introductory paragraph in Chapter 2 Project Description of the Draft EIR on page 2 -1, the project description provides background information regarding the regional location and boundaries of the Planning Area, as well as objectives, and key themes and components of the proposed Plan. Additional details are provided in the Plan itself. The proposed Plan and associated General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments were made available for review in conjunction with the Draft EIR. Figure 2.1 -2 in the Project Description of the Draft EIR shows the precise location and boundaries of the Planning Area (CEQA Guidelines § 15124). Figure 2.1 -2 clearly shows the Kaiser Permanente site within the Planning Area. Kaiser, therefore is Chapter 3: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR included in the evaluation and review of environmental impacts in the Draft EIR. Figures 2.3 - through 2.3 - show existing and proposed land uses, heights, and zoning for the Kaiser Permanente site; these maps along with supporting text provide a clear description of the proposed Plan as it applies to the Kaiser Permanente site. The existing land use, height and zoning maps, and supporting text in the Project Description show that the existing General Plan land use designation for the Kaiser Permanente site is office which has a base maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0, up to 2.5 with discretionary approval and incentive based bonuses. The existing maximum height limit is 80 feet for the site and the site's existing zoning designation of Public /Quasi Public permits hospital uses after review and approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. The Plan proposes to change the General Plan land use designation of the Kaiser Permanente site to North El Camino Real Mixed Use, Medium Intensity and North El Camino Real Mixed Use, High Intensity. The proposed change in land use designation increases the base maximum FAR to 1.5 (Medium Intensity) and 2.0 (High Intensity). It also increases the maximum FAR with discretionary approval and incentive based bonuses to 3.0 for part of the site (High Intensity). Overall, the Plan would result in an increase of maximum FAR, which increases Kaiser's allowable building square footage on the site, compared to Kaiser's existing land use designation. In addition, the Plan proposes to increase the maximum height for the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center site to up to 120 feet with discretionary approval, while the existing height limit is 80 feet. The Plan would allow for taller buildings on the Kaiser Permanente site. The Plan is in effect making the expansion of Kaiser more feasible through increasing the maximum FAR and height, compared to what is currently allowed. In terms of permitted uses, currently hospital is a conditionally permitted use at the Kaiser Permanente site. As proposed by the Plan, the existing Kaiser Permanente site would have two land use /zoning designations —in the El Camino Real /Chestnut Mixed Use, Medium Intensity sub - district, the Public Review Draft of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment continues to allow medical uses as conditionally permitted use. In response to the comment, the Zoning Ordinance has now been revised to allow hospital as a conditionally permitted use in the El Camino Real /Chestnut Mixed Use, High Intensity sub - district on the undeveloped narrow portion of the Kaiser Permanente site extending along El Camino Real as well. Thus, the proposed Zoning Ordinance would continue to allow hospital as a conditionally permitted use on all sites where these uses are currently conditionally permitted. Additionally, the Zoning Ordinance Amendment has been revised to clarify that the required minimum 0.3 FAR of active uses will not apply to the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center site designated as El Camino Real /Chestnut Mixed use, Medium Intensity. The Plan does not include any specific projects or development applications. Any specific proposal by Kaiser to expand, would be considered by the City pursuant to the development approval process, and subject to further CEQA review to evaluate project - level impacts. El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report B2 - 2: This is a comment on the merits of the Plan, rather than the Draft EIR. The environmental analysis in the Draft EIR does not preclude any discussions between Kaiser and the City regarding potential future modifications to the Area Plan, General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, or development on the Kaiser site. The proposed Area Plan and Zoning regulations will require the review and approval of the Planning Commission and City Council; accordingly, they do not usurp the role of those bodies in determining the master planned future of the area. As Figure 2.3 - in the Draft EIR shows, the three parcels north of the existing Kaiser Permanente site are currently designated Community Commercial /High Density Residential. Figure 2.3 -3 shows that the existing height limit is 80 feet for those three parcels. The parcel adjacent to the existing Kaiser site is currently zoned Transit Village Commercial (TV -C) while the other two parcels are zoned Transit Village High Density Residential (TV -RH). The maximum non - residential FAR for TV -C is 2.0, while the maximum non - residential FAR for TV -RH is 1.0. Hospital use is currently not permitted on those three parcels. The 2009 City of South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element identified those three sites as housing opportunity sites. The Plan designates those three parcels as North El Camino Real Mixed Use, High Intensity. The Plan increases the base maximum FAR of TV -RH to 2.0 and allows a maximum FAR with discretionary approval and incentive base bonuses of 3.0 for all three sites. The Plan increases the height limit up to 120 feet with discretionary review. The Plan is not restricting redevelopment opportunities since it is not proposing any new restrictions on uses, compared to what is currently allowed. Instead, the Plan is expanding redevelopment opportunity by increasing the base maximum FAR on the site currently zoned TV -RH from 1.0 to 2.0 and the Plan is allowing for a maximum FAR with discretionary approval and incentive base bonuses of 3.0 where none currently exist, enabling more building square footage compared to what is currently allowed. In addition, the Plan increases maximum height to 120' with discretionary approval, which allows for taller buildings compared to what is currently allowed. The Plan is in effect making the expansion of Kaiser more feasible. See Response to Comment B2 -1 for detailed discussion regarding hospital uses and revisions to the Zoning Ordinance amendments. B2 - 3: This is a comment on the Plan, rather than the Draft EIR. For information purposes, in response to the comment, Policy UD -12, as revised, in the proposed Plan states "Ensure that any Kaiser Hospital redevelopment is in accordance with the Area Plan, including the standards and guidelines spelled out in Chapter 5. While it is neither expected nor required that the hospital maintain an active frontage with ground floor commercial uses along El Camino Real (except as required in Figure 3 -3), the building itself should be designed to be visually cohesive in appearance, with articulated building form and massing, rather than a monolithic mass. The Area Plan would enable a taller hospital building to provide this flexibility in massing. Further, the hospital campus should be designed to take advantage of and be integrated with the surroundings, including the linear park and new commercial uses, to enable workers and visitors to enjoy the amenities and have easy access to eating establishments and C1 -6: Comment noted. Chapter 3: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR shops." Any potential policies or edits, as the comment requests, would not alter the conclusions presented in the Draft EIR regarding impacts as long as they are complementary to the policies included in the Draft Plan. B2 - 4: This is a comment on the Plan, rather than the Draft EIR. See response to comments B2 -1 through B2 -3. CI: Planning Commission Hearing on Draft EIR (Oral Comments) C1 -1: See responses to B2 comments. C1 -2: This is a comment on the Plan, rather than the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR does show that overall traffic impacts will be significant and unavoidable. Table 3.1 -7 and 3.1 -8 show traffic impacts at individual intersection. On Mission Road /Grand Avenue, traffic impacts will be less than significant with improvements proposed by the Plan. On Mission Road /Oak Avenue, mitigation measures are infeasible and traffic impacts will be significant and unavoidable. The Plan does not include any specific projects or development applications. The traffic analysis is based on Plan buildout, or full development under the proposed Plan. The Plan does not specify or anticipate the exact time when development will occur, the exact locations where development will occur, or that exact size and intensity of the actual development. Therefore it is not known what development at Mission Road /Grand Avenue or Mission Road /Oak Avenue will look like until there is a specific development proposal. When there is a specific development proposal, the proposed development would be subject to further CEQA review to evaluate project -level impacts C1 -3: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15105, the public review period for the Draft EIR was 45 days, beginning on February 25, 2011 and ending on April 11, 2011. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15807, the City of South San Francisco gave public notice of the availability of the Draft EIR through direct mailing to the owners and occupants of property contiguous to and within the Planning Area, and through posting of notice at the West Orange Library, Grand Avenue Library, City Clerk's office and Planning Division Counter, as well as the City's website. For informational purposes, in response to the comment, additional comments regarding the Plan may still be submitted to the City. C1 -4: See Response to Comments C1 -2 and C1 -3. C1 -5: See Response to Comments C1 -2 and C1 -3. At the time the comment was received, subsequent Planning Commission and City Council meetings required for the review and approval of the Plan had not yet been scheduled. A Planning Commission meeting has since been scheduled for May 5, 2011 for the Planning Commission to review and provide a recommendation to the City Council on the Plan. Public comments on the Plan are welcome by the City before adoption of the Plan. It is not anticipated that the Plan will be adopted by May 11, 2011. 4 Revisions to the Draft EIR This chapter includes the revisions to the Draft EIR. These revisions have been made in response to comments or based on review by the EIR preparers. The revisions appear here in the order they appear in the Draft EIR. Text additions are noted in underline and text deletions appear in strikcout. Revisions to the Draft EIR are described in Table 4 -1 and organized by chapter, page and table or figure, where applicable. Certain pages have been appended to the end of this chapter, for clarity purposes; these pages are referenced in the table. Table 4.1: Revisions to the Draft EIR Chapter/ Page Table/ Correction Section Figure 3.5 3.5 -12 ...the Federal Aviation Administration, SFIA management and local govern- ment. The City of South San Francisco is a founding member of the Roundt- able. 3.9 3.9 -6 CLUP guidelines regarding noise are presented in Section 3:2. 3_5 3.9 3.9 -6 4.4 Height Restrictions Exhibit 4D in the CLUP shows the F.A.R PART 77 airspace plan in the im- mediate San Francisco International Airport vicinity. The Planning Area is subject to height restrictions. The ALUC is currently preparing an update of the 1996 CLUP. As part of the update, the San Francisco International Air- port has prepared a set of maps to illustrate the critical aeronautical surfaces that protect the airspace for specific types of flight procedures. The aero- nautical surfaces include those established in accordance with FAA Order 8260.3B, U.S. Standards for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) and a surface required for One - Engine Inoperative (OEI) procedures for aircraft departures on Runway 28 Left (to the west.) These surfaces indicate the maximum feasible building height at which structures in the Planning Area can be considered compatible with airport /aircraft operations. Consistency with the SFO CLUP is determined when height of structures are maintained below critical airspace protection surface limits or below the height deter- mined to be a "hazard to air navigation" by the FAA in an aeronautical study of the a proposed development project prepared pursuant to the filing of FAA Form 7460 -1, "Notice of Proposed Construction or Alternation," by the project sponsor. The federal notice requirement and height determina- tion also applies to development projects based on certain maximum height parameters specified in the relevant FAA regulations (14 CFR Part 77, Sec- tion 77.9(a) and (b)(I)). acccptcd Noisc Exposurc Maps (NEMs). It will also includc an updatcd dia gram that illustratcs thc configuration of thc prcliminary Airport Influcncc Arca (AIA) boundary arca for SFIA as wc11 as an updatcd diagram of the Fcdcral Aviation Rcgulations Part 77 airspacc protcction surfaccs. 4 -1 El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report Table 4.1: Revisions to the Draft EIR Chapter/ Page Table/ Correction Section Figure 3.9 3.9 -6 The updated plan will include the 2908 2001/2006 FAA- accepted Noise Ex- posure Maps (NEMs). 3.9 3.9 -7 ...ensure consistency between the three planning documents. T19e- preposed Plan would adhcrc to policics sct forth in thc 1996 CLUP (Amcndcd 1998). 3.9 3.9 -7 The Planning Area is not located within any runway end safety zones for San Francisco International Airport. Therefore, runway safety is not an airport land use compatibility issue for future development in the Planning Area. 3.9 3.9 -7 The Planning Arca is outsidc all safcty zonc and outsidc of thc 65 CNEL noisc contour. The Planning Area is not located within the 65 dB CNEL air- craft noise contour or higher contour level, as shown on the most recent FAA- accepted Noise Exposure Map (NEM)(2001) for SFO nor within the 65 dB CNEL aircraft noise contour as shown on the SFO 2006 NEM map (five - year protection.) Detailed noise analysis is contained in Section 3.5. 3.12 3.12 -15 The updated plan will include the 2908 2001/2006 FAA- accepted Noise Ex- posure Maps (NEMs). Appendix A Consultant correspondence with Caltrans regarding scope of Traffic study. Caltrans letters are included for reference. Draft Environmental Impact Report for El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures E. Noise 3. Noise Attenuation Measures. Noise attenuation measures identified in an acoustic study shall be incorporated into the project to reduce noise impacts to satisfactory levels. 4. Maximum Acceptable Interior Noise Levels. New noise - sensitive uses (e.g. schools, hospitals, churches, and residences) shall incorporate noise attenuation measures to achieve and maintain and interior noise level of CNEL 45 dB. 5. Residential Interior Noise Level Reduction. New dwellings exposed to CNEL above 65 dB shall incorporate the following noise reduction design measures unless alternative designs that achieve and maintain an interior noise level of CNEL 45 dB are incorporated and verified by a Board Certified Acoustical Engineer. a. All facades must be constructed with substantial weight and insulation; b. Sound -rated windows providing noise reduction performance similar to that of the facade must be included for habitable rooms; c. Sound -rated doors or storm doors providing noise reduction performance similar to that of the facade must be included for all exterior entries; d. Acoustic baffling of vents is required for chimneys, fans, and gable ends; e. Installation of a mechanical ventilation system affording comfort under closed - window conditions; and f. Double -stud construction, double doors, and heavy roofs with ceilings of two layers of gypsum board on resilient channels. F. Vibration. No vibration shall be produced that is transmitted through the ground and is discernible without the aid of instruments by a reasonable person at the lot lines of the site. Vibrations from temporary construction, demolition, and vehicles that enter and leave the subject parcel (e.g., construction equipment, trains, trucks, etc.) are exempt from this standard. The Airport /Community Roundtable The Airport/ Community Roundtable is a voluntary committee of elected representatives from 45 municipalities near SFIA, established in 1981 to address community noise impacts from aircraft operations at SFIA. The Roundtable monitors a performance -based noise mitigation program implemented by airport staff, interprets community concerns and attempts to achieve noise mitigation through a cooperative sharing of authority among the aviation industry, the Federal Aviation Administration, SFIA management and local government. The City of South San Francisco is a founding member of the Roundtable. Residential Sound Insulation Program The home insulation program at SFIA began in 1983, treating homes, churches, and schools in the County of San Mateo, Daly City, Millbrae, Pacifica, San Bruno and South San Francisco. Draft Environmental Impact Report for El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures The ALUC is currently preparing an update of the 1996 CLUP, expected to be complete in 2011. The updated plan will include the 28 2001/2006 FAA - accepted Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs). It will also include an updated diagram that illustrates the configuration of the preliminary Airport Influence Area (AIA) boundary area for SFIA as well as an updated diagram of the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 airspace protection surfaces. The Planning Area is not located within any runway end safety zones for the San Francisco International Airport. CLUP guidelines regarding noise are presented in Section 32 3_5. 4.4 Height Restrictions Exhibit 4D in the CLUP shows the F.A.R PART 77 airspace plan in the immediate San Francisco International Airport vicinity. The Planning Area is subject to height restrictions. The ALUC is currently preparing an update of the 1996 CLUP. As part of the update, the San Francisco International Airport has prepared a set of maps to illustrate the critical aeronautical surfaces that protect the airspace for specific types of flight procedures. The aeronautical surfaces include those established in accordance with FAA Order 8260.3B, U.S. Standards for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) and a surface required for One - Engine Inoperative (OEI) procedures for aircraft departures on Runway 28 Left (to the west.) These surfaces indicate the maximum feasible building height at which structures in the Planning Area can be considered compatible with airport /aircraft operations. Consistency with the SFO CLUP is determined when height of structures are maintained below critical airspace protection surface limits or below the height determined to be a "hazard to air navigation" by the FAA in an aeronautical study of the a proposed development project prepared pursuant to the filing of FAA Form 7460 -1, "Notice of Proposed Construction or Alternation," by the project sponsor. The federal notice requirement and height determination also applies to development projects based on certain maximum height parameters specified in the relevant FAA regulations (14 CFR Part 77, Section 77.9(a) and (b)(1)). configuration of the preliminary Airport Influcncc Arca (AIA) boundary arca for SFIA as wcll IMPACT ANALYSIS SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Implementation of the proposed Plan would have a potentially significant adverse impact on land use and housing if the proposed Plan would: • Physically divide an established community; • Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, population, or jobs, necessitating the construction of replacement housing or relocation of services elsewhere; • Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with ju- risdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mi- tigating an environmental effect. Draft Environmental Impact Report for El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures METHODOLOGY & ASSUMPTIONS This analysis considers current policies and goals in the City's General Plan, existing and proposed land use conditions within the Planning Area, and applicable regulations and guidelines. Because the ALUC is still currently preparing an update of the 1996 CLUP, impacts are evaluated based on the most current adopted version of the plan, which is the 1996 CLUP, with 1998 Amendments, and in consultation with the San Francisco International Airport (SFO). SUMMARY OF IMPACTS The proposed Plan does not physically divide any established community. Rather, by increasing compatibility along El Camino Real, increasing opportunities for housing, and improving linkages, the proposed Plan provides improves connections to and continuity with surrounding communities. The Planning Area primarily consists of commercial uses. The proposed will significantly increase the square footage of retail, services, and office space within the Planning Area. In addition, the proposed Plan will also significantly increase the number of housing units and removal of existing housing units as a result of the proposed Plan is not anticipated. Any housing removed as a result of the proposed Plan would be replaced through additional housing in the Planning Area. Overall, housing in the Planning Area is expected to increase from 132 units to 1,587 units. As part of adopting the proposed Plan, the General Plan will be amended and the Zoning Ordinance will be updated to ensure consistency between the three planning documents. The proposcd Plan would adhcrc to policies sct forth in thc 1996 CLUP (Amcndcd 1998). The Planning Area is not located within any runway end safety zones for San Francisco International Airport. Therefore, runway safety is not an airport land use compatibility issue for future development in the Planning Area. outside all safcty zoncs and outsidc of thc ., CNEL noisc contour. The Planning Area is not located within the 65 dB CNEL aircraft noise contour or higher contour level, as shown on the most recent FAA - accepted Noise Exposure Map (NEM)(2001) for SFO nor within the 65 dB CNEL aircraft noise contour as shown on the SFO 2006 NEM map (five -year protection.) Detailed noise analysis is contained in Section 3.5. The Planning Area is subject to height restrictions as identified in the CLUP. The ground elevation of all the parcels within the Planning Area are estimated to be at least 160 feet or more below SFO's critical airspace height limits. In addition, building heights will be required to adhere to the limits indicated in the most recently adopted CLUP. This requirement is reinforced by General Plan Policy 2 - - 22, which requires that "all development conforms to the most recently adopted version of the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan." The Planning Area is not in an area subject to any habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans; thus, there will be no impact with regard to habitat conservation plans. Draft Environmental Impact Report for El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures General Plan Consistency with Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans Public Utilities Code 21675 requires each airport land use commission to formulate an airport land use compatibility plan. California Government Code 65302.3 further requires that general plans be consistent with airport land use compatibility plans. In addition, general plans and applicable specific plans must be amended to reflect amendments to the airport land use compatibility plan. The San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan is discussed below. Local Regulations California Regional Water Quality Control Board In coordination with the SWRCB, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) adopts and implements water quality control plans that recognize the unique characteristics of each region with regard to natural water quality, actual and potential beneficial uses, and water quality problems. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (1996, amended 1998) The San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) develops and implements the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP). The current CLUP was adopted in December 1996, amended in 1998. In San Mateo County, the City /County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C /CAG) is the designated ALUC. The CLUP establishes the procedures that C /CAG uses in reviewing proposed local agency actions that affect land use decisions in the vicinity of San Mateo County's airports. Airport planning boundaries define where height, noise, and safety standards, policies, and criteria are applied to certain proposed land use policy actions. The ALUC is currently preparing an update of the 1996 CLUP. That plan is expected to be completed in final draft form in 2011. The updated plan will include the 8 2001/2006 FAA - accepted Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs). It will also include an updated diagram that illustrates the configuration of the preliminary Airport Influence Area (AIA) boundary area for SFIA as well as an updated diagram of the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 airspace protection surfaces. South San Francisco General Plan (1999) The South San Francisco General Plan includes a Health and Safety chapter which addresses hazards in a comprehensive manner through hazard abatement policies and measures to reduce risks to life and property in existing and new development. IMPACT ANALYSIS IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 3.I2 - - Future land uses proposed by the proposed Plan may involve the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials. (No Impact) STATE OF CALIFORNIA — BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVENUE P. O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623 -0660 PHONE (510) 622 -5491 FAX (510) 286 -5559 TTY 711 August 3, 2010 Mr. Mike Lappen City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Mr. Lappen: RECEIVED DEPARTMENT 10 201 EC D DEPAR ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Governor SM082265 SM -82 -20.65 -21.17 SCH #2010072015 El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan — Notice of Preparation Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the environmental review process for the El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan. The following comments are based on the Notice of Preparation. As lead agency, the City of South San Francisco is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to State highways. The project's fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, and implementation responsibilities as well as lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures and the project's traffic mitigation fees should be specifically identified in the environmental document. Any required roadway improvements should be completed prior to issuance of project occupancy permits. An encroachment permit is required when the project involves work in the State's right of way (ROW). The Department will not issue an encroachment permit until our concerns are adequately addressed. Therefore, we strongly recommend that the lead agency ensure resolution of the Department's California Environmental Quality Act concerns prior to submittal of the encroachment permit application; see the end of this letter for more information regarding the encroachment permit process. Community Planning The Department encourages the City of South San Francisco to provide a street configuration that facilitates walking and biking to the South San Francisco BART station. We also recommend that the City refer to, "Reforming Parking Policies to Support Smart Growth," a Metropolitan Transportation Commission study funded by the Department, for sample parking ratios and strategies that support Transit Oriented Development. These actions will encourage alternate forms of transportation, reduce regional vehicle miles traveled and help alleviate future traffic impacts on the state highways. Traffic Impact Study The environmental document should include an analysis of the impacts of the proposed project State highway facilities in the vicinity of the project site Please ensure that a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) is prepared providing the infollliation detailed as follows: "Caltrans improves mobility across California" Flex your power! Be energy efficient! Mr. Mike Lappen /City of South San Francisco August 3, 2010 Page 2 1. Information on the plan's traffic impacts in terms of trip generation, distribution, and assignment. The assumptions and methodologies used in compiling this information should be addressed. The study should clearly show the percentage of project trips assigned to State facilities. 2. Current Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and AM and PM peak hour volumes on all significantly affected streets, highway segments and intersections. 3. Schematic illustration and level of service (LOS) analysis for the following scenarios: 1) existing, 2) existing plus project, 3) cumulative and 4) cumulative plus project for the roadways and intersections in the project area. 4. Calculation of cumulative traffic volumes should consider all traffic - generating developments, both existing and future, that would affect the State highway facilities being evaluated. 5. The procedures contained in the 2000 update of the Highway Capacity Manual should be used as a guide for the analysis. We also recommend using the Department's "Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies"; it is available on the following web site: http: / /www.dot.ca. gov /hq/ traffops /developsery /operationalsystems /reports /tisguide.pdf . 6. Mitigation measures should be identified where plan implementation is expected to have a significant impact. Mitigation measures proposed should be fully discussed, including financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities, and lead agency monitoring. Encroachment Permit Any work or traffic control within the State ROW requires an encroachment permit that is issued by the Department. Traffic - related mitigation measures will be incorporated into the construction plans during the encroachment permit process. See the following website link for more information: http: / /www.dot.ca. gov /hq /traffops /developsery /permits/ To apply for an encroachment permit, submit a comp dearly indicate State application, to the environmental documentation, and five (5) s ets of plans which address at the top of this letterhead, marked ATTN: Michael Condie, Mail Stop #5E. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please call Sandra Finegan of my staff at (510) 622 -1644. Sincerely, C c-AG-0 r\-1-- LISA CARBONI District Branch Chief Local Development - Intergovernmental Review c: State Clearinghouse "Caltrans improves mobility across California" Melinda Hue From: Melinda Hue [melinda ©dyettandbhatia.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 10:38 AM To: 'sandra_finegan ©dot.ca.gov' Cc: 'hannah ©dyettandbhatia.com' Subject: El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan EIR - Traffic Analysis Attachments: DOT com -ECR NOP.pdf; el cam_chestnut overview.pdf Hi Sandra, I am writing to you in regards to the El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan in the City of South San Francisco. We received DOT's response to our Notice of Preparation for the EIR and I wanted to get in touch and run a list of potential traffic study intersections and freeways by you for comments. (I have attached a copy of the DOT comment letter and a map for your reference.) Potential Study Intersections 1. El Camino Real /Hickey Boulevard 2. El Camino Real /Arroyo Drive /Oak Extension 3. El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue 4. Mission Road /Oak Avenue 5. Mission Road /Chestnut Avenue 6. Westborough Boulevard /I -280 NB On Ramp /Junipero Serra Boulevard 7. Westborough Boulevard /I -280 SB Off Ramp The following are a list of potential study intersections that are further away from the study area and I would like your opinion on whether they should be studied: El Camino Real /Sneath Lane El Camino Rea1/I -380 WB Off Ramp El Camino Rea1/I -380 EB Off Ramp Are there any other intersections that you think should be studied? Potential Study Freeway Segments 8. 1 -280 mainline between Hickey to Westborough 9. 1 -280 mainline between Westborough and Avalon 10. 1 -280 mainline between Avalon and 1 -380 (Or is this too far south of the Planning Area ?) 11. 1 -380 mainline between US 101 and El Camino Real 12. 1 -380 mainline between El Camino Real and 1 -280 Our traffic consultant did not recommend the study of El Camino roadway segments or US 101 freeway segments. Can you please provide direction on whether those segments should be studied? Please let me know if you have any further questions or if you need more information. Thanks! Best, Melinda Melinda Hue, LEED AP 1 Planner DYETT & BHATIA 1 Urban and Regional Planners 1 755 Sansome Street, Suite 400 1 San Francisco, CA 9411 I Tel: 415 956 4300 x271 Fax: 415 956 7315 1 http: / /www.dyettandbhatia.com 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA— BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVENUE P. O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623 -0660 PHONE (510) 622 -5491 FAX (510) 286 -5559 TTY 711 October 20, 2010 Mr. Mike Lappen Planning Division City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Mr. Lappen: El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan — Traffic Impact Study Scope of Work Thank you for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the environmental review process for the El Camino Real (ECR) /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan project. The following comments are based on your request for a review of the scope of work of the traffic impact study. Highway, Traffic, and Signal Operations 1. Please include the following study intersections: a. Chestnut Avenue /Grand Avenue b. McLellan Boulevard/ECR c. Orange Avenue /ECR d. Junipero Serra Boulevard/Arroyo Drive 2. You can exclude the following intersections and freeway segments: a. Sneath Lane /ECR b. I- 380 /ECR c. 1 -380 mainline between US -101 and ECR d. I -380 mainline between I -280 and ECR e. I -280 between Avalon Drive and I -380 "Caltrans improves mobility across California" ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Govemor SM082265 SM -82- 20.65 -21.17 SCH #2010072015 Please forward at least one hard copy and one CD of the environmental document, TIS and its transportation related technical appendices including the Synchro output sheets to the address below as soon as they are available. Flex your power! Be energy efficient! Mr. Mike Lappen October 20, 2010 Page 2 Sincerely, Sandra Finegan, Associate Transportation Planner Community Planning Office, Mail Station 10D California DOT, District 4 P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623 -0660 Please feel free to call or email Sandra Finegan of my staff at (510) 622 -1644 or sandra fineganAdot.ca.gov with any questions regarding this letter. -oty. LISA CARBONI District Branch Chief Local Development - Intergovernmental Review c: Ms. Terry Roberts, State Clearinghouse "Caltrans improves mobility across California" Appendix A: Revisions to the Draft Area Plan and Associated General Plan and Zoning Amendments This Final EIR document responded to comments on the Draft EIR and, subsequently, identified relevant changes to the Plan and Draft EIR. The table below describes changes made to the Area Plan and associated Zoning amendments. These changes were also discussed in Chapter 3: Response to Comments on the EIR. It is organized by document and only reflects substantive changes. (Typos, formatting, clarifications, and updated cross - references are not recognized in the table.) Statements in bold, are followed by actual text and /or edits. Page, table, figure, goal, and policy numbers refer to the numbers in the February 2011 Public Review (PR) Drafts. Certain pages have been appended to the end of this appendix, for clarity purposes; these pages are referenced in the table. El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report Draft Plan and associated Zoning Ordinance Amendment Revisions Table/ Page Figure Correction El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 59 3 7 Revise Policy UD- 12 to clarify the location of required active frontages. UD -12 Ensure that any Kaiser Hospital redevelopment is in accordance with the Area Plan, including the standards and guidelines spelled out in Chapter 5. While it is neither expected nor required that the hospital maintain an active frontage with ground floor commercial uses along El Camino Real (except as required in Figure 3 -3), the building itself should be designed to be visually co- hesive in appearance, with articulated building form and massing, rather than a monolithic mass. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Revise Table 20.270.003: Land Use Regulations for El Camino Real /Chestnut Sub - Districts to clarify where Hospital uses are per- mitted after review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. Insert map for further clarification. Revised Table 20.270.004-1: Lot, Density, and FAR Standards for El Camino Real /Chestnut Sub - Districts to clarify that the requirement for a minimum 0.3 FAR of Active Uses does not apply in the ECR /C- MXM sub - district along El Camino Real. I I Revise Figure 20.270.004 -2: Building height to revise error in legend. 30 Revise Figure I: Existing Zoning to provide clarification regarding parcels. 3 Revise Figure 2: Proposed Zoning to provide clarification regarding changes and parcels. Guiding Principle 5: Develop the area with an overall character and urban design scheme that promotes livability and sustainability. Creating a sense of continuity and cohesiveness throughout the district will require a well- defined urban design palette of building, landscape, and site design ele- ments. Place- making will be achieved through high quality building and site design that accentuates key corners and intersections. An emphasis on walkability and pedestrian orientation will maximize accessibility to Centennial Way and the BART Station and establish a district that encourages people to linger in plazas, walk along the parkway, or visit multiple destinations within the Planning Area. UD -6 Establish a comprehensive urban design scheme that specifies a palette for landscaping, pedestrian amenities, and architectural features. The scheme should visually unite the entire area, highlight open space and Centennial Way, and signal key destinations to passing vehicular traffic. UD -7 Ensure that development incorporates green building and site design measures such as energy - efficient building design, passive heating/ cooling strategies, permeable paving, low- water - consumption planting, and stormwater management. UD -8 Require high - quality design that reflects the area's visibility and role as a community destination. UD -9 Ensure that mid- and high -rise development is slender, and that towers are staggered to allow for sunlight and views into open spaces and from adjacent development. UD -10 Emphasize the corner of Westborough Boulevard /Chestnut Avenue and El Camino Real through building massing and design. UD -11 Scale development along pedestrian connections and pedestrian - oriented retail streets to a finer grain with highly articulated facades, changes in materials, ample fenestration and entries. Employ building step -backs to ensure sunlight into open spaces and streets. UD -12 Ensure that any Kaiser Hospital redevelopment is in accordance with the Area Plan, including the standards and guidelines spelled out in Chapter 5. While it is neither expected nor required that the hospital maintain an active frontage with ground floor commercial uses along El Camino Real (except as required in Figure 3 -3), the building itself should be designed to be visually cohesive in appearance, with articulated building form and massing, rather than a monolithic mass. The Area Plan would enable a taller hospital building to provide this flexibility in massing. Further, the hospital campus should be designed to take advantage of and be integrated with the surroundings, including the linear park and new commercial uses, to enable workers and visitors to enjoy the amenities and have easy access to eating establishments and shops. TABLE 20.270.003: LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR EL CAMINO REAL/CHESTNUT SUB - DISTRICTS Uses Permitted ECRIC- MXH ECRIC- MXM ECRIC- RH Additional Regulations Residential Use Classifications Single -Unit Dwelling See sub - classification below Single -Unit Attached P(I) P P Multi -Unit Residential See sub - classifications below Multi -Unit P(I) P P Senior Citizen Residential P(I) P P Elderly and Long -term Care C(I) C C See Section 20.350.020 Group Residential Facilities Family Day Care Home See sub - classification below Small P(I) P P Residential Care Facilities See sub - classifications below Limited P(I) P P General - C C See Section 20.350.020 Group Residential Facilities Senior - C C See Section 20.350.020 Group Residential Facilities Public and Semi - Public Use Classifications Colleges and Trade Schools, Public or Private MUP MUP MUP Community Assembly, 2000 square feet or less P P C See Section 20.350.012 Community Assembly Facilities Community Assembly, More Than 2000 square feet MUP MUP C See Section 20.350.012 Community Assembly Facilities Community Garden P(2) P(2) P(2) Cultural I nstitutions P P - Day Care Centers P P - Government Offices P P - Hospitals and Clinics See sub - classification below Hospitals -C(3) C - See Figure 20.270.003 Park and Recreation Facilities, Public P P P Public Safety Facilities P P - Schools, Public or Private C C - Social Service Facilities MUP MUP - See Section 20.350.035 Social Service Facilities El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan — Zoning Ordinance Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion 3 TABLE 20.270.003: LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR EL CAMINO REAL/CHESTNUT SUB - DISTRICTS Uses Permitted ECRIC- MXH ECRIC- MXM ECRIC- RH Additional Regulations Commercial Use Classifications Animal Care, Sales and Services See sub - classifications below Pet Stores P P - See Section 20.350.005 Animal Care, Sales, and Services Veterinary Services P P - See Section 20.350.005 Animal Care, Sales, and Services Artists' Studios P P - Banks and Financial Institutions See sub - classification below Banks and Credit Unions P(34) P - Business Services P(34) P - Commercial Entertainment and Recreation MUP C(45) - Eating and Drinking Establishments See sub - classifications below Bars /Night Clubs /Lounges C - - Coffee Shops /Cafes P P C See Section 20.350.028 Outdoor Seating Restaurants, Full Service P - - See Section 20.350.028 Outdoor Seating Restaurants, Limited Service P C(45) - See Section 20.350.028 Outdoor Seating Food and Beverage Retail Sales P P - Convenience Market P P - See Section 20.350.013 Convenience Market Live -Work Units P(I) P - See Section 20.350.023 Live - Work Units Lodging See sub - classification below Hotels and Motels C C C Maintenance and Repair Services P MUP - Offices See sub - classifications below Business and Professional P(34) P - Medical and Dental P(34) P - Walk-In Clientele P P - El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan — Zoning Ordinance Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion 4 TABLE 20.270.003: LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR EL CAMINO REAL/CHESTNUT SUB - DISTRICTS Uses Permitted ECRIC- MXH ECRIC- MXM ECRIC- RH Additional Regulations Parking, Public or Private P(S6) P( §6) - Personal Services See sub - classifications below General Personal Services P P - See Section 20.350.030 Personal Services Retail Sales See sub - classifications below General Sales P P - Employment Uses Recycling Facilities See sub - classification below Collection Facility C(67) C(67) - See Section 20.350.032 Recycling Facilities Research and Development P P - Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Use Classifications Communication Facilities See sub - classifications below Antennae and Transmission Towers MUP(78) MUP(78) MUP(78) See Chapter 20.370 Antennas and Wireless Communications Facilities Facilities within Buildings MUP MUP MUP Utilities, Major C C - Utilities, Minor P P P Other Applicable Use Regulations Accessory Uses See Section 20.300.002 Accessory Buildings and Structures Home Occupations P P P See Section 20.350.021 Home Occupations Nonconforming Use See Chapter 20.320 Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots Temporary Use See Chapter 20.340 Temporary Uses Limitations: I. Not permitted on the ground floor along El Camino Real, Chestnut Avenue, Oak Avenue, or BART Right -of- Way south of Oak Avenue. 2. Subject to site evaluation based on prior use. 3. Allowed only on the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Arroyo Drive /Oak Avenue Extension. See Figure 20.270.003. permitted on the ground level, and other offices are permitted on the second use with a permitted use on the site, occupying no more than 25 percent space may be allowed with a Use Permit, upon finding that such use will not retail uses. Road. not permitted. enclosed within a building. Not permitted on the ground floor. 34. Customer service offices are floor or when conducted as an accessory of the floor area. Additional office conflict with adjacent street level 45. Not permitted along Mission 56. Must be structured. 67. Large Collection Facilities are 7-8. Only building mounted or completely El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan — Zoning Ordinance Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion 5 El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan — Zoning Ordinance Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion 6 FIGURE 20.270.003 HOSPITAL USES Kaiser Pe rm a nen to Medical Center Hospital use permitted after review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission FEET 20.270.004 Development Standards Tables 20.270.004 -1 to 20.270.004 -3 prescribe the development standards for the El Camino Real /Chestnut sub - districts. Additional regulations are denoted in the right hand column. Section numbers in this column refer to other sections of this Ordinance, while individual letters refer to subsections that follow the tables, under "Additional Development Standards ". The numbers in Figure 20.270.040 below refer to corresponding regulations in the " #" column in the associated table. TABLE 20.270.004-1: LOT, DENSITY, AND FAR STANDARDS FOR EL CAMINO REAL /CHESTNUT SUB - DISTRICTS Standard ECR /C- MXH ECR /C- MXM ECR /C- RH Additional Regulations # Minimum Lot Size (sq ft) 20,000 20,000 20,000 Minimum Lot Width (ft) 50 50 50 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Minimum Floor Area Ratio 0.6 exclusive of areas devoted to parking, of which a minimum 0.3 FAR shall be Active uses n/a The requirement for a minimum 0.3 FAR of Active uses does not apply to projects where 30% of the units are restricted and affordable to low -or low - moderate income households or in the ECR /C -MXM sub - district along El Camino Real. - Maximum Floor Area Ratio 2.0 1.5 n/a Exclusive of structured parking. Maximum Floor Area Ratio with Incentive Program 3.0(A) 2.5(A) n/a Exclusive of structured parking. Residential Density (units per acre; included within the FAR above) Minimum Density n/a n/a 80 Maximum Density 80 40 120 See Chapter 20.390, Bonus Residential Density Maximum Density with Incentive Program 1 10 60 180 See (A) and See Chapter 20.390, Bonus Residential Density El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan — Zoning Ordinance Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion FIGURE 20.270.004 -2: BUILDING HEIGHT lxx/xx1 0 f00 56 FEET Base Height Limit/Height Limit with Discretionary Approval See 20.270.004(A) 120/160 Feet 80/120 Feet n 40 Feet El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan — Zoning Ordinance Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion 11 FIGURE 1: EXISTING ZONING outh ncis tion RH: High Density Residential* CC: Community Commercial BC: Business Commercial TV -C: Transit Village Commercial TV -RM: Transit Village Medium Density Residential TV -RH: Transit Village High Density Residential IQ Y Orange Park PQP: Public /Quasi Public PR: Parks and Recreation ECRMX: El Camino Real Mixed Use *Numerical designators denote the maximum density allowed in each sub district. 0 100 1000 FEET FIGURE 2: PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES ECR /C -MXH: El Camino Real /Chestnut Mixed Use, High Intensity ECR /C -MXM: El Camino Real /Chestnut Mixed Use, Medium Intensity ECR /C -RH: El Camino Real /Chestnut Residential, High Density Orange Park 0 100 500 1000 FEET DYETT & BHATIA Urban and Regional Planners 755 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, California 941 1 1 q 8 415 956 7315 Exhibit B CEQA Findings I. INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. ("CEQA" ), states that if a project would result in significant environmental impacts, it may be approved if feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives are proposed which avoid or substantially lessen the impact or if there are specific economic, social, or other considerations which justify approval notwithstanding unmitigated impacts. Therefore, when an environmental impact report ( "EIR'D has been completed that identifies one or more potentially significant or significant environmental impacts, prior to approving the project, the approving agency must make one or more of the following findings for each identified significant impact: 1. Changes or alternatives which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR have been required or incorporated into the project; or 2. Such changes or alternatives are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or 3. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081). A lead agency need not make any findings for impacts that the EIR concludes are less than significant. (See ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills HomeoumersAssn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Ca1.App.4th 704, 716.) As "lead agency" under California Code of Regulations, title 14, Section 15367, the City of South San Francisco ( "City ") hereby adopts the following CEQA findings relating to the El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report dated February, 2011 ("Draft EIR ") and the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR' certified by the City on . 2011. The Draft EIR and the Final EIR are collectively referred to herein as the "EIR." II. GENERAL FINDINGS The following Findings are based on the entire record of proceedings, which includes, without limitation, (i) matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to federal, State, and local laws and regulations; (ii) CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and (iii) the following documents, which are in the custody of the City's Chief Planner, and available for review by the public during normal business hours at the City's Planning Division, City Hall Annex, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California: • South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR, including all amendments thereto and corresponding environmental review; • South San Francisco Municipal Code EL CAMINO REAL / CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 1 EXHIBIT B — CEQA FINDINGS • Draft El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, including related General Plan Amendment and Zoning and Development Standards (February 2011); • Notice of Preparation, Notice of Availability, and other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Plan, as well as all correspondence received in response thereto; • EIR for the El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan • All written comments submitted on the Draft EIR for the El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan • All final reports, studies, memoranda, maps, correspondence, and all planning documents prepared by the City or consultants, or responsible or trustee agencies, with respect to: (i) the City's compliance with CEQA; (ii) the Plan Area; (iii) the City's action on the Plan. • All reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed public hearings on April 7, 2011 and May 5, 2011; • All reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed public hearings on May 25, 2011, and July 27, 2011; and, • Any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and 521082.2). The EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000- 21178, and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, title 14, sections 15000 - 15387, to address the environmental impacts associated with the project described above. As required by Section 15121 of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR assesses the potential environmental impacts resulting from approval, construction, and operation of the Plan, and identifies feasible means of minimiz potential adverse environmental impacts. The City is the lead agency for the environmental review of the Project and the EIR was prepared under the direction and supervision of the City. Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[]" The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." Section 21002 goes on to state that "in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof." The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code Section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which an Environmental Impact Report is required. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a).) For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that "[ c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(1).) The second permissible finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a) (2).) The third potential conclusion is that EL CAMINo REAL / CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 2 EXHIBIT B — CEQA FINDINGS "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a) (3).) Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 adds another factor: "legal considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Smpervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 (Goleta II).) The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417.) "`[F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses `desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (Ibid.; see also Sequoyab Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 CaLApp.4th 704, 715.) The CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The agency must therefore glean the meaning of these terms from the other contexts in which the terms are used. Public Resources Code Section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 is based, uses the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA Guidelines therefore equate "mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such an understanding of the statutory term is consistent with the policies underlying CEQA, which include the policy that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such Projects." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.) The proposed Plan is "self - mitigation," in that the Plan's policies are designed to avoid or m;nimi a significant environmental impacts of the Plan. As demonstrated in the Findings, with the exception of the impact identified as significant and unavoidable, impacts have either been addressed through policies in the existing General Plan or new policies in the proposed Plan. Accordingly, no mitigations are identified or required to be adopted. For purposes of these Findings, the term "avoid" refers to the effectiveness of one or more policies to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less - than - significant level. In contrast, the term "substantially lessen" refers to the effectiveness of such policy or policies to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect to a less- than - significant level. These interpretations appear to be mandated by the holding in Iorrel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 519 -521, in which the Court of Appeal held that an agency had satisfied its obligation to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects by adopting numerous mitigation measures, not all of which rendered the significant impacts in question less- than - significant. Although CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a particular significant effect is "avoid[ed] or substantially lessen[ed]," these findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been reduced to a less - than - significant level, or has simply been substantially lessened but remains significant. Moreover, although Section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant," these findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final EIR. EL CAMINO REAL / CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 3 EXHIBIT B — CEQA FINDINGS CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a), (b).) With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects." (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated, "[t]he wisdom of approving. . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Goleta II, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576.) These Findings constitute the City Council members' best efforts to set forth the evidentiary and policy bases for its decision to approve the Project in a manner consistent with the requirements of CEQA. III. FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT IMPACTS A. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS The following significant impacts would not be mitigated to a less - than- significant level, even with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures set forth herein. No mitigation is feasible that would mitigate these impacts to a less - than- significant level. The City has determined that the impacts identified below are acceptable because of overriding economic, social or other considerations, as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. As required by CEQA, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is presented below in addition to these findings. Impact 3.1 -1: Future development under the proposed Plan, along with regional population and employment growth, would cause an increase in traffic and would cause intersection LOS standard established by the General Plan to be exceeded. Policies that Reduce the Impact: The Transportation Element of the General Plan establishes traffic operations and Level of Service standards. The existing policies include 4.2 -G -8, 4.2 -G -9, 4.2- G-5, 4.2 -G -6, 4.2 -G -10, 4.2 -I -2, 4.3 -G -1, 4.3 -G -2, 4.3 -G -4, 4.3 -I -10, 4.3 -I -1, 4.3 -I -2, 4.3 -I -4, 4.3 -I -8. In addition, several policies in the Land Use Element support transit - oriented development and the implementation of TDM programs, including 2 -G -7, 2 -G -8, 2 -I -4. The City of South San Francisco also adopted the Bicycle Transportation Plan, which contains goals that promote and encourage bicycle transportation. The proposed policies include C -1, C -2, C -3, C -4, C -5, C -6. Additionally, the following mitigation measure are capable fo reducing the Plan's impacts: • El Camino Real /McLellan Boulevard. Construct third southbound lane along El Camino Real. This mitigation would require the widening of El Camino Real and would require the taking of residential land on the west side of El Camino Real. There exists a significant grade difference between the homes and the sidewalk along El Camino Real. EL CAMINo REAL / CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 4 EXHIBIT B — CEQA FINDINGS • El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue. Construct second eastbound right turn lane and second eastbound left turn lane. This mitigation would require an additional two lanes along Westborough Boulevard /Chestnut Avenue. This mitigation would require the taking of property from a gas station and would result in loss of parking for Pacific Supermarket. • El Camino Real /Orange Boulevard. Construct second westbound right turn lane and restripe eastbound approach to a left turn lane and a shared through lane /right turn lane. This mitigation would require the taking of property from Mr. Pizza Man. • Mission Road /Oak Avenue. The westbound approach could be mitigated by removing several on street parking spaces and striping a dedicated left tum lane and a shared through /right turn lane. A traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted at this intersection, but the projected AM and PM peak hour volumes do not meet the peak hour warrant analysis; therefore, a traffic signal is not a practical mitigation. It is possible for an unsignalized intersection to not meet signalization warrants while having one or more movements not meeting the City LOS standard. The signal warrant considers a balance between major street and minor street delays, and may indicate an overall benefit of long delays for the minor street if the major street experiences no additional delays. At this intersection, while the lower volume traffic along Oak Avenue may experience long delays, there would not be an overall benefit if the higher volume traffic along Mission Road is stopped in favor in of the Oak Avenue traffic. Additional travel lanes would have to be constructed at this intersection to result in an acceptable level of service, which would require additional right -of way. • Mission Road /Chestnut Avenue. Construct eastbound right turn lane. This mitigation would require additional right of way from park land or existing residential development. Finding: The mitigations necessary to reduce impacts to less than significant levels are incapable of being accomplished, given economic, environmental, legal and technological factors. The Planning Area and adjacent area is an urbanized area that is already fully developed with operating businesses. The acquisition of such property for additional travel lanes would be prohibitively costly given the expense associated with acquiring the land, costs of relocating businesses, and payment for loss of business good will. The widening of streets directly conflicts with the project's vision, which is to make the area into a walkable, distinctive, mixed —use district. Also, additional travel lanes conflict with the El Camino Real Master Plan, which focuses on expanding pedestrian facilities, and the Guiding Principles adopted by the Grand Boulevard Task Force as part of the Grand Boulevard Initiative, which aims to transform El Camino Real into a smart growth corridor. The mitigation would conflict with General Plan Policy 3.4 -G -5 Encourage the implementation of the Guiding Principles of the Grand Boulevard Initiative as adopted by the Grand Boulevard Task Force in April of 2007. These mitigations would be contrary to the purpose of the proposed Plan, which is to create a vibrant, mixed use neighborhood that is pedestrian oriented and walkable. The LOS standard used in this analysis relates only to vehicular traffic and only takes into account the transportation system experience of automobile drivers. Widening approaches to increase LOS would benefit automobile drivers but often result in overly -wide streets and intersections that are difficult for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross, and could result in narrowing of sidewalks. These changes would potentially result in worsened conditions for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users. Accordingly, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable at the following intersections: Intersection 2: El Camino Real /McClellan Boulevard; Intersection 4: El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue; Intersection 5: El Camino Real /Orange Avenue; Intersection 8: Mission Road /Oak Avenue, and Intersection 9: Miss Road /Chestnut Avenue. EL CAMINo REAL / CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 5 EXHIBIT B — CEQA FINDINGS B. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The Final EIR identified existing and proposed polices in the General Plan and Area Plan that would operate to avoid or substantially lessen some or all of the environmental impacts in these areas. Based on the information and analyses set forth in the Final EIR, and the entirety of the Record before it, the City finds that the for each of the following impacts, policies included in the General Plan or Area Plan mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. As described in further detail below and the Final EIR, the following impacts will be less - than - significant based on the operation of the identified policies. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Impact 3.1 -2: Future development under the proposed Plan, along with regional population and employment growth, would cause an increase in traffic and would cause roadway LOS standards established by the county congestion management agency to be exceeded. (Less than Significant) Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The Transportation Element of the General Plan establishes traffic operations and Level of Service standards. The existing policies include 4.2 -G -8, 4.2 -G -9, 4.2 -G -5, 4.2 -G -6, 4.2 -G -10, 4.2 -I -2, 4.3 -G -1, 4.3 -6-2, 4.3 -G -4, 4.3 -I -10, 4.3 -I -1, 4.3 -I -2, 4.3 -I -4, 4.3 -I -8. In addition, several policies in the Land Use Element support transit- oriented development and the implementation of TDM programs, including 2 -G -7, 2 -G -8, 2- I -4. The City of South San Francisco also adopted the Bicycle Transportation Plan, which contains goals that promote and encourage bicycle transportation. The proposed policies C -1, C -2, C -3, C -4, C -5, C-6. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Finding: Under existing conditions, all I -280 study freeway segments are operating at acceptable LOS during both of the peak hours. Freeway segments on I -280 would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS in 2010 Existing Plus Project. In three of the cases that the LOS exceeds the threshold (see Table 3.I -9 in the DEIR), increase in traffic demand is less than one percent when compared to the No Project, resulting in less than significant impacts. AIR QUALITY Impact 3.2 -1: New development under the proposed Plan would not increase VMT at a faster rate than population and would not be inconsistent with air quality control measures in the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. (Less than Significant) Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The policies highlighted in Table 3.2 -5 in the DEIR along with other policies included as part of the proposed Plan will ensure that impacts are less than significant. The General Plan includes several policies regarding air quality, including 2- G-6, 7.3 -G -1, 7.3 -G -2, 7.3 -G -3, 7.3 -I -1, 7.3 -I -2, 7.3 -I -3, 7.3 -I -4, and 7.3 -I -5. The Amendment policies reducing the impact on Table 3.2 -5 include: 4.2G -5, 4.2 -G -8, 4.2 -G -9, 4.2 -I -4, 4.2 -I -5, 4.3 -I- 9 (Freeway and Arterial Operational Strategies); 4.3 -G -1, 4.3 -I -1, 4.3 -G -3, 4.3 -I -10, 4.3 -G -4, 3.4 -17, 3.4 -I -26 (Transportation Control Measures); 4.3 -G -1, 4.3 -G -2, 4.3 -I -1 (Pedestrian and Bicycle Access and Facilities); and 2 -G -3, 2 -G -7, 2 -G -8, 2 -I -4, 2 -I -6, 3.4 -G -2, 4- 3 -I -8, 4.3 -I -11, 4.3 -I -12, 4.3- I -13 (Land Use Guidelines, including land intensity bonuses, transportation control measures, transportation demand management, parking). EL CAMINo REAL / CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 6 EXHIBIT B — CEQA FINDINGS Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: The proposed Plan and the City's General Plan policies conform with the control strategies included in the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan in that the project VMT increase is less than the projected population increase. The policies supporting the finding are detailed in Table 3.2 -5 in the DEIR and show that the proposed Plan is consistent with the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan control measures, resulting in less than significant impact. Impact 3.2 -2: New development under the proposed Plan may result in the location of new sensitive receptors near existing sources of TACs. (Less than Significant) Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The General Plan includes several policies regarding air quality, including 2 -G -6, 7.3 -G -1, 7.3 -G -2, 7.3 -G -3, 7.3 -I -1, 7.3 -I -2, 7.3 -I -3, 7.3 -I-4, and 7.3 -I -5. The Amendment policies reducing the impact on Table 3.2 -5 include: 4.2G -5, 4.2 -G -8, 4.2 -G -9, 4.2 -I -4, 4.2 -I -5, 4.3 -I -9 (Freeway'and Arterial Operational Strategies); 4.3 -G -1, 4.3 -I -1, 4.3- G-3, 4.3 -I -10, 4.3 -G -4, 3.447, 3.4 -I -26 (Transportation Control Measures); 4.3 -G -1, 4.3 -G -2, 4.3 -I -1 (Pedestrian and Bicycle Access and Facilities); and 2 -G -3, 2 -G -7, 2 -G -8, 24-4, 2 -I -6, 3.4 -G -2, 4-3 -I- 8, 4.3 -I -11, 4.3 -I -12, 4.3 -I -13 (Land Use Guidelines, including land intensity bonuses, transportation control measures, transportation demand management, parking). Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: While some permitted sources exist in the Planning Area, they do not pose a significant risk to new sensitive uses, and roadways in the Planning Area do not have sufficient traffic volumes to pose a significant risk. Therefore the risk of exposing new sensitive land uses to TAC emissions is expected to be less than significant. Impact 3.2 -3: New development under the proposed Plan may create odors affecting a substantial number of people. (Less than sipificant) Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The General Plan includes several policies regarding air quality, including 2 -G -6, 7.3 -G -1, 7.3 -G -2, 7.3 -G -3, 7.3 -I -1, 7.3 -I -2, 7.3 -I -3, 7.3 -I-4, and 7.3 -I -5. The Amendment policies reducing the impact on Table 3.2 -5 include: 4.2G -5, 4.2 -G -8, 4.2 -G -9, 4.2 -I -4, 4.2 -I -5, 4.3 -I -9 (Freeway and Arterial Operational Strategies); 4.3 -G -1, 4.3 -I -1, 4.3- G-3, 4.3 -I -10, 4.3 -G -4, 3.447, 3.4 -I -26 (Transportation Control Measures); 4.3 -G -1, 4.3 -G -2, 4.3 -I -1 (Pedestrian and Bicycle Access and Facilities); and 2 -G -3, 2 -G -7, 2 -G -8, 2 -I -4, 2 -I -6, 3.4 -G -2, 4 -3 -I- 8,4.3-1-11,4.3-1-12,4.3-1-13 (Land Use Guidelines, including land intensity bonuses, transportation control measures, transportation demand management, parking. All new development under the proposed Plan would be subject to existing policies and regulations regarding odors. Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: Though offensive odors from stationary sources rarely cause any physical harm, they still remain unpleasant and can lead to public distress generating citizen complaints to local governments. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on the nature, frequency and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of receptors. Odor impacts should be considered for any proposed new odor sources located near existing receptors, as well as any new sensitive receptors located near existing odor sources. Generally, increasing the distance between a receptor and the source to an acceptable level will mitigate odor impacts. Table 3.2 -7 EL CAMINO REAL / CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 7 EXHIBIT B — CEQA FINDINGS shows BAAQMD- recommended screening distances for known odor - emitting sources. None of those uses are located within the Planning Area. One potential odor source may be a gas station, Westborough Chevron, located at 1 Westborough Boulevard, which is within the Planning Area. Future land uses in the proposed Plan include commercial and residential land uses. New industrial uses are not permitted in the Planning Area. Therefore, no odor sources are anticipated to be built under the proposed Plan. In addition, all new development under the proposed Plan would be subject to existing policies and regulations regarding odors. The proposed Plan is consistent with General Plan policy 2 -G -6 and is required to adhere to zoning standards 20.300.01 On and 0), resulting in less than significant odor impacts. ENERGY AND GREENHOUSE GASES Impact 3.3 -1: New development under the proposed Plan would not result in wasteful inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy. (L.ess than Significant) Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The General Plan contains existing policies that will help reduce GHG emissions in the City of South San Francisco. Policies include, (Land Use) 2 -G -3, 2 -G -7, 2 -G -8; (Planning Sub Areas) 3.4 -G -5, 4.3 -G -1, 4.3 -G -2, 4.3 -G -3, 4.3 -G -4, 4.3 -I -1, 4.3 -I -7, 4.3 -I -8, 4.3 -I -9, 4.3 -I -10, 4.3 -I -11, 4.3 -I -12, 4.3 -I -13, 4.4 -G -1, and 4.4 -G -2; (Open Space and Conservation) 7.3 -G -1, 7.3 -G -12, 7.3 -G -3, 7.3 -I -1, 7.3 -I -2, 7.3 -I -3, 7.3 -1 -4, and 7.3 -I -5. Proposed policies included in this Amendment include, (3.9 Land Use) LU -7, LU -10; (3.3 Urban Design and the Pmblic Realm) UD -7, UD -13, UD -16, UD -29, UD -30, UD -31; (3.4 Circulation) C -2, C -3, C -4, C -5; (3.6 Parking and Transportation Demand Management) P -1, P -2, P -6, P -11, P -12. Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: Table 3.3 -6 in the DEIR shows that usage of transportation energy will increase due to project growth. There are several existing policies that will ensure that energy usage will not be wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary. The General Plan policies listed above will result in an efficient use of land and transportation systems and minimiz energy consumption. In addition, qualifying new development under the proposed Plan would be required to be consistent with the City's TDM Ordinance, which would further minimiz energy consumption. The proposed Plan includes several proposed policies that will help minimiz transportation consumption. Overall, the analysis of residential, commercial /industrial, and transportation energy use concludes that the proposed Plan's contributions to inefficient energy use are less than significant Impact 3.3 -2: Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in a ratio of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions to service population that would not exceed 4.6 MTCO2e. (Less than Significant) Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The proposed policies highlighted in Tables 3.3 -7 and 3.3 -10 in the DEIR along with other policies included as part of the proposed Plan, will help to alleviate the cumulative impact. The polices include the increased diversity of land use mixes, local serving retail within the '/z mile of the project, transit service, bike and pedestrian infrastructure, increase in density, green roofs, and increase in design for transit- oriented development. Mitigation Measures: Given that the project's contribution is less than considerable, no additional mitigation measures are required. EL CAMINo REAL / CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 8 EXHIBIT B - CEQA FINDINGS Finding: GHG emissions are in and of themselves a significant cumulative impact. However, due to emission reductions that would result from State regulations and the implementation of the proposed Plan, emissions in 2020 and 2030 would not exceed existing levels. In addition, per service population emissions would not exceed 4.6 metric tons of CO This indicates that the proposed Plan does not make a considerable contribution to the impact Impact 3.3 - 3: Implementation of the proposed Plan would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. (Less than Signican� Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The City of South San Francisco currently does not have any adopted policy or plan regarding the reduction of GHG emissions. The City has established a community -wide inventory of GHG emissions and is currently developing a climate action plan. Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: Under AB 32, which requires a statewide reduction of GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, ARB has developed a Scoping Plan outlining the State's strategy to achieve the 2020 GHG emissions limit, which proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in California. AB 32 does not requite individual sectors or jurisdictions to reduce emissions by a specific amount However, as discussed for Impact 3.3 -3, South San Francisco GHG emissions will be reduced to below current levels as a result of State mandates, and GHG emissions would be further reduced as a result of implementing the proposed Plan. These reductions will assist California in achieving its reduction goal; therefore the proposed Plan does not conflict with AB 32, resulting in less than significant impacts. In addition, the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan provides a comprehensive plan to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed Plan and the City's General Plan policies conform to the control strategies included in the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. These policies are detailed in Table 3.2 -5 in Chapter 3.2 Air Quality and show that the proposed Plan is consistent with the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan control measures, therefore resulting in less than significant impacts. CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact 3.4 -1: Future development under the proposed Plan may have the potential to adversely affect historic resources that appear on State historical inventories or may be eligible for inclusion on such lists. (Less than .rignifican� Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The South San Francisco General Plan contains existing policies that ensure the preservation of cultural resources. The policies include, 7.5- G-1, 7.5 -G -2, 7.5 -I -4, and 7.5 -I -5. Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: The NWIC indentified one recorded property within the Planning Area. This property located at 1281 Mission Road is listed in as an early- twentieth century "Queen Anne" style cottage, built circa 1900 -1915, located at 1281 Mission Road.11 However, the cottage has since been demolished and the current owner of 1281 Mission Road (APN 010 - 430 -180) is listed as the San Mateo County Transit District The NWIC also identified seven unrecorded properties in and EL CAMINO REAL / CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 9 EXHIBIT B — CEQA FINDINGS around the Planning Area, which meet the Office of Historic Preservation's minim age standard that buildings, structures and objects 45 years or older may be of historical value. However, in addition to age, these unrecorded buildings, structures and objects will have to possess architecturally significant elements or integrity in order to be eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historic Places. The 1985 -1986 South San Francisco Historic Preservation Survey does not identify any local historic resources within the Planning Area. Current federal, state and local laws will reduce potential impacts on historic resources to less than significant levels. Impact 3.4 -2: Future development under the proposed Plan may have the potential to adversely affect undiscovered archaeological resources and human remains. (Less than significant) Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The South San Francisco General Plan contains existing policies that ensure the preservation of cultural resources. The policies include, 7.5- G-1, 7.5 -G -2, 7.5 -I -4, and 7.5 -I -5, Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: All future development in the Planning Area will be in accordance with State laws pertaining to the discovery of human remains. Accordingly, if human remains of Native American origin are discovered during project construction, the developer and /or the Department of Economic and Community Development staff would be required to comply with State laws relating to the disposition of Native American burials, which fall within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission (Pub. Res. Code Sec. 5097). These regulations and General Plan Policy 7.5 -I -5 which requires the preparation of a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program by a qualified archaeologist in the event that archaeological resources are uncovered, in accordance with State law will help reduce impacts to less than significant. NOISE Impact 3.5 -1: Future development.under the proposed Plan may potentially expose existing noise sensitive uses to construction- related temporary increases in ambient noise. Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The South San Francisco General Plan contains several existing policies including, (Land Use) 2 -I -22; (Noise) 9 -G -1, 9 -G -2, 94-1, 9 -I -2, 9- I -3, 9 -I -4, 9 -I -5, 9 -I -6, 9 -I -7, and 9 -I -8. The South San Francisco Municipal Code contains standards in Title 8, Health and Welfare, Section 8.32.050 and Title 20, Zoning, Section 20.300.010 Performance Standards. Mitigation Measures: None required. Findings: Ambient noise levels near areas of new development may temporarily increase due to construction activities. Proposed Plan development would be required to comply with the limitations on construction activity and associated noise standards included in Title 8 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Construction activities associated with the project would be temporary in nature and related noise impacts would be short -term. However, since construction activities could substantially increase ambient noise levels at noise - sensitive locations, construction noise could result in potentially significant, albeit temporary, impacts to sensitive receptors. However, compliance with the limitations on construction activity and associated noise standards established in Title 8 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, including limiting the hours EL CAMINo REAL / CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 10 EXHIBIT B - CEQA FINDINGS during which such construction activity may occur, will ensure that construction noise impacts are less than significant. Impact 3.5 -2: Future development under the proposed Plan, together with regional growth, may contribute to a noticeable increase in the ambient noise level along El Camino Real, Mission Road, and Chestnut Avenue, which would impact nearby existing and proposed sensitive receptors. (Less than Significant) Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The South San Francisco General Plan contains several existing policies including, (Land Use) 2 -I -22; (Noise) 9 -G -1, 9 -G -2, 9 -I -1, 9 -I -2, 9- I -3, 9 -I -4, 9 -I -5, 9 -I -6, 9 -I -7, and 9 -I -8. The South San Francisco Municipal Code contains standards in Title 8, Health and Welfare, Section 8.32.050 and Title 20, Zoning, Section 20.300.010 Performiance Standards. Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: Uses along El Camino Real, Mission Road, and Chestnut Avenue currently experience noise levels of CNEL 65 dB and higher. As shown on Figure 3.5 -4, the increase in noise from existing conditions to 2030 with the proposed Plan, together with regional growth, is expected to be primarily due to traffic volume increases along El Camino Real, and is minor. Table 3.5 -3 shows the increases in noise between existing conditions and proposed Plan and between No Project and the proposed Plan. Figure 3.5 -4 shows the future roadway noise contours. Noise along El Camino Real, Mission Road, and Chestnut Avenue is expected to increase by levels less than three dB, it is not expected to be noticeable, making the impact less than significant Impact 3.5 -3: The proposed Plan may result in the siting of noise - sensitive receptors in close proximity to major sources of transportation noise. (Less than Sign ficant) Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The South San Francisco General Plan contains several existing policies including, (Land Use) 2 -I -22; (Noise) 9 -G -1, 9 -G -2, 9 -I -1, 9 -I -2, 9- I -3, 9 -I -4, 9 -I -5, 9 -I -6, 9 -I -7, and 9 -I -8. The South San Francisco Municipal Code contains standards in Title 8, Health and Welfare, Section 8.32.050 and Title 20, Zoning, Section 20.300.010 Performance Standards. Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: The proposed Plan could result in the development of 1,455 additional residential units in the Planning Area by 2030. The proposed Plan also accommodates a potential library that may be located along El Camino Real. The primarily source of transportation noise in the Planning Area is roadway noise. The frontage of El Camino Real, Mission Road and Chestnut Avenue will be subject to noise levels of CNEL 65 dB or greater from roadway noise, as shown in Figure 3.5 -4. However, the proposed Plan requires that the frontage along El Camino Real, Mission Road, and Chestnut Avenue be devoted to active uses such as retail, eating, and ddnldng establishments. Residential on the ground floor is permitted along Mission Road, north of Oak Avenue, which carries the lowest volume of traffic compared to El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue. Title 24 noise insulation standards will apply to any new multi- family residential units in the Planning Area. In addition, new development under the proposed Plan would have to adhere to noise standards in Section 20.300.010 of the Zoning Ordinance. While the development of noise - sensitive receptors in close EL CAMINO REAL / CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 11 EXHIBIT B — CEQA FINDINGS proximity to major sources of transportation noise is potentially significant, Title 24 and Zoning Ordinance noise attenuation standards would effectively mitigate the impact to a less than significant level. Impact 3.5 -4: Future development under the proposed Plan may result in the exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive ground -borne vibration or ground -borne noise levels. (Less than Significant) Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The South San Francisco General Plan contains several existing policies including, (Land Use) 2 -I -22; (Noise) 9 -G -1, 9 -G -2, 9 -I -1, 9 -I -2, 9- I -3, 9 -I -4, 9 -I -5, 94-6, 9 -I -7, and 9 -I -8. The South San Francisco Municipal Code contains standards in Title 8, Health and Welfare, Section 8.32.050 and Title 20, Zoning, Section 20.300.010 Performance Standards. Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: While it is difficult to quantify and describe the nature and extent of vibration impacts at the programmatic level, subsequent CEQA analysis and documentation for individual projects will have project - specific data and will be required to mitigate any potential construction/ operations related vibration and noise impacts to a less than significant level. However, new development under the proposed Plan will have to adhere to Section 20.300.010 of the Zoning Ordinance, which contains performance standards regarding vibrations. No new industrial activities are anticipated and there are no railroad activities in the Planning Area, though vibration in the Planning Area could be created through construction. Given the limited potential for and temporary nature of ground -borne vibration in the Planning Area, the impact is less than significant. PARKS AND RECREATION Impact 3.6 -1: While future development under the proposed Plan may result in increased demand for and use of existing parks, proposed parks will meet level of service standards. (Less than Significant Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The South San Francisco General Plan contains several existing policies including, (Parks and Recreation) 5.1 -G -1, 5.1 -G -2, 5.1 -G -3, 5.1 -G- 4, 5.1 -I -1, 5.1 -I -2, 5.1 -I -3, 5.1 -I -4, 5.1 -I -5, and 5.1 -I -6. The proposed Amendment includes several policies including, (3.3 Urban Dargn and the Public Realm) UD -13, UD -14, UD -15, UD -16, UD -17, UD -18, UD -19, UD -22, and UD -34. Mitigation Measures: None. Finding: The City currently has 50.1 acres of existing and proposed parkland within one -half mile of the Planning Area. The Planning Area is adjacent to the City's biggest park, Orange Memorial Park. There is currently a plan to expand Orange Memorial Park, which will increase the size of the park to 36.9 acres. The Orange Memorial Park Master Plan includes a new central plaza, an expanded play area and swim center, a skate park, an expanded sculpture garden, and an additional tennis court and practice courtl The increase in parkland near the Planning Area will help accommodate the projected population and employee increase. New parks will limit the physical deterioration of exiting parkland EL CAMINo REAL / CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 12 EXHIBIT B — CEQA FINDINGS Impact 3.6 -2: Future development under the proposed Plan may increase the use of existing recreation and public facilities and increase the demand for such facilities, requiring the expansion of facilities that may have a negative impact on the environment. (Leas than Sign fican� Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The South San Francisco General Plan contains several existing policies including, (Parks and Recreation) 5.1 -G -1, 5.1 -G -2, 5.1 -G -3, 5.1 -G- 4, 5.1 -I -1, 5.1 -I -2, 5.1 -I -3, 5.1 -I -4, 5.1 -I -5, and 5.1 -I -6. The proposed Amendment includes several policies including, (3.9 Land Use) LU-4 and LU -5. Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: The PROS Master Plan contains an inventory of individual recreation and public facilities in South San Francisco, along with analysis and recommendations for improvements. The Plan proposes new park policies and the current General Plan requires the PROS Master Plan be maintained as the implementing tool for General Plan park and recreation policies and proposals. Therefore, impacts on recreation and public facilities will be less than significant. Demand for recreation and public facilities is expected to be met through implementation of the PROS Master Plan. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Impact 3.7 -1: Future development under the proposed Plan may increase the demand for school facilities. (Less than Sign fican� Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The South San Francisco General Plan contains several existing policies including, (Educational Facilities) 5.2 -G -1, 5.2 -G -2, 5.2 -G -3, 5.2 -I- 1, and 5.2 -I -2. Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: Implementation of the proposed Plan is estimated to result in an increase in student population in the SSFUSD by approximately 70 students. This will increase the projected enrollment to 9,370 students for the year 2022, which is below the 10,701 estimated capacity and less than the 9,393 student enrollment the District is expected to reach in 2017. In addition, new development under the proposed Plan will be required to pay a School Facilities Impact Fee. This requirement and that the District is expected to have sufficient capacity to meet demand for school facilities, resulting in a less than significant impact on school facilities. Impact 3.7 -2: Future development under the proposed Plan may require additional fire and police protection services, but would not exceed the capacity of existing facilities. (Less than Significant) Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The potential increase in demand for fires and police services is addressed by the General Plan including. (Law Enforcement) 8.2 -G -1, 8.2 -G -2, 8.2 -I -1, 8.2 -I -2, and 8.2 -I -5; (Fire Hazards) 8.4 -G -1, 8.4 -G -2, and 8.4 -I -3. Actions listed under policy 8.5 -I -1 that could be taken to ensure rapid and timely response to all emergencies can include maintaining a law enforcement standard of 1.5 police officers per 1,000 residents; analyzing and monitoring factors affecting response time (population growth, police staffing, community policing programs) and average response times as guidelines based on past experience; maintaining, training, and equipping special response teams for extraordinary or extremely hazardous emergency EL CAMINo REAL / CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 13 EXHIBIT B — CEQA FINDINGS incidents; and developing and /or using the City's Geographic Information System (GIS) for analysis of issues including crime location trends and response routes. In addition, the proposed Plan is consistent with General Plan Policy 8.5 -G -2 Assisting crime prevention through physical planning and community design through policies that ensure building design and site planning adequately address public safety concerns. General Plan policy 8.5 -1 and other policies in the current General Plan ensure the provision of police service to meet the needs of future populations. Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: The proposed Plan will result in a 2030 buildout population of 77,500. The South San Francisco Fire Department currently has 79 sworn personnel. If the current level of staffing is maintained, the South San Francisco Fire Department will be able to meet the current National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard of one firefighter per 1,000 at full buildout. It is not anticipated that new facilities or an expansion of existing facilities is required. In addition, future development will have to adhere to applicable General Plan policies as well as the California Fire Code, the Uniform Building Code and the City's Municipal Code. Given this, less than significant impacts to fire services are anticipated. The additional increase in population resulting from the proposed Plan may increase the demand for police assistance. The proposed Plan will require an additional four officers to be in accordance with a law enforcement standard of 1.5 police officers per 1,000 residents. The additional four officers would not require the construction of a new police station. A police station located at 33 Arroyo Drive is within the Planning Area, resulting in a response time of less than five minutes. In addition, a second police station, which is currently being constructed as part of the Miller Avenue Parking Structure and expected to be completed in mid - 2011, will be able to accommodate the additional officers that would be required. Therefore, additional facilities would not be required, resulting in less than significant impacts. Impact 3.7 -3: Implementation of the proposed Plan would not require additional water supply beyond that available from existing entitlements and resources, as planned for in the Urban Water Management Plan, or cause an exceedance of distribution capacity. (Less than Significant Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The South San Francisco General Plan contains several existing policies including, 5.3 -G -1, 5.3 -G -2, 5.3 -G -3, 5.3 -I -2, 5.3 -I -3, and 5.3 -I -1. Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: The service area population with the proposed Plan is lower than the population projected for the service area in the UWMP for 2030. Therefore, the proposed Plant is consistent with the assumptions made in the UWMP and the population growth in the Planning Area has been accounted for in the UWMP. In addition, the Planning Area will have to comply with the UWMP and with water conservation policies in the General Plan, thereby ensuring that impacts to water supply will be less than significant. The extension of the existing water system into the P lanning Area will also require connections from Mission Road to the new water main extension in El Camino Real between Kaiser Hospital and Chestnut Avenue. This can be done as part of the planned Oak Avenue extension. The cross connections from Mission Road to El Camino Real are necessary to provide a looped network which ensures adequate pressure in the system. Based on discussions with CWSC, the existing water distribution system is generally in good condition and should be able to support the proposed EL CAMINO REAL / CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 14 EXHIBIT B — CEQA FINDINGS development without the need for major repairs or upgrades to the existing system. Therefore impacts on distribution capacity will be less than significant. Impact 3.7 -4: Future development under the proposed Plan would not cause wastewater treatment capacity of the WQCP to be exceeded and would not require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of facilities. (Less than Sign ficant) Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The South San Francisco General Plan contains several existing policies including: (Wastewater) 5.3 -G -4, 5.3 -G -5, 5.3 -G -6, 5.3 -I -4, and 5.3- I -5; (Wastewater Treatment) 8.3 -G -1 and 8.3 -I -1. Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: The City is upgrading its sanitary sewer facilities to handle increased flows from new development. In order to recover the costs of these upgrades, the City charges new development a flat rate sewer connection fee and a monthly impact fee. Future development will be required to pay sanitary sewer fees imposed by the City of South San Francisco in order to mitigate the cost of the sewer system upgrades necessary to manage the wastewater flows generated by future development. New sanitary sewer lines within the Planning Area will be needed to serve each new development, but major expansion of off -site infrastructure will not be required. The resulting increase in flows is a small fraction of the total capacity of the existing trunk lines that serve the Planning Area. Based on the above analysis, it is expected that the proposed Plan will have less than significant impacts on wastewater facilities. Impact 3.7 -5: Future development under the proposed Plan will be served by a landfill with adequate permitted capacity and would not fail to fully comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. (Less than Sign #Fcax� Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The South San Francisco General Plan contains several existing policies including: (Wastewater) 5.3 -G -4, 5.3 -G -5, 5.3 -G -6, 5.3 -I -4, and 5.3- I -5; (Wastewater Treatment) 8.3 -G -1 and 8.3 -I -1. Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: Waste generation and disposal data for South San Francisco is maintained by the CIWMB. While the expected additional waste generation is not expected to strain existing landfill capacity, the City acknowledges the importance of reducing waste and has policies in the General Plan that will ensure that the City maintains low solid waste flows through recycling and waste reduction programs. Implementation of these General Plan policies (such as 8.3 -G -1 and 8.3 -I -1) will reduce solid waste impacts to a less than significant level AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES Impact 3.8 -2: Future development under. the proposed Plan may affect scenic views of Sign Hill and the San Bruno Mountains. (L.ess than Significant Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The South San Francisco General Plan contains several existing policies including: (Land Use) 2 -G -1, 2 -G -7, 2 -G -8, 2 -I -2, 2 -I -7, 2 -I -8, and 2 -I -9; (Planning Sub - Areas, El Camino Real) 3.4 -G -1, 3.4 -G -3, 3.4 -G -4, 3.4 -G -5, 3.4-I -1, and 3.4 -I -6. EL CAMINo REAL / CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 15 EXHIBIT B - CEQA FINDINGS The proposed Amendment includes several policies that address aesthetics and visual resources including, (3.3 Urban Design and the Public Realm) UD -6 , UD -8, UD -9, UD -11, UD -20, UD -21, UD -22, UD -23, and UD -24 (3.2 Building Heigh1s)H -1 H-2, H -3 3.3 (Urban Design and the Public Realm) UD -9 Design Guidelines in proposed Plan that Reduce Impact Building Massing DG -1 DG -2 DG -3 DG -4 DG -5 DG -6 Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: The proposed zoning standards limit tower dimensions to 125 feet and require a minim tower separation of thirty feet, which will help ensure that some views of Sign Hill and the San Bruno Mountains will be available. In addition, design guidelines in the proposed Plan and design review for taller structures will ensure best efforts to preserve views. Compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, and proposed Plan policies and Design Guidelines would ensure that less than significant impacts occur on the City's scenic views of Sign Hill and the San Bruno Mountains, and visual character Impact 3.8 -3: Future development: under the proposed Plan could result in increased light and glare. Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The South San Francisco General Plan contains several existing policies including: (Land Use) 2 -G -1, 2 -G -7, 2 -G -8, 2 -I -2, 2 -I -7, 2 -I -8, and 2 -I -9; (Planning Sub - Areas, El Camino Real) 3.4 -G -1, 3.4 -G -3, 3.4 -G -4, 3.4 -G -5, 3.4 -I -1, and 3.4 -I -6. The proposed Amendment includes several policies that address aesthetics and visual resources including: (33 Urban Design and the Public Realm) UD -6, UD -8, UD -9, UD -11, UD -20, UD -21, UD- 22, UD -23, and UD -24 (3.2 Building Heights) H -1, H -2, and H -3 (3.3 Urban Design and the Public Realm) UD -9; Design Guidelines in proposed Plan that Reduce Impact include (Building Massing) DG -1, DG -2, DG -3, DG-4, DG -5, and DG -6. Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: The Planning Area is highly developed and has a number of existing light sources. The proposed Plan would allow residential uses in the Planning Area which may increase nighttime light. Nighttime lighting impacts are significant when they interfere with or intrude into neighboring residences. Light pollution is typically related to the use of high voltage light fixtures with inadequate shields and improper positioning or orientation. Compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, which contains general standards for lighting as well as standards that control outdoor artificial light, would reduce potentially significant long -term light and glare impacts to less than significant levels. LAND USE AND HOUSING Impact 3.9 -1: The proposed Plan makes substantial changes to the types of land uses in an area which may divide an established community. Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The South San Francisco General Plan contains several existing policies including: (Land Use) 2 -G -1, 2 -G -7, 2 -G -8, 2 -1 -2, 2 -I -7, 2 -I -8, and 2 -I -9; (Planning Sub - Areas, El Camino Real) 3.4 -G -1, 3.4 -G -3, 3.4 -G -4, 3.4 -G -5, 3.4 -I -1, and 3.4 -I -6. The proposed Amendment includes several policies that address aesthetics and visual resources including: (3.1 Land use) LU -4, LU -5, LU -7, LU -8, and LU -10; (3.3 Urban Design and the Public Realm) UD -1, UD -2, UD -3, UD -4, UD -5, UD -6, and UD -8. EL CAMINO REAL/ CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 16 EXHIBIT B — CEQA FINDINGS Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: The proposed Plan would make areas within'the Planning Area more compatible with Station Area Transit Village development to the north and the South El Camino Real area to the south. The proposed Plan would allow high - intensity mixed -use development and multi- family residential development on El Camino Real and along Mission Road, as well as permit heights and densities similar to those allowed to the north and south of the Planning Area. The proposed Plan would result in a corridor with more compatible land use and urban design patterns, resulting in a more cohesive community. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on an established community. Impact 3.9 -2: Implementation of the proposed Plan may displace substantial numbers of existing housing, population, or jobs. (Less than Significant Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The South San Francisco General Plan contains several existing policies including (Land Use) 2 -G -1, 2 -G -7, 2 -G -8, 2 -I -2, 2 -I -7, 2 -I -8, and 2 -I -9; (Planning Sub - Areas, El Camino Real) 3.4 -G -1, 3.4 -G -3, 3.4 -G-4, 3.4 -G -5, 3.4 -I -1, and 3.4 -I -6. The proposed Amendment includes several policies that address aesthetics and visual resources including, LU -3, LU -6, LU -7 and LU -8. Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: The Planning Area mainly consists of non - residential development. Only approximately 1 residential units exist in the Planning Area, found in multi- family buildings located on Mission Road and Antoinette Lane, east of the BART right -of -way. The proposed Plan will allow continued residential uses and new residential uses in the Planning Area. In addition, the proposed Plan will substantially increase housing opportunities in the Planning Area by allowing residential uses in areas where previously they were not allowed. The proposed Plan will also allow continued commercial uses in the Planning Area, while also substantially increase the amount of retail and services, and office square footage in the Planning Area, resulting in an increased number of jobs. Therefore there will less than significant impacts relating to the displacement of housing, population, or jobs in the area. Overall, the Plan will result in an increase in housing, population, and jobs in the Planning Area. Because the Plan is long -range in nature, it is possible that some residential uses may convert to higher density residential or mixed uses; however, the overall proposed Plan will significantly increase the number of dwelling units in the Planning Area such that any displaced residents will be able to find accommodation in the same area. Similarly, while some businesses may be displaced during redevelopment, the additional commercial and retail space added by the Plan will accommodate relocation for many land use types within the Planning Area. Impact 3.9 -3: The proposed Plan may conflict with the City General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. Proposed Policies that Reduce the Impact: The South San Francisco General Plan contains several existing policies including: (Land Use) 2 -G -1, 2 -G -7, 2 -G -8, 2 -I -2, 2 -I -7, 2 -I -8, and 2 -I -9; (Planning Sub - Areas, El Camino Real) 3.4 -G -1, 3.4 -G -3, 3.4 -G -4, 3.4 -G -5, 3.4 -I -1, and 3.4 -I -6. The proposed Amendment includes several policies that address aesthetics and visual resources including, 3.4 -G -6 and 3.4 -I -13. Mitigation Measures: None required. EL CAMINo REAL / CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 17 EXHIBIT B - CEQA FINDINGS Finding: The project includes the adoption of the El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, as well as General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments. As discussed previously, an area plan is adopted by resolution as an amendment to the general plan and is implemented by ordinances such as zoning. The General Plan amendment will include amendments to the Land Use; Planning Sub - Areas; Transportation; and Parks, Public Facilities, and Services elements of the existing General Plan to ensure consistency. The Land Use element will be amended to include two new land use designations: El Camino Real Mixed use North, High Intensity and El Camino Real Mixed Use North, Medium Intensity. The High Density Residential land use designation will be amended to allow for higher density within the Planning Area. Height limits will also be amended to allow for greater height within the Planning Area. The Planning Sub - Areas; Transportation; and Parks, Public Facilities, and Services elements will also be amended to incorporate references to the proposed Plan and improvements identified in the proposed Plan. These amendments will ensure consistency between the proposed Plan and General Plan. Where the proposed Plan does not address certain issues, new development under the proposed Plan would be subject to policies in the General Plan. New development under the proposed Plan would be required to adhere to policies in the General Plan, including policies in the Parks, Public Facilities, and Services; Open Space and Conservation; Health and Safety, and Noise elements which would help avoid or mitigate any potential impacts resulting from the proposed Plan. These General Plan policies and potential impacts are discussed in individual environmental topic sections in this Chapter. Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance will include a new chapter to Division III: Specific and Area Plan Districts. This new chapter, Chapter 20.270 El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan District will include development standards that will apply to the Planning Area. New development under the proposed Plan would have to adhere to all the applicable standards in the Zoning Ordinance, including Section 20.300.010 Performance Standards, which includes standards that will help avoid or mitigate potential impacts of the proposed Plan. These standards and potential impacts are discussed in individual environmental topic sections in this Chapter. As the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments will be concurrently adopted with the proposed Plan and the proposed Plan does not conflict with any policies or standards aimed at avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts, the impact is less than significant. Impact 3.9 -4: The proposed Plan may conflict with height limits established for the San Francisco International Airport airspace. (Less than Signafican� Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The South San Francisco General Plan contains several existing policies including: (Land Use) 2 -G -1, 2 -G -7, 2 -G -8, 2 -I -2, 2 -I -7, 2 -I -8, and 2 -I -9; (Planning Sub - Areas, El Camino Real) 3.4 -G -1, 3.4 -G -3, 3.4 -G -4, 3.4 -G -5, 3.4 -I -1, and 3.4 -I -6. The County Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) also reviews all general plan amendments and zoning amendments for consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan. Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: The ground elevation of all the parcels in the Planning Area are estimated to be at least 160 feet or more below SFO's critical airspace height limits. As shown in Figure 3.9 -1, Airport height limits are above the limits proposed in the plan, resulting in less than significant impacts. The proposed Planning Area does not lie below any current or projected future civil airport airspace protections surfaces associated with runways as defined in CFR Part 77 section 77.25. The Planning Area does he below current airspace protection surfaces associated with United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) as included under CFR Part 77 section 77.23 and below EL CAMINO REAL / CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 18 EXHIBIT B — CEQA FINDINGS current airspace protection surfaces. associated with One - Engine Inoperative (OEI) departure procedures as described in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300 -13. An initial analysis of the TERPS and OEI airspace protection surfaces, however, indicates that the maximum building heights in the proposed Plan would likely not penetrate these airspace protection surfaces. Prior to construction, developers may still be required to notify the FAA of any new construction or alteration within the Planning Area if proposed construction or alternation could result in penetration of the FAA notification surfaces as described in CFR Part 77 section 77.13.2 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY Impact 3.10 -1: Implementation of the proposed Plan may expose people or structures to the rupture of a known earthquake fault. (Less than Significant Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The South San Francisco General Plan contains several existing policies including: 8.1 -G -1. The South San Francisco Municipal Code contains standards in Title 19, Subdivisions, Chapter 19.40, Standard Subdivision Procedure, and Title 20, Zoning, Chapter 20.170, Special Environmental Studies (ES) Overlay District Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: The Planning Area is not located within an Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and no active or potentially active faults traverse the Planning Area. The San Andreas Fault, located approximately two miles west of the Planning Area, is the nearest known active fault. Although surface fault rupture is not necessarily restricted to the area within an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, the potential risk of surface rupture is highest along active faults. In addition, all development under the proposed Plan would be subject to the California Building Code and Chapters 19.40 and 20.170 of the Municipal Code, which would help reduce potential impacts related to surface fault rupture to less than significant. Impact 3.10 -2: Implementation of the proposed Plan may expose people or structures to seismic hazards such as ground shaking or liquefaction. (Less than Significant Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The South San Francisco General Plan contains several existing policies including: 8.1 -G -1. The South San Francisco Municipal Code contains standards in Title 19, Subdivisions, Chapter 19.40, Standard Subdivision Procedure, and Title 20, Zoning, Chapter 20.170, Special Environmental Studies (ES) Overlay District. Mandatory compliance with the existing building codes and construction standards established in the California Building Code, and requirements in Chapters 15.08 and 19.40 of the Municipal Code would reduce seismic - related ground shaking and liquefaction to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: Ground shaking generated during an earthquake could result in structural damage to structures and project - related infrastructure. Seismic - related ground shaking is an unavoidable hazard in the San Francisco Bay Area. Structures and associated infrastructure within the Planning Area would likely experience at least one major earthquake (greater than Richter magnitude 6.7) during their functional lifetime. The degree of hazard depends on the geologic condition of the site, construction materials, and construction quality. The intensity of such an event would depend on the causative fault and distance to the epicenter, the moment magnitude, and the duration of EL CAMINo REAL / CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 19 EXHIBIT g — CEQA FINDINGS shaking. Although some structural damage is typically not avoidable, building codes and construction standards established by the California Building Code and contained in Title 24 of the CCR protect against building collapse and major injury during a seismic event. Future development in the Planning Area would be required to meet the requirements of the California Building Code to help prevent extensive structural damage due to seismic - related ground shaking. Future development in the Planning Area may also be susceptible to secondary seismic hazards such as liquefaction. Liquefaction susceptibility maps prepared by ABAG indicate the majority of the Planning Area has a liquefaction hazard of high. Liquefaction - induced ground failure can result in damage to underground utilities, shallow foundations, and paved areas. Mandatory compliance with the existing building codes and construction standards established in the California Building Code, and requirements in Chapters 15.08 and 19.40 of the Municipal Code would reduce seismic - related ground shaking and liquefaction to less than significant levels. Impact 3.10 -3: Implementation of the proposed Plan may expose people or structures to geologic hazards, including expansive soils and erosion. (Less than Significant) Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The South San Francisco General Plan contains several existing policies including: 8.1 -G -1. The South San Francisco Municipal Code contains standards in Tide 19, Subdivisions, Chapter 19.40, Standard Subdivision Procedure, and Title 20, Zoning, Chapter 20.170, Special Environmental Studies (ES) Overlay District Mandatory compliance with the existing building codes and construction standards established in the California Building Code, and requirements in Chapters 15.08 and 19.40 of the Municipal Code would reduce seismic - related ground shaking and liquefaction to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: As required by the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code, subdivision applications must be accompanied by a preliminary soils report and grading permit applications must be accompanied by a soils engineering report. In addition, the Municipal Code requires site - specific soils and geologic reports for seismic and geologic hazard areas. Furthermore, as discussed in Hydrology and Water Quality, proposed projects would be required to comply with NPDES General Construction Permit requirements. Project applicants would be required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) to minimiz the discharge of pollutants, including silt and sediment, during construction. The SWPPP would include measures to control erosion and effectively manage runoff and retain sediment on -site during construction. Mandatory compliance with the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code and NPDES General Construction Permit requirements would reduce impacts to geologic hazards to less than significant levels. 16.0 11 ;_ a eZ ew. "iMW 610)0- It? Impact 3.11 -1: Future development under the proposed Plan may result in the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. (Less than Significant) Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The South San Francisco General Plan contains several existing policies including: (Open Space and Conservation) 7.2 -G -1, 7.2 -G -2, 7.2 -G- 3, 7.2 -I -1, 7.2 -I -2, and 7.2 -I -3. The South San Francisco Municipal Code contains standards in Title 14, Water and Sewage, and Title 15, Buildings and Construction. EL CAMINo REAL / CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 20 EXHIBIT B — CEQA FINDINGS Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: Compliance with the municipal water NPDES Permit and the construction General Permit requires future development to provide permanent treatment for site runoff, prepare SWPPPs for construction related activities, and implement BMPs as part of its storm water management program. Additionally, adherence to federal, state, and local laws would ensure that impacts will be less than significant. Impact 3.11 -2: Future development under the proposed Plan may substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation or runoff resulting in flooding. (Less than Significant) Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The South San Francisco General Plan contains several existing policies including: (Open Space and Conservation) 7.2 -G -1, 7.2 -G -2, 7.2 -G- 3, 7.2 -I -1, 7.2 -I -2, and 7.2 -I -3. The South San Francisco Municipal Code contains standards in Title 14, Water and Sewage, and Title 15, Buildings and Construction. Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: Within the Planning Area, the majority of the storm water run -off is conveyed to a network of drain inlets and pipes that discharge to the Colma Creek. The Planning Area is largely developed with impermeable surfaces and the underlying soils are typically .clays with low permeability and erosivity. As buildout occurs, compliance with the General Permit would require the preparation of a SWPPP which would include BMPs that would reduce potential erosion and /or siltation impacts to less than significant. Impact 3.11 -3: Future development under the proposed Plan may substantially create or contribute to runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or degrade water quality, (Less than significant) Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The South San Francisco .General Plan contains several existing policies including: (Open Space and Conservation) 7.2 -G -1, 7.2 -G -2, 7.2 -G- 3, 7.2 -I -1, 7.2 -I -2, and 7.2 -I -3. The South San Francisco Municipal Code contains standards in Tide 14, Water and Sewage, and Title 15, Buildings and Construction. Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: Future development will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the City's Storm Water Coordinator. Project proponents for future development will be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) and an Erosion Control Plan to the City Engineer and the Water Quality Control Division prior to the commencement of any grading or construction. The SWPPP is required to include storm water pollution control devices and filters to be installed to prevent pollutants from entering the City's storm drain system and the San Francisco Bay. Future residential development in the Planning Area will be required to have open space and landscaping, and landscaping that is part of the Centennial Way Linear Park will remain. The addition of a new 1.25 -acre community park will likely improve runoff in the area. There will also be guidelines and incentives for projects to include plazas and open spaces with permeable surfaces into their design. This will help potentially decrease on -site stormwater runoff. The Planning Area is EL CAMINo REAL / CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 21 EXHIBIT B - CEQA FINDINGS located within the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone. The Planning Area is not subject to hydromodification since the majority of Cohna Creek through South San Francisco is concrete lined. However, the City does require projects to incorporate BMPs to help reduce stormwater runoff. In February 2009, the SF Bay RWQCB added Cohna Creek as one of the Bay Area's impaired water bodies due to trash under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. BMPs required by the City address issues regarding trash. Upon project level review, the City has required some projects to provide trash cleanup on a daily basis to ensure that trash is kept out of Colrna Creek. policies and standards in the General Plan and Municipal code along with standard development conditions will ensure that impacts would be less than significant. Impact 3.11 -4: The proposed Plan may place housing within a 100 -year hazard area. (Less than significant) Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The South San Francisco General Plan contains several existing policies including: (Open Space and Conservation) 7.2 -G -1, 7.2 -G -2, 7.2 -G- 3, 7.2 -1 -1, 7.2 -I -2, and 7.2 -1 -3. The South San Francisco Municipal Code contains standards in Title 14, Water and Sewage, and Title 15, Buildings and Construction. Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: The South San Francisco Municipal Code provides restrictions regarding residential development within Zone AE. South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 15.56.160(c) requires that residential construction in Zone AE have the lowest floor, including the basement, elevated to or above the BFE. An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure below the lowest floor that is usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage in an area other than a basement area, is not considered a building's lowest floor provided it conforms to non - elevation design requirements as specified in Chapter 15.56 of the Municipal Code. Upon the completion of a residential structure, the elevation of the lowest floor, including the basement, is required be certified by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor, and verified by the City's community building inspector to be properly elevated. This certification is then required to be provided to the City's floodplain administrator. In addition, a development permit must be obtained before construction or other development, including manufactured homes, within Zone AE can begin. The South San Francisco Municipal Code will ensure that residential development within Zone AE will be above the BFE, placing residential areas above the hazard area, resulting in less than significant impacts. Impact 3.11 -5: Future development under the proposed Plan within the 100 -year flood hazard area may impede or redirect flood flows. (Less than significant) Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The South San Francisco General Plan contains several existing policies including: (Open Space and Conservation) 7.2 -G -1, 7.2 -G -2, 7.2 -G- 3, 7.2 -I -1, 7.2 -1 -2, and 7.2 -1 -3. The South San Francisco Municipal Code contains standards in Title 14, Water and Sewage, and Title 15, Buildings and Construction. Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: Colma Creek trends in a roughly southeasterly direction through the center of the City and drains in to the San Francisco Bay. The portion of the Cohna Creek Channel that runs through the Planning Area is a designated floodway area or Zone A "High Risk Flood Area." The proposed Plan EL CAMINO REAL / CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 22 ExHIBIT B — CEQA FINDINGS does not include any plans to alter direction of flow of Colma Creek. Most of the parcels within Zone AE are built out and currently have existing buildings on site. Future development under the proposed Plan will not substantially impede or redirect flood flows compared to existing structures in the area. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant. IV. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." Where a lead agency has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, a project as proposed will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, the agency, prior to approving the project as mitigated, must first determine whether, with respect to such impacts, there remain any project alternatives that are both environmentally superior and feasible within the meaning of CEQA. Although an EIR must evaluate this range of potentially feasible alternatives, an alternative may ultimately be deemed by the lead agency to be "infeasible" if it fails to fully promote the lead agency's underlying goals and objectives with respect to the project. (City of Del Marv. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417.) "`[F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses `desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (Ibid.; see also Seguoyab Hilly Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) Thus, even if a project alternative will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of the project, the decision - makers may reject the alternative if they determine that specific considerations make the alternative infeasible. The EIR evaluates the environmental impacts of two alternatives to the Plan: the Housing Center Alternative; and the No Project Alternative. The EIR compares the impacts of each Alternative to the proposed Plan and evaluates the feasibility of each Alternative, and each Alternative's ability to achieve basic project objectives. The Housing Center Alternative assumes the same development potential but a greater number of residential units in the Planning Area, compared to the proposed Plan. Consideration of the No Project Alternative is required by CEQA in all EIRs to help decision- makers compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. The No Project scenario is based on the South San Francisco 1999 General Plan, which represents the continuation of the existing plans and policies. Table 4.2 -1 of the EIR s ummari es the buildout of the proposed Plan, the Housing Center Alternative and the No Project scenario. Given the nature of the project (a Specific Plan for a specific site), an off -site alternative was not feasible. The Housing Center Alternative assumes the same amount of redevelopment potential as the proposed Plan. It also assumes that future development will be more residential compared to the proposed Plan. The Housing Center Alternative assumes 580,500 square feet of nonresidential development, which results in 1,800 jobs. The rest of the non - residential development projected in the proposed Plan is assumed to be residential. This results in 1,950 housing units and a buildout population of 5,800. Compared with the proposed Plan, the Alternative would result in 1,400 more housing units, but 700 fewer jobs at buildout. The No Project Alternative assumes - continuation of EL CAMINO REAL / CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 23 EXHIBIT B - CEQA FINDINGS land use development under the 1999 General Plan. Buildout of the No Project Alternative would result in 250 residential units and 780,100 square feet of non - residential space. The No Project Alternative will accommodate a total population of 700 in 2030. Compared with the proposed Plan, the No Project scenario would result in 1,337 housing units, 4,100 fewer residents, and 400 fewer jobs, at buildout. The City Council finds that a good faith effort was made to evaluate all feasible alternatives in the EIR that are reasonable alternatives to the Project and could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project, even when the alternatives might impede the attainment of the Project objectives and might be more costly. As a result, the scope of alternatives analyzed in the EIR is not unduly limited or narrow. The City Council also finds that all reasonable alternatives were reviewed, analyzed and discussed in the review process of the EIR and the ultimate decision on the Project. The following analyzes the comparative impacts of the Alternatives, and constitutes the City's findings with respect to each analysis. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Housing Center Alternative The Housing Center Alternative proposes less commercial uses but more residential units be constructed in the Planning Area. Table 4.3 -1 compares the trip generating potential of both the Preferred Alternative and the Housing Center Alternative. As illustrated, the Preferred Alternative would generate an additional 9,984 daily vehicle trips, 103 trips during the AM peak hour, and 461 trips during the PM peak hour, compared to 2010 existing conditions. Due to the less intense level of development that would occur under the Housing Center Alternative, less traffic would be generated in the Planning Area. While reduced traffic volumes would benefit traffic operations, the Cumulative No Project analysis, which would generate less vehicle trips than the Housing Center Alternative, concluded that level of service impacts at several signalized intersections would be significant and unavoidable under build No Project buildout. In addition, the Environmental Impact Report for South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment (2009) had the same conclusions for several intersections along El Camino Real. This significant and unavoidable impact would also occur under build out of the Housing Center Alternative. The lesser densities of this alternative and the fewer vehicle trips would have less of an adverse cumulative impact (contribute fewer vehicle trips) at the intersections impacted by the Preferred Alternative. However, it is expected that these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable due the infeasibility of adding capacity at those intersections. Since the Housing Center Alternative proposes lower densities, it would provide less interaction between land uses and less opportunity for internalization of trips, walking, and biking. Therefore, while the Housing Center Alternative would result in fewer vehicle trips and less of an adverse effect on traffic operations, it would not optimize the mixing of land uses to the same degree as the Preferred Alternative, which will reduce the potential for job /work /shop interfaces and internal trip capture within the Planning Area. On balance, these alternatives are considered similar to each other. No Project Alternative The Cumulative No Project alternative would result in development consistent with the City's existing General Plan. Since the General Plan calls for less development than the Area Plan, less traffic would be generated in the Planning Area as the residential population and commercial trips would not increase to the levels anticipated by the Preferred Alternative. While reduced traffic EL CAMINO REAL / CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 24 EXHIBIT B — CEQA FINDINGS volumes would benefit traffic operations, the Cumulative No Project analysis concluded that level of service impacts at several signalized intersections would be significant and unavoidable under build out of the Plan. In addition, the Environmental Impact Report for South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment (2009) had the same conclusions for several intersections along El Camino Real. Since the Cumulative No Project alternative proposes lower densities, it would provide less interaction between land uses and less opportunity for internalization of trips, walking, and biking. Therefore, while the Cumulative No Project Alternative would result in fewer vehicle trips and less of an adverse effect on traffic operations, it would not optimize the mixing of land uses to the same degree as the Preferred Alternative, which will reduce the potential for job /work /shop interfaces and internal trip capture within the Planning Area. On balance, these alternatives are considered similar to each other. AIR QUALITY For the analysis of air quality impacts of local plans, the BAAQMD recommends that the analysis focus on evaluating the consistency of the plan with the most recently adopted regional clean air plan (CAP). For a local plan to be consistent with the Clean Air Plan, the proposed plan must conform to the following: 1. Consistency with current air quality plan control measures, and 2. Projected VMT or vehicle trip increase is less than or equal to projected population increase. All of the alternatives are consistent with the CAP, and therefore all result in a less than significant impact. The No Project Alternative however does result in the smallest disparity between the increase in population and VMT. Table 4.3 -2 compares population and VMT growth for the No Project, proposed Plan and the Housing Center Alternative. Housing Center Alternative When compared to existing conditions, the Housing Center Alternative VMT is expected to increase by approximately 12.4 percent while population would increase by 21.4 percent Since the rate of increase in VMT would not exceed the rate of increase in population, the Housing Center Alternative scenario would be consistent with the regional Clean Air Plan. Therefore, the Housing Center Alternative has a less than significant impact regarding air quality. Furthermore, in the Housing Center Alternative, the disparity between population and VMT growth is slightly lower than that of the proposed Plan, but higher than that of the No Project. However, the proposed Plan may be more consistent with air quality control measure TCM D- 3 — Local Land Use Strategies, which support and promote land use patterns, policies and infrastructure investments that support higher density mixed -use, residential and employment near transit in order to facilitate walking, bicycling, and transit use, compared to the Housing Center Alternative. The Housing Center Alternative would increase the amount of housing in the P lanner Area but would not accommodate as much neighborhood serving retail that may be needed to sustain a larger Planning Area population, resulting in fewer opportunities to walk and bike to retail and services. Impacts due to exposure of people to TACs are expected to be comparable to the proposed Plan since both the proposed Plan and the Housing Center Alternative would not allow additional industrial uses and permitted sources in the Planning Area would remain the same. In addition daily traffic volume along El Camino Real and Mission Road would not emceed 100,000 vehicles /day, as shown in Table 4.3 -3, resulting in no impact from mobile sources of TAC. EL CAMINO REAL / CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 25 EXHIBIT B — CEQA FINDINGS Exposure of sensitive receptors to pollution may be somewhat higher than with the proposed Plan since there would be more housing units in the area under this Alternative. Exposure of people to odors is expected to be comparable to the proposed Plan since neither would allow additional industrial uses. No Project Alternative When compared to existing conditions, the No Project VMT is expected to increase by approximately 9.6 percent while population would increase by 18 percent. Since the rate of increase in VMT would not exceed the rate of increase in population, the No Project scenario would be consistent with the regional Clean Air Plan. Therefore, the No Project Alternative has a less than significant impact regarding air quality. Furthermore, in the No Project the disparity between population and VMT growth is slightly lower than that of the proposed Plan and Housing Alternative. However, the proposed Plan may be more consistent with air quality control measure TCM D -3. The No Project scenario would limit the amount of housing in the Planning Area, therefore resulting in fewer opportunities for transit use by residents in South San Francisco. Impacts due to exposure of people to TACs are expected to be comparable to the proposed Plan since both the proposed Plan and the No Project Alternative would not allow additional industrial uses and permitted sources in the Planning Area would remain the same. In addition daily traffic volume along El Camino Real and Mission Road would not exceed 100,000 vehicles /day, as shown in Table 4.3 -3, resulting in no impact from mobile sources of TAC. Exposure of people to odors is expected to be more likely under the No Project, since it is the only alternative that would continue to allow uses such as gas stations and auto body shops. ENERGY AND GREENHOUSE GASES As described in the methodology and assumptions section of Section 3.3 Energy and Greenhouse Gases (GHG), this analysis includes fuel efficiency estimates for No Pavley, Pavley Phase 1, and Pavley Phase 2, the implementation of SB 1078 33 percent Renewables Portfolio, and Executive Order S -01 -07 Low Carbon Fuel Standard. It also takes into account loca measures as well as proposed Plan policies that may lead to further reductions. The Housing Center results in the most non - renewable residential energy use when compared to the No Project and proposed Plan. Commercial /Industrial energy use is comparable to that in the proposed Plan. However, the proposed Plan results in the most transportation energy use compared to the No Project and Housing Centex Alternative. Overall, the proposed Plan results in the most GHG emissions when compared to the No Project and the Housing Center Alternative. However, when reductions from proposed Plan policies are taken into consideration, the Housing Center Alternative results in the most GHG emissions. The No Project Alternative results in the lowest GHG emissions of all of the alternatives. All three scenarios result in greenhouse gas emissions of 4.6 per service population. Energy Use Housing Center Alternative The Housing Center Alternative results in slightly higher residential energy use compared to the proposed Plan and No Project. However, the Housing Center Alternative results in less transportation energy use than the proposed Plan. When considering total energy use, the Housing Centex Alternative uses more energy than the No Project, but less than the proposed Plan. No Project Alternative EL CAMINo REAL / CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 26 EXHIBIT B — CEQA FINDINGS The No Project results in slightly less residential, commercial /industrial, and transportation energy use than the proposed Plan and the Housing Center Alterative. When considering total energy use, the No Project Alternative is projected to use the least energy annually. Greenhouse Gases Housing Center Alternative As shown in Table 4.3 -7, the Housing Centex Alternative, when considering State mandates, results in more GHG emissions than the No Project, and fewer GHG emissions than the proposed Plan. However, when emission reductions resulting from proposed Plan policies are taken into account in the Proposed Plan scenario, the Housing Center Alternative results in the most GHG emissions. The Housing Center, Proposed Plan, and No Project have the same emissions per service population. No Project Alternative As shown in Table 4.3 -7 in the DEIR, the No Project, when considering state mandates, results in fewer GHG emissions than the Housing Center Alternative and the proposed Plan. However, the No Project Alternative results in the same GHG emissions per service population when compared to the Housing Center Alternative and the Proposed Plan. CULTURAL RESOURCES. The proposed Plan would have less than significant impacts on cultural resources. There are no federal -, State- or locally -listed historic resources within the Planning Area. The NWIC identifies a recorded Native American archeological resource, CA -SAIA -299, within the Planning Area, but evaluation of the site as part of the BART extension determined that the integrity of the site had been destroyed and that the resource was absent where it had previously been identified. Archeological resource CA -SMA -355 has been identified adjacent to the Planning Area and the extent of the resource boundaries is unknown and may extend into the Planning Area. However, potential impact is reduced to less than significant levels by federal, State, and local policies. The University of California Museum of Paleontology identifies a fossil locality in South San Francisco; however, the lithology of the fossil is not known to occur in the Planning Area so it is unlikely that the locality of the fossil is in the Planning Area. Housing Center Alternative Like the proposed Plan, this Alternative would result in less than significant impacts on cultural resources. This Alternative would impact the same sites as the proposed Plan, so the potential impacts would be the same. No Project Alternative Additional buildout that would occur under the 1999 General Plan would also impact the same sites as the proposed Plan. During the preparation of the 1999 General CA -SMA -355 had not been discovered yet; however it did identify CA -SMA -299. The No Project Alternative would not result in less than significant impacts on cultural resources. NOISE Noise is qualitatively evaluated here based on proposed and existing land uses for each alternative that would increase noise in the Planning Area or that would introduce sensitive receptors to the area. The No Project would be the preferred Alternative regarding noise impacts due to the lower traffic levels and the smaller number of potential sensitive receptors introduced into the Planning EL CAMINo REAL / CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 27 EXHIBIT B — CEQA FINDINGS Area. Table 4.3 -8 shows the noise level increase along El Camino Real, Mission Road, and Chestnut Avenue for No Project, proposed Plan, and Housing Center Alternative scenarios. Housing Center Alternative The Housing Centex Alternative is expected to have similar impacts as the proposed Plan regarding exposing existing noise - sensitive uses to construction - related temporary increases in ambient noise, since a comparable amount of construction is expected. More noise is expected than in the No Project scenario since the No Project Alternative includes less development overall. The Housing Center Alternative would increase noise levels by less than three dB, which is not expected to be noticeable. Noise level increase is expected to be the same as the No Project and slightly less than the proposed Plan. The Housing Center Alternative is not expected to expose people to excessive ground -borne vibration or ground -borne noise levels. Similar to the proposed Plan, no new industrial uses are included in the Housing Center Alternative. No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative is expected to have the least impact regarding exposing existing noise- sensitive uses to construction- related temporary increases in ambient noise, since less development overall is expected for the No Project when compared to the proposed Plan and the Housing Center Alternative, resulting in less construction. Because the smallest amount of development is expected in the No Project scenario, impacts to ambient noise levels along El Camino Real are expected to be minimal and less than under the proposed Plan. While this is preferred to the increases expected under the proposed Plan and the Housing Centex Alternative, the increases in noise levels are not expected to be noticeable in any of the alternatives. The No Project is not expected to expose people to excessive ground -borne vibration or ground -borne noise levels, though the continuation of industrial uses in the area under the No Project makes the chance of such vibration or noise more likely than under the proposed Plan or the Housing Centex Alternative. PARKS AND RECREATION The City has a parkland ratio standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 new residents and one -half acre per 1,000 new employees in the General Plan. The proposed Plan increases the total citywide parkland need from 45.9 acres to 59.4 acres. The Housing Centex Alternative would require more parkland to be provided, compared to the proposed Plan. Table 4.3 -9 shows the amount of parkland needed in each scenario. Housing Center Alternative The provision of parkland is contingent on new housing units and population, and new employees in the Planning Area. Because this Alternative supports more housing units and therefore a larger population, and fewer jobs, compared to the proposed Plan, the potential parkland needed is slightly more. Overall, similar to the proposed Plan, the impacts to parks will be less than significant because there is enough existing and proposed parkland to accommodate the projected population and employee increase, and limit the physical deterioration of existing parkland. No Project Alternative The provision of parkland is contingent on new housing units and population, and new employees in the Planning Area. Because the No Project scenario supports fewer housing units and less population, and fewer jobs compared to the proposed Plan and Housing Center Alternative, the potential parkland needed is less. Overall, similar to the proposed Plan, the impacts to parks will be EL CAMINO REAL / CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 28 EXHIBIT B — CEQA FINDINGS less significant because there is enough existing parkland to accommodate the projected residential and employee population, and limit the physical deterioration of existing parkland. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES The comparison of impacts on public facilities is based on the degree of increased demand on public schools, water supply, wastewater treatment, solid waste, and public safety facilities and services. The proposed Plan and the Housing Center Alternative result in some increased demand on these public services and utilities. With little new demand for public services, the No Project Alternative is the environmentally preferred alternative in this issue area. However, impacts on all public services and utilities were found to be less than significant for the proposed Plan given that there is enough existing capacity to accommodate fixture population. Schools The comparison of impacts on school facilities is based on the degree of increased student enrollment and demand for new school facilities. This analysis considered the same enrollment factors of 5 students per 100 multi - family residential units and 15 students per 100 townhome units for the Housing Center Alternative, as was used to evaluate the proposed Plan. Table 4.3- 10 shows the projected student enrollment for the proposed Plan, Housing Center and No Project scenario. All three scenarios would result in a student population below District capacity of 10,701 in 2022. Housing Center Alternative Under this scenario, there will be approximately 103 more students, resulting in a total projected enrollment of 9,403 which is well within the capacity of existing schools. No Project Alternative Under this scenario, projected enrollment is expected to be 9,300, also well within the capacity of existing schools. Fire and Police Current police and fire protection is designed to meet the needs of the existing population and employment base. Implementation of the proposed Plan may potentially increase the longterm demand for police assistance and fire response citywide. However, because the Planning Area is served by existing police and fire stations within one to two miles away, response time to the Planning Area will be within response time goals. Water Supply As part of the California Water Service Company (CWSC) South San Francisco District, the Planning Area's water demand is considered in the CWSC 2006 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). This EIR considers whether the additional population projected in the proposed Plan or alternatives would make a significant difference on water demand currently planned for in the UWMP. The UWMP has projected that the population in the South San Francisco District will increase to approximately 69,150 in 2030. Within the South San Francisco District, population for the South San Francisco Service Area is projected to increase to 62,594. Table 4.3 -11 projects population growth in the South San Francisco Service Area under each alternative. The proposed Plan and No Project alternative do not exceed the population projections in the UWMP. However, the Housing Center Alternative slightly exceeds the UWMP population due to a higher increase in population compared to the proposed Plan and No Project alternative. EL CAMINo REAL / CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 29 EXHIBIT B— CEQA FINDINGS This indicates that the future population under the proposed Plan and No Project is sufficiently accounted for in CWSC's planning document and the CWSC is expected to be able to service this growth. However, the No Project Alternative will require less water because it has the lowest population growth compared to the proposed Plan and Housing Centex Alternative. Housing Center Alternative Under this scenario, population within the South San Francisco Service Area is projected to increase to 63,100 in 2030, which is above the projected population in the UWMP. Therefore CWSC capacity may not be sufficient under this Alternative. No Project Alternative The No Project scenario results in the lowest South San Francisco Service Area population. CWSC capacity is expected to be sufficient under this Alternative. Wastewater All wastewater produced within the City of South San Francisco is treated at the City's Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP). Currently, the WQCP has the capacity to provide secondary treatment for 13 MGD in dry weather and 60 MGD in wet weather.l The average wastewater flow was 9.2 MGD for 2008; average peak wet weather flows approach 30 MGD. The WQCP treats wastewater generated by South San Francisco and San Bruno. Currently, the City of South San Francisco has an allocation of treatment capacity of 8.74 MGD, and is currently generating 5.6 MGD.2 Wastewater generation varies depending on the type of development. A per capita wastewater generation rate of 86.1 was calculated using current wastewater generation and population to project future wastewater generation. Assuming that the per capita wastewater generation rate stays constant, the wastewater generated at buildout under the proposed Plan would be 6.67 MGD. Table 4.3 -12 shows projected wastewater generation for the Housing Center Alternative and the No Project Alternative. For all three scenarios, projected wastewater generation would not exceed South San Francisco's existing allocated treatment capacity. Housing Center Alternative This Alternative results in the second highest average daily wastewater demand. South San Francisco's existing allocated treatment capacity at the WQCP is still expected to be sufficient in this scenario. No Project Alternative The No Project scenario results in the lowest average daily wastewater generation. Solid Waste Waste generation rates for South San Francisco are maintained by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). According to the CIWMB, the total amount of solid waste landfilled in 2008 was 88,674 tons. This equals a solid waste generation rate of approximately 7.65 pounds per resident per day. As shown in Table 4.3 -13, for all the alternatives, South San Francisco solid waste generation is approximately eight percent of the capacity at the Ox Mountain Landfill. Due to lower population growth, the No Project Alternative results in the smallest amount of waste generation. Housing Center Alternative EL CAMINO REAL/ CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 30 EXHIBIT B — CEQA FINDINGS The Housing Center Alternative results in higher waste generation compared to the No Project and proposed Plan. Waste generation is approximately 8.3 percent of Ox Mountain Landfill's daily allowance. No Project Alternative The No Project scenario results in the lowest amount of waste generation. AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES Differences in impacts on visual resources relate primarily to the extent and type of development under each of the alternatives and to the streetscape character. The proposed Plan, Housing Center Alternative, and No Project Alternative would have similar impacts on visual resources, while the proposed Plan and Housing Center Alternative would provide some environmental benefits. Housing Center Alternative With less development projected for housing units but more non - residential development, this Alternative would still include improved streetscape character. In addition, like the proposed Plan, this Alternative would be subject to building height policies, which call for an overall typical height range between four and six stories, with residential towers reaching up to 12 stories in select locations and disallow monolithic, bulky developments. As with the proposed Plan, impacts to adjacent neighborhoods and existing visual resources would be less than significant through the establishment of development standards in the Zoning Ordinance and design guidelines to m n m" c bulk at higher levels of buildings, which will help ensure that some views of Sign Hill and the San Bruno Mountains will be available. No Project Alternative This Alternative would not have as much development as the Housing Center Alternative and buildings in the No Project Alternative would be limited to 50 feet. However, buildings 50 feet in height have si milar impacts on existing neighborhoods and visual resources as buildings four to six stories in height and this Alternative would not afford as much protection of views or improved streetscape character as the proposed Plan and Housing Center Alternative. LAND USE AND HOUSING The proposed Plan and the Housing Alternative differ in the amount of residential and nonresidential development assumed at buildou . Table 4.3 -14 shows the buildout comparison between the alternatives. None of the alternatives would divide an established community or displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people. None are expected to create any land use incompatibilities. Because there are no agricultural lands in the Planning Area, no agricultural land would be converted. Housing Center Alternative This Alternative assumes more residential units and less non - residential development. This comes at a slight comparative loss of residential development, with this approach providing less retail and services development. The Housing Center Alternative, like the proposed Plan would increase connectivity between the northern and southern portions of Fd Camino Real, as well as to the South San Francisco BART Station. No Project Alternative EL CAMINo REAL / CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 31 EXHIBIT B — CEQA FINDINGS The No Project Alternative would result in fewer housing units compared to the proposed Plan and the Housing Center Alternative. The No Project Alternative would result in less nonresidential development than the proposed Plan but more non - residential development than the Housing Center Alternative. The No Project Alternative would also result in the least dense development. Furthermore, the No Project Alternative would not make any changes in terms of increasing connectivity. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY The potential impacts of geological and seismic hazards are considered less than significant under the proposed Plan based on the implementation of existing regulations. Mandatory compliance with existing building codes and construction standards established in the California Building Code, the requirements of the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code, and policies contained in the South San Francisco General Plan would reduce potential impacts of development to less than significant. Housing Center Alternative This Alternative includes the same overall amount of development as the proposed Plan and therefore would have the same potential impacts from geological and seismic hazards as the proposed Plan. In addition, this Alternative would be subject to the same existing regulations as the proposed Plan. The potential impacts of geological and seismic hazards would be less than significant. No Project Alternative The No Project scenario includes less intensive development than the proposed Plan and would likely be less impacted by geological and seismic hazards than the proposed Plan. In addition, the No Project scenario would be subject to the same existing regulations as the proposed Plan, resulting in less than significant impacts. HYDROLOGY AND FLOODING The impacts of the proposed Plan on hydrology and flooding would be less than significant due to existing regulations such as General Plan policies, standard development conditions, and mandatory adherence to best management practices. Housing Center Alternative This Alternative would result in the same less than significant impacts to hydrology and flooding as identified for the proposed Plan. Additional development would occur on sites that are currently developed. When compared to the proposed Plan, impacts related to hydrology and flooding would be addressed by the same regulatory framework, which requires new development to adhere to standard development conditions and best management practices, as well as existing General Plan policies that reduce impacts to less than significant. No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative would result in the same less than significant impacts as identified for the proposed Plan. The development that would occur under the No Project Alternative would be required to adhere to all local and state requirements related to storm water controls and permitting, like the proposed Plan and Housing Center Alternative. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE EL CAMINo REAL / CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 32 EXHIBIT B — CEQA FINDINGS In addition to the discussion and comparison of impacts of the proposed OPSP and the alternatives, Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an "environmentally superior" alternative be selected and the reasons for such a selection disclosed. In general, the environmentally superior alternative is the alternative that would be expected to generate the least amount of significant impacts. Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational procedure and the alternative selected may not be the alternative that best meets the goals or needs of the City. The No Project Alternative, because of the lower amount of growth and the resulting lessening of adverse impacts, would in many cases, be environmentally superior. However, the CEQA Guidelines also require that "if the environmentally superior alternative is the `no project' alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). The Housing Center Alternative, would have less impact as it would generate less vehicle trips and VMT than the proposed Plan. The Housing Center Alternative would lead to fewer GHG emissions overall and would have less impact on air quality when compared to the proposed Plan. The Housing Center Alternative represents the environmentally superior alternative because it results in fewer impacts while achieving much of the purpose of the proposed Plan. Nonetheless, while the Housing Center Alternative represents the environmentally superior alternative, it is expected that traffic impacts from the Housing Center Alternative would remain significant and unavoidable due to the infeasibility of adding capacity at impacted intersections. In addition, since the Housing Center Alternative proposes a less diverse mix of land uses, it would result in less interaction between land uses and less opportunity for internalization of trips, walking and biking. Thus, the Housing Center Alternative would not be as successful in achieving a main purpose of the proposed Plan, which is to create a walkable mixed -use district. The Housing Center Alternative would result in a higher population and would require more public services, water, energy, and overall infrastructure compared to the proposed Plan. Since all new development under the proposed Plan would be in the form of infill development the redevelopment of existing sites — each alternative expects development on the same set of sites. Therefore, impacts are no different for many issue areas, including land use and housing, cultural resources, and all of the impacts included in the impacts not potentially significant category. ANALYSIS OF PLAN ALTERNATIVES As further documented in the EIR and these Findings, the City Council rejects adoption of either Alternative for the following reasons: The No Project Alternative would not achieve the primary objectives of the proposed Plan. By permitting redevelopment in accordance with existing planning policies and zoning, the No Project Alternative would likely fail to provide the high - intensity, mixed -use development envisioned under the proposed Plan. Accordingly, the No Project Alternative would not generate the tax benefits for the City anticipated under the proposed Plan. Compared with the proposed Plan, the No Project scenario would result in 1,337 housing units, 4,100 fewer residents, and 400 fewer jobs, at buildout. Finally, the No Project Alternative would require the City to. forego benefits of the proposed Plan. Under the No Project Alternative, it is uncertain whether the City would receive the additional tax revenue from the Plan and the public improvements associated with the Plan would not be constructed. The Housing Center Alternative would not achieve the primary objectives of the proposed Plan. The Housing Center Alternative would result in additional housing units and an EL CAMINO REAL / CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 33 EXHIBIT B - CEQA FINDINGS increased population, as compared to the proposed Plan, but substantially less retail and services uses. Accordingly, the Housing Center Alternative would generate 700 fewer jobs than the proposed Plan. This results in a less ideal jobs /housing balance for the City. Fewer retail and services uses would also result is less tax revenue for the City. It would also hinder facilitation of mixed -use and pedestrian - oriented development, and make achievement of the Grand Boulevard Initiative more difficult 16309', 2.3 EL CAMINO REAL / CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PAGE 34 Exhibit C Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit C STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093 the City Council of the City of South San Francisco adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified as significant and unavoidable in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, including related General Plan Amendments, Rezone, and Zoning Ordinance Amendments (collectively, the "Plan'. (Resolution No. ) The City Council has carefully considered each impact, has adopted all feasible mitigation measures, and has balanced the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Plan against the significant and unavoidable impact associated with the Plan. The City Council has also examined potentially feasible alternatives to the Plan, none of which would both meet most of the project objectives and result in substantial reduction or avoidance of the Plan's significant and unavoidable impacts. The City. Council hereby adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the significant and unavoidable impact of the Plan and the anticipated economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Plan. The proposed Plan is located in the area that encompasses approximately 9E acres along El Camino Real, from Southwood Drive to just north of Sequoia Avenue. The majority of the Planning Area is situated between El Camino Real and Mission Road. The right -of -way for the underground BART line runs through the length of the site. To the south of the Planning Area is the South El Camino Real sub -area and the City of San Bruno. The Area currently has one regional use, Kaiser Medical Center, two aging shopping centers, and the Municipal Services Building. However, several opportunity sites, which include vacant and underutilized sites, as well as sites owned by the City of South San Francisco, present the greatest development opportunities within the Planning Area, and are the focus of the proposed Plan. The proposed Plan aims to transform the Planning Area into a new walkable, distinctive, mixed -use district at the geographic center of South San Francisco. A network of open spaces will form the armature of new development. New streets and pedestrian connections will extend through the area, enabling easy movement on foot. The BART right -of -way that extends through the length of the Planning Area will be transformed into a linear park and a pedestrian- oriented "Main Street", lined with restaurants, cafes, and outdoor seating in a portion of the right -of -way. Development will be at high densities, reflecting adjacent transit access. The proposed Plan envisions a new neighborhood of up to 4,400 residents housed in low- to high -rise buildings. It will provide a range of commercial uses; walking access to everyday amenities; new civic uses, potentially including a new City Library; and parks, plazas, and gathering spaces for the entire South San Francisco community. Taller residential buildings will have townhouses at the lower level with individual entrances oriented to streets, particularly key pedestrian routes. Parking will be below grade or in structures, enabling efficient use of land. El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Page 1 Exhibit C — Statement of Overriding Considerations The proposed Plan includes amendments to the existing General Plan land use classifications. The General Plan High Density Residential land use classification would be amended to allow higher density development within the Planning Area. In addition, the proposed Plan introduces two new land use classifications: El Camino Real Mixed Use North, High Intensity and El Camino Real Mixed Use North, Medium Intensity. In addition to these, the Plan applies the existing General Plan Public, and Park and Recreation land use classifications to sites in the Planning Area. In addition to land use classifications and designations, amendments will also be made to the General Plan to allow for increased building height within the Planning Area. New policies in the Transportation and Parks, Public Facilities, and Services elements incorporate transportation improvements and additional parkland policies included in the proposed Plan. High Density Residential.- This designation is intended to accommodate high - density residential development on the vacant property south of the intersection of Grand Avenue and Mission Road. Up to 120 units per acre are permitted and a minimum density of 80 units per acre is required. Maximum density may be increased to 180 units per acre may be achieved for development meeting specified criteria. El Camino Real Mixed Use North, High Intensity. This designation is intended to accommodate high- intensity active uses and mixed -use development. Retail and department stores; eating and drinking establishments; hotels; commercial recreation; financial, business, and personal services; residential; educational and social services; and office uses are permitted. Within this designation, the ground floor frontage of a site along El Camino Real, Chestnut Avenue and Oak Avenue is required to accommodate active uses. El Camino Real Mixed Use North, Medium Intensity: This designation is intended to accommodate high- intensity active uses and mixed -use development. Retail and department stores; eating and drinking establishments; hotels; commercial recreation; financial, business, and personal services; residential; educational and social services; and office uses are permitted. The proposed Plan includes an amendment to Division III: Specific and Area Plan Districts of the Zoning Ordinance. The amendment includes a new chapter (Chapter 20.270 El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan District) for Division III. The new El Camino Real /Chestnut District includes the following three sub - districts: El Camino Real /Chestnut Mixed Use, High Density (ECR /C -MXIi), El Camino Real /Chestnut Mixed Use, Medium Density (ECR /C -MYM), and El Camino Real /Chestnut Residential, High Density (ECR /C- RH). The proposed District establishes the use regulations, standards and development review procedures needed to implement the proposed Plan. The proposed land use regulations establish permitted, permitted after review and approval of a Minor Use Permit by the Chief Planner, and permitted after review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission uses within the Planning Area. In addition, the proposed District includes development standards such as lot size and width, FAR, density, height, yards, building form, open space, active frontage, and parking and loading that will apply to development within the Planning Area. In addition, figures showing maps will be amended in Chapter 20.250 Transit Village Plan District to exclude the area, which will be part of the proposed District. In addition, Section 20.300.012 will be amended to clarify electrical El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Page 2 Exhibit C — Statement of Overriding Considerations equipment and the definition of active uses will be added to Chapter 20.360 Terms and Definitions. The City Council hereby adopts specific overriding considerations for the impacts listed below that are identified in the EIR as significant and unavoidable. The City Council believes the unavoidable environmental effect identified in the EIR will be substantially lessened by policies adopted with the original General Plan approval and by the policies adopted through the current Plan approval. Even with these policies, however, the City Council recognizes that the implementation of the Plan carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified in the EIR. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent the identified adverse or potentially adverse impact for the Project has not been reduced to an acceptable level, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use, and other considerations that support approval of the Plan. 2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts. The following significant and unavoidable environmental impact has been identified in the El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Environmental Impact Report: TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Impact 3.1 -1: Future development under the proposed Plan, along with regional population and employment growth, would cause an increase in traffic and would cause intersection LOS standard established by the General Plan to be exceeded. (Si gnaficant and Unavoidable) Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact: The Transportation Element of the General Plan establishes traffic operations and Level of Service standards. The existing policies include 4.2 -G -8, 4.2 -G -9, 4.2 -G -5, 4.2 -G -6, 4.2 -G -10, 4.2 -I -2, 4.3 -G -1, 4.3 -G -2, 4.3- G-4, 4.3 -I -10, 4.3 -I -1, 4.3 -I -2, 4.3 -I -4, 4.3 -I -8. In addition, several policies in the Land Use Element support transit - otiented development and the implementation of TDM programs, including 2 -G -7, 2 -G -8, 2 -I -4. The City of South San Francisco also adopted the Bicycle Transportation Plan, which contains goals that promote and encourage bicycle transportation. The proposed policies C -1, C -2, C -3, C -4, C -5, C-6, Mitigation Measures: The following improvements are required in order to mitigate the project's impact at the following intersections: • El Camino Real /McLellan Boulevard. Construct third southbound lane along El Camino • Real. This mitigation would require the widening of 1 Camino Real and would require the taking of residential land on the west side of El Camino Real. There exists a significant grade difference between the homes and the sidewalk along El Camino Real. • El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue. Construct second eastbound right turn lane and second eastbound left turn lane. This mitigation would require an additional two lanes along Westborough Boulevard /Chestnut Avenue. This mitigation would require the taking of property from a gas station and would result in loss of parking for Pacific Supermarket. El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Page 3 Exhibit C — Statement of Overriding Considerations • El Camino Real /Orange Boulevard. Construct second westbound right turn lane and restripe eastbound approach to a left turn lane and a shared through lane /right turn lane. This mitigation would require the taking of property from Mr. Pizza Man. • Mission Road /Oak Avenue. The westbound approach could be mitigated by removing several on street parking spaces and striping a dedicated left turn lane and a shared through /right turn lane. A traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted at this intersection, but the projected AM and PM peak hour volumes do not meet the peak hour warrant analysis; therefore, a traffic signal is not a practical mitigation. It is possible for an unsignalized intersection to not meet signalization warrants while having one or more movements not meeting the City LOS standard. The signal warrant considers a balance between major street and minor street delays, and may indicate an overall benefit of long delays for the minor street if the major street experiences no additional delays. At this intersection, while the lower volume traffic along Oak Avenue may experience long delays, there would not be an overall benefit if the higher volume traffic along Mission Road is stopped in favor in of the Oak Avenue traffic. Additional travel lanes would have to be constructed at this intersection to result in an acceptable level of service, which would require additional right -of way. • Mission Road /Chestnut Avenue. Construct eastbound right turn lane. This mitigation would require additional right of way from park land or existing residential development. Funding: The mitigations necessary to reduce impacts to .:less than significant levels are incapable of being accomplished, given economic, environmental, legal and technological factors. The Planning Area and adjacent area is an urbanized area that is already fully developed with operating businesses. The acquisition of such property for additional travel lanes would be prohibitively costly given the expense associated with acquiring the land, costs of relocating businesses, and payment for loss of business good will. The widening of streets directly conflicts with the project's vision, which is to make the area into a walkable, distinctive, mixed –use district. Also, additional travel lanes conflict with the El Camino Real Master Plan, which focuses on expanding pedestrian facilities, and the Guiding Principles adopted by the Grand Boulevard Task Force as part of the Grand Boulevard Initiative, which aims to transform El Camino Real into a smart growth corridor. The mitigation would conflict with General Plan Policy 3.4 -G -5 Encourage the implementation of the Guiding Principles of the Grand Boulevard Initiative as adopted by the Grand Boulevard Task Force in April of 2007. These mitigations would be contrary to the purpose of the proposed Plan, which is to create a vibrant, mixed use neighborhood that is pedestrian oriented and walkable. The LOS standard used in this analysis relates only to vehicular traffic and only takes into account the transportation system experience of automobile drivers. Widening approaches to increase LOS would benefit automobile drivers but often result in overly -wide streets and intersections that are difficult for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross, and could result in narrowing of sidewalks. These changes would potentially result in worsened conditions for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users. Given that the mitigation measures are in El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Page 4 Exhibit C Statement of Ove rriding Considerations contravention to the proposed Plan and other planning efforts, as well as economically and technologically infeasible, the impact remains significant and unavoidable. 3. Overriding Considerations. The City Council now balances the unavoidable impacts that apply to the development of the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, against its benefits, and hereby determines that such unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the Plan, as further set forth below. The following specific economic, legal,' social, technological, land use, and other considerations support approval of the Plan: A. The Plan is expected, at buildout, to generate a new source of significant tax revenue and development impact fees for City. Additionally, at full build out the Plan is expected to accommodate 4,400 additional residents, and 2,500 jobs, and help achieve the greatest jobs /housing balance of all alternatives considered. B. The existing physical environment consists of many vacant and underdeveloped parcels, with limited sidewalks and minim site improvements, and which lack amenities. The proposed Plan will include additional amenities and improvements, such as open space areas, Centennial Way park and bikepath, and a civic plaza. The proposed Plan includes development and design standards that will encourage all future buildings to be built to the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System standard and also provide landscaping and lighting for the property and improve the overall aesthetic character of the site. C. The proposed Plan will implement the City's vision of El Camino Real as an urban, pedestrian- friendly, transit- oriented corridor for residents to live, work, shop, and play, consistent with the City's support of the Grand Boulevard Initiative which encourages mixed -use development and high - quality urban design along El Camino Real. D. The proposed Plan will allow the City to proactively address issues identified in the State of California 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32) and the State's greenhouse gas emissions law (SB375). The Plan is expected to achieve a reduction in per capita emissions and emissions per service population as compared to the No Project Alternative. E. The proposed Plan, including new zoning, will eliminate out -of -date land use policies and regulations in the Area, limit sprawl by promoting additional development intensity and density in a developed area (infill), link transportation, land use, redevelopment, and economic development by promoting mixed -use redevelopment in an area that is well served by bus transit and has direct access to BART, promote high- quality development by implementing development and design standards that stress urban design, open space, and pedestrian- oriented details, and promote a mix of local- serving and regional commercial uses. F. The proposed Plan is designed to promote the use of public transit by adopting incentives for residents and employees to use alternative modes of transportation and increase ridership on BART and shuttle service to downtown South San El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Page 5 Exhibit C — Statement of Overriding Considerations Francisco and the East of 101 Area employers. The development and design standards includes a lower parking ratio, as well as constructing pedestrian walkways linking the future developments to shuttle stops and bikepaths. G. The proposed Plan incorporates a series of area -wide infrastructure improvements will take place to accommodate residential and mixed -use development; improve circulation, and provide open space amenities. Most of the Focus Area is undeveloped and requires the most public infrastructure. Implementation of the Area Plan will require the following infrastructure improvements: • Mid -block pedestrian connections, streetscape improvements and enhanced pedestrian crossings • Parks and Open Space (including a civic plaza) • Extension of water mains and relocation of existing sewer lines • Potential relocation of the PG&E transmission line and overhead electrical lines in Antoinette Lane • Oak Avenue Extension H. The proposed Plan provides specific policy guidance for implementation of its initiatives and establishes a basis for coordinated action by the City. The policies in each section of the Plan provide details that will guide program development. 1635707.1 El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Page 6 Exhibit D Map of Kaiser Permanente Parcels 1679317.1 PLANNING AREA . -; . 5•�t1� tip. Kaiser Parcels Park/Open'Space Planning Area Boundary BART Canal . I , r U FEET