Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso RDA 10-1989 RESOLUTION NO. 10-89 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM FOR MITIGATION MEASURES INCLUDED IN THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco, (the "Agency") as lead agency has prepared an Environmental Impact Report {the "EIR") for the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project; and WHEREAS, the draft EIR has been prepared and circulated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the state CEQA Guidelines, and the Agency's Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (the "Agency's Procedures"); and WHEREAS, the Agency received public comments on the draft EIR at a duly ,~ noticed regularly scheduled meeting of the Agency on February 8, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Agency has certified in Resolution No. 6-89 adopted on May 10, 1989, that the final EIR, relating to the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project and responding to the concerns raised during the review period and at the public hearing, has been prepared pursuant to CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Agency's Procedures; and WHEREAS, the Agency has certified in Resolution No. 6-89 adopted on May 10, 1989, that the information contained in the final EIR for the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project has been reviewed and considered by the members of the Agency; and WHEREAS, the final EIR incorporates certain mitigation measures which are to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment and the Agency wishes to adopt a program for reporting and monitoring the implementation of such mitigation measures pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco that: 1. The Agency hereby finds and determines that the implementation of the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project may have a significant effect on the environment. --- 2. The Agency hereby finds with respect to the adverse environmental impacts detailed in the EIR that: (a) based on information set forth in the EIR and in the Statement of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measuresj detailed in Attachment "A", the Agency finds and determines that changes or alterations have been required in. or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the adverse environmental effects identified in the EIR for: (i) Transportation, Circulation and Parking: (ii) Land Use and Plan Consistency; (iii) Employment, Housing & Population; (iv) Hydrology and Water Quality; (v) Toxic Materials; (vi) Noise: (vii) Air Quality; (viii) Public Services and Utilities; (ix) Energy; (x) Aesthetics/Light and Glare; (xi) Cultural Resources; and (xii) Vegetation and Wildlife; (b) based on information set forth in the EIR and in the Statement of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures, the adverse environmental effects relate to traffic and air quality at the intersection of Gateway and East Grand Avenue and at the intersection of Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard cannot be entirely mitigated; (c) based on information set forth in the EIR and in the Statement of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures, further changes and alterations necessary to mitigate the significant impacts for law enforcement are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of South San Francisco and are reasonably expected to be adopted if and when required; (d) no additional adverse impacts will have a significant effect or result in a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment as a result of the proposed Redevelopment Plan. 3. The Agency hereby finds and determines that all signficiant environmental effects identified in the EIR have been reduced to an acceptable level in that: (a) all signficiant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened as determined through the findings set forth in paragraphs 3(a) and 3(c) of this resolution; {b) based upon the EIR and the Statement of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures and other documents in the record, specific economic, social and other considerations make infeasible other Project alternatives identified in the EIR; (c) based upon the EIR and the Statement of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures and other documents in the record, all remaining, unavoidable significant environmental effects of the proposed Redevelopment Plan are overriden by the benefits of the project as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, detailed in Attachment "B", which Statement of Overriding Considerations is hereby approved and adopted. -2= 4. The Agency hereby authorizes and directs that a reporting and monitoring program for mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and contained in Attachment "C" be implemented. 5. The Agency hereby authorizes and directs that a Notice of Determination with respect to the EIR pertaining to the approval of the Redevelopment Plan and all other actions in furtherance thereof be filed. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced a nd adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of June , 1989, by the following vote: AYES: Redevelopment Agency Boardmembers Mark N. Addiego, Jack Drago, Richard A. Haffey, Gus Nicolopulos, and Chairwoman Roberta Cerri Teglia NOES: ~None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None City of South San Franc~sco ~-~ATTEST: ~4~l~'~AgenCyOf~~Ci~y Redevelopment of South San Francisco -3- ATTACHlqEI~ "A" RESOLUTION NO. 10-89 AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. The Redevelopment Agency finds that the initial environmental review of the Redevelopment Plan Project proposal revealed the potential for significant adverse environmental effects resulting from the project. A Draft EIR was submitted to the State Office of Planning and Research for review by the State Clearinghouse. The Final EIR which included all comments and complete responses was submitted to the Redevelopment Agency and was certified at a noticed public meeting on May 10, 1989. B. The Redevelopment Agency finds that significant effects and mitigation measures have been identified in the Environmental Impact Report for the Redevelopment Plan as described in Attachment "A" Summary of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures. C. The Redevelopment Agency finds that the significant environmental impacts identified in the EIR are mitigated to a less than significant level except for the specific impacts identified in Attachment "B" Statement of Overriding Considerations. These unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects either have not been mitigated to acceptable levels through imposition of mitigation measures or involve significant effects for which there are risks of not mitigating to acceptable levels because of jurisdictional or other institutional reasons. D. The Redevelopment Agency finds that the mitigation measures for significant environmental effects as presented in Attachment "A" Summary of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures will be monitored through a Mitigation Monitoring Program as described in Attachment "C" Mitigation Monitoring Program to ensure that the mitigation measures are implemented as recommended in the EIR. Attachment "A" Summary Of Significant Environmental Effect~ and Mitigation Measures LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Without With Mitigation Mitigation .2.1 Transportation, Circulation and Parking 1. Impact - Vehicle Trip Generation Significant Less Than Significant Gross increase in vehicle travel produced by the Project ranges from 4,600 (year 2000) to 5,400 (year 2020) PM peak hour vehicle trips. This repre- sents 36% and 40% of the total future increases, respectively. Mitigation - Required · Peak hour trip reduction through aggressive traf- fic demand management program. · Peak Hour vehicle trip reduction through public transit improvements. · Emphasis on land uses with relatively Iow peak- hour traffic generation. 2. Impact - Intersection Traffic Volumes Significant Less Than Significant Peak hour volumes will increase by 0-16% at the ~ key intersections. Mitigation - Required · Same as under "Vehicle Trip Generation' plus the following: · New roadway connection between Forbes and Oyster Point Boulevards (benefits intersections in ~ southern portion of study area). · New roadway connection between N. Canal Street and San Mateo Avenue (feasibility to be determined). 3. Impact · Intersection Service Levels Significant Significant (LOS of E Four of the key intersections will experience ser- remaining at vice levels worse than D for at lease one of the Grand/Airport peak periods. Two intersections (Gateway/E. Gateway/E. Grand) Grand and San Mateo/Airport) would operate at level F. Summary Of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Without With Mitigation Mitigation 1.2.1 Transportation, Circulation and Parking (Cont.) Mitigation - Required · Same as under "intersection Traffic Volumes" plus the following: - Intersection channel_ization improvements at Gateway/F_. Grand. -Upgraded traffic signals at: - Airport/Linden - Linden/Hillside - Linden/Miller - Spruce/Grand - Grand/Linden -- - Grand/Maple - Spruce/Baden - Spruce/Railroad - Linden/Baden · New traffic signals at: - Oyster Point/New Road connecting Forbes and Oyster Point - Forbes/New Road connecting Forbes and Oyster Point - E. Grand/Littlefield - N. Canal/Linden 4. Impact - Major Local Roadways Significant Less Than Significant Traffic will increase on major arteries such as Oyster Point Boulevard, E. Grand Avenue, Airport Boulevard, Gateway Boulevard, and Produce Avenue. Mitigation - Required · Extension of Hillside Bird to Oyster Blvd. · Widening of Airport Bird in conjunction with new Oyster Point Interchange. · Widening of Oyster Point Bird from 4 to 6 lanes between the new Oyster Point Interchange and Gateway Blvd. · Restriping of Harbor Way. · Plus mitigation measures listed under "Vehicle Trip Generation.' 5. Impact - Downtown Parking Significant Less Than Significant Increased demand for public parking in downtown. Mitigation - Required _ - · Construction of about 800 new public parking spaces in downtown. - Expansion of Parking District boundary and im- proved parking management. 2 Summary Of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Without With Mitigation Mitigation 1.2.2 Land Use and Plan Consistency 6. Impact - Land Use Conflicts Significant Less Than Significant Potential impacts could arise from specific place- ment of projected land use development with respect to existing land uses. Mitigation - Required Require further study of all specific projects proposed under the Redevelopment Plan and im- plementation of identified mitigation measures on a project-by-project basis. 7. Impact - Relationship to Plans Significant Less Than Significant Potential conflicts with General Plan designations could arise from proposed project under the Redevelopment Plan which are inconsistent with General Plan land use designations or goals. .... Mitigation - Required Require ail projects proposed under the Redevelopment Plan to conform to General Plan land use designations and to the land use goals. 8. Impact- Relationship to Plans Significant less Than Significant Project proposed under the Redevelopment Plan could affect the usability of adjacent open space through nuisance impacts such as noise or odors. Mitigation - Required Proposals in subareas 2A, 5 and 6A should be reviewed for potential effects on the adjacent Open Spaces. 9. Impact - Relationship to Plans Significant Less Than Significant Individual projects proposed under the Redevelop- ment Plan could be inconsistent with the zoning or- dinance for the parcel upon which they would be located. Mitigation - Required Review each proposal for consistency with ap- plicable zoning ordinance. 10. Impact - Relationship to Plans Significant Less Than Significant Developments proposed within BCDC jurisdiction could be inconsistent with the San Francisco Bay Plan. Mitigation - Required All proposals in subareas 2A, 5 and 6A should be reviewed by BCDC, 3 Summary Of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Without With Mitigation Mitigation .2.2 Land Use and Plan Consletency (Cont.} 11. Impact - Relationship to Plans Significant Less Than Significant Projects proposed under the Redevelopment Plan could be inconsistent with the San Francisco Air- port Plan. Mitigation - Required Any project proposed under the Redevelopment Plan which could be sensitive to airport noise should be reviewed by the airport authority. 1.2.4 Geology, Soils & Selemlclty 12. Impact - Grading Significant Less Than Significant Landslides exist that could be reactivated by grad- ing, landscape irrigation, or placement of hillside fills in the hillside portions of, and adjacent to Sub- areas 1, 2a and 2b. Mitigation - Required Grading Permits would require site specific geotechnical studies to demonstrate site stability or techniques to produce a stable site. 13. Impact - Grading Significant Less Than Significant Graded earth materials could erode into nearby- waters, thereby endangering habitat or increasing flood hazards in portions of the Subareas adjacent to drainageways (3, 4 and 5) or the Bay (2a, 2c, 5 and 6a). Mitigation - Required An Erosion and Sediment Transport Control Plan would be required as part of the Grading Permit. 14. Impact- Grading Significant Less Than Significant At least 60,000 cubic yards of material would be needed to fill the channels between the wharves in Subarea 5, with potential to damage or destroy ad- jacent tidal-flat habitat. Mitigation - Required Permits would be required from the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the City to deter- mine if filling meets the criteria for land uses ap- propriate to the Bay Margin, Section 404 (Clean Water Act) requirements for adjacent wetland protection or replacement, and all attendant erosion and sediment transport control measures and site/slope stability measures. 4 -- Summary Of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Without With Mitigation Mitigation 1.2.4 G®ology, Soils & Selsmicity (Cont.) 15. Impact - Construction Over Bay Mud Significant Less Than Significant With the exception of Subarea 2b, some portion of each Subarea is underlain by Bay mud, which can compress or shift under loading from development. This can lead to settlement of foundations and amplification of seismic vibrations, both of which would damage structures. Mitigation - Required Building Permits would require site specific geotechnical studies to demonstrate site stability or techniques to produce a stable site. 16. Impact - Construction Over Liquefiable Soils Significant Less Than Significant Liquefiable soils can turn to quicksand very rapidly during earthquakes causing settling, fracturing and overturning of buildings supported on them. Mitigation - Required -- Building Permits would require site specific geotechnical studies to demonstrate site stability or techniques to produce a stable site. 17. Impact - Construction in Areas Subject to Severe Significant Less Than Significant Groundshaking - Groundshaking during a maximum credible earthquake would be very strong to violent, caus- ing varying amounts of damage at sites with poten- tially unstable subsoils (such as Bay mud and li- quefiable sands) depending on the type of struc- ture on-site. Mitigation - Required Building permits require the standards for anti-seis- mic construction specified by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements for Seismic Zone 4. Additionally, the City could consider restricting the type of structure permitted on each site to the one with the lowest damage potential. 1.2.5 Hydrology and Watar Quality 18. Impact - Water Quality Significant Less Than Significant Construction activities could degrade water quality. Mitigation - Required Development and implementation of a spill preven- tion plan and erosion and sedimentation control plan. 5 Summary Of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Without With Mitigation Mitigation 1.2.5 Hydrology and Watar Quality (Cont.) 19. Impact - Water Quality Significant Less Than Significant Some development under the proposed project would handle and transport toxic materials. An ac- cidental release of toxic materials could con- taminate surface water and groundwater. Mitigation - Required Compliance with federal, State and local regula- tions governing the use, handling, and transport of toxic materials. Effective monitoring and Iow enfor- cement. 20. Impact - Sea Level Significant Less Than Significant A long-run rise in sea level is presently forecast. Mitigation - Required The potential rise should be taken into account during design of drainage and shoreline improve- ments. 1.2.6 Toxic Matarlals 21. Impact - General Significant Less Than Significant Although the analysis conducted for this program EIR concludes thatthe overall risk of toxic impact on development from existing environmental condi- tions is less than significant, site specific impacts from existing conditions may remain for develop- ment associated with the proposed project. It should be noted that remediation programs for par- ticular parcels could increase the time and cost of that site's development. Mitigation - Required Detailed toxicological site assessments should be incorporated into the development program of each project proposed within the project area. 6 Summary Of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Without With Mitigation Mitigation 1.2.6 Toxic Materlall (Cont.) Mitigation - Recommended Information concerning the types and amount of toxic/hazardous materials on or adjacent to an area is an essential took toward minimizing and preventing exposure to a community. Given the presence of toxics within the existing environment, it is recommended that an appropriate database be assembled containing information relevant to minimizing and preventing toxic exposure to the present and future community. Due to the potential increase in time and cost of a remediation program for a particular site, it is recommended that the agency undertake ap- propriate advance planning for these contingen- cies. Impact- Cumulative Significant Less Than Significant Cumulative impacts would be the same as those discussed under the proposed project. Mitigation - Required Mitigation would be the same as that for the project. The City should consider developing an Ordinance to address cumulative impacts. 1.2.7 Noise 22. Impact - Construction Significant Less Than Significant Noise would be generated during construction. Mitigation - Required Muffle or control construction equipment with a high noise potential Limit construction to daylight hours in residential areas. 1.2.8 Air Quality 23. Impact - Suspended Particulate (Construction) Significant Less Than Significant Construction activities would result in temporary lo- calized increases in small-diameter suspended particulates, termed PM10. Residents and works in South San Francisco could be exposed to levels of PM10 exceeding federal and State standards. Mitigation - Required Unpaved construction sites should be sprinkled with water at least twice per day. Stockpiles of soil, sand, and other such materials should be covered. Trucks hauling debris, soil, sand, or other such materials should also be covered. Streets surround- ing demolition and construction sites should be swept at least once per day. Paving and planting should be done as soon as possible. 7 Summary Of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Without With Mitigation Mitigation 1.2.8 Air Quality (Cont.) 24. Impact - CO and Odor (Construction) Significant Less Than Significant Construction equipment could emit air pollutant suf- ficient to cause spot violations of CO standards and odor complaints. __ Mitigation - Required Construction equipment engines should not be kept idling when not in use and should receive peri- odic maintenance, this would reduce emissions of air pollutants and, consequently, reduce the likelihood of spot violations of the CO standards _ and odor complaints. 25. Impact- Intersection CO Levels Significant Significant Project-generated traffic would cause violations of the 8-hour carbon monoxide (CO) standard at the Grand/Airport intersection and the Gateway/E. Grand intersection. Mitigation - Required Traffic flow improvements recommended by Fehr & Peers would not produce significant reductions in CO levels at the Grand/Airport and Gateway/E. Grand intersections. However, CO concentrations at the San Mateo/Airport intersection would fall below the standard if congestion were relieved there by the extension of Utah Avenue over Route 101. 26. Impact - Criteria & Toxic Emissions Significant Less Than Significant Criteria and toxic emissions from new commer- cial/industrial uses could have significant adverse impacts on sensitive receptors in South San Fran- cisco. Mitigation - Required All new commercial/industrial uses which may emit significant quantities of criteria or toxic pollutants should be covered by BAAQMD PSD permits. Such permits would regulate the emission levels of such pollutants and encourage the implementation of control measures, such as carbon absorption or catalytic oxidation of photochemically active or toxic vapors. 1.2.9 Public Services & Utilities 27. Impact - Police Significant Less Than Significant It would be necessary to add an additional beat amounting to at least seven personnel, a patrol unit, and a motorcycle. Additional parking enforce- ment officers may be required. Cumulative impacts may require additional resources. 8 1 ~ '1 Summ~ry Of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Without With Mitigation Mitigation 1.2.9 Public Services & Utilities (Cont.) Mitigation - Required Development would be required to comply with the City's Municipal Code, "Minimum Building Security Standards' Ordinance; It would be necessary to fund the additional resources required. The Depart- ment should undertake advance planning to ad- dress cumulative impacts. 28. Impact - Parks & Recreation Significant Less Than Significant The project would require the dedication or in-lieu fee payment equivalents_to about one acre of parkland. Cumulative development would require the same equivalent to about 15 acres of parkland. Mitigation - Required Compliance with the City's Parkland Dedication In- Lieu Fee Ordinance would be required. 1.2.11 Aesthetics/Light and Glare 29. Impact- Utility Undergrounding Significant Less Than Significant Temporary construction impacts should be fol- lowed. Construction staging areas should be con- fined to specified areas and screened from view. Vegetation should be replaced on a per tree/shrub removed or on a per square foot basis. Mitigation - Required Proper construction practices should be followed. Construction staging areas should be confined to specified areas and screened from view. Vegeta- tion should be replaced on a per tree/shrub removed or on a per square foot basis. 30. Impact - Shoreline Restoration Significant Less Than Significant Creekside public improvements to San Bruno Creek and Colma Creek and the filling of the "fingers' and restoration of the Bayfront proposed for Subarea 5 could create significant impacts. Mitigation - Required The rehabilitation and restoration should replicate to the degree possible the water features' natural condition, and remedial planting should be used as necessary to restore the visual quality of the area. 31. Impact - Light and Glare Significant Less Than Significant Exterior lighting associated with non-residential construction could have significant impacts. 9 Summary Of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Without With Mitigation Mitigation 1.2.11 Aeethetlcs/Llght and Glare (Cont.) Mitigation - Required Lighting should be focussed and directional, and it should provide adequate safety and security without undue spillover to adjacent land uses. The City should consider developing development standards to guide lighting design. 32. Impact Visual Quality Significant Less Than Significant New development could adversely affect visual quality through poor design. Mitigation - Required The City should develop design standards that recommend building height, bulk, mass, exterior materials, colors and finishes that create the level of visual quality desired by the City and that eliminate significant visual quality design impacts. Such standards should also prescribe appropriate plant materials, fence and wall heights and materials, sign guidelines, maximum percentages for landscaped slopes, and landscaping design guidelines for parking lots. 1.2.13 Vegetation and Wildlife 33. Impact - Loss of Habitats Significant' Less Than Significant Loss of salt marsh and mudflat habitats. Mitigation - Required The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) should be consulted prior to approval of any specific project in Subareas 2a, 5 and 6a, where wetlands or mudflats exist, to determine if a Section 404 permit is required for any filling of wetlands. If such a per- mit is required additional mitigation measures may be required. Early consultations with the Bay Area Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) is also recommended to aid in this process. 34. Impact - Loss of Habitats Significant Less Than Significant Loss of wildlife habitats of sensitive species. --10-- S.mmary Of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Without With Mitigation Mitigation 1.2.13 Vegetation -,nd Wildlife (Cont.) Mitigation - Required Habitats suitable for the existence of endangered species such as the salt marsh harvest mouse should be surveyed by a qualified biologist to determine the presence, if any, of sensitive species. If any rare wildlife species are found to be present steps should be taken to develop mitiga- tion measures which will ensure their protection or avoid any impacts through project redesign. Early consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should be initiated by project proponents to deter- mine appropriate mitigation methods if sensitive species are found. --11 -- ATTACHlq:ENT "B" RESOLUTION NO. 10-89 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS A. The South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency finds that although the following significant effects identified in the EIR are mitigated, that these significant effects either have not been mitigated to acceptable levels or involve significant effects for which there are risks of not mitigating to acceptable levels because of jurisdictional or other institutional reasons. The Agency finds that in balancing the significant effects and risks against the benefits of the proposed project, that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects and risks, and that the adverse environmental effects and risks are, therefore, acceptable. B. The following significant adverse environmental effects of the proposed project are unavoidable: 1. The project would have unavoidable significant traffic impacts upon the intersections of Gateway/East Grand Avenue and Grand/Airport. 2. The project would generate traffic causing violation of the S-hour carbon monoxide (CO) standard at the Grand/Airport intersection and the Gateway/East Grand Avenue intersection. 3. The project would add to cumulative traffic levels in eastern South San Francisco ranging from a gross increase of 4,600 trigs (year 2000) to 5,400 trips (year 2020). 4. The project would result in unavoidable cumulative air quality impacts due to traffic generation. C. To the extent that the foregoing significant adverse environmental effects are not mitigated by the mitigation measures set forth in Attachment "A" - Statement of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures and in Attachment "C" - Mitigation Monitoring Program, the Agency finds that the following benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects and risks of the proposed project= 1. The creation of local jobs in the community, including construction jobs for on-site and off-site improvements, and approximately 12,430 jobs in industrial, office, retail sales and services to residents of the community and region. 2. An.increase in tax revenUes to the City over the 35 years of the Project. 3. Redevelopment and rehabilitation of blighted properties within the Redevelopment Area. 4. Expansion of the Cityts industrial, office, and commercial economic base. 5. Construction of needed utility and circulation improvements including new and upgraded traffic lights~ new roadway connections between Forbes and Oyster Point Boulevards and North Canal Street and San Mateo Avenue~ undergrounding of utilities~ and upgrading sewer and storm drainage facilities throughout the Redevelogment Area. ..... 6. To expand the retail component of the Downtown, providing diversification of offerings and encouraging major outlets as a draw to new shoppers. 7. Such other benefits as have been described in the redevelopment plan, project staff reports, and public hearings. ~_ 8. Improvement of quality and expanded quantity of affordable housing in the community as a result of the expenditure of the 20% housing set-aside funds. __ 9. The construction of about 800 new public parking spaces in Downtown. D. The Agency acknowledges that with respect to significant effects as they relate to increases in traffic by the proposed project, that the ability of the City to impose new fees or require contributions for off-site traffic improvements and new facilities may be constrained by: ~ 1. The necessity of obtaining the cooperation and concurrence of other responsible agencies, 2. The absence of enabling City legislation authorizing the imposition of transportation or traffic fees and requirements, or 3. The infeasibility of imposing such fees and requirements without jeopardizing the economic viability of the proposed project and the benefits to the City set forth hereinabove. The existence of these possible constraints and methods for overcoming them, if they exist, should be considered in the course of further design of the proposed projects within the Redevelopment Area. The Agency finds that in balancing the benefits of the proposed project to the city against these significant effects and their adverse environmental risks, that the benefits outweigh the adverse effects and environmental risks, and that the significant effects and environmental risks are, therefore, acceptable. E. The Agency further finds that prior to the approval of any other permits or entitlements for projects within the Redevelopment Area, the scope of traffic related impacts such as those described above, can be further analyzed and additional mitigation measures imposed. F. The Agency further finds that all significant adverse environmental effects set forth in the EIR and in Attachment "A" - Statement of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures which are not avoided or substantially mitigated by the mitigation measures set forth in Attachment "A" - Statement of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures and Attachment "C" - Mitigation Monitoring Program involve environmental risks which when balanced against the benefits of the proposed project, are outweighed by the benefits, and that the adverse environmental effects and risks are, therefore, -- acceptable. ATTACHMENT "C" RESOLUTION NO. 10-89 DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Prepared for the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco Prepared by EIP Associates 150 Spear Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94510 415/546-0600 June, 1989 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION i MITIGATION MONITORING MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION ii MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ii 1.2.1 Transportation, Circulation and Parking 1 1.2.2 Land Use and Plan Consistency 3 1.2.4 Geology, Soils and Seismicity 4 1.2.5 Hydrology and Water Quality 7 1.2.6 Toxic Materials 8 1.2.7 Noise 9 1.2.8 Air Quality 9 __ 1.2.9 Public Services and Utilities 10 1.2.11 Aesthetics/Light and Glare 11 1.2.13 Vegetation and Wildlife 12 INTRODUCTION Back~'ound Mitigation monitoring or reporting programs are required for all environmental impact repons (EIRs) and mitigated negative declarations due to the enactment of Assembly Bill (AB) 3180. AB3180 (Statutes 1988, Chapter 1232) became effective on January 1, 1989. AB3180 adds a major step to the CEQA environmental documentation process, and applies to all public agencies. A public agency must adopt an EIR or a mitigated negative declaration when approving a discretionary project that could significantly affect the environment in an adverse manner. The monitoring or reporting program is intended to ensure the implementation of measures that public agencies impose to mitigate or avoid the significant adverse impacts identified in an environmental document. Adoption of the monitoring program is to occur when a public agency makes its findings for EIRs or when adopting mitigated negative declaration. There is no statutory requirement that a monitoring program have public review prior to being presented to the approving public agency. AB 3180 does not provide state reimbursement for implementing the mitigation monitoring requirements because local agencies have the authority to levy fees sufficient to pay for such programs. Local agencies might recover the monitoring and reporting costs through charging a service fee pursuant to Government Code sections 65104 and 54990 et seq. The purpose of this mitigation monitoring program is to present a thorough approach for monitoring the implementation of the measures identified in the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report which mitigate the identified significant impacts. The monitoring program addresses the development of individual projects within the redevelopment area. The monitoring program identifies each mitigation measure of a significant environmental impact and specifies the following: o monitoring actions o responsible agencies to conduct the monitoring and reporting o the frequency of monitoring o the frequency of reporting the outcome of monitoring activities o sanctions to be imposed for noncompliance required mitigation measures. o type of monitoring The Planning Division will coordinate the setup of the program and act as the clearinghouse for the mitigation monitoring repons. - MITIGATION MONITORING MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION Thc proposed Redevelopment Plan and the projects anticipated within the redevelopment area consist of light industrial, office, commercial, residential and public uses. The expected buildout of the redevelopment project area is unspecified. Consequently, a specific time frame for the implementation of the mitigation measures cannot be determined at this time. The monitoring program will remain operative until all required mitigations are implemented and the monitoring actions are complete. Overall coordination of the monitoring and reporting program will be carried out by the Planning Division. Responsible monitoring agencies are designated for each mitigation measure.- The responsible agency is to manage the implementation of the monitoring actions assigned to it and ensure that timely reports are forwarded Planning Division. In some instances outside agencies such as the Department of Fish and Game and the Army Corps of Engineers plays a specific role in monitoring mitigation measures that are related to their respective authorities and.49ermit requu'ements. The developer also plays a role in submitting and implementing plans and that respond to mitigation requirements, and providing required information. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The mitigation monitoring program is contained in a table format. Monitorin.g activities typically are of three types: 1) review of plans and penmt applications to ensure that mitigation measures are incorporated in project design and/or construction operauons; 2) site inspection during or following construction to certify that mitigation activities are being adhered to or have bee. n constructed; and' 3) ongoing monitoring to ensure that mitigating facilities are operational according to standards. Responsible monitoring agencies are designated for each mitigation measure. The frequency of monitoring is directly related to the type of mitigation measure and monitoring activity that is required, and is specified in the program. The frequency of reporting on compliance with the mitigation measures is usually on an annual basis, upon completion of mitigation measures, or upon issuance of certificates of occupancy for a phase of the project. The timing of the reporting is also specified in the program. Sanctions for noncompliance in implementing the required mitigation measures for the project are recommended. Noncompliance sanctions consist of applying the permit requirement and building code enforcement powers of the City, along with application review and approval determinations, and nonissuance of certificates of occupancy. Additional sanctions may be applied by the City as appropriate. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT .,....~.. .., .,...... ..... - '-', .- · · · . . ',.:.'..;:.. . .....:. - '--'-'::!.:::i:i -.'. .: ....." · - Aooms' ' ':s-"": ':"::": '":'":' '~':': ............... Address File No. Mitigation Monitoring Summary ' Mitigation Completed Sublect - Mitigation Reguired and Acceptable Yes No Yes Date Land Use r'-J J~J r--J Traffic / Parking F'"] Public Services F'~ r~ F"] Utilities r'-'l F'-I F'-] Hazardous Materials ['~ F-~ Visua~ I'--1 I--! I'-1 Cultural Resources ~ [--'] [~] soils, Geo~y !--I I"-I r-! Drainage r'~ r-'-] r-~ Vegetation Wildlife Air Quality F-~ Noise r~ ~ F-] = Other (Specify) * See Compliance Report, Sheet CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MITIGATION MONITORING COMPLIANCE REPORT File No.: Project: A.P. No. Subject Category: ~ EIR Sch. No. ~ Neg. Dec. Type of Mitigation: ~ Application ~ Construction ~ Ongoing Mitigation Statement: Mitigation Performance Standard: Responsibility to Implement Mitigation: Responsibility to Assess Compliance: Date of Inspection: ":' BY:' Compliance:..-. · ..... :,]--"] Acceptable ~ Unacceptable · (Further Action Required - see below) Action Required for Compliance (Describe): (Attach Mitigation Monitoring Verification Report) Responsibility for Compliance Determination: Timing for Compliance Determination: Signed: Date: Sheet No. CITY OF SOU'I~ SAN FRANCISCO MITIGATION MONITORING VERIFICATION File Date: 3ject: A.P. No. Subject Category: {!::Date of Inspection: · 'BY: " Consultant City verification of Findings (To be filled out after Action Required for Compliance is completed). Signed:: Date: Attach to Sheet No. ~§~=~ ~ =~z~: ~ =,,,=~: =~O.o~ ~ ~0 O~ ~ _. , .. ~'g~ --. _. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ · --o ~' . · - o 0 -- o ~ 0 E z_ - o o ~ 1 1~ 'I T i ' 'If [ T -~ a~o :3'0 · n~'§.~ c ~T 5_~ P.P-. ,'7 :3'0 _~ ~.. '", e ~ I -, ::r~ 6 ~' ~ ~ o- · ~ ::3:3'~;30 .-~ -. 0~ ~.~e~'ogEo ~ .o~o~ I . . o o~ ; I 11 I T L t~ 0 -- - .q o_<cr ~cr~ Do< o~- ~ a.-, o O0 n -. 0 o 1 I I I · -.~o o _ ~' ~;~ ~...~. o'< o ~ ,,, ~.,~ :,,_~' -' ,o. .~ ,~ .... -'- -'- '-" ~' ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ .... ,-? . .0 e'O · 0'0 · --,.~- 0 · m ~'~ ~' § § ,,,. o § _-" ~' o'~ ~ o~ n ~ e O:3 = . o_. ~<o =.,.. o r 0 0 · ~ 0 <.~ ,, §~- ! 1 I~ I 1 I' [ I T