HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso RDA 23-2000 RESOLUTION NO. 23-2000
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
THE BAY WEST COVE PROJECT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS FOR SAID PROJECT AND APPROVING A MITIGATION AND
MONITORING PROGRAM FOR SAID PROJECT
WHEREAS, A Supplementary Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in accord with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of South San
Francisco Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA; and,
WHEREAS, The SEIR has been prepared to address the environmental effects of the Bay West
Cove Specific Plan Amendments, Owner Participation Agreement, and Precise Plans; and,
WHEREAS, The Final Supplemental EIR for the Bay West Cove Commercial Project consists of
the Draft SEIR, the comments and responses to comments made on the Draft SEIR, and the Mitigation
and Monitoring Program; and,
WHEREAS, the Draft SEIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period and a notice of its
availability was published in a local newspaper, and,
WHEREAS, the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report reviewed and analyzed the
'following potential impacts:
· Land Use and Planning, including the maximum square footage of development allowed by the
General Plan;
· Transportation and Circulation, including trips generated in peak hours, impacts to freeway
segments, declines in Level of Service at nearby intersections, and restrictions on parking to
reduce congestion;
· Air Quality, including construction dust, and increases in regional air pollution;
· Earth, including soil stability, lateral spreading, and liquefaction;
· Human Health, including exposure of construction workers to hazardous materials, potential
water quality degradation during operations;
· Hydrology and Water Quality, including water quality degradation during construction;
· Cultural Resources, including potential to damage unknown cultural sites and artifacts;
· Utilities, including impacts to aging wastewater collection facilities, a potential shortfall in
existing on-site wastewater collection facilities, cumulative demand for wastewater treatment
capacity;
i' I I [
Public Services, including demand for police services, need for an emergency communications
signal;
Cumulative impacts; and,
WHEREAS, a Final SEIR was prepared, including responses to comments received on the Draft
SEIR, and sent to all state, regional, local and other agencies and individuals from which comments on
the Draft SEIR were received; and
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency, having reviewed and considered the information
considered in the Draft and Final SEIRs, finds that certain specific economic, social or other
considerations make infeasible the Project alternatives, with the exception of the proposed project, in that:
A. The "No Project" alternative, required for analysis under the California Environmental Act,
involves maintaining the site in its existing condition and denying the City the following
opportunities: to improve and make use of a degraded site, to allow public access to the bayfront
and the Bay Trail, to provide long-term employment, to receive additional tax revenues, and to
enjoy site amenities which are proposed to be financed by the Project.
B. The Reduced Development Alternative, identified in the Draft SEIR, would allow the same mix
of facilities as in the proposed Project, but in reduced quantity. The reduction in project square
footage would help to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution, but not in a substantial way, for
...... any of the categories of significant impact discussed in the SEIR.
C. The Biotech/TDM Alternative would emphasize bio-technology industries in the area east of
Veteran's Boulevard (Planning Area 2/3) because they generate fewer employees and vehicular
trips than office space. The alternative would take advantage of the proposed Traffic Demand
Management Program to further mitigate for employee-related trip generation. However, the
Biotech/TDM Alternative would not improve upon the overall Project in a substantial way, for
any of the categories of significant impact discussed in the SEIR.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and carefully considered the information in
the DSEIR at a duly noticed public heating held on October 19, 2000, and recommends its certification as
an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment of the City in the
identification, discussion and mitigation of the project's environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, the required findings, attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof, can be
made for each of the significant effects, which effects have been mitigated to a level of insignificance
because changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or
lessen its significant environmental effects; and
WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan has been prepared in accord with
Public Resources Code 21881.6; and
WHEREAS, the proposed mitigation measure for an air quality impact, and the proposed
mitigation measures for three transportation impacts cannot reduce the impacts to acceptable levels; and
WHEREAS, the required findings of Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines can be made
for each of the Project's significant environmental effects, which effects cannot be reduced to an
acceptable level, with regard to air quality and transportation impacts; and
Whereas, the Project cannot be approved unless a Statement of Overriding Considerations is
approved for the impacts to air quality and transportation, as follows:
1. The Project would generate approximately 4000 full time equivalent jobs at full build-out
of the Project, thereby providing economic benefits to the City; and
2. The retail component of the Project is expected to generate approximately $50,000 in
sales taxes and approximately $1,533,000 in hotel Transient Occupancy Taxes per year
to the City at Project build-out. The Project would increase tax increment monies to the
Redevelopment Agency which will be used in part to improve traffic circulation in the
Project.
3. Development of the Project will take place pursuant to a Specific Plan, to ensure that the
Project is developed in a comprehensive, controlled and interrelated manner.
4. The Project site is currently underutilized and designated for Business Commercial land
use in the City's General Plan. The proposed Project would fulfill the pertinent goals in
the General plan.
5. As part of the proposed Project, the Project developers have proposed to construct a link
of the region-wide Bay Trail adjacent to San Francisco Bay and the Bay West Cove
Project.
WHEREAS, the contribution of the Project in meeting or achieving the goals and objectives of
the General Plan as described above, outweigh its unavoidable, adverse impacts; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends that the Redevelopment Agency concur
with the above findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Redevelopment Agency hereby certifies
the Bay West Cove Supplemental Environmental Impact Report as adequate, based upon the required
findings, approves the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and approves the associated Mitigation
and Monitoring Program (Exhibit B).
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco at a Special meeting held on the 21st day of
November, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES: Boardmembers Pedro Gonzalez and Eugene R. Mullin, Vice-Chair
Joseph A. Femekes and Chair Karyl Matsumoto
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Boardmember John R. Penna
- /J Clerk
EXHIBIT A
Bay West Cove Commercial Project
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the State CEQA
Guidelines and Section21081.6 of the
Public Resources Code
Related Environmental Documentation:
Draft and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Reports
(State Clearinghouse Number 1996092081)
Certification of Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
by City of South San Francisco:
Date of Adoption by the City of South San Francisco
NOVEMBER 21, 2000
Project Files May Be Reviewed at:
City of South San Francisco
Department of Economic and Community Development
Planning Division
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080.3
October, 2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1. Introduction and Purpose ................................................................................................ 3
Section 2. Findings on Project Alternatives Considered in the EIR .............................................. 5
Alternative 1: No-Project ...................................................................................................
Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative ........................................................................ 5
Alternative 3: Biotech/TDM Alternative ............................................................................ 6
Section 3. Findings on Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project
Identified in the SEIR ...................................................................................................... 8
Land Use and Planning ....................................................................................................... 8
Transportation and Circulation ........................................................................................... 8
Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 10
Earth ................................................................................................................................. 11
Human Health ................................................................................................................... 11
Hydrology and Water Quality .......................................................................................... 12
Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 12
, Utilities ............................................................................................................................. 13
Public Services ................................................................................................................. 14
Section 4. Implementation Schedule and Checklist for Mitigation
Monitoring/Reporting .................................................................................................... 15
Section 5. Statement of Overriding Considerations ...................................................................... 16
Section 6. Citations .......................................................................................................................... 18
Section 1. Introduction and Purpose
Project Description
The Bay West Cove Commercial Project is planned on a 42.2 acre vacant site, adjacent to San Francisco
Bay, East of Hwy 101 and north of Oyster Point Blvd. The Project includes nearly 1.5 million gross
square feet of professional office space, R&D/flex/biotechnology space, a 350-room hotel, and local-
serving restaurants, retail and child-care facilities. The eastern 22.2 acres of the site and the western 20
acres divided by Veterans Blvd., will each be developed by a different company.
Purpose
The primary purposes of the Project include (i) facilitating a higher and better utilization of the former vacant
site through the development of a mixed employment and hotel commercial project, (ii) increasing
employment opportunities in the community, (iii) facilitating completion of a linear park and Bay Trail along
the Project's Bay frontage, and (iv) increasing tax and other revenues to the City of South San Francisco and
the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.
Findings
This document presents findings that must be made by the City prior to approval of the Project pursuant to
Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. Under
CEQA the City is required to make written findings explaining how it has dealt with each alternative and each
significant environmental impact identified in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR)
and the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact report (FSEIR) (City of South San Francisco, April, 2000
and October, 1999, respectively), collectively referred to herein as the "FSEIR". The City may find that:
At least one of the following findings must be made for each significant project impact:
1. changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR;
2. such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency, and not the agency making the findings, and have been or can and should be adopted
by that other agency; or
3. specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.
Each of these findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. Evidence from
the DSEIR, FSEIR and City's General Plan is used to support these findings.
This document summarizes the significant environmental impacts of the Project and project alternatives, and
describes how these impacts are to be mitigated. No findings are made for impacts identified as less than
significant in the DSEIR.
3
I
This document is divided into the following six sections:
· Section 1, "Introduction and Purpose";
· Section 2, "Findings on the Project Alternatives Considered in the SEIR";
· Section 3, "Findings on Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project Identified in the SEIR";
· Section 4, "Implementation Schedule and Checklist for Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting";
· Section 5, "Statement of Overriding Considerations"; and
· Section 6, "Citations".
Section 2, "Findings on the Project Alternatives Considered in the SEIR", presents alternatives to the
Project and evaluates them in relation to the findings set forth in Section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA
Guidelines, which allows a public agency to approve a project that would result in one or more significant
environmental effects if the project alternatives are found to be infeasible because of specific economic,
legal, social, technological, or other considerations.
Section 3, "Findings on Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project Identified in the SEIR", presents
significant impacts of the proposed project that were identified in the SEIR, the findings for the impacts,
and the rationales for the findings.
Section 4, "Mitigation Measures for Less-than-Significant Impacts", describes mitigation measures
adopted for less-than-significant impacts of the proposed project that were identified in the EIR.
Section 5, "Implementation Schedule and Checklist", presents the implementation schedule and checklist
and describes mitigation timing, verification, and responsibilities for the project.
Section 6, "Statement of Overriding Considerations", presents the overriding considerations for
significant impacts related to the project that cannot be or have not been mitigated or resolved. These
considerations are required under Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which require the
decision-making agency to balance the applicable economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits
of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve
the project.
Section 7, "Citations", identifies references cited in this document.
Other Approvals. While certification of this FSEIR would constitute compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for such future development, that development would remain subject
to requirements for future precise plan and design review approvals.
4
r i i'
Section 2. Findings on Project Alternatives Considered in the EIR
ALTERNATIVE 1: NO-PROJECT
No impacts are associated with the No-Project Alternative because the Project site would remain vacant.
Therefore, none of the impacts identified for the proposed Project would occur.
Finding: No-Project Alternative Infeasible
The City finds the No-Project Alternative infeasible because the General Plan has identified the need for
improving vacant and underutilized properties in the East of 101 Area of the City. The No-Project
Alternative also would not achieve the social, environmental and economic goals of the Project to convert the
site to a campus-planned mixed-business commercial project; to increase employment opportunities in the
community, to "cap" hazardous materials within the project site, and to increase tax and other revenues to the
City and the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.
ALTERNATIVE 2: REDUCED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
The Reduced Development Alternative would allow the same mix of facilities as would the proposed Project,
but in reduced quantity. The reduction in project square footage would help to reduce traffic congestion and
air pollution.
Compared to the proposed Project, the Reduced Development Alternative would result in the following types
of impacts:
Land Use and Planning: The alternative would have similar site plans and a mix of uses as the
proposed Project, although with smaller buildings. The reduced square footage alternative would not
avoid any significant land use and planning impacts of the proposed Project.
· Transportation and Circulation: The alternative would generate about 19% fewer peak hour vehicular
trips than the proposed Project. Levels of service at study intersections would be proportionally
lower than the proposed Project, but not low enough to result in less than significant traffic impacts.
Mitigation measures for the traffic impacts of the Reduced Development Alternative would be the
same as for the proposed Project.
· Air Quality: The Reduced Project Alternative would have the same kind of exposure to construction
dust. Although the Reduced Development Alternative would generate fewer automobile pollutants, it
would - like the Project - still exceed the threshold for regional air pollutants, established by the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District.
· Earth: The Reduced Development Alternative would be developed on the same underlying fill and
Bay Mud soils as the proposed Project. However, accepted structural design practices required by the
City should mitigate the danger of earthquake-related instability to less than significant levels.
· Human Health: Both the Project and the Reduced Development Alternative would have the potential
to encounter hazardous materials during construction. Both would also be subject to the requirements
to protect construction workers from exposure to hazardous wastes, through implementation of an
approved Soils Management Plan.
· Hydrology and Water Quality: The Project and the Reduced Development Alternative would have
the same potential to degrade water quality during construction and operations.
· Cultural Resources: Excavation for the Project or the Reduced Development Alternative would have
the same potential to unearth cultural remains, and the same requirement to protect such sites from
damage.
· Utilities: The Reduced Development Alternative would use about 98% of the water and wastewater
generated by the Project. Both would also have the same significant impacts to utility systems: water
quality degradation, failure of aging wastewater collection facilities, and cumulative impacts to the
wastewater treatment system. They would also have essentially the same mitigation measures.
· Public Services: The Project and Reduced Development Alternative would make similar demands
upon police and fire protection, and require essentially the same mitigation measures.
· Cumulative and Unavoidable Impacts: The Reduced Development Alternative would have the same
cumulative impacts to transportation, water quality and wastewater treatment capacity as the proposed
Project. Both would also create unavoidable impacts to cumulative traffic conditions and air quality.
Finding: No-Project Alternative Not Beneficial
The City finds the No-Project Alternative inappropriate because it does not significantly reduce the impacts of
the Project. As discussed above, impacts of the alternative would be similar to the impacts of the proposed
Project, and mitigation measures would not change.
ALTERNATIVE 3: BIOTECH/TDM ALTERNATIVE
The Biotech/TDM Alternative has been identified as a feasible approach to reducing Project-generated
traffic congestion and air pollution, by emphasizing R&D and biotechnology industries, because such
businesses require fewer employees per square foot of space, and fewer vehicular trips and parking. The
shift from office to R&D/biotechnology industries would take place in the area east of Veterans Blvd.
(Planning Area 2/3) The alternative would also emphasize trip reduction through the rigorous application
of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs outlined in Appendix 21.3 of the DSEIR.
Compared to the proposed Project, this alternative would result in the following types of impacts:
· Land Use and Planning: The shift from office space to R&D/biotech industries would not alter the
site plan or cause any new, unmitigated land use impacts. This alternative would include a Specific
Plan Overlay Zoning District, such as is in place for the Genentech Research and Development
Overlay District, to allow for lower parking standards. This would be consistent with the General
Plan.
· Transportation and Circulation: The BioteclfrDM Alternative would generate about 22% fewer peak
hour vehicular trips than the proposed Project. However, levels of service at study intersections
would not change. Mitigation measures for the traffic impacts of the Alternative would be the same
as for the proposed Project.
6
· Air Quality: The Biotech/TDM Alternative would have the same kind of exposure to construction
dust. Although the Alternative would generate less automobile pollutants, it would - like the Project
- still exceed the threshold for regional air pollutants established by the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District.
· Earth: The BiotecbJTDM Alternative would be impacted by the underlying fill and Bay Mud as the
proposed Project. However, accepted structural design practices should mitigate the danger of
earthquake-related instability to less than significant levels.
· Human Health: Both the Project and the BioteclfrDM Alternative would have the potential to
encounter hazardous materials during construction. Both would also be subject to the requirements to
protect construction workers from exposure to hazardous wastes, through implementation of an
approved Soils Management Plan.
· Hydrology and Water Quality: The Project and the Reduced Development Alternative would have
the same potential to degrade water quality during construction and operations.
· Cultural Resources: Excavation for the Project or the Biotech/TDM Alternative would have the same
potential to unearth cultural remains, and the same requirement to protect such sites from damage.
· Utilities: The Biotech/TDM Alternative would use about 28% more water and generate about 31%
more wastewater than the Project. Both would also have the same significant impacts to utility
systems: water quality degradation, failure of aging wastewater collection facilities, and cumulative
" impacts to the wastewater treatment system. They would also have essentially the same mitigation
measures.
· Public Services: The Project and BioteclfrDM Alternative would make similar demands upon police
and fire protection, and require essentially the same mitigation measures.
· Cumulative and Unavoidable Impacts: The alternative would have the same cumulative impacts to
transportation, water quality and wastewater treatment capacity as the proposed Project. Both would
also create unavoidable impacts to traffic conditions and air quality.
Finding: Biotech/TDM Alternative Not Beneficial
The City finds that the Biotech/TDM Alternative would have very similar, or at most, only slightly less
impacts than the proposed Project. Therefore, the City will not pursue this alternative.
Section 3. Findings on Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project Identified in the EIR
This section identifies the findings on significant impacts of the Project, as identified in the DEIR/FEIR
by issue topic. No findings are necessary for impacts found to be less than significant.
Mitigation measures include agreements with the City which may apply to one or both of the applicants
or sponsors of the Project. Use of the singular (applicant, sponsor) to describe responsibilities for such
mitigation measures shall also include the plural (applicants, sponsors).
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Impact 4.2.2: Project square footage. The square footage of proposed development exceeds the
maximum square footage allowed in the General Plan.
Mitigation Measure 4.2.2: Additional square footage would be allowed by General Plan floor area
bonuses, subject to programs for off-site improvements and special design standards. Granting of square
footage bonuses will reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Finding 4.2.2: The City finds that Mitigation Measure 4.2.2 is feasible and allowed by the General Plan,
subject to developer commitments to feasible vehicular trip reduction measures, off-site improvements
and demonstration in Precise Plan applications of high quality design, consistent with the Specific Plan.
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact 6.4.2: Unmitigated vehicular trips. The Project would exceed 100 trips during peak hours.
The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) requires that local jurisdictions ensure
that the developer will mitigate all new peak hour trips generated by the Project.
Mitigation Measure 6.4.2: The DSEIR requires implementation of a Transportation Demand
Management Plan using programs to reduce vehicular trips.
Finding 6.4.2: The City finds that Mitigation Measure 6.4.2 is feasible and should reduce the impact to a
less than significant level. The TDM program must be implemented by the project sponsors as a
condition of issuance of a certificate of occupancy, and once implemented, must be on-going for the
occupied life of the development.
Impact 6.4.3: Traffic impacts to three freeway segments. The addition of traffic generated by
approved development in the year 2002 Baseline without Project would cause three freeway segments to
operate at LOS F, and two additional segments to exceed capacity.
Mitigation Measure 6.4.3: The DSEIR requires the Project to implement a TDM program to minimize
potential increases in freeway traffic.
Finding 6.4.3: The City finds that implementation of the TDM measures would not reduce impacts to
less than significant levels, so the impact remains significant and unavoidable and will require a
Statement of Overriding Considerations as a condition for Project approval (see Section 5).
Impact 6.4.4: Decline in LOS at three intersections, year 2002. The Project would cause a decline in
LOS below level "D" at the following three intersections:
Veterans Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd.
· Dubuque Avenue and Oyster Point Blvd.
· Gateway Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd.
Mitigation Measure 6.4.4: Physical improvements to the intersections would not improve operations to
LOS D or better. Therefore, the DSEIR recommends areawide mitigation measures that could potentially
improve the level of service at the subject intersections and elsewhere in the East of 101 Area. The
DSEIR states that City of South San Francisco shall complete and implement the recommendations of the
current East of 101 Area-wide Traffic Improvement Program. The DSEIR also lists potential
transportation measures (outlined in Sections 4.3 and 4.4 of the General Plan) and other potential
infrastructure improvements which should be considered in the East of 101 Area-wide Traffic Study.
Finding 6.4.4: The City finds that the mitigation measures may be appropriate, but will not necessarily
reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations
would have to be approved as a condition of Project approval (see Section 5).
Impact 6.4.5: Decline in LOS at seven intersections, year 2020. The Project would cause a decline in
LOS at seven intersections below level "D" at the following intersections, for year 2020 + Baseline +
Project:
· Bayshore Blvd. and US 101 Southbound Ramps
· Airport Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd.
· Dubuque Avenue and Oyster Point Blvd.
· Gateway Blvd. and Oyster Point Blvd.
· Veterans Blvd. and Grand Avenue.
· Airport Blvd. and Grand Avenue
· Gateway Blvd and East Grand Avenue.
Mitigation Measures 6.4.5: The DSEIR recommends physical improvements at five of the intersections
that will reduce average delays, but will not improve operations to LOS D or better. No improvements
will be made at two of the intersections due to right-of-way constraints. The Project shall implement the
Transportation Demand Management program. The City shall complete and implement the
recommendations of the current East of 101 Areawide Traffic Improvement Program. The Bay West
Cove Project shall participate in the appropriate mitigation programs in effect at the time that permits are
issued.
Finding 6.4.5: The City finds that the mitigation measures will help to reduce impacts to the study
intersections, but not to the extent that the impacts could be reduced to less than significant levels.
Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations would have to be approved as a condition of Project
approval (see Section 5).
9
Impact 6.4.6: Parking shortfall. The Project would not provide the amount of parking required by the
City's Zoning Ordinance.
Mitigation Measure 6.4.6: The projected shortfall of parking spaces would not require the addition of
parking to the Project, by application of existing parking standards in the Zoning Ordinance. Rather, the
General Plan encourages parking reductions for projects that agree to implement trip reduction measures;
the sponsors of the Project have agreed to the trip reduction TDM program. The Final SEIR response to
comment No. 16 from William Rogalla, includes a table of new, reduced parking standards which have
been incorporated into the amended Bay West Cove Specific Plan District. These parking standards are
intended to be maximum, rather than minimum standards, in order to achieve reductions in vehicular trips
and parking.
Finding 6.4.6: The City finds that the reduced parking standards are feasible and will reduce the impact to a
less than significant level. The Project Precise Plans shall be modified to comply with the standards.
However, if the City finds through the annual survey and report, that Planning Area 2/3 is not reaching
its 35% employee alternative mode usage commitment, based upon the 3% preferential parking rate,
then the preferential parking rate would need to be increased to a minimum of 10%, as stated in the
TDM Program.
AIR QUALITY
Impact 7.2.2: Construction dust. Fugitive dust emitted during construction could be a nuisance to
nearby properties and persons with respiratory problems.
Mitigation Measure 7.2.2: The measures listed in the DSEIR are recommended, based upon BAAQMD
standards, to reduce construction impacts to a less than significant level.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 7.2.2 is feasible and required. The City finds that Mitigation Measure
7.2.2 is feasible and will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. The measures specified in the
DSEIR must be implemented by the Project sponsors as a condition of issuance for a grading permit, and
shall be subject to regular inspection by the City Building Department for compliance.
Impact 7.2.3: Regional air pollution emissions. Project vehicular traffic would emit hydrocarbons,
oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter over the Bay Area which exceed thresholds established by the
BAAQMD.
Mitigation Measure 7.2.3: A Transportation Management Program (TDM) is recommended in the
DSEIR to reduce vehicular trips and emissions, although it will not serve to reduce the impact to a less
than significant level.
Finding 7.2.3: Mitigation measure 7.2.3 is feasible and required, but a significant impact is unavoidable.
The City finds that approval of the Project would require adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Considerations (see Section 5).
10
EARTH
Impact 9.2.2: Potential instability of underlying soil. Buildings and streets which will be constructed
on the fill soil and underlying ltay Mud which underlies most of the Project site may be subject to
instability and damage.
Mitigation Measure 9.2.2: Compliance with General Plan Safety Element Policies will require site-
specific investigations to design foundations such as piles, which will minimize instability and damage.
Finding 9.2.2: The City finds that mitigation measure 9.2.2 is feasible and will reduce the impact to a less
than significant level.
Impact 9.2.3: Lateral spreading potential. Ground shaking or liquefaction generated by ground
shaking may cause marshlands underlain by Recent Bay Mud to spread laterally, and cause damage to
structures.
Mitigation Measure 9.2.3: Compliance with General Plan Safety Element Policies will require site-
specific investigations to design structures to withstand liquefaction-induced lateral spreading and slope
instability.
Finding 9.2.3: The City finds that mitigation measure 9.2.3 is feasible and will reduce the impact to a
less than significant level.
Impact 9.2.4: Liquefaction potential. A liquefiable zone comprised of sand layers on the Project site
could be susceptible to liquefaction during an earthquake, and undermine structures.
Mitigation Measure 9.2.4: Compliance with General Plan policies will require design and construction
methods to mitigate for liquefaction.
Finding 9.2.4: The City finds that mitigation measure 9.2.4 is feasible and will reduce the impact to a
less than significant level.
HUMAN HEALTH
Impact 10.2.2: Exposure to hazardous materials to construction workers. Excavation for utilities and
building foundations could expose buried hazardous materials by dispersion of airborne particulates,
dermal contact, ingestion, or contact with contaminated groundwater.
Mitigation Measure 10.2.2: The DSEIR requires preparation of a Soil Management plan prior to
initiation of site grading. The plan shall include a Health and Safety Section to reduce exposure of
humans to hazardous materials through such measures as dust control, administrative controls for cleanup
workers, use of respiratory equipment, air monitoring, and training workers who may come in contact
with hazardous materials. The sponsors should provide mapped documentation to the Regional Water
Quality Control Board to show compliance with the site Cleanup Order.
11
Finding 10.2.2: The City finds that Mitigation Measure 10.2.2 is feasible and required. Through
compliance with the requirements of an approved Soil Management Plan, the exposure to hazardous
materials will be a less than significant impact of the Project.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact 11.2.2: Potential water quality degradation, operations phase. The Project could increase
stormwater containing non-point source pollutants such as oil and gas residues, heavy metals, tire
fragments, and fertilizers entering the bay and degrading water quality and wildlife habitat.
Mitigation Measure 11.2.2: The applicant should prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) in accordance with best management practices of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, to
control pollution sources through source control, runoff treatment and identification of parties responsible
for periodic maintenance. The plan shall comply with the City's Clean Water Permit and all applicable
requirements of the RWQCB.
Finding 11.2.2: The City finds that Mitigation Measure 11.2.2 is feasible and required, and will reduce
the impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 11.2.3 Potential water quality degradation, construction phase. Erosion and sedimentation
would be expected to increase as on-site soils are excavated, stockpiled and regraded. Excavated soils could
..... include buried hazardous materials. There would be risks of fuel oil spills.
Mitigation Measurell.2.3: The applicants shall prepare an NPDES general construction permit from the
Regional Water Quality Control Board and a SWPPP subject to approval by the City. The applicants shall
prepare a Soils Management Plan as described Mitigation Measure 10.2.2.
Finding 11.2.3: The City finds that Mitigation Measure 11.2.3 is feasible and required and will reduce
the impact to a less than significant level.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact 13.2.2: Potential to damage unknown cultural resources. There would be potential to damage
unknown cultural sites and artifacts during Project construction. Excavation and foundation and utilities
construction could inadvertently unearth historic or archeological resources.
Mitigation Measure 13.2.2: Cultural resources found during construction should be protected by stopping
work, requiring an evaluation of the f'md by a cultural resource consultant and undertaking other measures
outlined in CEQA Guidelines Supplementary Document J, Archaeological Impacts.
Finding 13.2.2: The City finds that Mitigation Measure 13.2.2 is feasible and required, and will reduce
the impact to a less than significant level.
12
UTILITIES
Impact 14.2.7: Potential failure of aging wastewater collection facilities.
Development of the proposed Project would increase the rate and volume of flow through the pumps and
controls that have been identified as in need of replacement at pumping station #4. This creates a
potential for wastewater backups if pumping station #4 experiences an operational failure.
Mitigation Measure14.2.7: Before the proposed Project is connected to the City's wastewater collection
system, the City should upgrade and improve aged pumping station #4, in accordance with the East of
101 Area Plan and the Capital Improvement Program budget for FY 2004-2005 (which may need revision
to complete the improvement before the Project is occupied).
Finding: 14.2.7: The City finds that the Mitigation Measure is feasible and required and, through the
City's Public Works Department, will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. The Project
should pay its fair share of pump station improvement costs, as determined by the City Public Works
Department, in accordance with General Plan policies. The Project sponsors shall also be required to
reimburse the City for their fair share of the recent replacement by the City of the Harbor Way sewer
main, north of Pump Station No. 4 (the cost of this improvement is being shared by the Point Grand
development on Harbor Way, by Genentech and by the Gateway Assessment District).
Impact 14.2.8: Potential capacity shortfall in wastewater collection facilities. The on-site collection
facilities, including the gravity sewers, pumping station and force main, were designed for a mix of land
uses with potentially lower wastewater production rates than are now proposed on the Project site. If the
proposed technology/R&D buildings generate high rates of flow, new or expanded facilities may be
needed to accommodate build-out of the Project site. Such facilities could include higher capacity pumps,
a second pump station wet well, a new force main, gravity relief sewers, or some combination of these
components.
Mitigation Measure 14.2.8: The Project sponsors should prepare detailed engineering studies that
provide conservative projections of wastewater production on the Project site. If these studies indicate the
existing collection facilities may not have sufficient capacity to accommodate future flows, the Project
sponsors should pay to upgrade these facilities (where appropriate) or install new facilities, as directed by
the City Engineer.
Finding 14.2.8 The City finds that Mitigation Measure 14.2.8 is feasible and required, and will reduce
the impact to a less than significant level. If the studies indicate that a wastewater capacity shortfall is not
likely, the Project engineer and City Engineer should devise a monitoring program that will alert the City
when additional capacity would be needed. This capacity would then be designed and installed by the
Project sponsors or building owners.
Impact 14.2.9: Cumulative demand for wastewater treatment capacity. The Project's demand for
treatment capacity is considered in the context of other areas served by the City's Water Quality Control
Plant (WQCP). The East of 101 Area Plan did not fully account for the projected high wastewater
production rates associated with R&D and technology/biotechnology industries. If such uses become
widespread East of 101, the higher than anticipated wastewater flows and treatment requirements could
eventually result in a capacity shortfall at the WQCP, constraining future growth. The WQCP expansion
13
· .. by the end of 2001 is projected to provide sufficient treatment capacity to meet the service area's needs
for the next 15 years; however, if industries requiring significant treatment capacity are developed, the
plant might have to be expanded sooner.
Mitigation Measure 14.2.9: The City should develop a program that encourages potential R&D and
technology customers to reduce the volume of wastewater discharged. Consistent with General Plan Policy
5.3-1-7, the program could include incentives for recycling and/or pre-treatment.
Finding 14.2.9: The City finds that capacity of the WQCP should be monitored to assess the need for
additional wastewater capacity well in advance of need.
PUBLIC SERVICES
Impact 15.2.2: Increased demand for police services. Based upon the amount of commercial space
proposed for the Project, the Police Department estimates that about 1 officer and 1/2 police car would be
required to serve the proposed Project.
Mitigation Measure 15.2.2: The applicant should submit a Security and Safety Plan at the precise plan
approval stage, which would provide for private security guards on-site, beginning with the construction
phase. The applicants should contribute half of the cost of a police vehicle to the City.
Finding 15.2.2: The City finds that Mitigation Measure 15.2.2 is feasible and, through consultation with
the Police Department, will reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 15.3.2: Blockage of emergency communications signal. Interruption or loss of a signal would
be a potential obstacle to fke-fighting or other emergency service vehicles operating in the vicinity of the
Project. Generally, the area affected is between Oyster Point Blvd. and the northern City limits, in the
"shadow" of San Bruno Mountain.
Mitigation Measure 15.3.2: Developers of affected projects in the vicinity of San Bruno Mountain shall
make a fair share contribution to the cost of a small rooftop enclosure containing radio equipment on the
tallest and/or northern-most building in the Bay West Cove Project. The most appropriate location should
be resolved in consultation between the applicants and the City Director of Information Technology.
Other developers have contributed to the cost of the equipment to date. Re-occurring costs will be borne
by the City. The operation of radio equipment at this location will allow for unimpeded emergency
communications in the affected area.
Finding 15.3.2: The City f'mds that Mitigation Measures 15.3.2 is feasible and required and will reduce
the potential impact to a less than significant level. The Project sponsors should put the communications
facilities in place, as a condition of the Project occupancy.
14
Section 4. Implementation Schedule and Checklist for Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting
A complete description of each mitigation measure is contained in Section 3, "Findings on Significant
Impacts of the Proposed Project Identified in the EIR."
This section lists each mitigation measure in tabular, checklist format. The mitigation measures to be
implemented by the Project applicants or successors in interest are separated into the following phases:
prior to issuance of a grading permit,
prior to issuance of a building permit,
prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, and
ongoing requirements.
The City-implemented mitigation measures are contained at the end of the following table. The checklist is
consistent with the Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted by the City of South San Francisco.
TIMING OF VERIFICATION MITIGATION MEASURES
Prior to issuance of a grading permit 7.2.2 Dust control
9.2.2 Gen. Plan compliance
9.2.3 Gen. Plan compliance
9.2.4 Gen. Plan compliance
10.2.2 Soil Mgmt. Plan
11.2.2 SWPPP
11.2.3 SWPPP
Prior to issuance of a building permit 15.3.2 Communications
Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy 6.4.2 TDM Program
6.4.3 TDM Program
6.4.4 TDM Program
6.4.5 East 101 Traffic
6.4.6 TDM Program
7.2.3 TDM Program
15.2.2 Police vehicle
Ongoing requirements (annual review TDM) 6.4.2 TDM Program
6.4.3 TDM Program
6.4.4 TDM Program
6.4.5 East 101 Traffic
6.4.6 TDM Program
7.2.3 TDM Program
City-implemented measures (Review wastewater) 14.2.7 Pump Station//4
14.2.8 Wastewater
14.2.9 Wastewater
15
I Section 5. Statement of Overriding Considerations
CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the applicable economic, legal, social, technological
or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to
approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may
be considered "acceptable" (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[a]). However, CEQA requires the agency
to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are
infeasible to mitigate. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the EIR or elsewhere in the
administrative record (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[b]). The agency's statement is referred to as a
"Statement of Overriding Considerations".
The City of South San Francisco has prepared and certified an FSEIR for the proposed Bay West Cove
Commercial Project that satisfies the requirements of CEQA. The following adverse impacts of the project in
the South San Francisco area are considered significant and unavoidable, based on the DSEIR, FSEIR, and
the findings discussed previously in Sections 2 and 3 of this exhibit:
Traffic impacts to three freeway segments The addition of traffic generated by approved
development in the year 2002 Baseline without Project would cause three freeway segments to
operate at LOS F, and two additional segments to exceed capacity.
Decline in LOS at three intersections, year 2002. The Project would cause a decline in LOS below
level "D" at three intersections.
Decline in LOS for seven intersections, year 2020. The Project would cause a decline below LOS
"D" at seven intersections for year 2020 + Baseline + Project.
Permanent Regional air pollution emissions. Project vehicular traffic would emit hydrocarbons,
oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter over the Bay Area which exceed thresholds established by
the BAAQMD.
The City finds that the social, environmental, and economic considerations of the Proposed Bay West Cove
commercial project outweigh the foregoing, unavoidable environmental impacts for the reasons stated below.
In making this finding, the City has balanced the applicable economic, social, environmental and other
benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental impacts.
Reasons for Approving the Project on the Basis of its Benefits to the Community
· Consistency with the General Plan: The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan recognizes the
importance of the commercial businesses proposed in the Bay West Cove Project, to the creation of
jobs and the services it will being to the community. The General Plan includes the designation of
Business Commercial areas for large commercial developments and specifies the Project site as one
such area. The Project is also eligible for General Plan bonus floor area ratios (FAR) which will allow
the Project to develop the amount of square footage of development which its sponsors are proposing.
· Employment Benefits: The Project would be a source of office/R&D/biotechnical industries and hotel
employment in South San Francisco, generating jobs within nearly 1.5 million gross square feet of
mixed-use commercial space.
16
· Community Recreational Open Space Benefits: The project would provide a 100-foot wide,
landscaped linear park along the San Francisco Bay, incorporating a segment of the Bay Trail and
other pedestrian amenities within the park. The park will be owned and maintained by the Project
sponsors for private and public use.
· Mixed-use, "campus-planned" Project. The Project site plans include generous open space areas, and
pedestrian plazas and paths inter-linking the low- and high-rise buildings containing research and
development, offices, local serving retail and restaurants, child care facilities, and parking structures
and lots. These amenities will serve to anchor the site as an important northern "entrance" to South
San Francisco.
· Environmental Benefits: The Project will complete the process of recovery of a former hazardous
waste site, to a viable commercial business project.
· Economic Benefits: The Project would restore sales tax revenues and increase property and other tax
revenues from the Project site to the City and the Redevelopment Agency.
· Transportation Demand Management. Although the Project will create unavoidable traffic and air
quality impacts, the FSEIR includes innovative mitigation measures to reduce vehicular trips and air
pollution. The measures take the form of a "Transportation Demand Management" program which
includes a broad range of incentives for employees to fide-share, vanpool, ride BART, Caltrain,
shuttles, and other transit, ride bicycles, or work from home. The Program would be aggressively
managed on an ongoing and monitoring basis by "transportation coordinators" to facilitate wide
participation.
The Bay West Cove Commercial Project would provide a beneficial mix of office, R&D, biotechnical
industries, hotel, retail and restaurant employment; redevelopment of a former "brownfield" site; hazardous
materials remediation; pedestrian amenities; and tax revenues, which outweigh the unavoidable
environmental impacts. Therefore, the City recommends approval of the Project based upon this adopted
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
17
Section 6. Citations
City of South San Francisco. General Plan, October, 1999.
City of South San Francisco. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, gay West Cove Commercial
Project, August 1, 2000. Planning Consultant: Richard Morehouse, Morehouse Associates, Corte Madera,
CA
City of South San Francisco. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Bay West Cove Commercial
Project, October, 2000. Planning Consultant: Richard Morehouse, Morehouse Associates, Corte Madera, CA
18
' ' EXHIBIT B
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Bay West Cove Commercial Project
City of South San Francisco
November, 2000
Pursuant to California Public Resources Code, Section 21081, public lead agencies must adopt a
program to monitor the mitigation of significant environmental effects. The program must be
adopted, in this case, when and if the Redevelopment Agency and Redevelopment Agency
certifies the Final SEIR and approves the Project, or alternative.
A monitoring and reporting program must be defined to implement the mitigation measures
outlined for each significant adverse impact identified in the SEIR. Other recommended
conditions identified for less than significant impacts are not subject to the requirements of PRC
21081.
Mitigation Monitoring Programs for the significant impacts are summarized in the table below.
The Draft SEIR (Chapters 4 through 15) provides more detailed explanations of impacts and
mitigation measures. Some of the responses to comments in the Final SEIR include minor
changes to the mitigation measures discussed in the Draft SEIR.
· Significant Impact: Section 4.2.2 The square footage of development exceeds the
allowed square footage in the General Plan.
· Mitigation Measure: Allow floor area bonuses on a discretionary basis, considering
expected compliance with the proposed TDM Plan, potential off-
site transportation improvements, and specified design standards
and design features shown in the applicants' Precise Plans.
Responsible Party: City of South San Francisco Planning Division.
When to Accomplish: At the Precise Plan approval stage.
Who to Verify: Marry Van Duyn, Community Development Director.
· Significant Impact: Section 6.4.2. The Project exceeds 100 vehicular trips during
peak hours
· Mitigation Measure: Institute and implement a Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) Program to reduce vehicular trips. Prepare reports
documenting the effectiveness of the TDM Plan in achieving a goal
of 35% alternative mode usage, with failure subject to potential
penalty.
Responsible Party: Project applicants and independent TDM consultant.
When to Accomplish: Submit a report for each building within two years after it has been
issued a certificate of occupancy. Thereafter, submit a report on an
annual basis for all buildings that have been occupied for two or
more years, combined.
Who to Verify: City of South San Francisco Planning Division.
1
· Signi~cant Impact: Section 6.4.3 The Project would contribute traffic to over-
capacity segments of U.S. 101.
· Mitigation Measure: Implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program
to reduce vehicular trips. Prepare reports documenting the
effectiveness of the TDM Plan in achieving a goal of 35%
alternative mode usage, with failure subject to potential penalty.
Responsible Party: Project applicants and independent TDM consultant.
When to Accomplish: Submit a report for each building within two years after it has been
issued a certificate of occupancy. Thereafter, submit a report on an
annual basis for all buildings that have been occupied for two or
more years, combined.
Who to Verify: City of South San Francisco Planning Division.
· Significant Impact: Section 6.4.4 Decline in LOS below Level "D" at three
intersections for year 2002 Baseline Plus Project traffic.
· Mitigation Measure: Re-stripe lanes; Institute and implement a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Program to reduce vehicular trips; prepare
reports documenting the effectiveness of the TDM Plan in
achieving a goal of 35% alternative mode usage, with failure
subject to potential penalty; make improvements at one
intersection; implement improvements of the current East of 10!
Areawide Traffic Study when programs are in effect. Mitigation
measures might not be implemented if the City approves the project
with a statement of overriding considerations.
Responsible Party: Project applicants and independent TDM consultant.
When to Accomplish: Submit a report for each building within two years after it has been
issued a certificate of occupancy. Thereafter, submit a report on an
annual basis for all buildings that have been occupied for two or
more years, combined.
Who to Verify: City of South San Francisco Planning Division.
2
· Significant Impact: Section 6.4.5. Decline in LOS below "D" at seven intersections
for cumulative Year 2020+Baseline Plus Project traffic.
· Mitigation Measure: Implement improvements at seven intersections; Institute and
implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program
to reduce vehicular trips; prepare reports documenting the
effectiveness of the TDM Plan in achieving a goal of 35%
alternative mode usage, with failure subject to potential penalty;
implement improvements of the current East of 101 Areawide
Traffic Study when programs are in effect.
Responsible Party: Project applicants and independent TDM consultant.
When to Accomplish: Submit a report for each building within two years after it has been
issued a certificate of occupancy. Thereafter, submit a report on an
annual basis for all buildings that have been occupied for two or
more years, combined.
Who to Verify: City of South San Francisco Planning Division.
· Significant Impact: Section 6.4.6. Parking provisions do not meet City standards.
· Mitigation Measure: Apply reduced parking standards if Project sponsors commit to
implementation of a TDM program; prepare reports documenting
the effectiveness of the TDM Plan in achieving a goal of 35%
alternative mode usage, with failure subject to potential penalty;
Responsible Party: Project applicants and independent TDM consultant.
When to Accomplish: Submit a report for each building within two years after it has been
issued a certificate of occupancy. Thereafter, submit a report on an
annual basis for all buildings that have been occupied for two or
more years, combined.
Who to Verify: City of South San Francisco Planning Division.
· Significant Impact: Section 7.2.2 Construction dust.
· Mitigation Measure: Follow dust control measures recommended by the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District.
Responsible Party: Developers
When to Accomplish: During grading and excavation and whenever soils are exposed.
Who to Verify: City of South San Francisco Planning Division.
3
· Significant Impact: Section 7.2.3 Significant increase in regional air pollution
emissions.
· Mitigation Measure: Institute and implement a Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) Program to reduce vehicular trips; prepare reports
documenting the effectiveness of the TDM Plan in achieving a goal
of 35% alternative mode usage, with failure subject to potential
penalty;
Responsible Party: Project applicants and independent TDM consultant.
When to Accomplish: Submit a report for each building within two years after it has been
issued a certificate of occupancy. Thereafter, submit a report on an
annual basis for all buildings that have been occupied for two or
more years, combined.
Who to Verify: City of South San Francisco Planning Division.
· Significant Impact: Section 9.2.2 Potential instability of fill soil.
· Mitigation Measure: Comply with Geotechnical Safety Element policies GEO-1, GEO-2,
GEO-3, GEO-6,and GEO-12 which will require site-specific
investigations to design foundations such as piles which will
minimize instability and damage.
Responsible Party: Project Applicants.
When to Accomplish: Prior to issuance of approved grading permit.
Who to Verify: City of South San Francisco Planning Division.
· Significant Impact: Section 9.2.3 Lateral spreading potential.
Ground shaking or liquefaction caused by ground shaking may cause
marshlands underlain by Recent Bay Mud to spread laterally, and
cause damage to structures.
~ Mitigation Measure: Comply with Policies GEO-7, GEO-8, GEO-9, GEO-10 and GEO-
11 with respect to liquefaction-induced lateral spreading and slope
instability.
Responsible Party: Project Applicants.
When to Accomplish: Prior to issuance of approved grading permit.
Who to Verify: City of South San Francisco Planning Division.
4
· Significant Impact: Section 9.2.4 Liquefaction potential.
· Mitigation Measure: Examine the liquefaction potential for individual buildings, and
comply with policies GEO-10 and GEO-11 which require design and
construction methods (such as piles) to mitigate for liquefaction.
Responsible Party: Project Applicants.
When to Accomplish: Prior to issuance of approved grading permit.
Who to Verify: City of South San Francisco Planning Division.
· Significant Impact: Section 10.2.2. Exposure of sensitive receptors, including
construction workers, to hazardous materials.
· Mitigation Measure: Prepare a Soil Management Plan, with a Health and Safety Section to
reduce exposure of humans to hazardous materials. Provide mapped
documentation to the RWQCB to show compliance with the Cleanup
Order.
Responsible Party: Project Applicants.
When to Accomplish: Prior to issuance of an approved grading plan.
Who to Verify: City of South San Francisco Planning Division.
· Significant Impact: Section 11.2.2 Potential water quality degradation during the
operational phase of the Project.
· Mitigation Measure: Prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in
accordance with best management practices of the Regional Water
Quality Control Board, to control pollution through source control,
and runoff treatment. The plan shall comply with the City's Clean
Water Permit and all applicable requirements of the RWQCB.
Responsible Party: Project Applicants.
When to Accomplish: Prior to issuance of an approved grading plan.
Who to Verify: City of South San Francisco Planning Division.
· Significant Impact: Section 11.2.3 Potential water quality degradation during the
construction phase of the Project.
· Mitigation Measure: Prepare an NPDES general construction permit from the Regional
Water Quality Control Board and a SWPPP subject to approval by
the City. Prepare a Soils Management Plan as described Section
10.2.2.
Responsible Party: Project Applicants.
When to Accomplish: Prior to issuance of an approved grading plan.
Who to Verify: City of South San Francisco Planning Division.
· Significant Impact: Section 13.2.2. Potential to damage unknown cultural sites and
artifacts during Project construction.
· Mitigation Measure: Protect cultural resources found during construction by stopping
work, requiring an evaluation of the find by a cultural resource
consultant and undertaking other measures outlined in CEQA
Guidelines.
Responsible Party: Project Developers.
When to Accomplish: During grading, excavation, and construction of foundations and
utilities.
Who to Verify: City of South San Francisco Planning Division.
· Significant Impact: Section 14.2.7. Potential failure of aging wastewater collection
facilities.
· Mitigation Measure: Upgrade and improve aged pumping station #4. The Project should
pay its fair share of pump station improvement costs, as determined
by the City Public Works Department, in accordance with General
Plan policies. The Project sponsors shall also be required to
reimburse the City for the sponsor's fair share of the recent
replacement by the City of the Harbor Way sewer main, north of
Pump Station No. 4.
Responsible Party: City of South San Francisco Public Works Department.
When to Accomplish: Before the proposed Project is connected to the City's wastewater
collection system.
Who to Verify: City of South San Francisco Planning Division.
· Significant Impact: Section 14.2.8. Potential capacity shortfall in existing, on-site
wastewater collection facilities.
· Mitigation Measure: Prepare detailed engineering studies that provide conservative
projections of wastewater production on the Project site. If these
studies indicate the existing collection facilities may not have
sufficient capacity to accommodate future flows, the Project
sponsors should pay to upgrade these facilities (where appropriate)
or install new facilities, as directed by the City Engineer. If the
studies indicate that a capacity shortfall is not likely, the Project
engineer and City Engineer should devise a monitoring program
that will alert the City when additional capacity would be needed.
This capacity would then be designed and installed by the Project
sponsors or building developers.
Responsible Party: Project developers.
--"-- When to Accomplish: At the Precise Plan stage.
Who to Verify: City of South San Francisco City Engineer.
· Significant Impact: Section 14.2.9. Cumulative demand for wastewater treatment
capacity. ·
· Mitigation Measure: The City should develop a program that encourages potential R&D
and technology customers to reduce the volume of wastewater
discharged. Consistent with General Plan Policy 5.3-1-7, the program
could include incentives for recycling and/or pre-treatment.
Responsible Party: Project Engineer.
When to Accomplish: At the Precise Plan stage.
Who to Verify: City of South San Francisco City Engineer.
· Significant Impact: Section 15.2.2. Increased demand for police services.
· Mitigation Measure: Submit a Security and Safety Plan, which would provide for private
security guards on-site, beginning with the construction phase. The
Project developers should contribute half of the cost of a police
vehicle to the City.
Responsible Party: Project Developers.
When to Accomplish: At the Precise Plan stage.
Who to Verify: City of South San Francisco Planning Division.
· Significant Impact: Section 15.3.2. Blockage of emergency communications signal in
the shadow of San Bruno Mountain.
· Mitigation Measure: Developers of affected projects in the vicinity of San Bruno
Mountain shall make a fair share contribution to the cost of a small
rooftop enclosure containing radio equipment on the tallest and/or
northern-most building in the Bay West Cove Project. Other
developers have contributed to the cost of the equipment to date. Re-
occurring costs will be borne by the City. The operation of radio
equipment at this location will allow for unimpeded emergency
communications in the affected area.
Responsible Party: City Fire Department and the City's office of Information
Technology.
When to Accomplish: At the Precise Plan stage.
Who to Verify: City of South San Francisco Planning Division.
F:\WPDXMNRSWX405\099\SEIR Draft Findings Cotmcil-Rev.doc
7