Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 16-1999RESOLUTION NO. 1.6-99 CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SCAVENGER COMPANY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY AND TRANSFER STATION WHEREAS, South San Francisco Scavenger Company ("Applicant") has requested amendments to the General Plan, amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, and a use permit in order to develop and operate a new Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) and Garbage Transfer Station (TS) on a vacant 10 acre site located at the east end of Jamie Court in the East of 101 area; and WHEREAS, the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report CEIR") was required to evaluate the project; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation, was prepared on May 1, 1998, published in a newspaper of general circulation, and mailed to responsible agencies, public agencies having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, and other interested parties; and WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated October 28, 1998, was prepared for the project. A Notice of Completion was filed with the State Secretary of Resources State Clearinghouse (SCH No. 98-051024); and WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated for a 45-day public/agency review period beginning on October 30, 1998 and ending on December 21, 1998. Public notice of the availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Report was published in a newspaper of general circulation and mailed to agencies and all property owners within 300 feet of the project boundaries. In addition, all persons who had requested notification were nmiled a notice, and the Planning Commission also instructed staff to send and staff sent public notices to both property owners and businesses within an area approximately one-half mile north and west of the site, and to all homeowners associations located in the City of South San Francisco; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on the Draft Environmental Impact Report on November 19 and December 3, 1998. At the hearings, and through submitted written comments, the Planning Commission received comments on the Draft EIR from the public, responsible agencies, other govemmental and private organizations, as well as from City staff, and the Applicant; and WHEREAS, the City prepared responses to comments on environmental issues received during the public review period and at the public hearings, which responses clarify and amplify the information contained in the Draft Environmental Impact Report, providing good faith reasoned analysis supported by factual information. The comments and responses to comments were published in a Final Environmental Impact Report dated January 14, 1999, and were distributed to or otherwise made available to the Planning Commission, responsible agencies, and other interested parties; and WHEREAS, staff reports, dated January 7 and 2 I, ! 999 and incorporated herein by reference, were prepared for Planning Commission review, which reports described and analyzed the EIR and the project; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed hearing on January 21, 1999, the Planning Commission reviewed the Environmental Impact Report, consisting of a Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated October 28, 1998, and the Final Environmental Impact Report, dated January 14, 1999, and recommended certification of the EIR, with revisions set forth in Resolution 2535 ; and WHEREAS, on February 10, 1999, the City Council considered the Environmental Impact Report and the Planning Commission's recommendation for certification; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report identified certain significant and potentially significant environmental impacts which could be mitigated to a level of insignificance, therefore mitigation findings are required pursuant to CEQA Section 212081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 upon project approval (Exhibit A, Section II); and WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report identified significant and potentially significant environmental impacts which could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance, therefore the project alternatives were examined to determine if they would avoid any of the unmitigated significant impacts (Exhibit A, Section IV); and WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report identified significant and potentially significant environmental impacts which could not be reduced to a level of insignificance, therefore a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required upon project approval (Exhibit A, Section V); and WHEREAS, CEQA Section 21081.6 requires that where mitigation findings are made for significant and potentially significant environmental impacts, a mitigation monitoring program shall be adopted upon project approval to ensure compliance with the mitigation during project implementation (Exhibit B); and WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City's decisions on the project were based is the City of South San Francisco, Planning Division, 315 Maple Street, South San Francisco, California 94080; and WHEREAS, the mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report have been applied as conditions of project approval through inclusion in the use permit adopted for the project. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT 1. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Environmental Impact Report, finds that it reflects the independent judgement of the City as lead agency, and hereby certifies the Environmental Impact Report with the revisions attached hereto as complete, adequate, and in compliance with CEQA. 2. The City Council adopts Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein, which includes mitigation findings, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 3. The City Council adopts B attached hereto and incorporated herein, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a Regular meeting held on the 10th day of February, 1999 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Councilmembers Joseph A. Fernekes, Mayor James L. Datzman Councilmember Eugene R. Mullin None John R. Penna J:\WPD\MNRSW~405\046LRESLMRFCRT.202 AUL:rja ATTEST: Karyl Mats~noto and EXHIBIT A Statement of Overriding Considerations 005 GENERAL FINDINGS All mitigation measures identified as applicable in the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") and Mitigation Monitoring Report are included in the resolutions approving the Project (the "Approvals") and are made conditions of approval of the Project. The Final EIR incorporates a program to report on and monitor changes made to the project or conditions or project approval adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. This program will ensure compliance during project implementation. Co Documents and other material constituting the record of the proceedings upon which the City's decision and its findings are based are located at the Planning Department of the City of South San Francisco in the custody of Chief Planner, Jim Harnish. D. The Final EIR has been prepared in compliance with CEQA. E. The Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency. Fo The City has independently reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR and other information in thfi' record and'has considered the information contained therein including the written and oral comments received at the public hearings on the EIR and on the Project, prior to acting upon or approving the Project, and has found that the Final EIR represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City of South San Francisco as Lead Agency for the Project. II. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT ARE BEING MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE A. LAND USE 1. Consistency With Mandatory Land Use Policies a. Issue The project as proposed is inconsistent with several of the mandatory land use policies for the East of 101 Area. (Impact III.A.1.) 44911 VOl 006 b. FmdMg Mitigation measures have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified above. c. Facts in support of finding Inconsistency with mandatory land use policies will be eliminated because: The proposed Project calls for amendment of the East of 101 Area Plan to change the land use designation for the site from mixed Coastal Commercial/Light Industrial to Light Industrial, respectively; The proposed Project calls for amendment of the East of 101 Area Plan to change Policy LU-6a from "Recycling facilities and/or waste transfer facilities may be permitted on sites designated Light Industrial subject to the property being greater than 300 lineal feet from any other land use category" to "Recycling facilities and/or waste transfer facilities may be permitted on sites designated Light Industrial;" No development, other than parking, circulation and related uses, shall be located more than 100 feet from sensitive resources. B. AESTHETICS Consistency with mandatory design policies for the East of 101 Area a. Issue The proposed project is inconsistent with several of the relevant mandatory design policies for the East of 101 Area. (Impact II.B.I., p. III.B-20) b. Finding Mitigation measures have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified above. c. Facts In Support Of Finding Since the release of the Draft EIR the sn-uctures and site plan have been redesigned to comply with the relevant mandatory City policies for the East of 101 Area. These changes include: · greater variety of building materials on main processing building; · greater articulation of building facades on main processing building; · more extensive use of glazing materials on main processing building; -2- 00'7 greater integration of design among buildings to create a more campus-like atmosphere; more extensive use of landscaping around buildings and in parking lots; special treatment of entry ways with pavement markings; and, distinctive treatment of recycling bins near entry to MRF office. 2. Visual impacts a. Issue The Project will introduce sources of light and glare to the project site. Light and glare from project sources will be visible from both off-site and on-site viewpoints. (Impact III.B.6, p. II.B-29). b. Finding Mitigation measures have been required in, or incorporated into, th~ project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified above. c. Facts In Support Of Finding The facility shall be designed to comply with the relevant East of 101 Area Plan policies regarding lighting and building colors. The MRF/TS building shall use non- reflective surfaces and a color palette that is compatible with the Bayfront location. This will reduce glare from the buildings themselves. The project shall include exterior lights designed to reduce off-site glare. Exterior lighting fixtures shall have focused beams and hood~ to minimize light vis~le from off-site. If street lighting is-3equired for safety reasons, such lighting shall be limited to roadway intersections and cul-de-sacs. Such lighting shall be kept to a minimum to meet safety standards, reduce light and glare and to maintain the character of the area. All light standards shall be of the low intensity variety, shining light downward onto roads and streets. Selection of acceptable street lighting standards shall be made at the time of project design review. In addition, high intensity outdoor lighting on individual structures shall be prohibited. C. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES The project will have no significant public services and utilities impacts. D. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY Exposure Of Workers And Public To Hazards During Project Construction a. Issue 44911 VOl 0 0 8 Contaminated soil and groundwater at the site could lead to the exposure of workers or the public to hazards during project construction. (Impact III.D. 1, p. III.D-16). b. F~d~g Mitigation measures have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified above. c. Facts In Support Of Finding In accordance with OSHA requirements, any activity performed at a contaminated site shall be preceded by preparation of a separate site health and safety plan. Therefore, prior to beginning work at the site, the project applicant shall oversee the preparation of a site health and safety plan by a certified industrial hygienists or other qualified individual. The project applicant shall file the health and safety plan, and any amendments thereof, with the San Mateo County Department of Health Services.- 2. Household Hazardous Waste Exposure a. Issue Workers and the public at the proposed MRF/TS could be exposed to household hazardous waste ("HHW") collected at the facility. (Impact III.D.2, p. III.D-17) b. Finding Mitigation measures have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified above. c. Facts In Support Of Finding The Project applicant shall comply with all appropriate health and safety standards of Title 14 and shall prepare an Injury and Illness Prevention Program applicable to the new facility. This program will provide for the training of personnel working with potentially toxic substances. The project applicant shall provide personal protective equipment such as respirators, dust masks, safety glasses, gloves, safety shoes and uniforms. Project applicant shall provide shower facilities and changing areas so that workers will not carry material off-site. Project applicant shall make needle resistant gloves available to site workers. 3. Public Health Threats In Collection Area -4- 44911 VOl a. Issue The location and design of the HHw collection area at the proposed MRF/TS could pose threats to public health and safety. b. Finding Mitigation measures have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified above. c. Facts In Support Of Finding The Project applicant shall coordinate with County staff to ensure that adequate safety features for HHW collection are incorporated into operation of the HHW area. Specifically, the HHW collection area shall be used on an appointment basis so that queuing of cars will not occur and so there will be minimal conflict between cars carrying HHW and other vehicles. Advertised HHW drop off shall be scheduled on Sundays when the rest of the station is closed. The collection area shall be located away from the public recycling drop-off area. The HHW collection area shall include an overhang adequate to protect County staff from inclement weather. 4. Inappropriate Delivery Of Hazardous Waste a. Issue Deliberate or inadvertent delivery of hazardous waste commingled with nonhazardous refuse could pose health or safety threats to workers at the MRF/TS or to the environment upon improper disposal. (Impact II.D,4, p. III.D-19.) b. Finding Mitigation measures have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified above. c. Facts in support of finding SSFSC will allow County staff to operate the new Public Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility at the site. SSFSC staff shall implement a program to detect and remove concealed hazardous waste from incoming waste streams. The program will be approved by the Local Enforcement Agency. Components of the program will include: training personnel to recognize regulated hazardous wastes; implementing a load-checking program that would include random inspections of incoming loads; developing procedures for handling 44911 VOl 010 unauthorized hazardous wastes and methods for notifying the proper authorities if hazardous wastes are discovered; and developing a method for documenting inspections. Incompatible wastes found in material that has already entered the facility will be segregated and stored in a secure container until they are properly disposed of. 5. Noise Impacts To Workers a. Issue Workers at the proposed MRF/TS may be exposed to excessive noise levels during operation of the facility. (Impact III.D.6, p. II.D-21.) b. F~d~g Mitigation measures have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified above. c. Facts In Support Of Finding Noise control measures will be incorporated into the design of the facility. Once the facility is operational, a certified industrial hygienist or other qualified individual will measure the noise levels to which workers are exposed. If the OSHA 8-hour time weighted average exposure for any worker exceeds the 85dBA maximum set by OSHA, a hearing conservation program will be initiated and appropriate administrative and engineering controls will be put in place to reduce the noise to OSHA accepted levels. 6. Accidents & Fires a. Issue Spills, collisions, upsets, fires or other accidents at the facility or during waste transport could cause injury to site workers, the 'general public or the environment. (Impact m.D.8, p. III.D-24.) b. Finding Mitigation measures have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified above. c. Facts In Support Of Finding The South San Francisco Fire Department staffhave indicated that they are adequately staffed and have adequate water supplies available to reduce the risk of fires at the site. Station personnel will also have properly maintained fire equipment available in sufficient quantity and located as required by the local fire authority and LEA. -6- 44911 VOl As part of its overall health and safety program, the facility will have an emergency management plan that establishes procedures to respond to and deal with all reasonably foreseeable accidents. The project applicant will prepare an Injury and Illness Prevention Program that applies to operations at the proposed MRF/TS. Traffic flow into and out of the transfer station and waste processing facilities will be in accord with the design intent and in such a manner so as to minimize interference and safety problems for traffic on adjacent streets and roads. The Project applicant will comply with the provisions of CCR, Title 14, Section 17497, which requires that operating and maintenance personnel are required to wear and use approved safety equipment for personal health and safety, as determined by the LEA. The project applicant will also comply with section 17472, which stipulates that site operation and maintenance personnel must be adequately trained in subjects pertinent to safety, health, environmental controls, and emergency procedures. E. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION Increased Daily And Peak Hour Traffic At East Grand Avenue/Littlefield Avenue a. Issue Both Haul Route-Alternative A and Haul Route Alternative C will have a significant impact at the intersection of East Grand Avenue and Littlefield Avenue. (Impact III.E. 1, p. III.E-23.) b. Finding Mitigation measures have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified above. c. Facts In Support Of Finding The project applicant shall direct all commercial truck traffic to use Haul Route Alternative A. The project applicant will signalize the intersection of East Grand Avenue and Littlefield Avenue. The project applicant in the area shall be reimbursed by future developers in the area a pro rata share of the cost of signalization of the intersection, commensurate with the ratio of existing to project traffic volumes. The signalization will reduce impacts to local roadways under Haul Route Alternative A to a less than significant level. 0 1.2 -7- 44911 VOl Under Alternative C, The Project Could Result In A Potential Increase In Safety Hazards On Littlefield Avenue a. F~ding Mitigation measures have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects identified above. b. Facts In Support Of Finding The project applicant shall be required to .use Haul Route Alternative A and not C, and shall be directed to request that all non-applicant commercial vehicles also use Haul Route A. This will reduce the potentially significant impact identified in the draft EIR to a level of insignificance. 3. Truck Traffic Loading And Pavement Deterioration a. Issue The Project will result in increased truck traffic loading and potential pavement deterioration on East Jamie Court and Haskins Way and at Little field Avenue. (Impact III.E.3., p. III.E-25) b. Finding Mitigation measures have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects identified above. c. Facts In Support Of Finding The project applicant shall be required to use Haul Route Alternative A. The project applicant will complete deflection testing of the existing pavement on East Jamie Court and Haskins Way. The testing will determine whether additional pavement strength is needed to accommodate projected traffic increases. If there is such a need, the project applicant will contribute a pro rata share towards the cost of upgrading the traffic index to the required level. This is typically done with a pavement overlay. If reserve pavement structural capacity is unavailable (i.e. if existing pavement is no stronger than is currently needed), an increase in T.I. of 1.5 could generate a need for a 3-4 inch thick asphalt concrete overlay. 4. Safety Hazards To Vehicles And Pedestrians At The Site a. Issue 44911 VOl -8- 013 The proposed design of the MR_F/TS facility could cause internal circulation conflicts which will present a safety hazard to vehicles and pedestrians at the site. (Impact III.E.5, p. II.E-27.) b. Fmding Mitigation measures have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects identified above. c. Facts In Support Of Finding The project applicant has redesigned the head-in parking area for Bay Trail access so that vehicles can turn about before pulling into a lane of traffic. The project applicant shall provide a pedestrian cross walk across the facility access road for people to move from the parking area to the access trail to the Bay Trail, and will provide signage to direct pedestrians to the crosswalk, and to warn vehicles of the possibility of pedestrians crossing the street. The project applicant shall re-design the truck scale area, moving all of the scales to the west. A modest move to the west will increase outbound queuing space and not affect the inbound queuing, which is more than adequate to prevent queuing and safety problems. 5. Cumulative Traffic Impacts a. Issue Cumulative continued development in the East of 101 Area will result, by 2003, in an increase in daily and peak hour traffic on local roadways serving the project site. Under Alternative A or C, the project will increase,the peak hour traffic volumes by more than two percent at only one intersection: East Grand Avenue and Littlefield Avenue. Therefore, this is the only significant contributiOn the project will make to a significant impact. (Impact III.E.6, p. III.E-29.) b. Finding Mitigation measures have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects identified above. c. Facts In Support Of Finding The Project applicant will signalize the intersection of East Grand Avenue and Littlefield Avenue. The prOject applicant should be reimbursed a pro rata share of the cost of signalization of the intersection, commensurate with the ratio of existing to project traffic volumes. Signalization of this intersection is currently included in the East of 101 44911 VOl -9- 01.4: Plan. The signalization will reduce cumulative impacts under Haul Route Alternative A to a less than significant level. F. AIR QUALITY 1. Project Construction a. Issue Fugitive dust generated by construction activities will be substantial and will contribute to intermittent ambient respirable particulate matter concentrations that could violate state PM-10 standards. b. Finding Mitigation measures have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified above. c. Facts In Support Of Finding The project applicant shall implement a construction dust-abatement program which will include the elements described in the draft EIR at page III.F-10. These mitigation measures have been approved by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2. Odors a. .Issue --- Project operations (storage of wastes and steam emissions from sanitation of international waste containers) could result in nuisance odor emissions. b. Finding Mitigation measures have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified above. c. Facts In Support Of Finding The project applicant will insure that refuse materials are transferred from the facility in a timely fashion and not allowed to accumulate on the site. The project applicant will add a deodorizer to the misting system as necessary. Solid wastes will be removed from the MRF/TS within 48 hours of arrival. -10- 01.5 44911 VOl The project site is located more than two miles from the nearest residential odor receptor. The project applicant will clean the facility daffy of all loose materials and litter. All boxes, bins, pits, or other types of containers used shall be cleaned on a schedule approved by the Enforcement Agency. The project applicant will formulate a progressive odor .management protocol which will allow the project sponsor to respond to odor complaints and revise operations as necessary. The City, LEA, an/or the BAAQMD will notify the project sponsor of all odor complaints received regarding the facility. The protocol shall include a method for verifying complaints, and progressive measures to be made in the event of repeated, verified complaints. When the LEA or BAAQMD verify strong odors at off-site receptors, the sponsor shall make changes in site operations to reduce the potential for odors. Odor may be reduced by limiting incoming throughput, limiting incoming materials to certain types, installing odor control equipment, removing and disposing of the odiferous compounds, or other activities. The site has been designed with the prevailing southwest winds in mind. Except for access doors required by the building permit, no building openings shall exist on the south or east sides of the building. 3. Exhaust Emissions From Diesel-Powered Vehicles a. Issue Operation of diesel-powered vehicles within the MRF/TS could expose site workers to harmful particulate exhaust emissions. b. Finding Mitigation measures have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified above. c. Facts In Support Of Finding The design of the proposed MRF/TS will include a ventilation system that will meet a minimum standard of six air changes per hour. G. NOISE The project will have significant and unavoidable noise impacts addressed later in these findings. H. GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY 44911 VOl -11- O1 6 1. Earthquake Damage To Structures And Property a. Issue A major earthquake in the region is likely during the operational life of the project. In such an event, ground shaking could potentially cause damage to the proposed structures, cause unsecured equipment and machinery to fall, injure people and damage property, and create on-site safety hazards for workers. (Impact III.H. 1, p. III.H-12.) b. Finding Mitigation measures have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified above. c. Facts In Support Of Finding Facility design shall comply with site specific recommendations for seismic design criteria as provided by the project geotechnical engineer, the seismic design requirements of the Uniform Building Code and applicable amendments, additions and repeals of the Geotechnical Safety Element of the South San Francisco General Plan and the South San Francisco Building Department. To minimize hazards to building occupants from non-structural damage, the project applicant shall attach heavy objects to secure walls and floors, and light, loose objects shall be placed to minimize their potential to move or overturn. Large storage containers shall not be loosely stacked, and those stored on shelves will have appropriate restraints or other means to.prevent them from tipping or sliding-off the-shelves. Heavy objects like cylinder gases, fabrication shop machinery, truck parts, heavy storage cabinets, paint containers, tanks, safes, oversize file cabinets, etc., shall be firmly secured to floors and walls to prevent their falling or sliding. Care should be taken to avoid placement of such objects where they could topple or move and block exit doors. To protect on-site personnel, insure the integrity of the facility infrastructure, and minimize any disruption to Transfer Facility operations in the event of a major earthquake, the project proponent shall also prepare or update an Earthquake Response Plan. The Earthquake Response Plan will include post-earthquake inspection and repair to evaluate any damage that may have occurred, insure the integrity of the mechanical systems, and make the facility operational as soon as possible. Earthquake Damage Due To Liquefaction, Spreading, Settlement, Or Inundation a. Issue In the event of a major earthquake in the region, ground shaking could potentially expose people and the proposed facility to seismic hazards including localized 44911 VOl - 12- 0 17 liquefaction, lateral spreading (ground lurching), differential settlement, or inundation from tsunami or seiche. b. Finding Mitigation measures have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified above. c. Facts In Support Of Finding The project shall comply with engineering design recommendations developed to reduce the likelihood of the earthquake-induced hazards of differential settlement, liquefaction, slope failure. Additionally, compliance with design recommendations for design of shoreline slopes, building foundations, retaining walls, slab- on-grade floors and pavements will reduce the potential of structural failure due to groundshaking during a seismic event. Compliance with engineering recommendations for seismic design based on requirements of Zone 4 of the 1994 or 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) should be sufficient to reduce the impacts of seismic groundshaking on the proposed structures to a less-than-significant level. 3. Erosion a. Issue Fill slopes along the south and east perimeter could undergo erosion by wave action if not protected. b. Finding Mitigation measures have been requked in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified above. c. Facts In Support Of Finding The Project shall comply with geotechnical engineering design recommendation developed to reduce the likelihood of shoreline slope bank erosion. Engineering studies performed by the applicant indicate that additional protection is required on the east side, with minimal additional protection required on the southern bank. 4. Groundwater Hazards a. Issue The shallow groundwater table beneath the site could subject subsurface footings or retaining walls to hydrostatic pressures. Shallow groundwater also could pose construction hazards for excavations of 10 feet or more. (Impact III.HA, p. III.H-16.) 44911 VOl -13- 01.$ b. Finding Mitigation measures have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified above. c. Facts In Support Of Finding The Project shall comply with engineering design recommendations developed to reduce the effects of subsurface hydrostatic loads that could cause uplift or damage to structures. These shall include engineering design recommendations to properly back-drain retaining wall that are below groundwater to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure. Treadwell and Rollo recommend a design groundwater elevation for the retaining wall footings associated with the transfer loading tunnel of 10 feet msl or approximately 10 feet below ground surface. Appropriate design recommendations will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The excavation for the construction of the transfer loading ramp and other construction excavations may be below the groundwater table and thus may require excavation dewatering during construction. The proposed Project shall comply with engineering design recommendations to dewater the excavations during construction. 5. Soil Contamination a. Issue Subsurface soil contain elevated concentrations oftead that could pose a human health concern if not properly characterized, handled, reused and/or disposed of. b. Finding Mitigation measures have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified above. c. Facts In Support Of Finding The project shall comply with recommendations to characterize the soil prior to or during the excavation of the proposed transfer tunnel if the soil is transported offsite for disposal or reuse. Additional analysis will determine lead levels in the soil that could then dictate appropriate handling and disposal procedures. Confi marion sampling and testing of the soil chemistry will be completed before excavation begins. Characterizing the soil prior to excavating the soil will reduce the construction down-time that may result from time required to stockpile and profile soil. Appropriate soil characterization for lead levels and the resulting handling and disposal procedures will reduce the impact to a less-than- significant level. 44911 VOl - 14- If the non-RCRA soil excavated during construction of the proposed transfer' tunnel is not removed from the project site for reuse or landfill disposal, it could, pursuant to a proper soil management plan, be incorporated with other fill materials and used on the subject site as construction fill. Considering that the soil excavated from the tunnel area may contain elevated concentrations for lead, it shall be used as fill beneath asphalt parking lots, concrete slab foundations, or concrete truck-ways and parking areas. Soil expected to contain concentrations of lead shah not be used for surficial landscaping or exposed to the surface with the potential of human contact. Mixing of the soil containing lead with other on-site fill shall not occur. I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1. Erosion a. Issue Construction of the MRF/TS will require grading or earth-moving activities that could result in erosion, dust creation, and sedimentation to drainage channels and surface waters. (Impact III.I. 1, p. 111.1-8.) b. Finding Mitigation measures have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified above. c. Facts In Support Of Finding The project applicant shall grade the site away from the adjacent wetlands and Bay, so that stormwater runoff drains to the storm drain system. The project shall retain the existing berm around the northern, easte.rn, and southern edges of the site. The project applicant shall repair these berms where necessary and maintain them to prevent runoff from entering the Bay or wetlands. The project applicant will be required to obtain a General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit before proceeding with site development. To obtain this permit, the applicant shall develop a SWPPP that specifies the Best Management Practices that shall be employed during construction of the facility to protect the quality of stormwater runoff from the site. These may include construction of temporary sediment basins, use of straw bale and filter fabric dykes, and mulching and seeding soil stockpiles. The SWPPP shall also specify a stormwater quality monitoring program to insure that protection are effective. 2. Surface Runoff a. Issue 44911 VOl -15- 020 Construction and operation of the MRF/TS will increase the amount of surface runoff and pollutant load at the site. b. F~d~g · Mitigation measures have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified above. c. Facts In Support Of Finding All waste tipping and processing areas will be covered. The vehicle maintenance area will be covered. The fleet fuel tank will be covered. The container fabricating and repair facility and the vehicle washing facility will be covered. Process water from the international container sterilizer will be discharged to the sanitary sewer. The facility will be required to obtain a NPDES permit and to develop a SWPPP that demonstrates Best Management practices to protect surface water quality once the facility is built and operating. The SWPP will include a water quality monitoring program to test whether the protective measures are effective. The measures incorporated into SWPPP, as described on page III.I-10 of the [draft] EIR, wili help to minimize surface runoff and pollutant load at the site. 3. Infiltration Of Wash Water a. Issue The vehicle washing facility will create the potential for adverse effects to ground water quality resulting from infiltration of wash water laden with detergents. b. Finding Mitigation measures have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified above. c. Facts In Support Of Finding The proposed truck wash facility will be paved with an impervious asphalt or concrete pad to prevent liquid infiltration and/or migration. The track washing area will be graded to insure that all water enters specified drains, and to prevent stormwater runon. 44911 VOl -16- 02i Drains will lead to a pre-treatment system, a recycling system, or, if permitted by the City's wastewater treatment facility, directly to the sanitary sewer. 4. Hydrocarbon Contamination Through Dewatering a. Issue Long-term dewatering of construction excavations or permanent subsurface structures may cause petroleum hydrocarbon constituents to migrate towards the point of extraction from the source of impacted groundwater. Extracting groundwater impacted with petroleum hydrocarbons may result in discharges of gasoline compounds to the surface and eventually San Francisco Bay. (Impact 111.1.5, p. 111.1-12.) b. Finding Mitigation measures have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified above. c. Facts In Support Of Finding Sampling and analysis of the extracted groundwater shall be performed periodically if it is deemed necessary to dewater the construction excavations or the loading transfer tunnel over extended periods of time. The sampling and analysis will verify that the petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations in the extracted groundwater do not exceed limits of applicable discharge permits. Groundwater shall be tested for petroleum hydrocarbons such as gasoline and its individual constituents. The frequency of sampling and analysis will depend on the quantity of water-discharged: If petroleum hydrocarbon-concentrations exceed the discharge permit requirements, extracted groundwater will be contained until concentrations are shown to decrease to or below acceptable levels. Contained water v/ill then be re-tested and disposed of properly. ~ J. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. Impacts On Significant Biological Resources a. Issue Project construction activities have the potential to adversely affect significant biological resources within the project site either directly or indirectly as described on pages III.J-7-8 of the draft EIR. (Impact III.J. 1, p. III.J-8.) b. F~ding Mitigation measures have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified above. 022 -17- 44911 VOl c. Facts In Support Of Finding The project applicant shall delineate wetlands and areas that potentially harbor salt marsh dependent plants and wildlife with a 100-foot buffer. Prior to any grading activities, the project applicant will erect a 3-foot-high silt proof fence along the edge of buffer areas. These areas will be marked as "Ecologically sensitive areas" to prevent access by machinery and personnel. Project related construction activities shall be monitored by a qualified biologist as described on page III.J-8 of the draft EIR. 2. Aquatic Resources a. Issue Project development will adversely affect aquatic resources. b. Finding Mitigation measures have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified above. c. Facts In Support Of Finding The project applicant shall develop and implement a SWPPP that emphasizes storm water best management practices (BMPs) and complies with the federal NPDES discharge program. (See Hydrology, section III.I of draft EIR). The MRF/TS shall be designed with separate stormwater collection and containment systems, including detention ponds, oil and grease traps and drainage channels. A soil berm shall be constructed around greenwaste site(s) to divert surface run- offto existing or constructed drainage channels: All waters used in the truck wash area shall be recycled and non-phosphate cleaners will be used. 3. Increase In Non-Native Plant Species a. Issue Project development has the potential to increase the presence of non-native invasive plant species at the site, which is inconsistent with conservation element policies in the East of 101 Area Plan. b. Finding Mitigation measures have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified above. 44911 VOl -18- 023 guidelines. III. c. Facts In Support Of Finding Landscaping on the site will conform to California Native Plant Society FINDINGS ON SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS mo LAND USE CHANGE IN CHARACTER OF THE AREA FROM WHAT WAS ENVISIONED IN THE GENERAL PLAN 1. Issue The cumulative changes in land use designation in the southeast portion of the East of 101 Area would alter the character of the area from what has been envisioned in the General Plan (Impact III.A.5.) 2. Mitigation Change the land use designation on the project site to Light Industrial. The project applicant shall also be required to satisfy a relatively high aesthetic standard in the design of the facility. 3. Finding The project w. ill result in the land use designation_on the project site being changed to Light Industrial. Although mitigation measures will be imposed, the change in land use designation will create a potentially significant unavoidable impact on the environment when comparing the proposed project with what might be developed under the Coastal Commercial designation of the East of 101 ~rea Plan. 4. Statement Of Overriding Considerations The City finds that there are specific economic, social, legal, technological, and other considerations that make infeasible other mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR and that, as explained in the Statement of Overriding Considerations includect at the conclusion of these findings, the benefits of the Project outweigh its potential adverse cumulative land use impacts. B. AIR QUALITY 1. Increased emissions from project operation a. Issue 024 -19- 44911 VOl The project would result in increased emissions of criteria pollutants from vehicular traffic to and from the project site. The increase in emissions would exceed BAAQMD significance criteria for NOx and ROG. (Impact II.F.2, p. III.F-10.) b. Mitigation The project applicant shall restrict the destination of wastes off-hauled to Ox Mountain Landfill unless the use of Ox Mountain becomes infeasible within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 20161.1 or economically impracticable. By reducing the average daily truck trip length to 20 miles, ROG emissions would drop to 42 pounds per day, below the significance threshold. Nevertheless, NOx emissions would remain significant at 176 pounds per day. The project applicant will cooperate with the City of San Francisco in developing an alternative fuel program that includes converting a percentage of its haul fleet to alternative fuels that emit less NOx. c. Finding It is likely that the emission levels for both NOx and ROG will continue to exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds. The impact will therefore remain significant and unavoidable. d. Statement Of Overriding Considerations The City finds that there are specific economic, social, legal, technological, and other considerations that make infeasible other mitigation measures-or alternatives identified in the EIR and that, as explained in the Statement of Overriding Considerations included at the conclusion of these findings, the benefits of the Project outweigh its potential adverse impacts related to the significant short-term_impacts of increased emissions of criteria pollutants from vehicular traffic to and from the project site. 2. Cumulative Emissions a. Issue emissions. The proposed project would contribute to cumulative mobile-source b. Mitigation The project applicant will implement transit measures to encourage use of car pooling to the project site. For instance, the project applicant will provide a ride-share board at a common work area, and will design the project to give preferred parking to carpools. 44911 VOl - 20 - 025 The project applicant will provide short-term bicycle parking for employees. The project applicant will implement all traffic circulation improvements identified in Section III.E of the draft EIR. c. Finding The mitigation measures identified above will not reduce emissions enough to reduce cumulative emissions below BAAQMD significance thresholds for ROG NOx or PM-10. The impact will therefore remain significant and unavoidable. d. Statement Of Overriding Considerations The City finds that there are specific economic, social, legal, technological, and other considerations that make infeasible other mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR and that, as explained in the Statement of Overriding Considerations included at the conclusion of these findings, the benefits of the Project outweigh its potential adverse impacts related to the significant short-term impacts of cumulative mobile-source emissions. C. NOISE 1. Facility Operation Noise a. Issue Operation of the proposed MRF/TS would generate substantial levels of noise. Although noise of this estimated magnitude would not affect surrounding industrial land uses, noise of the magnitude estimated for the project could affect the proposed extension of the Bay Trail. b. Mitigation The facility building will have solid walls on the sides of the main processing building (south and east sides) closest to the proposed Bay Trail extension. Amenities that will focus trail uses will be located as far as feasibly possible away from areas of greatest project noise, including the scale house, the glass bins, and the entrance and exit to the MRF/TS. Appropriate berms, fences and landscaping may be used to attenuated noise from the proposed MRF/TS. c. Finding 026 -21 - 44911 VOl Noise barriers cannot completely attenuate the noise to meet the policy goal of 60 dBA, Leq, because noise from the airport and other sources already exceeds 60 dBA. Other mitigation measures will not reduce the noise to a less than significant level. The impact will therefore remain significant and unavoidable. The City acknowledges that existing ambient noise levels at the site already exceed 60 dBA. d. Statement Of Overriding Considerations The City finds that there are specific economic, social, legal, technological, and other considerations that make infeasible other mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR and that, as explained in the Statement of Overriding Considerations included at the conclusion of these findings, the benefits of the Project outweigh its potential adverse impacts related to the significant impacts of noise. 2. Cumulative Noise Impacts On Bay Trail a. Issue The cumulative addition of noise in the vicinity of the proposed project would increase ambient noise, subsequently affecting activities along the Bay Trail. (Impact III.G.4, p. III.G-15.) b. Mitigation The facility building will have solid walls on the sides of the main processing building (south and east sides) closest to the proposed Bay Trail extension. Amenities that will focus trail uses will be located as far as feasibly possible away from areas of greatest project noise, including the scale house, the glass bins, and the entrance and exit to the MRF/TS. Appropriate berms and landscaping may be used to attenuated noise from the proposed MRF/TS. c. Finding Feasible mitigation measures will not reduce the project's contribution to cumulative noise impacts to a less than significant level. The impact will therefore remain significant and unavoidable. d. Statement Of Overriding Considerations The City finds that there are specific economic, social, legal, technological, and other considerations that make infeasible other mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR and that, as explained in the Statement of Overriding Considerations 44911 VOl - 22 - 0 2 7 included at the conclusion of these findings, the benefits of the Project outweigh its potential adverse impacts related to significant cumulative noise impacts. IV. FINDINGS CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES The project applicant and the City reviewed a wide array of alternative sites in South San Francisco, Brisbane and Millbrae. None of the sites, except the Shaw Road alternative was deemed to be feasible enough to merit review in the EIR. The EIR reviewed three other alternatives: (1) the No-Project Alternative; (2) the Design Alternative; and, (3) the Reduced-Project Alternative. A. NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 1. Alternative This alternative assumes that the Haskins brothers would continue to hold the site as vacant land that has received and stored fill materials as permitted under the existing land use zoning of the site. SSFSC would not build the proposed MRF/TS, administration building, maintenance building, or service building. This alternative further assumes the City would attempt to achieve the AB939 mandate of achieving 50% diversion of solid waste from landfills by the year 2000 primarily by using existing facilities and perhaps creating or expanding other facilities. 2. Finding Specific economic, social or other considerations make the No-Project Alteroative infeasible ....... 3. Facts In Support Of Finding This alternative would result in fewer-impacts to the land use character of the area, no geologic hazards to workers, no increase in runoff or pollution, and no impacts to or from groundwater. It would have no effect on erosion, air quality, traffic, biological resources, consumption of energy, public health or safety, noise, aesthetics, or cultural resources. Although the Bay Trail could still be constructed around the site, this alternative would provide no impetus for the construction. While it would avoid the negative impacts of the project, adoption of this alternative would not produce any of the beneficial impacts of the project. The benefits to off-site public health and safety such as greater material recovery from incoming waste streams, larger capacity for daily throughput of material, continuation of a HHW collection program and establishment of a wood processing facility would not be realized if this alternative were implemented. Without the proposed facility, it will be more difficult for the City to efficiently manage and dispose of its municipal solid waste. It will be very difficult to meet the AB 939 mandate that 50% of the waste stream be diverted from landfill by the year 2000 -23- 02~ 44911 VOl and may result in penalties and fines. Any program will rely heavily on residents and businesses to reduce the waste they produce and to properly separate the wastes they do produce into recoverable categories. The population (and thus the waste stream) is expected to grow. Expansion at existing facilities in the county is constrained. (See p. S-2 of Draft EIR.) It is unlikely that they will be able to handle the amount of greenwaste that would have to be recovered to meet the AB 939 mandate. Thus, the no-project alternative would fail to meet one of the main goals of the project. The overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide additional facts in support of this finding. B. OFF-SITE ALTERNATIVE 1. Alternative An alternative site is located at 212 Shaw Road, at the intersection of Shaw Road and San Mateo Avenue. The site is referred to as the Shaw Road Site. It is approximately 355,450 square feet (8.16 acres) and is currently developed with a number of industrial uses. The site is already developed with a series of large metal structures, paved parking areas, and ancillary facilities. Structures on the site are from approximately 20 to 40 feet in height. The site is designated for industrial land uses in the City's general plan. Regional Access to the site area is provided by San Mateo Avenue and U.S. Highway 101 from the north and the south. Site access is via a driveway from Shaw Road. A second driveway provides egress from the site to San Mateo Ave. A railway spur also accesses the eastern portion of the site. 2. Findiag .... Specific economic, social or other considerations make the Off-Site Alternative infeasible. 3. Facts In Support Of Finding Locating the facility at this site would not require a change in the land use designation of the area or in the zoning ordinance. It would, however, require a conditional use permit and the MRF/TS would be located closer to residential areas. Traffic impacts at this site would not be significant, although pavement loading would increase. In addition, this alternative would result in no impact on biological resources or aesthetic views at the site. As in the proposed project, there would be no impact on population and housing or on energy and mineral resources. Geologic impacts due to the risk of earthquakes would be similar to those at the proposed project site. Hydrologic risks due to demolition and construction and stormwater runoff are similar to the risks at the proposed project site and can be similarly mitigated. Air quality impacts, public health and safety 44911 VOl - 24 - impacts, and public services and utilities impacts would be essentially the same, although the location of these impacts would shift. The Shaw Road site provides approximately 2 acres less useable area than the 10 acre site proposed by the project proponent. Given the smaller size of the site, a facility of capacity comparable to the project planned for the proposed site would have insufficient queuing space insufficient space for fleet parking and insufficient space for container storage. Outbound scale access would also be marginal. There is also the potential for noise impacts and the possibility of cultural resources impacts. In addition, there are no recreational resources at the site, so selection of this alternative would not result in the near- term construction of the Bay Trail. The Shaw Street site is also not available for purchase at this time and therefore is not a viable alternative given the time constraints of compliance with AB 939. The overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide additional facts in support of this finding. C. DESIGN ALTERNATIVE 1. Alternative In the design alternative, the proposed site plan would be modified in several areas to bring it closer into compliance with applicable mandatory and advisory provisions of the East of 101 Area Plan, and to address certain minor safety hazards and vehicle circulation problems identified in the proposed project site design. The basic site. arrangement remains similar to the-proposed site design. Only minor changes have been made to building layouts, and all buildings are the same size as in the project design. All facility functions are retained in this design. 2. Finding infeasible. Specific economic, social or other considerations make the Design Alternative 3. Facts In Support Of Finding Vehicle circulation would be improved in the alternative site design by five principal changes described on pages V-27 and V-28. The design alternative would also reduce the visual impacts of the project by increasing screening and providing exterior building treatments and building volumes that are more consistent with the design policies in the East of 101 Area Plan. As with the proposed project, the Design Alternative would require a change in the Land Use designation and an amendment to the zoning ordinance. This alternative, like the proposed project would have no significant impact on population and housing, 030 - 25 - 44911 VOl energy and mineral resources, or cultural resources. Impacts relating to geologic hazards, hydrology, water quality, air quality, biological resources, public health and safety, noise, public service and utilities, would be similar to those described for the project. The Project would have. an ambiguous impact on recreational resources. On the one hand, aesthetic enhancements for the main processing building would reduce the impacts. On the other hand, 'the use of solid perimeter fencing may be perceived as detracting from the enjoyment of the Bay Trail by creating a confined space through with the Bay Trail passes. Because modification to satisfy one priority may negatively affect other operations or be constrained by the circulation required for another operation, many of the alternative designs are compromises. Moreover, since the release of the draft EIR, the applicant's preferred design has been significantly revised such that the Final EIR now concludes that the Design Alternative now offers only insignificant aesthetic advantages over the project. D. REDUCED PROJECT/MITIGATED ALTERNATIVE 1. Alternative The Reduced-Project/Mitigated Alternative would include development of a smaller MRF/TS facility with a design capacity of 750 tons per day of incoming materials. The facility would be located on the proposed project site, and would occupy the whole site, with the exception of the Bay Trail and the associated landscaped strip. The conceptual design does leave more undeveloped space on the eastern portion of the site due to the small.er size and resulting footprint, of facility buildings. -- 2. Finding Specific economic, social or other corisiderations make the Reduced Project/Mitigated Alternative infeasible. 3. Facts In Support Of Finding If this alternative were selected, the component building sizes and various site functions would be reduced in size approximately 20 to 40 percent. The processing building would be reduced substantially. This project would reduce the visual impact of the facility on the site, introduce more landscaping and expand on the industrial campus theme, maintain an efficient and functional operational arrangement and circulation pattern. As with the proposed project, this alternative would require a change in the Land Use designation and an amendment to the zoning ordinance. This alternative would, however, be more consistent with existing land use and design standards and with the Bay Trail and open space areas adjacent to the site. 44911 VOl - 26 - 031 This alternative, like the proposed project, would have no significant impact on population and housing, biological resources, energy and mineral resources, noise, and cultural resources. Impacts relating to geologic hazards, hydrology, water quality, public health and safety, and public service and utilities would be similar to those described for the project. Hydrologic impacts from stormwater runoff and contamination would be slightly reduced because of the increase in landscaped areas and the reduced vehicular traffic volumes. This alternative would reduce the impacts to air quality by reducing emissions · of pollutants by approximately 25% as compared with the proposed project. ROG emissions would likely be below BAAQMD significance thresholds, but NOx emissions would continue to exceed such standards and would be considered a significant and unavoidable impact. Odor impacts on trail users also would be reduced because of the buffer area and reduced facility throughput. Traffic generated by this alternative would be reduced by approximately 25% as compared with the proposed project. The reduced project would meet some, but not all of the project's objectives. In particular, although the facility would allow for some growth in SSFSC's ability to handle an expanding waste stream in its service area, it would not be sufficient to accommodate all anticipated growth in wastes that the facility could receive over the next 15-20 years. Furthermore, the reduced project (&57,000 sq. ft.) does not appear to be large enough to handle the reduced amount of solid waste (750 tpd) projected under this alternative and, therefore, does not appear to be realistic. V. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Because of th~ Project's overriding benefits, the City is approving the Project despite certain significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. In deciding to approve the Project, the City has considered each of the following unavoidable or unmitigated significant adverse environmental impacts: (1) cumtilative changes in land use designation; (2) increased emissions of criteria pollutants from vehicular traffic to and from the project site; (3) cumulative mobile source emissions; (4) increased noise from operation of the proposed MRF/TS; and, (5) cumulative addition of noise in the vicinity of the Bay Trail. Although the City believes that many of the unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR will be substantially lessened by the mitigation measures incorporated into the Project, it recognizes that approval of the Project will nonetheless result in certain unavoidable and potentially irreversible effects. The applicant has made reasonable and good faith efforts to mitigate the impacts of the project and has shown willingness to modify the project in response to the City's concerns as exemplified by upgrading design standards, adding landscaping, moving the household hazard waste collection center. The City has imposed numerous performance standards on the project to reduce its environmental impacts. 44911 VOl -27 - The City specifically finds that, to the extent the adverse or potentially adverse impacts set forth above have not been mitigated to a less than significant level, specific economic, social, legal, environmental, technological, or other benefits of the Project outweigh its significant effects on the environment. The City finds that any and each of the following considerations is sufficient to approve the Project despite any one or more of the unavoidable impacts identified, and that each of the overriding considerations is adopted with respect to each of the impacts individually, and that each consideration is severable from any other consideration should one consideration be shown to be legally insufficient for any reason. The following considerations support approval of the Project: 1. The Project will provide more efficient solid waste and transfer services for the cities of South San Francisco, Millbrae, Brisbane and the San Francisco International Airport as a result of facilities and modernization. 2. The Project will provide more efficient sorting and removing of recyclable materials (including paper, metal, wood, inert materials, green waste, glass, aluminum, and cardboard) through state-of-the-art separation and sorting technologies to divert these materials from the waste system otherwise destined for the landfill. o the general public. The Project will provide an expanded recycling buy-back facility open to 4. Provide space for a more easily identified household hazardous waste facility to be operated by San Mateo County. 5. The Project will enable the City of South San Francisco to meet its state- mandated goal of 50 percent reduction in the waste stream through source reduction, recycling, and composting by 2000 by increasing the diversion of recyclable and compostable materials. 6. The Project will result in the consolidation of SSFSC's refuse disposal operation, which is currently located on two sites, Oyster Point Boulevard and South Linden Avenue. 7. The Project will increase transfer and recovery capacity of solid waste, 8. The Project will improve the City's ability to efficiently manage and dispose of its municipal solid waste. 9. By diverting waste from the Landfill, the Project will make it easier for the cities of South San Francisco, Brisbane and Millbrae to accommodate the increase in the waste stream that will be produced by anticipated growth in both residential and employment population for the three cities over the next two decades. 10. The Project will add jobs in the San Mateo County. -28- 11. The Project will be the catalyst for the remediation of low-level contamination in the slough area to the north of the Project site. 12. The Project will provide additional educational opportunities for the public to learn about recycling and solid waste diversion and will include a visitor center open to the public, programs with the local school districts, and interpretive signs along the Bay Trail. 13. The Project will help the City of South San Francisco avoid fines and penalties to which it may be subject under AB 939. 14. The Project will result in the construction and maintenance of a portion of the publicly accessible Bay Trail along the southern and eastern edges of the site. -29- EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SCAVENGER COMPANY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY AND TRANSFER STATION INTRODUCTION The purpose of this program is to describe the mitigation monitoring process for the project and to describe the role and responsibilities of the City of South San Francisco and other agencies in ensuring the effective implementation of the mitigation measures contained in the EIR. The purpose of a reporting and monitoring program is to ensure that measures adopted to mitigate or avoid significant environmental impacts are implemented. The City of South San Francisco views the reporting and monitoring program as a working guide to facilitate not only the implementation of mitigation measures by the project proponents, but also the monitoring, compliance and reporting activities of the City and any monitors it may designate. Roles and Responsibilities As the lead agency under CEQA, the City of South san Francisco is required to monitor this project to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures are implemented effectively. The City will be responsible for ensuring full compliance with the provisions of this monitoring program and has primary responsibility for implementation of the monitoring program. The purpose of this monitoring program is to document that the mitigation measures adopted by the City are effectively implemented. The City has the authority to halt any activity associated with the construction of the MRF/TS if the activity is determined to be a deviation from the approved project or adopted mitigation measures. For details, refer to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program discussed below. Mittgation Monitoring and Reporting Program for South San Francisco Scavenger Company MRF/TS Environmental Science Associates February3,1999 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The table attached to this program presents a compilation of the Mitigation Measures in the Final EIR. The purpose of the table is to provide a single comprehensive list of mitigation measures, effectiveness criteria, and timing. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for South San Francisco Scavenger Company MRFflS Environmental Science Associates February3,19990:~ Mitigation Monitoring Table Impact LAND USE III.A.I: The proposed project is inconsistent with several of the mandatory land use policies for the East of 101 Area (Significant). Mitigation Measure A.l.(a): Amend the East of 101 Area Plan to change the land use designations fi.om mixed Coastal Commercial/Light Industrial to Light Industrial. III.A.5: The cumulative changes in land use designation in the southeast portion of the East of 101 Area would alter the character of the area fi.om what has been envisioned in the General Plan. (Significant). A.l.(b): Amend the East of 101 Area Plan to change Policy LU-6a fi.om "Recycling facilities and/or waste transfer facilities may be permitted on sites designated Light Industrial subject to the property being greater than 300 lineal feet fi.om any other land use category" to "Recycling facilities and/or waste transfer facilities may be permitted on sites designated Light Industrial." A.l.(c): Redesign the, facility to move the development area, other than parking and circulation, more than 100 feet from sensitive resources. The extent of the 100 foot buffer should correspond to the limit of the 100 foot shoreline band, as indicated in Figure II-3 in Chapter II of the DEIR. A.5.(a): Change the land use designation on the project site to Light Industrial and Planned Industrial. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for SSFSC Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station IMonitoring/ Reporting Action Project entitlements include changing the land use designation for the project site fi.om Coastal Commercial/ Light Industrial to Light Industrial. Included as an entitlement for project approval. City Planning Division will monitor changes in project design to ensure this requirement is met prior to approval of a building permit. Project entitlements include changing the land use designation for the project site from Coastal Commercial/ Light Industrial to Light Industrial. Effectiveness Criteria City Council passage of the entitlement. City Council passage of the entitlement. Revised site plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Chief Planner. City Council passage of the entitlement. Timing At time of project approval. At time of project approval. Prior to issuance of Building Permit. At time of project approval. Environmental Science Associates February 3, 1999 Impact AESTHETICS III.B.I: The proposed project is inconsistent with several of the relevant mandatory design policies for the East of 101 Area (Significant). III.B.6: The proposed project would introduce sources of light and glare to the project site. Light and glare fi.om project sources would be visible fi.om off-site viewpoints as well as on the site (Significant). Mitigation Measure B.l.(a): Redesign the proposed structures and site plan to comply with the relevant mandatory City policies for the East of I01 Area that are not met in the current proposal. The project applicant has indicated that the facility design will comply with the relevant East of 101 Area Plan regarding lighting and building colors. However, more detail on this mitigation is presented below. B.6.(a): The MRF/TS building should use earth tones and non-reflective surfaces. This will reduce glare from the buildings themselves. The project should include exterior lights designed to reduce off-site glare. Exterior lighting should use fixtures with focused .b, eams and hoods to minimize light visible fi.om off site. If street lighting is required for safety reasons, such lighting should be limited to roadway intersections and cul-de-sacs. Such lighting should be kept to a minimum to meet safety standards, reduce light and glare and to maintain the character of the area. All light standards should be of low intensity variety, shining light downward onto roads and streets. Lights shall be directed away fi.om the wetland areas to the North and South of the project site. Selection of acceptable street light standards shall be made at the time of project design review. In addition, high intensity outdoor lighting on individual structures should be prohibited. IMonitoring/ Reporting Action The site plan and building design, conforming to the Conditions of Approval, will be submitted to the City of South San Francisco Planning Division prior to approval of a Building Permit. Project applicant will prepare and submit plans for outdoor lighting and for building and roof colors to the Planning Division and the Police Department for review prior to approval of a Building Permit. Project applicant will prepare and submit to the Planning Department plans for outdoor lighting and for building and roof colors. Effectiveness Criteria The site plans shall be reviewed by the Chief Planner prior to approval of a Building Permit. Review and approval of lighting plan and color scheme by the Chief Planner. Approval of lighting plan and color scheme by the Chief Planner. Timing Prior to issuance of Building Permit. Prior to issuance of Building Permit. Prior to issuance of Building Permit, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Environmental Science Associates SSFSC Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station 4 February 3, 1999 Impact PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY III.D.I: Contaminated soil and groundwater at the site could lead to the exposure of workers or the public to hazards during project construction (Significant). III.D.2: Workers and the public at the proposed MRF/TS could be exposed to HHW collected at the facility (Significant). Mitigation Measure D.l.(a): In accordance with OSHA requirements, any activity performed at a contaminated site should be preceded by preparation of a separate site health and safety plan. Therefore, the project applicant shall oversee the preparation of a site health and safety plan by a certified industrial hygienist or other qualified individual. The health and safety plan shall be filed with the San Mateo County Department of Health Services. D.2.(a): The project sponsor would comply with all appropriate health and safety standards of Title 14 and would prepare an Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) applicable to the new facility. D.2.(b): Site workers, would be provided with respirators/dust masks, safety glasses, gloves, safety shoes, and uniforms. D.2.(c): Shower facilities and changing areas would be provided at the proposed MRF/TS so that workers would not carry material off-site. D.2.(d): The project sponsor should make needle resistant gloves available to site workers. Monitoring/ Reporting Action Project applicant shall oversee the preparation of a site health and safety plan by a certified industrial hygienist or other qualified individual. The health and safety plan shall be filed with the San Mateo County Department of Health Services. The project sponsor will prepare an Injury and Illness Prevention Plan (IIPP) applicable to the new facility. See (a) above. See (a) above. See (a) above. Effectiveness Criteria Site Health and Safety Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of the San Mateo County Department of Health Services and the Chief Planner of the City of South San Francisco. IIPP shall be reviewed and approved by Cai/OSHA, the Local Enforcement Agency, and the Chief Planner of the City of South San Francisco. I Timing Prior to issuance of Solid Waste Facility Permit. Prior to issuance of Solid Waste Facility Permit. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Environmental Science Associates SSFSC Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station 5 February 3, 1999 Mitigation Impact Measure PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY (cont.) III. D.3: The location and design D.3.(a): The project sponsor has agreed to move of the HHW collection area at the the HHW collection area to the location proposed MRF/TS could pose suggested in the EIR. The applicant will threats to public health and safety coordinate with County staffto ensure that (Significant). adequate safety features for HHW collection are incorporated into the proposed MRF/TS design. Specifically, the HHW collection area should be located on the site such that vehicles dropping off HHW can enter and exit the area without having to do any backing up or crossing of any other traffic flow and should account for stacking of vehicles. The collection area should also be located away from the public recycling drop-off area. Alternative C in the Altematives Chapter (Chapter V) presents an alternative design for the HHW collection facility. D.3.(b): The HHW collection area should include an overhang adequate to protect County staff from inclement ~eather. IMonitoring/ Reporting Action Project applicant shall present f'mal design for the HHW collection facility to the San Mateo County Department of Health Services. The location of the HHW area will be shown on revised site plans that will be reviewed by the City of South San Francisco Planning Division prior to approval of a Building Permit. Project applicant shall present final design for the HHW collection facility to the San Mateo County Department of Health Services and the City of South San Francisco Planning Division. Effectiveness Criteria Design for the HHW collection facility shall be reviewed and approved by the San Mateo County Department of Health Services and the City of South San Francisco Chief Planner. Design for the HHW collection facility shall be reviewed and approved by the San Mateo County Department of Health Services and the City of South San Francisco Chief Planner. I Timing Prior to issuance of Solid Waste Facility Permit. Prior to issuance of Building Permit. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Environmental Science Associates SSFSC Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station 6 February 3, 1999 Impact PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY III. D.4: Deliberate or inadvertent delivery of hazardous waste commingled with nonhazardous refuse could pose health or safety threats to workers at the MRF/TS or to the environment upon improper disposal (Significant). III.D.6: Workers at the proposed MRF/TS may be exposed to excessive noise levels (Significant). Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for SSFSC Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station IMitigation Measure (cont.) D.4.(a): In addition to allowing County staffto operate the new PHHWCF at the site, SSFSC staffwould implement a program to detect and remove concealed hazardous waste fi.om incoming waste streams. Components of the program would include: training personnel to recognize regulated hazardous wastes; implementing a load-checking program that would include random inspections of incoming loads; developing procedures for handling unauthorized hazardous wastes and methods for notifying the proper authorities if hazardous wastes are discovered; and developing a method for documenting inspections. Incompatible wastes found in material that has already entered the facility would be segregated and stored in a secure container until they are properly disposed of. The program would be approved by the LEA. D.6.(a): Noise control measures should be incorporated into the design of the facility. Once the facility is operational, a certified industrial hygienist or other qualified individual should measure the noise levels to which workers are exposed. If the OSHA 8-hour time weighted average exposure for any worker exceeds the 85 dBA threshold, a hearing conservation program must be initiated and appropriate administrative and engineering controls must be put in place to reduce the noise to OSHA accepted levels. Monitoring/ Reporting Action Applicant shall prepare written description of Load-Checking Program that will include all components listed in (a). Noise control measures shall be included in revised site plans. Applicant shall hire a certified industrial hygienist or other qualified individual to measure the noise levels to which workers are exposed. If the OSHA 8-hour time weighted average exposure for any worker exceeds the 85 dBA threshold, a hearing conservation program must be initiated and appropriate administrative and engineering controls must be put in place to reduce the noise to OSHA accepted levels. Effectiveness Criteria Load-Checking Program shall be presented to and approved by the San Mateo County Department of Health Services (the Local Enforcement Agency). Noise control measures must be submitted to the City of South San Francisco Planning Division prior to approval of a Building Permit. Hearing conservation program, if required, shall be reviewed and approved by the Local Enforcement Agency and Cai/OSHA. I Timing Prior to issuance of Solid Waste Facility Permit. Noise control measures must be submitted and approved prior to issuance of Building Permits. Noise levels must be measured within 45 days of facility opening, and hearing conservation program, if necessary, prepared within 75 days of facility opening. Environmental Science Associates February 3, 1999 Impact PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY III.D.8: Spills, collisions, upsets, fa'es or other accidents at the facility or during waste transport could cause injury to site workers, the general public or the environment (Significant). Mitigation Measure (cont.) D.8.(a): The facility operator would comply with provisions of the CCR, Title 14, Section 17497, which requires that operating and maintenance personnel are required to wear and use approved safety equipment for personal health and safety, as determined by the LEA, and Section 17472, which stipulates that site operation and maintenance personnel must be adequately trained in subjects pertinent to safety, health, environmental controls, and emergency procedures. D.8.(b): The facility operator shall develop a new IIPP for the proposed MRF/TS. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION III. E.I: The project would result in an increase in daily and peak hour traffic on local roadways serving the project site. This would be a significant impact at the intersection of East Grand Avenue/Littlefield Avenue during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours for either Alternative A or Alternative C (Significant). Both Alternative A and Alternative C would also cause an impact at the intersection of Grandview Drive and East Grand Avenue (Less than significant). E.l.(a): The project proponent should signalize the intersection of East Grand Avenue and Littlefield Avenue regardless of whether Alternative A or C is used. The project should be reimbursed a pro rata share of the cost of signalization of the intersection of Littlefield Avenue and East Grand Avenue, commensurate with the ratio of existing to project traffic volumes. Signalization of this intersection is currently included in the East of 101 Plan. Monitoring/ Reporting Action Please refer to Mitigation Measure D.2 (a), above. Please refer to Mitigation Measure D.2 (a), above. The project proponent should signalize the intersection of East Grand Avenue and Littlefield Avenue. The project should be reimbursed a pro rata share of the cost of signalization of the intersection of Littlefield Ave. and East Grand Ave., commensurate with the ratio of existing to project traffic volumes. IEffectiveness Criteria Plans and cost calculations shall be presented to, and approved by, the City Engineer. Timing Plans and calculations must be submitted prior to issuance of Building Permits for the project. Signalization must be completed by a date to be set by the City Engineer. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Environmental Science Associates SSFSC Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station 8 February 3, 1999 III.E.2: Under Alternative C, the project would result in a potential increase in safety hazards on Littlefield Avenue (Significant). I Mitigation Impact Measure TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION (cont.) E.2.(a): No mitigation is required if Alternative A is selected. If Alternative C is selected, the westbound left-turn lane on East Grand Avenue at Littlefield Avenue should be lengthened to accommodate increased traffic loading associated with the project. On-street parking should also be restricted on the west side of Littlefield for a distance of at least 100 feet south of East Grand Avenue. III.E.3: The project would result in increased truck traffic loading and potential pavement deterioration on East Jamie Court and Haskins Way (under Alternatives A and C) and Littlefield Avenue (under Alternative C) (Significan0. E.3.(a): The project applicant should complete deflection testing of the existing pavement on East Jamie Court and Haskins Way to determine whether additional pavement strength is needed to accommodate projected traffic increases. If the need for additional pavement strengthening is indicated, the project proponent should contribute a pro rata share towards the cost of upgrading the traffic index to the required level. This is typically done With a pavement overlay. If Reserve pavement structural capacity were unavailable (i.e., if existing pavement is no stronger than is currently needed), an increase in T.I. of 1.5 could generate a need for a 3 to 4-inch thick asphalt concrete overlay. Monitoring/ Reporting Action Applicant will be required, as a condition of approval of the project, to utilize Alternative A haul route, and to inform all commercial haulers using the facility that Alternative A haul route must be used. Applicant shall submit results of deflection testing to the City Engineer, and shall pay the City a pro-rated share of any necessary upgrade. Effectiveness Criteria City of South San Francisco Police Department will monitor traffic to the facility for compliance. Violations will be reported to the applicant. City Engineer shall review reflection testing results and calculate pro-rated share of applicant's contribution to upgrading. I Timing Commencing with opening of the facility and ongoing. Prior to issuance of building permit. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Err vironmental Science Associates SSFSC Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station 9 February 3, 1999 III. E.5: The proposed design of the MRF/TS facility would cause internal circulation conflicts which would present a safety hazard to vehicles and pedestrians at the site (Significant). TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION (cont.) E.5.(a): Re-design the head-in parking area for Bay Trail access so that vehicles can turn about before pulling into the lane of traffic. Provide a pedestrian cross walk across the facility access road for people to move fi.om the parking area to the access trail to the Bay Trail. Provide signage to direct pedestrians to the crosswalk, and to warn vehicles of the possibility of pedestrians crossing the street. Figure V-2 in Section V, Alternatives, provides a possible alternative design that would largely mitigate this impact. E.5.(b): Re-design the truck scale area, moving all of the scales to the west. A modest move to the west will increase outbound queuing and not affect the inbound queuing, which is more than adequate to prevent queuing and safety problems. The curb radius east of the outbound scale could be reduced slightly to add distance to the lane and to create a more distinct comer for traffic to negotiate. Figure V-2 in Section V, Alternatives, provides a possible alternative design that would largely mitigate this impact. III.E.6: Continued Cumulative Development in the East of 101 Area would result in an increase in daily and peak hour traffic on local roadways serving the project site (SignificanO. E.6.(a): Implementation of Mitigation Measure E-1 would mitigate impacts at the intersection of East Grand Avenue and Littlefield Avenue. Applicant shall prepare revised site plans that address issues noted prior to approval of a Building Permit. See (a) above. See Mitigation Measure E. 1, above. Revised site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City of South San Francisco Planning Division, Fire Department/Building Division, Engineering Division, and Police Department. Prior to issuance of Building Permit. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Environmental Science ,4ssociates SSFSC Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station 1 0 February 3, 1999 AIR QUALITY III.F. 1: Fugitive dust generated by construction activities would be substantial and would contribute to intermittent ambient respirable particulate matter concentrations that could violate state PM-10 standards (Significant). F.l.(a): Implement a construction dust- abatement program (BAAQMD, 1996). Construction contractors shall implement a dust- abatement program to reduce the contribution of project construction to local respirable particulate matter concentrations. This program shall include the following elements: · Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. · Cover all tracks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials, or require all tracks to maintain at least 2 feet of fi'eeboard. · Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply nontoxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and construction staging areas. · Sweep daily with water sweepers all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. · Sweep streets daily with water sweepers, if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. · Hydroseed or apply nontoxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). · Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply nontoxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). · Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. · Install sandbags or other erosion-control measures to prevent silt runoffto public roadways. · Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Applicant files monthly report of compliance with dust- abatement program to the Public Works Department, Construction Division. Mitigation monitor performs regular inspections, at least weekly to verify compliance with dust-abatement program by the Public Works Department, Construction Division. Monthly reports are filed and weekly inspections occur the Public Works Department, Construction Division During construction of facility. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Environmental Science ,4ssociates SSFSC Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station 11 February 3, 1999 AIR QUALITY (cont,) III.F.2: The project would result in increased emissions of criteria pollutants fi.om vehicular traffic to and from the project site. The increase in emissions would exceed BAAQMD significance criteria for NOx and ROG, but the increase would be less than significant for CO and PM10 (Significant). III.F.5: Project operations could result in nuisance odor emissions (Significant). F.2.(a): The project proponent could restrict the destination of wastes off-hauled to Ox Mountain Landfill. By reducing the average daily truck trip length to 20 miles, NOx emissions would still be significant at 176 pounds per day but ROG emissions would drop to 42 pounds per day, below the significance threshold. F.2.(b): The project sponsor will cooperate with the City in developing an alternative fuel program that included converting a percentage of its haul fleet (i.e., transfer and packer trucks) to alternative fuels that emit less NOx. F.5.(a): Limit on-site storage of solid wastes to 48 hours. F.5.(b): The facility shall be cleaned daily of all loose materials and litter. All boxes, bins, pits, or other types of containers used shall be cleaned on a schedule approved by the LEA. F.5.(c): Add deodorizer to the misting system. F.5.(d): The project sponsor, shall formulate a progressive odor management protocol. This protocol will allow the project sponsor to respond to odor complaints and revise operations as necessary. The City, LEA, and/or the BAAQMD shall notify the project sponsor of all odor complaints received regarding the facility. The protocol shall include a method for verifying complaints, and progressive measures to be made in the event of repeated, verified complaints. When the LEA or BAAQMD verify strong odors at off-site receptors, the sponsor shall make changes in site operations to reduce the potential for odors. Odor may be reduced by Project applicant will prepare an annual report to the Planning Department. Project applicant will prepare a report to the Planning Department. Applicant shall submit cleaning schedule to the LEA. Progressive odor management protocol submitted to Chief Planner, LEA and BAAQMD. Monthly report of odor complaints and response actions sent to the Planning Division. City receipt of annual report The project applicant will submit a report to the Planning Division prior to approval of Building Permit. Approval of cleaning schedule and regular site inspections by the LEA. City receipt of odor management protocol. Applicant to provide the Chief Planner evidence of approval of odor management protocol by the LEA and BAAQMD. The Planning Division will receive a copy monthly odor report. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Cleaning schedule prior to issuance of Solid Waste Facility Permit. Inspections are approximately monthly, once facility has opened. City approval of protocol prior to issuance of Building Permits. Monthly odor reports filed. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Environmental Science Associates $SFSC Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station 12 February 3, 1999 AIR QUALITY (cont.) III.F.6: Operation of diesel- powered vehicles within the MRF/TS could expose site workers to harmful particulate exhaust emissions. (Significant). III.F.7: The proposed project would contribute to cumulative mobile-source emissions (Significant). NOISE III.G.2: Operation of the proposed MRF/TS would generate substantial levels of noise. Although noise of this estimated magnitude would not affect surrounding industrial land uses, noise of the magnitude estimated for the project would affect the proposed extension of the Bay Trail (Significant). -D Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for SSFSC Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station limiting incoming throughput, limiting incoming materials to certain types, installing odor control equipment, removal and disposal of the odiferous compounds, or other activities. F.6.(a): The design of the proposed MRF/TS would include a ventilation system that would meet a minimum standard of six air changes per hour. F.7.(a): Transit measures should be implemented to encourage use of car pooling to the project site. Two transit measures are identified by the BAAQMD to encourage carpooling by employees of industrial projects. First, provision of a ride- share board at a common work area should be accommodated by the project. Second, the project should be designed to give preferred parking to car pools. F.7.(b): Provide short-term bicycle parking for employees. ., F.7.(e): Implement all traffic circulation improvements identified in Section III.E. G.2.(a): The applicant has designed the building to have solid walls on the sides of the main processing building (south and east sides) closest to the proposed Bay Trail extension. 13 Applicant shall submit building designs and calculations that indicate the design and capacity of the ventilation system. The applicant shall work with MTSMA to establish a transportation management program for review and approval by the Chief Planner. See Mitigation Measure G.2 (c), below. Ventilation system design shall be to the satisfaction of the City's Chief Building Official. Review and approval of transportation management program by Chief Planner. Chief Planner shall review and approve site plans and building designs. Prior to issuance of Building Permits. Prior to issuance of Building Permits. Prior to issuance of Building Permits. Environmental Science Associates February 3, 1999 NOISE (cont.) G.2.(b): In f'mal design of the Bay Trail extension adjacent the proposed MRF/TS, siting of amenities that would focus trail uses (e.g., benches, observation decks, etc.) shall be located as far as feasibly possible away fzom areas of greatest project noise, including the scale house, the glass bins, and the entrance and exit to the MRF/TS. G.2.(c): Although noise barriers are effective means of mitigating noise impacts, to achieve the level of attenuation required to meet the policy goal of 60 dBA, Leq, such barriers would be so massive and tall as to possibly inhibit or detract fi.om the desired effect of the Bay Trail experienced by its users. However, appropriate berms and landscaping may be used to attenuate noise from the proposed MRF/TS. III.G.4: The cumulative addition of noise in the vicinity of the proposed project would increase ambient noise, subsequently affecting activities along the Bay Trail (Significant). G.4.(a): Implement Mitigation Measure G.2. Final Bay Trail design shall be submitted to the City of South San Francisco Planning Division and the Bay Area Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). The applicant shall engage a qualified noise consultant to conduct a sound analysis to determine the level of sound attenuation necessary to mitigate the impact of haul and transfer truck traffic and other MRF/TS operations on the adjacent Bay Trail. If the noise level is determined to be above 60 dBA or the ambient noise level, the applicant shall prepare a mitigation plan that would be designed to reduce noise levels at the public gathering places on the Bay Trail to 60 dBA or the ambient noise level, whichever is higher. See Mitigation Measure G.2, above. Approval of the Chief Planner and BCDC Board. Results of sound analysis and mitigation plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Chief Planner. Independent noise monitoring of MRF/TS activities would occur when operations begin, to verify 60 dBA or the ambient noise level, whichever is higher, at public gathering places on the Bay Trail. Prior to issuance of BCDC permit. Prior to issuance of Building Permits and after facility operations commence. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Environmental Science Associates SSFSC Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station l 4 February 3, 1999 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY III.H.I: In the event ora major earthquake in the region, ground shaking could potentially cause damage to the proposed structures; cause unsecured equipment and machinery to fall, injury people and damaging property; and create on- site safety hazards for workers (Significant). Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for SSFSC Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station H.l.(a): Facility design will comply with site specific recommendations for seismic design criteria as provided by the project geotechnical engineer, the seismic design requirements of the Uniform Building Code and applicable amendments, additions and repeals of the Geotechnical Safety Element of the South San Francisco General Plan and the South San Francisco Building Department. H.l.(b): To minimize hazards to building occupants from non-structural damage, heavy objects should be attached to secure walls and floors, and light, loose objects should be placed to minimize their potential to move or overturn. Large storage containers should not be loosely stacked, and those stored on shelves should have appropriate restraints or other means to prevent them from tipping or sliding offthe shelves. Heavy objects like cylinder gases, fabrication shop machinery, truck parts heavy storage cabinets, paint containers, tanks, safes, oversize file cabinets, etc., should be firmly secured to floors and walls to prgvent their failing or sliding. Care should be taken to avoid placement of such objects where they could topple or move and block exit doors. H.l.(c): To protect on-site personnel, ensure the integrity of the facility infrastructure, and minimize any disruption to Transfer Facility operations in the event of a major earthquake, the applicant should prepare or update the Earthquake Response Plan. The Earthquake Response Plan should also include post- earthquake inspection and repair to evaluate any damage that may have occurred, ensure the integrity of the mechanical systems, and make the facility operational as soon as possible. 15 Applicant shall prepare and provide to the Building Division and Engineering Division geotechnical and civil pad certifications and building designs. Facility IIPP shall include provisions and standard operating procedures to reduce the hazards associated with non-structural damage and falling heavy objects. See Mitigation Measure D.2, above. Applicant shall prepare a current Earthquake Response Plan. Review and approval of building designs by the Building Division and Engineering Division. Earthquake Response Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Division and City Engineer. Prior to issuance of Building Permits. Prior to issuance of Building Permits. Environmental Science Associates February 3, 1999 III.H.2: In the event of a major earthquake in the region, ground shaking could potentially expose people and the proposed facility to seismic hazards including localized liquefaction; lateral spreading (ground-lurching); differential settlement or inundation from tsunami or seiche (Significant). GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY (cont.) H.2.(a): The project will comply with engineering design recommendations developed to reduce the likelihood of the earthquake- induced hazards of differential settlement, liquefaction, slope failure. Additionally, compliance with design recommendations for design of shoreline slopes, building foundations, retaining walls, slab-on-grade floors and pavements will reduce the potential of structural failure due to groundshaking during a seismic event. Compliance with engineering recommendations for seismic design based on requirements of Zone 4 of the 1994 or 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) should be sufficient to reduce the impacts of seismic groundshaking on the proposed structures to a less-than-significant level. III.H.3: Fill slopes along the south and east perimeter could undergo erosion by wave action if not protected (Significan0. H.3.(a): The Project will comply with geotechnical engineering design recommendations developed to reduce the likelihood of shoreline slope bank erosion. This would could include r,equire placement of rip-rap, protected rock armor, or other resistant structure in areas not yet protected by concrete rubble requiring slope protection. Slope protection structures such as rip-rap revetments will be designed in accordance with guidelines and policies of the San Francisco Bay Conservation Development Commission (BCDC) and constructed according to accepted engineering practices. Project site plan and building designs shall demonstrate the facility's ability to withstand a major regional earthquake without suffering differential settlement, liquefaction, or slope failure. Project applicant shall submit final plans for shoreline bank protection to the the BCDC. Building designs shall be to the satisfaction of the Building Division. Plans for shoreline bank protection must be to the satisfaction of the BCDC. Prior to issuance of Building Permits. Prior to issuance of BCDC development permit. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Environmental Science.dssociates SSI'SC Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station 16 February 3, 1999 III.H.4: The shallow groundwater table beneath the site could subject subsurface footings or retaining walls to hydrostatic pressures. Shallow groundwater also could pose construction hazards for excavations in excess of 10 feet or more (Significant). GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY (cont.) H.4.(a): The Project will comply with engineering design recommendations developed to reduce the effects of subsurface hydrostatic loads that could cause uplift or damage to structures. These would include engineering design recommendations to properly back-drain retaining wall that are below groundwater to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure. Treadwell and Rollo recommend a design groundwater elevation for the retaining wall footings associated with the transfer loading tunnel of 10 feet msl or approximately 10 feet below ground surface. Appropriate design recommendations would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. H.4.(b): The excavation for the construction of the transfer loading ramp and other construction excavations may be below the groundwater table and thus may require excavation dewatering during construction. The proposed Project will comply with engineering design recommendations to dewater the excavations during construction. III.H.6: Subsurface soil containing elevated concentrations of lead could pose a human health concern if not properly characterized, handled, reused md/or disposed (Significant). H.6.(a): The Project,rill comply with recommendations to characterize the soil removed during excavation of the proposed transfer runnel. Additional analysis would determine lead levels in the soil that could then dictate appropriate handling and disposal procedures. Confn'mation sampling and testing of the soil chemistry could be completed before excavation begins. Characterizing the soil prior to excavating the soil would reduce the construction down-time that may result from time required to stockpile and profile soil. Appropriate soil characterization for lead levels Applicant shall prepare and submit engineering design recommendations to reduce the effects of subsurface hydrostatic loads that could cause uplift or damage to structures. Project applicant shall prepare and submit engineering design recommendations to dewater the excavations during construction. The project applicant shall test and analyze the soil removed during excavation of the transfer tunnel to determine lead levels in the soil. Based on this analysis, the applicant shall develop written handling and disposal procedures for excavated soil. If soils containing lead are to remain onsite for use as fill, a reuse plan shall be submitted and reviewed by the San Mateo Approval of Building Division. Approval of Building Division. The Chief Planner shall be notified and the San Mateo County Health Services Agency shall review soil analysis and any reuse plan needed. Prior to issuance of Building Permits. Prior to issuance of Building Permits. Prior to issuance of Building Permits. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Environmental Science ~lssociates SSFSC Materials Recovery Facdity and Transfer Station 17 February 3, 1999 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY (cont.) and the resulting handling and disposal procedures would reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. H.6.(b): If the soil excavated during construction of the proposed transfer tunnel is not removed from the project site for reuse or landfill disposal, it could be used for onsite fill. If soils containing lead are to remain onsite for use as fill, a reuse plan shall be submitted and reviewed by the San Mateo County Health Services Agency. Considering that the soil excavated from the tunnel area may contain elevated concentrations for lead, it shall be used as fill beneath asphalt parking lots, concrete slab foundations, or concrete track-ways and parking areas, as predetermined in the approved reuse plan. Soil expected to contain concentrations of lead shall not be used for surficial landscaping or exposed to the surface with the potential of human contact. Mixing of the soil containing lead with other on- site fill shall not occur. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY III.I. 1: Construction of the MRF/TS would require grading or earth-moving activities which could result in erosion, dust creation, and sedimentation to drainage channels and surface waters (Significant). l.l.(a): The site will be graded away fi'om the adjacent wetlands and Bay, so that stormwater runoffdrains to the storm drain system. The existing berm around the northern, eastern, and southern edges of the site will be retained, repaired where necessary, and maintained to prevent runoff from entering the Bay or wetlands. County Health Services Agency. Considering that the soil excavated from the tunnel area may contain elevated concentrations for lead, it shall be used as fill beneath asphalt parking lots, concrete slab foundations, or concrete truck- ways and parking areas, as predetermined in the approved reuse plan. Soil expected to contain concentrations of lead shall not be used for surficial landscaping or exposed to the surface with the potential of human contact. Mixing of the soil containing lead with other on-site fill shall not occur. Applicant shall prepare and submit to the Building Division and Engineering Division final site drainage and grading plans. Review and approval of site drainage and grading plans by Building Division and City Engineer. Prior to issuance of Building Permits. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for SSFSC Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station 18 Environmental Science ,4ssociates February 3, 1999 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (cont.) I.l.(b): The project applicant will be required to obtain a General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit before proceeding with site development. To obtain this permit, the applicant will develop a SWPPP that specifies the Best Management Practices that will be employed during construction of the facility to protect the quality of stormwater runoff fi.om the site. These may include construction of temporary sediment basins, use of straw bale and filter fabric dykes, and mulching and seeding soil stockpiles. The SWPPP will also specify a stormwater quality monitoring program to ensure that protection measures are effective. III.I.2: Construction and operation of the MRF/TS would increase the amount of surface runoff and pollutant load at the site (Significant). 1.2.(a): All waste tipping and processing areas will be covered. 1.2.(b): The vehicle maintenance area will be covered. 1.2.(c): The fleet fuel tank will be covered. 1.2.(d): The container fabricating and repair facility and the vehicle washing facility will be covered. 1.2.(e): Process water from the international container sterilizer will be discharged to the sanitary sewer. 1.2.(f): The facility will be required to obtain a NPDES permit, and to develop a SWPPP that demonstrates the Best Management Practices that will be employed to protect surface water quality once the facility is built and is operating. The SWPPP will include a water quality monitoring program to test whether the protective measures are effective. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for SSFSC Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station 19 The applicant will develop a SWPPP that specifies the Best Management Practices that will be employed during construction of the facility to protect the quality of stormwater runoff fi.om the site. The SWPPP will also specify a stormwater quality monitoring program to ensure that protection measures are effective. Applicant shall prepare a SWPPP prior to site development. SWPPP shall be reviewed and approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Storm Water Coordinator in the City Engineering Division. SWPPP shall be reviewed and approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Storm Water Coordinator in the City Engineering Division. Prior to obtaining a General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit (prior to site development) and issuance of Building Permit. Prior to obtaining a General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit (prior to site development) and issuance of Building Permit. Environmental Science Associates February 3, 1999 III. I.3: The vehicle washing facility would create the potential for adverse affects to ground water quality resulting from infiltration of wash water (Significant). HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (cont.) 1.3.(a): The proposed truck wash facility should be paved with an impervious asphalt or concrete pad to prevent liquid infiltration and/or migration. The truck washing area should be graded to ensure that all water enters specified drams, and to prevent stormwater mn-on. Drains should lead to a pre-treatment system, a recycling system, or, if permitted by the City's wastewater treatment facility, directly to the sanitary sewer. IlI.I.5: Long-term dewatering of construction excavations or permanent subsurface structures could cause petroleum hydrocarbon constituents to migrate towards the point of extraction from the source of impacted groundwater. Extracting groundwater impacted with petroleum hydrocarbons could result in discharges of gasoline compounds to the surface and eventually San Francisco Bay (Significant). 1.5.(a): Sampling and analysis of the extracted groundwater should be performed periodically if it is deemed necessary to dewater the construction excavations or the loading transfer runnel over extended periods of time. The sampling and analysis will verify that the petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations in the extracted groundwater do not exceed limits of applicable discharge permits. Groundwater should be tested for petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline and the individual constituents: benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes. Frequency of sampling and analysis should depend on quantity of water discharged. In the event that petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations exceed the discharge permit requirements, extracted groundwater should be contained until concentrations are shown to decrease to or below acceptable levels. Contained water should then be re-tested and disposed of properly. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level. Mittgation Monitoring and Reporting Program for SSFSC Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station 20 Final site plans shall demonstrate that the proposed track wash facility will be paved with an impervious asphalt or concrete pad to prevent liquid infiltration and/or migration. The track washing area must be graded to ensure that all water enters specified drains, and to prevent stormwater mn-on. Drains shall lead to a pre- treatment system, a recycling system, or, if permitted by the City's wastewater treatment facility, directly to the sanitary sewer. Applicant shall perform sampling and analysis of extracted groundwater periodically. In the event that petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations exceed the discharge permit requirements, extracted groundwater should be contained until concentrations are shown to decrease to or below acceptable levels. Contained water should then be re-tested and disposed of properly. Plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Building Division. Applicant shall provide evidence to Chief Planner that a qualified finn or individual has been retained to sample and analyze extracted groundwater. Applicant shall provide weekly reports during construction period when extraction of groundwater is occurring. Reports shall detail test results and disposition of extracted water. Prior to issuance of Building Permits. Evidence of qualified firm retained prior to issuance of Building Permits. Weekly reports during construction. Environmental Science Associates February 3, 1999 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES III.J. 1: Project construction activities have the potential to adversely affect significant biological resources within the project site (Significan0. J.l.(a): Delineate wetlands and areas that potentially harbor salt marsh dependent plants and wildlife with a 100-foot buffer. Prior to any grading activities, the project applicant shall be responsible for erecting a 3-foot -high silt proof fence along the edge of buffer areas. These areas will be marked "Ecologically sensitive area" to prevent access by machinery and personnel. J.l.(b): Project related construction activities shall be monitored by a qualified biologist. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for SSFSC Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station 21 The City shall engage a qualified project biologist (wildlife biologist and/or botanist as appropriate) or equivalent professional to delineate wetlands and areas that potentially harbor salt marsh dependent plants and wildlife The project applicant shall be responsible for reimbursing the City for all costs related to the compliance monitoring of the project. Prior to any grading activities, the project applicant shall be responsible for erecting a 3-foot -high silt proof fence along the edge of buffer areas. These areas will be marked "Ecologically sensitive area" to prevent access by machinery and personnel. The City shall engage a qualified project biologist (wildlife biologist and/or botanist as appropriate) or equivalent professional to monitor biological resource protection to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures described in this section. The project applicant shall be responsible for reimbursing the City for all costs related to the compliance monitoring of the project. Planning Division shall engage the services of a qualified project biologist. The project biologist shall prepare written reports to the Chief Planner. Planning Division shall engage the services of a qualified project biologist. The project biologist shall prepare written reports to the Chief Planner. Prior to commencement of site development, and continuing through completion of site development activities. Prior to commencement of site development, and continuing through completion of site development activities. Environmental Science Associates February $, 1999 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Cont.) · BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for SSFSC Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station The City shall engage a qualified project biologist (wildlife biologist and/or botanist as appropriate) or equivalent professional to monitor biological resource protection to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures described in this section. The project applicant shall be responsible for reimbursing the City for all costs related to the compliance monitoring &the project. The measures presented below are applicable to all resources addressed in this section. The project biologist shall inform the construction contractor, prior to the bidding process, about the biological constraints of the project, and the contractor shall be responsible for impacts to sensitive biological resources outside the impact area delineated in this EIR, which occur as a direct result of construction activities. The construction development area shall be clearly marked on project maps and provided to the contractor by the project biologist. All areas outside this zone shall be designated as "no construction" zones. Equipment and materials staging areas shall be located in disturbed areas. Staging areas shall be indicated on the grading plans and reviewed by the project biologist. Fueling and maintenance of equipment shall not occur in or near wetlands or waters. No- fueling zones shall be indicated on plans and shall be situated at least 500 feet from wetlands. The project applicant shall employ feasible engineering methods during construction to avoid and minimize fugitive dust, erosion and sedimentation and toxic spills. 22 The project biologist shall conduct monitoring to ensure compliance with all points of this mitigation measure. Environmental Science Associates February 3, 1999 III.J.2: Project development would adversely affect aquatic resources (Significant). III.J.3: Project development has the potential to increase presence of non-native invasive plant species to the site (Significant). J.2.(a): The Project applicant will develop and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) which emphasizes storm water best management practices (BMPs) and complies with the federal NPDES discharge program (see Hydrology, Section III.I). J.2.(b): The MRF/TS should be designed with separate stormwater collection and containment systems, including detention ponds, oil and grease traps and drainage channels. A soil berm should be constructed around greenwaste site(s) to divert surface run-off to existing or constructed drainage channels. All waters used in the truck wash area should be recycled and non-phosphate cleaners should be used (see Hydrology, Section III.I). J.3.(a): Landscaping on site shall conform to California Native Plant Society guidelines. Table III.J-2 in the DEIR presents a list of species that should not be used for project landscaping: Please refer to Mitigation Measure I. 1, above. Please refer to Mitigation Measure 1.2, above. The applicant shall prepare a f'mal landscaping plan that conforms with California Native Plant Society Guidelines. The Chief Planner shall review and approve the final landscaping plan. Prior to issuance of Building Permits. -.,i Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for SSFSC Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station 23 Environmental Science Associates February 3, 1999