Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 193-1996RESOLUTION NO. 193-96 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN FOR THE TERRABAY SPECIFIC PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TERMINATION DATE EXTENSIONS WHEREAS, Sunchase G.A. Inc, (~Applicant") has proposed amendments to the Terrabay Development Agreement and Specific Plan to extend the expiration date for period of ten years through February 14, 2007; and WHEREAS, the Specific Plan, as proposed, retains the existing approvals for Phase 1 of the Terrabay development and modifies the Specific Pla~ for Phases 2 and 3 of the Terrabay development by replacing the existing drawings with requirements that establish the permissible development parameters with which the Applicant must cOmply as part of its Precise Plan applications for Phase 2 and 3; and WHEREAS, the Terrabay Specific Plan, the Terrabay zoning requirements and the Development Agreement require that the Applicant seek and obtain Precise Plan approval from the City Council prior to development of Phase 2 and 3; and WHEREAS, the proposed project, including the amendments to the Terrabay Specific Plan and the Terrabay Development Agreement was reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") through the preparation and review of an Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("SEIR"); and WHEREAS, the City conducted an Initial Study to determine ~he appropriate environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") for the Extension Project. Since an environmental impact report was prepared and certified for the Terrabay Specific Plan in 1982, the Initial Study analyzed whether the Extension Project presented any potential new significant environmental effect or increase in the severity of previously identified significant environmental effects that would warrant the preparation of a supplemental environmental impact report pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21166 and CEQA Guidelines § 15163. The City determined that even though there was no change to the development standards under the Specific Plan proposed by the Extension Project, due to the passage of time, changes in circumstances under which the Project was undertaken and the possibility of new information on certain environmental impacts warranted the preparation of a Supplement EIR (~SEIR"). The SEIR is a project EIR for Phase I because there is detailed information about the development under the approved Precise Plan and Subdivision Map for Phase I. The SEIR for Phases II and III is a program EIR because precise plans for the development of these Phases has not yet been submitted and approved and, therefore, the development for each of these phases is more conceptual; and therefore a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required upon project approval (Exhibit D); and WHEREAS, CEQA §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 mitigations during project implementation (Exhibit E); and WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City's decisions on the Terrabay Development Agreement and Specific Plan Amendments is the City of South San Francisco Planning Department, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco; and WHEREAS, the mitigation measures identified in the SEIR will be applied as conditions of approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that: B. C. D. E. The City Council hereby certifies that the SEIR is adequate and complies with CEQA. The mitigation findings in Exhibits A, B and C are hereby adopted. The Statement of Overriding Considerations in Exhibit D is hereby adopted. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan in Exhibit E is hereby adopted. The following Exhibits, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated by reference. Exh. A: Exh. B: Exh. C: Exh. D: Exh. E: Findings Concerning Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Less Than Significant Environmental Impacts Findings Concerning Alternatives Statement of Overriding Considerations Mitigation Monitoring Plan 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 ~pecial meeting held on the lRth day of December 1996 by the following vote; AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Councilmembers Eugene R. Mullin, Robert Yee and Mayor Joseph A. Fernekes Councilmember John R. Penna None None ATTEST: EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 193-96 Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Findings Concerning Significant Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Project Alternatives. Pursuant to Public Resources Code §21081 and CEQA Guidelines §15091, the following findings address the project's significant and potentially significant impacts and means for mitigating those impacts. In each case, the appropriate statutory finding is followed by a rationale statement explaining how identified mitigations lessen or avoid the related impact. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 1. Reliance on Record. The findings and determinations contained herein are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project and the SEIR. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of this Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. 2. Nature of Findings. Any findings made herein by this Council shall be deemed made, regardless of where it appears in this document. All of the language included in this document constitutes findings by this Council, whether or not any particular sentence of clause includes a statement to that effect. This Council intends that if these findings fail to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other part of these findings, that any finding required or permitted to be made by this Council with respect to any particular subject matter of the Project, shall be deemed made if it appears in any portion of these findings, or elsewhere in the record. 3. Limitations. The Council's analysis and evaluation of the Project is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a project of the scope and size of the Project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the Project will not exist. This practical limitation is acknowledged in CEQA Guidelines Section 15151, which states that "the sufficiency of an SEIR is to be reviewed in light of what is feasible." One of the major limitations on analysis of the Project is the Council's lack of knowledge of future events, particularly those occurring outside the City. In some instances, the Council's analysis has had to rely on assumptions about such factors as growth and traffic generation in areas outside of the political boundaries of the City. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the City's ability to solve what are in effect regional, state, and national problems and issues. The City must work within the political framework in which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework. 4. Summaries of Facts, Impacts, Mitigation Measures, Alternatives and Other Matters. All summaries of information in the findings to follow are based on the SEIR, the Project and/or other evidence in the record. Such summaries are not intended to be exhaustive recitations of all of the facts in the record upon which they are based. Moreover, the summaries of impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives are only summaries. This document includes only as much detail as may be necessary to show the basis for the findings set forth below. Cross references to the SEIR and other evidence such as Planning Commission resolutions or City Council actions have been made where helpful, and reference should be made directly to the SEIR and other evidence in the record for more precise information regarding the facts on which any summary is based. Conflicting interpretations of the language of the SEIR and the language of mitigation conditions adopted by the City Council shall be resolved in favor of the latter as the most appropriate way to mitigate the impact in question. 5. Adoption of Mitigation Measures. These findings address the mitigation measures recommended in the SEIR for impacts identified as significant or potentially significant. Some of the mitigation measures are implemented by changes incorporated into the project and others by adoption of standards in the Specific Plan and/or as approval conditions required in the Development Agreement. In its actions approving the Specific Plan and Development Agreement extension for the project, the City Council adopts those mitigation measures recommended in the SEIR, as revised by the Council, that have not already been incorporated into the project except with respect to those that are rejected by the Council in the specific findings as being infeasible or unnecessary. Where multiple mitigation measures are adopted for a single impact, all of the identified measures are required to support the related mitigation finding, unless otherwise specified. This Council finds that all the Mitigation Measures now or previously incorporated into the Project are desirable and feasible and shall be implemented in connection with the implementation of the Project in accordance with the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program. 6. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures. The SEIR for the Project recommended mitigation measures to reduce most of the significant and potentially significant environmental effects to insignificant levels. The City Council reviewed the SEIR, revised some of the proposed mitigations, and agrees with the SEIR conclusions, as revised by the Council. The City Council finds that to the extent any residual impact remains that has not been fully mitigated in those instances where the Council finds that mitigation has occurred, the residual impact is overridden by the Statement of Overriding Considerations provided for herein. 2 IMPACTS, MITIGATIONS AND MITIGATION FINDINGS SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT LU-i: Compatibility With Hillside Elementary School Play Fields. Playfields at Hillside Elementary School immediately adjacent to the site's western end have night-time lighting; night games are permitted as late as 10:30 P.M. Many of the proposed homes in Terrabay Village would be located as close as 120 feet from the edge of the playfields. As a result, nighttime lighting and noise at these playfields could cause a significant land use compatibility impact on adjacent project residents in Terrabay Village. MITIGATION: Prohibit use of the play fields after 10:30 P.M. In addition, adjust playfield lighting to limit impacts, applying the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America standards for safe sports and recreational lighting for Class IV activities (social and recreational). If possible, a qualified lighting engineer should specify modifications to: (1) ensure that the playfield lighting is no brighter than that required for safety, and (2) orient the lighting away from project housing. Also require disclosure of recreation center operations to prospective project residents. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. RATIONALE: The specifications, modifications and adjustments to playfield lighting would limit light intrusion into the adjacent Terrabay Village residences to acceptable levels, as defined by commonly-applied standards. In addition, prohibiting use of the play fields after 10:30 P.M. would avoid play field noise (and lighting) during the most sensitive time of the night, and the disclosure of play field operations to prospective residents of adjacent homes would allow prospective residents who may be particularly sensitive to potential noise and lighting impacts to avoid such impacts by purchasing other homes located further away. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT LU-2: Compatibility Between Project Residential Units and Existing Electrical Transmission Lines. Proposed units in the western grouping of Terrabay Commons in project Phase II would be located near an existing PG&E transmission line easement containing 60kV and ll5kV lines, which raises concerns regarding possible health and safety risks for Phase II residents related to electric and magnetic fields (EMF) from the lines. There are currently no known federal, state, Public Utility Commission, county, or city regulations regarding setbacks from electric power lines to limit EMF exposure. However, the Schools Planning Division of the California Department of Education recommends minimum 100-foot-wide setbacks between 100-110kV transmission line rights-of-way and new schools. If California Department of 3 Education setback recommendations for new schools were also applied as significance criteria for residential uses, EMF exposure for project residential uses within 100 feet of the edge of the transmission line easements would represent a potentially significant health and safety impact. MITIGATION: The significance of the health risks associated with different levels of EMF exposure has not been officially established. However, it is prudent to reduce residential exposure to EMF when possible. As part of the future review process for project Phase II, request from the applicant an independent study of this PG&E transmission line and its potential project Phase II impacts and mitigation needs. Also require that the project-specific environmental documentation for project Phase II include an adequate evaluation of this transmission line, its potential EMF impacts on Phase II residential units, and warranted mitigation needs. Measures that should be considered in this Phase II, project-specific mitigation program to limit EMF exposure include: Setbacks. Modification of the project design for the western grouping of residential structures and outdoor living areas in project Phase II as necessary to provide adequate separation from the edge of the transmission line easement. Disclosure. Notification in writing to all prospective residents of project homes within a prescribed distance of the transmission line easement edge regarding the applicant of the potential EMF risks associated with the existing PG&E power transmission lines. (This could be achieved by requiring that such disclosures be included in the sales and rental materials to be signed by future project residents.) FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. RATIONALE: Preparation of an independent study of the potential EMF effects of the PG&E transmission line on project Phase II residents, and modification of the project Phase II design in accordance with the study recommendations (including, if warranted, the provision of adequate separation from the edge of the transmission line easement), would be expected to reduce any potential adverse EMF exposure impacts to acceptable levels. In addition, because the significance of health risks associated with EMF exposure has not been officially established, the disclosure of potential EMF risks to prospective residents of adjacent Phase II homes would allow prospective residents who may wish to avoid any potential risks to purchase other homes located further away. 4 SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT T-1. Phase I traffic would further increase year 2000 Base Case (without project) PM peak hour volumes at the Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue intersection above peak hour signal warrant criteria levels. MITIGATION: With project Phase I, signalize this intersection. (The Terrabay Development Agreement assigns complete responsibility to the project for signalization of this intersection. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. RATIONALE: Signalization will result in a year 2000 PM peak hour operation at this intersection of LOS A, which represents free flow conditions with insignificant delays and is in compliance with the general plan standard for signalized intersections. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT T-2. Phase I traffic would also aggravate the year 2010 Base Case signal warrant for signals at the Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue intersection. MITIGATION: Same mitigation as Supplemental Impact T-1. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. RATIONALE: Signalization will result in a 2010 PM peak hour operation at this intersection of LOS A, which represents free flow conditions with insignificant delays and is in compliance with the general plan standard for signalized intersections. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT T-3. Cumulative traffic from Phases I, II and III would further aggravate the year 2010 Base Case signal warrant at the Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue intersection. MITIGATION: Same mitigation as Supplemental Impact T-1. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. RATIONALE: Signalization will result in a 2010 PM peak hour operation at this intersection of LOS B, which represents stable operations with minimal delays and is in compliance with the city's general plan standard for signalized intersections. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT T-4. Project Phase I wOuld increase year 2000 PM peak hour volumes by more than two percent at the Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue intersection, which would already be experiencing unacceptable (LOS F) operation with Base Case volumes for the stop sign-controlled left turn movement from Chestnut Avenue. MITIGATION: Same mitigation as Supplemental Impact T-1. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. RATIONALE: Signalization will result in an acceptable year 2000 PM peak hour operation at this intersection of LOS A which represents free flow conditions with insignificant delays and is in compliance with the city's general plan standard for signalized intersections. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT T-5: Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard. Project Phase I would result in more than a two percent increase in traffic added to year 2010 AM peak hour Base Case LOS F signalized operation at this intersection. MITIGATION: Require that project Phase I provide a fair share contribution towards construction of a US 101 southbound flyover off-ramp connecting to eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard east of the Dubuque Avenue intersection, as recommended for 2010 Base Case (without project) conditions. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. RATIONALE: By removing southbound US 101 traffic bound for eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard from this intersection, this mitigation will result in an AM peak hour operation of LOS C and a PM peak hour operation of LOS D, which is in compliance with the city's general plan standard for signalized intersections. Through its contribution, Phase I of the project will provide its fair share funding for these improvements. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT T-6: Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard. Project Phase I would result in more than a two percent increase in traffic added to 2010 PM peak hour Base Case LOS F signalized operation at this intersection. MITIGATION: Same mitigation as Supplement Impact T-5. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. P~ATIONALE: By removing southbound US 101 traffic bound for eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard from this intersection, this mitigation will result in an AM peak hour operation of C and a PM peak hour operation of D, which is in compliance with the general plan standard for signalized intersections. Through its contribution, Phase I of the project will provide its fair share funding for these improvements. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT T-7. If the Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue intersection remains unsignalized, more than a two percent increase in traffic volumes would be added to 2010 PM peak hour Base Case LOS F operation for the stop sign-controlled left turn movement from Chestnut Avenue. MITIGATION: Same mitigation as Supplemental Impact T-1. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. RATIONALE: Signalization will result in acceptable year 2010 PM peak hour operation at this intersection of LOS A which represents free flow conditions with insignificant delays and is in compliance with the City's general plan standard for signalized intersections. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT T-8: Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard. The project (Phases I, II and III) would result in more than a two percent increase in traffic volumes added to 2010 AM peak hour Base Case LOS F operation at this intersection. MITIGATION: Provide a fair-share cost contribution for each project phase towards the following maximum practical physical improvements recommended for 2010 Base Case (without project) conditions: (1) complete these lane additions: Airport Boulevard northbound-1 left turn/2 through/1 right turn lane; - and- (2) construct a US 101 southbound flyover off-ramp connecting to eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard east of the Dubuque Avenue intersection. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. RATIONALE: This mitigation will result in LOS D operation at this intersection in both the AM and PM peak hour, which is in compliance with the City's general plan standard for signalized intersections. Through its contribution, each phase of the project will provide fair share funding for these improvements. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT T-9: Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/US 101 northbound on-ramp. The project (Phases I, II and III) would result in more than a two percent increase in traffic added to year 2010 AM peak hour Base Case LOS F operation at this intersection. MITIGATION: Provide a fair-share cost contribution from each project phase towards the following mitigations recommended for 2010 Base Case (without project) conditions: (1) complete these lane additions: Oyster Point Boulevard westbound-add a second right turn lane; Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound-add an additional through lane; - and- (2) construct a US 101 southbound flyover off-ramp to eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard. Provision of these maximum practical physical improvements alone would not improve either AM or PM peak hour operation at this intersection to acceptable levels. To mitigate this deficiency, also implement voluntary transportation demand management (TDM) measures for project Phase III and for other future new employment intensive development in the area. The city shall continue to cooperate with MTSMA in its efforts to encourage and foster voluntary TDM measures in order to reduce commute peak hour travel. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. 8 RATIONALE: Based on recent surveys conducted by the Multi-City Transportation Systems Management Agency (MTSMA), the recommended TDM program would have the potential to reduce commute period vehicular traffic volumes by at least 12 percent. This mitigation (both the maximum physical improvements and the voluntary TDM measures) would provide acceptable LOS D ~4 peak hour operation at this intersection, which is in compliance with the city's general plan standard for signalized intersections. Through its contribution, each phase of the project will provide its fair share funding for the recommended physical improvements. Although PM peak hour operations would still remain at an unacceptable LOS E in the PM peak hour, the project would not contribute to but rather would reduce Base Case unacceptable PM peak hour operation at this intersection, due to diversion of traffic to the new southbound hook on- ramp to be installed as part of project Phase III. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT T-10: Dubuque Avenue/US 101 northbound off-ramp/US 101 southbound on-ramp. With the addition of project Phases I, II and III traffic, acceptable year 2010 AM peak hour base case LOS D operation is changed to unacceptable LOS E operation. MITIGATION: Provide a fair-share contribution from each project phase towards recommended Base Case improvements (addition of a second left turn lane to the northbound Dubuque Avenue approach and intersection signalization, and restripe the northbound off-ramp intersection approach to provide two exclusive left turn lanes and a combined left/through/ right turn lane. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. RATIONALE: This mitigation would provide acceptable LOS D operation at this intersection in both the AM and PM peak hours, which is in compliance with the city's general plan standard for signalized intersections. Through its contribution, each phase of the project will provide its fair share funding for the recommended physical improvements. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT T-il: Bayshore Boulevard/US 101 southbound on- and off- ramps/project commercial access. Project Phases I, II and III would result in LOS F year 2010 AM peak hour operation and lack of sufficient turning lane vehicle storage for this new intersection. MITIGATION: Provide a fair-share cost contribution from each project phase towards the southbound to eastbound flyover off-ramp and the following improvements: Add a second eastbound through lane; and Add a second southbound.left turn lane and a second northbound left turn lane on the Bayshore Boulevard approaches to reduce vehicle storage queue lengths due to heavy left turn volumes in both directions. Provide a channelized median opening at the north driveway to the project commercial areas along Bayshore Boulevard to allow left-turn inbound movements. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. RATIONALE: This mitigation would provide acceptable LOS D operation at this intersection in both the AM and PM peak hours, which is in compliance with the general plan standard for signalized intersections. Through its contribution, each phase of the project will provide its fair share funding for these improvements. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT T-12: Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/ Bayshore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard. The project (Phases I, II and III) would result in more than a two percent increase in volume added to year 2010 PM peak hour Base Case LOS E operation, resulting in a change to LOS F operation. MITIGATION: Same mitigation as Supplemental Impact T-8. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. RATIONALE: This mitigation will result in LOS D operation at this intersection in both the AM and PM peak hours, which is in compliance with the city's general plan standard for signalized intersections. Through its contribution, each phase of the project will provide its fair share funding for these improvements. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT T-13: Bayshore Boulevard/US 101 southbound on- and off- ramps/project commercial access. The project (Phases I, II and III) would result in LOS F operation for this new intersection. MITIGATION: Same mitigation as Supplemental Impact T-ii. l0 FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. RATIONALE: This mitigation would provide acceptable LOS D operation at this intersection in both the AM and PM peak hours, which is in compliance with the city's general plan standard for signalized intersections. Through its contribution, each phase of the project will provide its fair share funding for these improvements. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT T-14. If the Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue intersection remains unsignalized in the year 2010, more than a two percent increase in traffic volumes would be added to the PM peak hour Base Case LOS F operation for the stop sign-controlled left turn movement from Chestnut Avenue. MITIGATION: Same mitigation as Supplemental Impact T-1. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. RATIONALE: Signalization will result in an acceptable PM peak hour operation at this intersection that is in compliance with the city's general plan standard for signalized intersections. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT T-15. Traffic from Phases I, II and III would increase PM peak hour peak direction Base Case traffic volumes by more than two percent along the US 101 freeway segments between the Oyster Point interchange and the South Airport Boulevard interchange, locations which are projected to already experience LOS F Base Case operation in 2010 without the project. MITIGATION: The city shall continue to cooperate with MTSMA in its efforts to encourage and foster voluntary transportation demand management (TDM) measures in order to reduce commute peak hour travel on the local freeway network. Implement voluntary TDM measures for project Phase III and for other future employment intensive development in the area. FINDING: Even with this mitigation, the impact of project Phases I, II and III on the US 101 freeway segment between the Oyster Point interchange and the South Airport Boulevard interchange in the 2010 PM peak hour peak direction will not be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the project. RATIONALE: Caltrans has no plans to widen this segment of the freeway. The recommended TDM program would have the potential to reduce commute period auto use by at least 12 percent, Nevertheless, even with the 12 percent reduction in peak period auto use, as explained above under Supplemental Impact T-9, it is unlikely that this measure would improve operations along these freeway segments to acceptable levels. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT T-16 AND SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT T-17. During the 2010 AM peak hour, total project traffic would result in significant adverse impacts (more than a two percent increase in volume to over capacity Base Case operation) at two ramp locations: the southbound off-ramp to Bayshore Boulevard and the northbound off-ramp to Dubuque Avenue. MITIGATION: Provide a fair share contribution from each project phase towards the following improvements recommended for Base Case (without project) conditions: Southbound off-ramp to Bayshore Boulevard: add a second off-ramp lane connection to, and an extended deceleration lane along, the freeway mainline. Northbound off-ramp to Dubuque Avenue: add a second off-ramp lane connection to the freeway mainline. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. RATIONALE: With this mitigation these freeway ramp locations would be operating under capacity in both the AM and PM peak hours. Through its contribution, each phase of the project will provide its fair share funding for these improvements. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT T-18. During the 2010 PM peak hour, traffic from Phases I, II and III would not increase traffic volumes at any ramp above capacity. The addition of project vehicles would, however, increase volumes by more than two percent at the already over capacity northbound on-ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard. MITIGATION: Same mitigation as Supplemental impact T-15. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. RATIONALE: With the recommended TDM program this freeway ramp would be 12 operating under capacity in both the AM and PM peak hours. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT T-19: Project Impacts on Colma Intersections. In 2010 with Phases I, II and III, the Serramonte Boulevard/Hillside Boulevard intersection, which may otherwise already be operating at unacceptable levels of service during peak hours, would be expected to experience an approximately four percent increase in traffic volumes due to the project, which would be considered a significant adverse impact. MITIGATION: Require that project Phases II and/or III provide a reasonable fair share contribution towards improvements needed at this intersection by 2010 if it is operating unacceptably during the peak hour. The contribution should be in proportion to the volume of project traffic passing through the intersection in relation to the total traffic volume. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. RATIONALE: If this intersection is otherwise operating unacceptably by 2010, this mitigation would provide acceptable operation. Through its contribution to this mitigation, the project will provide its fair share funding for any needed improvements. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT G-i: Erosional Gullies. Numerous erosional gullies have formed on cut and fill slopes throughout the Phase I grading area, resulting in downslope sedimentation of v-ditches and storm drains. The problem persists despite recent repair of the cut slopes. The threat to downslope improvements presented by continued erosion of the cut and fill slope faces and the formation of gullies is considered to be a potentially significant adverse impact. MITIGATION: Repair erosional gullies on cut and fill slopes. Such repairs should be completed pursuant to City approval after submission of studies and plans by the applicant. The applicant is currently working with the City to repair certain erosional gullies under plans approved by the City. The applicant shall complete all repairs of erosional gullies in accordance with the plans approved by the City. Also, remove silt and debris from v-ditches and storm drains. Assign responsibility to the city or project homeowners association to periodically inspect and maintain erosion and sedimentation control facilities. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. RATIONALE: By providing for repair of erosional gullies, and ongoing inspection and maintenance of erosion and sedimentation control facilities, this mitigation will avoid the threat to downslope improvements from erosion. Goat Farm Cut Slopes. Notwithstanding that the Applicant's and City's geotechnical consultants have concluded that Goat Farm cut slopes are acceptable in their present form and that the adjacent road will serve as an adequate buffer for collection and cleanup of debris, temporary blockage of the road may impair emergency access. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. RATIONALE: The impact has been mitigated to a level of insignificance by requiring preparation of an emergency response plan to ensure adequate emergency access in the event of temporary blockage. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT G-2: Landslide D. A remedial repair plan for Landslide D was approved by the city on October 6, 1995. Repair of Landslide D has been completed. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. The City- approved repair plan has been implemented. RATIONALE: By repairing the landslide and providing for ongoing monitoring of the repaired landslide, this mitigation will ensure that potential impacts on project residents and improvements from Landslide D are avoided. Phases II and III Supplemental Impacts. In some areas of Phase I, geologic conditions were substantially different from those anticipated and have required subsequent additional geotechnical reevaluation, mitigations and repairs. Similar "buried valleys" deep landslide deposits, and other unconsolidated material may be encountered during grading for Phases II and III and will need to be addressed as part f detailed design-level geotechnical investigations for these subsequent phases. 14 FINDINGS: As provided for in 1982 EIR mitigations, the applicants will be required to submit for city review and approval detailed, design-level geotechnical investigations for each subsequent phase. (See supplemental impact G-2) . SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT D-l: Joint Powers Agreement. The county of San Mateo has recently raised questions regarding the effectiveness of the 1983 city-county joint powers agreement in adequately maintaining project-related catchment basins on the south slope of San Bruno Mountain, and has proposed disbandment of the associated Joint Powers Authority (JPA). This uncertainty regarding ongoing maintenance responsibilities for the catchment basins represents a new potentially significant impact. MITIGATION: If the JPA is to be disbanded, work with the county and the project applicant to ensure that catchment basins are in proper condition to allow their dedication directly to the county as the county suggests (see "Catchment Basin and Ditch Malfunctioning," below). If the JPA is to be maintained, continue to fulfill city responsibilities in accordance with the joint powers agreement of June 21, 1983. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. P~ATIONALE: This measure would adequately provide for continued maintenance of project-related catchment basins, Terrabay avoiding potential drainage problems. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT D-2: Stormwater Regulations. City adoption of a "Storm Water Management and Discharge Control" program as Chapter 14.04 of the Municipal Code suggests a revision to water quality-related mitigation measures recommended in 1982 EIR. If these new mitigation standards are not met, the project could result in a potentially significant adverse water quality impact. MITIGATION: In addition to measures recommended in 1982 EIR for water quality impacts, require project applicant/property owner to: (1) Comply with all applicable provisions of city's "Storm Water Management and Discharge Control" program (Chapter 14.04 of Municipal Code); (2) As required for projects involving construction on more than five acres, file Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board, in order to be covered by city's general NPDES permit; or apply to State Water Resources Control Board for an individual NPDES permit; (3) Prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for city approval (by the City Engineer and/or Stormwater Program Coordinator) and filing with the NPDES permit, detailing construction activities that could cause pollutants and describing measures/practices that will be undertaken to control pollutants. City approval is necessary prior to issuance of grading or other permits. (See section IV.D.4.d of this SEIR for details.) FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. RATIONALE: This mitigation will ensure that the project complies with all current city and NPDES stormwater pollution control requirements, which are intended to adequately control the water quality impacts of project construction and occupancy. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT PS-l: South San Francisco Unified School District. The project would be expected to generate approximately 260 new students attending South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD) schools: 120 attending Hillside Elementary School, 60 attending Parkway Heights Middle School, and 80 attending E1 Camino High School. Hillside Elementary School and Parkway Heights Middle School are already operating at capacity. The estimated cost to the district to provide relocatable classrooms at these schools would be $1.4 million. Costs to add permanent classrooms, a more desirable option, are undetermined but would be greater. Additional restroom facilities and core classrooms may also be needed. The SSFUSD has indicated that school impact fees accruing from project to the district (estimated at $1.372 million in today's dollars) may not be sufficient to cover the cost of providing additional classroom capacity and associated facilities to serve additional students generated by project. As a result, project can be expected to have a significant adverse impact on SSFUSD capacity. NQ~e: The school impact fees accruing to the district from the project appear to be underestimated because the size of the residential units estimated by the district is smaller than the actual units being built. Although the SSFUSD has indicated that all elementary school students would attend Hillside Elementary School, in the event that some project elementary school students attend SSFUSD schools other than Hillside Elementary School, WHEREAS, a Draft SEIR was prepared for the Extension Project and submitted to the State Clearinghouse and made available for public review on January 5, 1996; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on February 1, 1996 to receive public comment on the Draft SEIR. All members of the public present at the meeting were given the opportunity to comment on the Draft SEIR; and W~EREAS, the City Council extended the 45 day public review period on the Draft SEIR for an additional 30 days to March 20, 1996. Therefore, the public review period for the Draft SEIR was a total of 75 days; and W~EREAS, a Final SEIR was prepared which included responses to comments received on the Draft SEIR and revisions to the Draft SEIR; and WHEREAS, the City determined that, because the Transportation Section in the Final SEIR identified the impact of the Extension Project on the 101 Freeway operation between Sierra Point and South Airport Boulevard interchanges as significant and unavoidable, the Final SEIR Transportation Section should be recirculated for public comment pursuant to CEQA. The Final SEIR Transportation Section was submitted to the State Clearinghouse and distributed for additional public review and comment on August 30, 1996 for a 45 day period; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 19, 1996 to receive public comments on the recirculated Transportation Section of the Final SEIR. All members of the public present at the meeting were given an opportunity to comment on the recirculated Transportation Section; and WHEREAS, the City prepared responses to all comments received on the Transportation Section of the Final SEIR; and WHEREAS, the SEIR 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 § 21081 and CEQA Guidelines §15091 upon project approval (Exhibit A); and WHEREAS, the SEIR identified impacts which are not environmentally significant and which require no findings or mitigation upon project approval (Exhibit B); and WHEREAS,' the SEIR 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 C); and WHEREAS, the SEIR identified significant and potentially significant environmental impacts which could not be reduced to a level of insignificance, 2 adult crossing guards would be needed at the signalized Hillside Boulevard Extension/South San Francisco Drive and Sister Cities Boulevard/South San Francisco Drive intersections. MITIGATION: As mitigation for SSFUSD impacts, require the applicant, as a provision of the project development agreement, to prepare and submit for city review and approval, a school financing plan that includes: (1) Payment of State-Mandated School Impact Fees. Require the applicant to comply with applicable SSFUSD school impact fee requirements. If it is determined by the City that the project fees would not be sufficient to reduce project school impacts to a less-than-significant level, the city may also: (2) Additional Impact Fees. Require that the project applicant/developer pay additional impact fees or some other additional in-kind contribution or establish other financing mechanisms in consultation with the city and acceptable to the school district sufficient to cover the cost of providing classroom space and ancillary school facilities needed to serve the increased enrollment generated by the project, to the city's satisfaction. In addition, the City shall periodically monitor crossings at the Hillside Boulevard Extension/South San Francisco Drive and Sister Cities Boulevard/South San Francisco Drive intersections to determine if 40 or more elementary school children cross within any two hour period. If the threshold is attained at either of these intersections, then the Phase II project homeowners association shall be required to: (1) fund the provision of an adult crossing guard at that intersection (including all salary, background check, equipment, and training costs), and (2) actively recruit candidates for the position and for an alternative part-time, back-up fill-in position from among project residents. (Project residents are preferred because of opportunities for more familiarity with students.) FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. RATIONALE: This mitigation will ensure that the project will comply with the state-mandated school impact fee requirement and will, to the city's satisfaction, adequately contribute toward the cost of facilities needed to serve the increased SSFUSD enrollment generated by the project. In addition, this mitigation will ensure that the need for adult crossing guards at intersections adjacent to the project is monitored and, if indicated as necessary by the monitoring results, crossing guards are provided and funded. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT PS-2: Brisbane School District. The Brisbane School District anticipates that enrollment of students from the Terrabay project would cause both Brisbane School and Lipman School to exceed capacity, generating a need for two new portables, which would most likely be located on the Brisbane School site. Additional improvements needed at Brisbane Elementary School include: physical education, school assembly, and lunch space, multi-purpose room and playground upgrade, and upgrading to meet fire code and disabled access requirements. Lipman Intermediate School would require upgrading restrooms, one portable, remodeled school yard, and functioning kitchen. School impact fees accruing to the district from project are estimated by the district at $246,000 in today's dollars. According to the Brisbane School District, this amount would cover cost of providing two additional portables, but may not be sufficient to fund other necessary improvements at Brisbane and Lipman Schools. Also, the district does not provide transportation for its students. Brisbane School is located approximately 1.9 miles and Lipman School approximately 2.6 miles from the furthest part of the project within the district boundaries, distances which may be too great for young students to walk to school. There are no sidewalks along busy Bayshore Boulevard between the project and Brisbane. Because the state-mandated school impact fees may not be sufficient to cover the total cost of accommodating project-generated enrollment increase, and because the needed transportation to school has not been adequately provided for, the project could be expected to have a significant adverse impact on the Brisbane School District. MITIGATION: Implement the mitigation measure identified above for SSFUSD impacts (Supplemental Impact PS-l), and require the applicant to provide for safe transportation to Brisbane School District schools for students from the project. This may be accomplished by installing a sidewalk along Bayshore Boulevard and/or other streets to allow students to walk to Brisbane Elementary School and Lipman Intermediate School, or in some other manner acceptable to the district. Require the applicant to submit to the city an official statement in writing from the Brisbane School District declaring that the needed transportation has been adequately provided for to the satisfaction of the district. 18 FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. P~ATIONALE: This mitigation will ensure that the project will comply with the state-mandated school impact fee requirements and will, to the city's satisfaction, adequately contribute toward the cost of facilities needed to serve the increased Brisbane School District enrollment generated by the project. In addition, this mitigation will ensure that transportation to district schools is adequately provided for by installing a sidewalk or by working with the district to identify and provide some other acceptable transportation solution. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT PS-5: Recycling Program Collection Services. State law requires provision of adequate space for recycling in multiple family residential projects with five or more units and all new commercial developments. Future project phase multi-family residential and commercial development may not include adequate provision for collection of recyclable materials. This situation would represent a significant adverse project impact. MITIGATION: In order to ensure that project waste is recycled in a manner consistent with the state-mandated requirement that the city divert at least 50 percent of potential waste from landfill disposal by 2000, require design of future project development to provide common exterior trash and recyclable material storage areas in commercial developments and in those multi-family developments that would use dumpsters, rather than relying on individual curbside pickup for trash collection. Such areas should be conveniently located and accessible to residents and collection vehicles and personnel, properly protected from the elements, signed, screened, and architecturally integrated into the development. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. RATIONALE: This mitigation will ensure that adequate provisions for collection of recyclable materials are included in project multi-family residential and commercial development, and thus that the project would not impede city goals and state-mandated requirements for diversion of solid waste from landfill disposal. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT N-I: Traffic Noise Impacts. Exterior noise levels due to traffic noise could exceed 65 dBA CNEL at those Phase I residential units closest to Hillside Boulevard, Sister Cities Boulevard and US 101. Residential noise levels greater than 65 dBA CNEL would require mitigation under city noise standards and would be "conditionally acceptable" under state land use compatibility standards. Additional residences would be subject to exterior noise levels greater than 60 dBA CNEL which, under state land use compatibility standards, would be "conditionally acceptable" for single family residences and townhomes. Exterior noise levels from US 101 traffic would exceed 70 dBA CNEL within the Phase III development area where possible hotel development is anticipated, which would represent a "normally unacceptable" situation under state standards. In those areas where the exterior traffic noise level exceeds 60 dBA, the interior noise level can be expected to exceed the state 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard when windows are open for ventilation. MITIGATION: Retain a qualified acoustical engineer to prepare and submit, for city review and approval, a detailed acoustical analysis of noise reduction requirements and specifications for phases II and III in accordance with the land use/noise level compatibility standards established by the state and set forth in the city's Noise Element, and consistent with the Terrabay Specific Plan Amendments condition #46. The identified noise reduction requirements and specifications shall then be included in project site design or individual home or hotel designs. For Phase I, the homes shall comply with Terrabay Specific Plan Amendments No.46. Various combinations of common noise abatement methods could be used to mitigate onsite noise levels. These could include construction of berms or sound walls and/or provision of fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, and use of sound-rated glazing in windows. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. RATIONALE: This mitigation will ensure that the extent of traffic noise impacts on project homes and other noise-sensitive uses are adequately determined, and noise reduction requirements and specifications are identified and implemented as needed to ensure compliance with city and state noise level standards. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT N-2: Aircraft Noise Exposure Impacts. Single-event aircraft overflights would generate high single-event noise levels, which would interfere with indoor residential activities, including sleep, if 20 exterior to interior noise levels are not adequately reduced. MITIGATION: The noise analysis requirement for Phases II and III described for Supplemental Impact N-1 shall also recommend methods of design and construction to comply with the applicable portions of Uniform Building Code, Title 24, Appendix 35, Sound Transmission Controls, and with the FAA Part 150 Noise Compatibility program, which requires that all single-family dwelling unit construction achieve an indoor noise level of 45 dBA, as measured for an aircraft noise event. The qualified acoustical engineer retained to prepare the analysis shall be familiar with aviation noise impacts. For Phase I, the homes shall comply with Terrabay Specific Plan Amendments Condition No.46. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. RATIONALE: This mitigation will ensure that the extent of noise impacts from aircraft overflights on project homes and other noise-sensitive uses are adequately determined, and noise reduction requirements and specifications are identified and implemented as needed to ensure compliance with city and state noise level standards. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT N-3: Short-term Construction Noise. Phase I and II construction activities would substantially elevate noise levels in portions of the adjacent Paradise Valley and Peck's Lots neigb_borhoods and would also affect new Phase I residents. MITIGATION: Require the developer to incorporate conditions in project construction agreements that stipulate the conventional construction period noise abatement measures recommended (listed) in section IV.H.4.b of the Draft SEIR. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. RATIONALE: This mitigation will ensure that standard construction noise abatement practices are implemented during project construction and that construction period noise impacts are Terrabay reduced to acceptable levels. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT AQ-I: Short-Term Construction Dust Impacts. Project construction activities would generate dust and particulate matter which could affect adjacent residential areas. The 1982 EIR already identified construction period dust impacts as potentially significant and identified 21 associated mitigation measures. However, if "common practice" measures which have come into use since 1982 are not included in the mitigation program, project dust impacts, under post-1982 significance criteria, would represent a short-term significant adverse air quality impact. MITIGATION: In place of the construction period air quality mitigation identified in the 1982 EIR, require implementation by project construction contractors of current city construction dust mitigation standards as recommended (listed) in section IV.I.4.a of the Draft SEIR, during all phases of project construction. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. RATIONALE: This mitigation will ensure that current city construction dust mitigation practices are implemented during project construction and that construction period dust impacts are Terrabay reduced to acceptable levels. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT AQ-2: Regional Air Quality Impacts. Buildout of Phases I, II and III would generate new regional emissions of ozone precursors and particulate matter exceeding the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) significance threshold of 80 pounds per day. This NOx/ROG/PM-10 effect would be considered a significant adverse impact on regional air quality. MITIGATION: In addition to the transportation system management (TSM) requirements identified as mitigation in the 1982 EIR, the project should incorporate a vehicle-trip reduction requirement applicable to all land uses. Specific trip reduction goals should be adopted and enforcement procedures developed by the applicant in consultation with the BAAQMD. In addition, require the project sponsor to submit to the city a mitigation plan that includes these types of measures to reduce residential emissions: Restrict the number of fireplaces in residences, or require residential use of EPA-certified woodstoves, pellet stoves or fireplace inserts. Use of natural gas fired fireplaces should be encouraged. Require outdoor outlets at residences to allow use of electrical lawn and landscape maintenance equipment. Make natural gas available in residential backyards to allow use of natural gas-fired barbecues. 22 FINDING: Even with this mitigation, the long-term regional air quality impacts of the project on ROG and NOX (ozone precursors) will not be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the project. RATIONALE: Adoption of these measures would have the potential to reduce regional impacts of the project by from 5 to 15 percent. This reduction would reduce project regional emissions of PM-10 to below 80 pounds per day, but would not be sufficient to reduce emissions of NOx or ROG to below the BAAQMD-identified significance threshold of 80 pounds per day. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT CR-i: Potential for Additional Cultural Resource Discoveries. The project site, which is located on bay margins and at the base of hills near sources of fresh water, has a high potential for previously undiscovered Native American sites, which could be encountered during project construction (i.e., grading). Such disturbance would represent a potentially significant adverse impact. MITIGATION: In the event that subsurface cultural resources are encountered during project construction, work in the immediate vicinity should be immediately stopped and alteration of materials or their context should be avoided until the resources and their significance can be properly evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. The discovery or disturbance of any cultural resources should also be reported to the California Archaeological Inventory and Native American Heritage Commission, and recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation archaeological site records forms (DPR 422). Mitigation measures prescribed by these groups and required by city should be undertaken prior to resumption of construction activities. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. RATIONALE: This mitigation will adequately ensure that any previously undiscovered cultural resources encountered during project construction would be properly reported, evaluated, recorded, and if determined to be significant, mitigated in accordance with the provisions of Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT CR-2: CA-SMa-40. To mitigate identified potential project impacts to site CA-SMa-40, the 1982 EIR recommended capping the site with a minimum of one foot of sterile fill and sealing the site under landscaping or parking areas. However, in its recent review of this mitigation recommendation, staff at the Northwest Information Center of the California Archaeological Inventory determined that the recommended one foot 23 of fill soil may not be sufficient to avoid damage to this resource during construction. MITIGATION: In addition to mitigations recommended in the 1982 EIR, as a condition of Phase III precise plan approval, require that the project applicant finalize and implement, as necessary, a mitigation plan for potential impacts to site CA-SMa-40. The mitigation plan should adhere to the mitigation approaches, procedures, limitations and criteria specified in Appendix K of the state CEQA Guidelines. If warranted, the mitigation plan may recommend a mitigation approach other than the site capping recommended in the 1982 EIR. If capping is selected as the preferred mitigation approach, CA-SMa-40 should be capped with fill soil at a minimum of one foot deeper than the maximum depth of construction activities above or near the site. An engineering fabric, such as polypropylene matting, should be placed over the site before fill is placed. The capping should be supervised by a qualified archaeologist familiar with prehistoric archaeology in San Mateo County so that the boundaries of site will be properly defined. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. RATIONALE: This mitigation will adequately ensure that site CA-SMa-40 is either avoided, incorporated into a planned park or open space, deeded into a conservation easement, preserved through proper capping, or if avoidance is not feasible, excavated as provided for by Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT CR-3: CA-SMa-92. While site CA-SMa-92 is also within the area of proposed Terrabay development activities, the site was revealed to have been seriously compromised by prior underground construction, and the 1982 EIR recommended no mitigation. However, because the project site does have a high potential for containing Native American resources, and because subsurface testing for the 1982 EIR was limited, there is substantial probability of encountering and disturbing additional cultural resources at site CA-SMa-92 during Terrabay construction, representing a potentially significant adverse impact. MITIGATION: Prior to commencement of grading for project Phase III, the subsurface boundaries and significance of site CA-SMa-92 should be properly determined through further subsurface testing by a qualified archaeologist familiar with prehistoric archaeology in San Mateo County. If a significant resource is identified, mitigations, possibly including a sampling program followed by capping in a manner similar to that proposed for CA-SMa-40, may be recommended. The site should be recorded 24 on form DPR 422. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. RATIONALE: This mitigation will adequately ensure that the significance of CA-SMa-92 is properly determined and, if significant, mitigated in accordance with the provisions of Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT CR-4. Site CA-SMa-234 is still located outside the area of proposed Phase III development. However, the specific plan and the San Bruno Mountain HCP do allow for minor adjustments in the development area boundaries. If any grading or geotechnical repair work becomes necessary outside of the current development area boundaries, such work could potentially disturb site CA-SMa-234. MITIGATION: Future detailed environmental review for subsequent project Phase III should include further consideration by a qualified archaeologist of site CA-SMa-234 to confirm that no impacts, including potential impacts from grading and geotechnical repairs or from project occupancy, would occur and to recommend mitigation, if warranted. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the SEIR. RATIONALE: This mitigation will adequately ensure that potential effects of project Phase III on site CA-SMa-234 are considered in future detailed environmental review when the design particulars and grading requirements of Phase III are known, and if necessary, adequately mitigated in accordance with the provisions of Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD For purposes of CEQA and these findings, the record before this Council includes, without limitation, the following: A. Ail applications for approvals and development entitlements related to the Project, including without limitation, applications for the Specific Plan and Development Agreement extension submitted to the City; B. The Terrabay Specific Plan (1982), Terrabay Specific Plan Working Document (1984), Development Agreement (1988), and Phase I Precise Plan (1989); 25 C. The previous 1982 Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabay Development Project; D. The SEIR as certified by the City Council, consisting of the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR (the Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR and the Revised Transportation Impact and Mitigation Findings, Responses to Comments on Revised Findings); E. All staff reports on the Project and the SEIR; F. All studies conducted for the Project and SEIR contained or referenced in the staff reports or SEIR; G. All public reports and documents related to the Project prepared by the City Council and the Planning Commission; H. All documentary and oral evidence received and reviewed at public hearings related to the Project and the SEIR before the Planning Commission and the City Council; I. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the SEIR; and All matters of common knowledge to the Council, including but not limited Jo to: 1. the City's general plan and zoning and other ordinances; 2. the City's fiscal status; 3. City policies and regulations; 4. reports, projections and correspondence related to development within and surrounding the City; and 5. State laws and regulations and publications, including all reports and guidelines published by the California Office of Planning and Research. 26 EXHIBIT B TO RESOLUTION NO. 193-96 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The City Council finds that all other impacts of the proposed project are not environmentally significant as documented in the SEIR and supported by evidence elsewhere in the record. In some cases, the SEIR has suggested mitigations for impacts that are less than significant even without mitigation. CEQA does not require mitigation for less than significant impacts, nor does it require findings for mitigation measures proposed for less than significant impacts. Therefore, no findings are made with respect to such mitigation measures. The City Council has determined that the SEIR is correct in all those instances where it states that impacts are less than significant. Included in the less than significant impacts are Supplemental Impacts VW-1, PS-3 and PS-4. The SEIR has identified these impacts as potentially significant and has recommended mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to less-than-significant levels. However, subsequent to preparation of the SEIR, the recommended mitigations identified in the SEIR were determined to have been completed or in progress. With these particular improvements already completed or in progress, the impacts were determined to no longer be potentially significant, as discussed below. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT VW-I: Habitat Restoration Failures. Of 80 acres that were graded between 1989 and 1995 to prepare the site for Phase I development, 50 acres were permanently disturbed and 30 acres underwent habitat restoration in accordance with Terrabay Phase I Reclamation Plan approved in 1988. However, restoration work was done during seasons of unfavorable weather conditions; unusually cold temperatures and subsequent drought killed most emerging seedlings. A detailed evaluation of habitat restoration work performed in May 1995 identified erosion, sparse cover of native plants, and spread of invasive pest plants in reclamation areas. Butterfly observation data for period 1991 to 1995 show little use of restoration areas. MITIGATION: Implement the recommendations for remedying the failure of Terrabay Phase I Reclamation Plan habitat restoration work identified in the 1995 evaluation report completed in compliance with the HCP mitigation monitoring program: - Prior to retreatment of failed slopes, conduct soil tests to determine the need to use soil amendments. Use a combination of emergent and pre-emergent herbicides to eliminate "weedy" non-native plants in restoration areas. Use more native grasses, which have proven to be very successful in 27 restoration sites around the mountain, in seed mixes; and Make erosion control a high priority. Use Soil Guard hydromulch or tackified straw in hydroseed mixes to ensure better cover of hydroseeded material. Use erosion blankets in especially erosion prone areas. (See section IV.E.4.a and Appendix C of this SEIR for details.) As the SEIR was in the process of preparation, City staff reported that the applicant adequately implemented the proposed mitigation measures to correct habitat restoration deficiencies in October 1995, and most of the mitigation program has been successful. Periodic monitoring and mitigation program adjustment is being required to adequately ensure that any remaining unsuccessful aspects of the mitigation program are corrected. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT PS-3: Onsite Sewer System. City has not accepted maintenance responsibility for portions of the onsite wastewater collection system to be dedicated to the city (i.e., within the South San Francisco Drive right-of-way) because the system appears to have problems due to storm and/or groundwater infiltration. MITIGATION: Require the project applicant to inspect and repair apparent onsite wastewater collection system infiltration problems to the satisfaction of the city's Director of Public Works prior to city acceptance of maintenance responsibilities for portions of the onsite wastewater collection system within the South San Francisco Drive right- of-way. City staff has reported that, subsequent to preparation of the DSEIR, the identified mitigation deficiencies have been corrected to the city's satisfaction. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT PS-4: Offsite Sewer System. City has not accepted maintenance responsibility for offsite wastewater collection system improvements installed as part of the project due to apparent infiltration problems. MITIGATION: Require the project applicant to inspect and repair the offsite wastewater collection system to correct apparent infiltration problems to the satisfaction of the city's Director of Public Works prior to acceptance of maintenance responsibilities by the city. City staff has reported that, subsequent to preparation of the DSEIR, the identified mitigation deficiencies have been corrected to the city's satisfaction. 28 EXHIBIT C RESOLUTION NO. 193-96 FINDINGS CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES The SEIR identifies significant or potentially significant impacts that cannot be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of mitigation measures recommended in the SEIR. Where adequate mitigation measures have not been identified that would reduce identified significant environmental impacts to less than significant levels, the City as lead agency must review the SEIR project alternatives to determine if any of the feasible alternatives will avoid the unmitigated impacts. The City hereby finds that the alternatives analyzed in the SEIR will not sufficiently reduce or avoid the unmitigated significant impacts and/or are not feasible for the specific economic, social, or other considerations set forth below pursuant to CEQA §21081(c) and CEQA Guidelines §15126(d) (5) . The following are the project's unmitigated significant supplemental impacts: Supplemental Impact T-15. Contribution to significant cumulative traffic impacts on the US 101 freeway mainline segment between the Oyster Point interchange and Sierra Point interchange. Supplemental Impact AQ-2. Contribution to significant cumulative regional air quality impacts. Alternatives to the proposed project are identified and evaluated in Section VI of the previous 1982 EIR, in Draft SEIR Section VI, and on Final SEIR pages 77-79. The alternatives evaluated include: No Project Alternative (as required by CEQA; assumes that the 332-acre project site would remain in its current state, which now in September 1995 means no extension to the previous Terrabay Specific Plan and development agreement entitlements, and no development activity beyond the current entitlement termination date of February 14, 1997. Under this scenario, a limited portion of the Phase I residential development would be completed, and development of Phases II and III would not be initiated); Concept Plan Alternative (as presented in the concept plan proposed by W.Wo Dean Associates in 1982, assumes residential uses and related community facilities similar in type and density to those contained in the approved specific plan and development agreement, but with less intense Phase III commercial development levels); Alternative Designed to Conform With the Sphere of Influence Study (assumes development of 1,036 residential units and a 10-acre shopping center along the south-facing portion of the project site, and commercial and industrial development along the eastern portion, consistent with the 29 Preliminary Site Utilization Plan included in the South Slope Sphere of Influence Study; and Alternative Designed to Conform With the General Plan Amendment (assumes development of 985 multi-family residential units, of which 20 percent would be affordable to low and moderate income households, including a high-rise elderly housing complex, plus development of higher intensity commercial and light industrial uses, and a community center with a pre- school, cultural center, library, fire station, police station and religious facilities, consistent with the 1976 San Mateo County general plan amendment for San Bruno Mountain). These alternatives were determined by the City Council to be infeasible at the time the previous 1982 EIR was certified. The supplemental findings of the SEIR with respect to project alternatives and the project's unmitigated significant supplemental impacts do not warrant a change in these previous City Council determinations. 405/reso/dec96/stmt- fnd.548 30 EXHIBIT D RESOLUTION NO. 193-96 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS General Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21081 and CEQA Guidelines § 15093, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations relating to its approval of a ten year extension of the Specific Plan and Development Agreement for the Terrabay Project. The City Council has balanced the benefits of the Terrabay Project to the City against the two adverse impacts identified in the SEIR as significant which have not been eliminated or mitigated to a level of insignificance: (1) impact of traffic from build out of Phases I, II and III on U.S. 101 Freeway between Sierra Point and South Airport Boulevard interchange; and (2) emissions of ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) from build out of Phases I, II and III. The City Council, acting pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21081 and CEQA Guidelines § 15093, hereby finds and determines that: specific economic, legal, social, technological and other considerations made infeasible the mitigation measures and alternatives identified in the FSEIR to reduce these two impacts to less than significant; the benefits of the Project outweigh the two unmitigated adverse impacts identified in the FSEIR; and the Project should be approved. The City Council has carefully considered each environmental impact identified in the FSEIR in reaching its decision to approve ~the Project extending the Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement for a period of ten years to allow the completion of all phases of the Terrabay Project. The City Council has imposed mitigation measures identified in the FSEIR as conditions of approval to eliminate or mitigate to a level of insignificance all but two potential impacts. With regard to each of the two significant unavoidable impacts, the City Council specifically makes the following findings to the extent that the identified adverse impacts have not been mitigated to a level of insignificance: (1) specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the FSEIR which may reduce the significant unavoidable impacts to less than significant; and (2) there are 6018942.1 specific economic, social, environmental, legal, land use and other benefits of the Project which outweigh the two significant unavoidable effects on the environment. The City Council further finds that any one of the overriding considerations identified hereinafter in subsection 4 is a sufficient basis to approve the Project. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts will result from the Project and are identified in the FSEIR. These impacts cannot be fully mitigated by changes or alterations to the Project or the imposition of further mitigation measures. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT T-15 - IMPACT OF TRAFFIC FROM PHASES I, II AND III ON U.S. 101 FREEWAY OPERATION BETWEEN//SIERRA POINT AND SOUTH AIRPORT BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE The segment of U.S. 101 between Sierra Point and South Airport Boulevard interchange is proiected to be operating at level of service F in the year 2010 without the Proiect. However, build out of all three phases of the Proiect will result in an increase of vehicle trips along that segment of U.S. 101 of approximately [five percent (5%] in the year 2010. For roadways operating at a level of service F, the FSEIR established a standard that an increase in peak direction traffic on the roadway of two percent (2%) or more due to the Proiect would be considered a significant impact. Since the build out of all three phases of the Proiect will contribute [a five percent (5%)] increase in peak direction traffic on this segment of U.S. 101, the impact of build out of the Proiect in 20 l0 is considered significant. The primary mitigation measure imposed on the Project is transportation demand management (TDM) programs. These programs were imposed on the Project under the 1982 EIR and the Specific Plan. The FSEIR augmented the TDM programs under the 1982 EIR and Specific Plan to meet current standards. The TDM measures apply to all three phases of the Project but will have the greatest impact on traffic generated by the commercial uses in Phase III. Phase III is also responsible for most of the traffic that will contribute to the significant impact on U.S. 10! by the Project. The TDM measures will reduce the Project impacts on U.S. 101 Freeway from 5% to [3%]. However, even with these TDM measures, the build out of all three phases of the Project in 2010 will still increase peak direction traffic by more than two percent (2%) on the identified U.S. 101 Freeway segment. Widening of U.S. 101 is not a feasible mitigation measure because there are no plans by Cai Trans to expand the freeway and there are significant constraints on expansion of the freeway due to existing structures along this segment of U.S. 101 and the high costs of acquiring land to complete the expansion. Therefore, even with the maximum feasible mitigation measures imposed on the Project, the Project's impact on the freeway is significant and unavoidable. Furthermore, the traffic congestion problems on U.S. 101 is a regional issue that must be addressed by all jurisdictions that contribute traffic to the freeway. The City of South San Francisco is only one of these jurisdictions and has no power to impose mitigation measures relating to the expansion or alteration of U.S. 101 which is under the jurisdiction of Cai Trans. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT AQ-2 - EMISSIONS OF OZONE PRECURSORS (ROG AND NOx) FROM BUILD OUT OF PHASES I, II AND III The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has established a significance threshold for analyzing the impact of a project on regional air quality. The BAAQMD defines a significant impact as an increase in emissions of reactive organic gasses (ROG), or oxides of oxygen (NOx) from the Project of 80 pounds per day or greater. Project emissions for Phase I of the Project would not exceed 80 pounds per day for both ROG and NOx and, therefore, have a less than significant regional air quality impact. However, build out of Phases I, II and III would generate new regional emissions of ozone precursors exceeding 80 pounds per day. Therefore, the impact of the Project on regional emissions of ozone precursors would be significant under the BAAQMD standard. The 80 pounds per day standard is the most stringent standard under Federal law which only applies to areas in non- attainment for ozone. The BAAQMD adopted this new more stringent standard in 1996 because of the history of non-attainment for ozone in the Bay Area. The FSEIR imposed two types of mitigation measures to address this air quality impact: (1)'TDM measures; and (2) additional measures to reduce residential emissions. These measures would reduce the project emissions by 5 to 15 percent. However, the reduced emissions would still exceed the BAAQMD standard of eighty pounds. The mitigation measures under the FSEIR are the maximum feasible mitigation measures that may be imposed on the Project. Findings of Infeasibility of Mitigation Measures and Alternatives For Unavoidable Impacts SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT T-15 - IMPACT OF TRAFFIC FROM PHASES I, II AND III ON U.S. 101 FREEWAY OPERATION BETWEEN SIERRA POINT AND SOUTH AIRPORT BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE In addition to the TDM measures that were adopted as mitigation measures under the FSEIR, the only other possible mitigation measure to address this impact is to require the Project to widen the segment of U.S. 101 between the Oyster Point interchange and South Airport Boulevard. This mitigation measure is infeasible for two reasons. First, the City may not legally impose this requirement on the Project because its traffic impacts do not solely contribute to the need for widening of the freeway. The widening of the freeway is necessitated by regional traffic impacts. Second, the widening of the freeway is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Cai Trans and other state agencies and cannot be adopted or imposed by the City of South San Francisco. Cai Trans currently has no plans to widen this segment of the freeway in the future. There are significant constraints on the widening of U.S. 101 due to existing structures along that segment and the high cost of acquiring land to complete the expansion. Since this impact will be caused by build out of all three phases of the Project, the adoption of two alternatives identified in the FSEIR - the Modified No Project Alternative and Concept Plan Alternative - would reduce the impact to less than significant. The Modified No Project Alternative designates the areas for Phases II and III as open space and not developed. This alternative is infeasible. The benefits of the Project to the City are derived from the Project as a whole. The goals and objectives of the Project may only be met if all three phases are built. For example, if Phases II and III are not built, the City objective of commercial development on the site with its enhancement of City revenue would not be achieved. Furthermore, the benefits under the HCP are based on the development of all three phases. If Phases II and III are kept as open space, the developer's funding and dedication requirements associated with the development of these two phases would be eliminated under the HCP. In addition, public improvements required to be built as part of Phases II and III (ex. the hook ramps) also would not be constructed if Phases II and III are not built. These improvements are needed to serve the needs of the City generally as well as the Project. Therefore, since the Modified No Project Alternative does not accomplish most of the objectives of the Project, the City Council finds that this alternative is infeasible. The Concept Plan Alternative was an alternative considered under the 1982 EIR. The alternative has the same number of residential units and related improvements as the Project approved under the Specific Plan. However, the commercial development would be less intense primarily due to a reduction in the size of the hotel to 200 rooms from 400 rooms. The office complex in the Concept Plan Alternative is also slightly smaller and a service station is included in this alternative. The development of Phase III under the Concept Plan Alternative would be less intense than the proposed Project and would generate fewer traffic and air quality impacts. It is unlikely that the reduction in traffic under the Concept Plan Alternative would reduce the significant unavoidable impact of the Project on the Freeway. The impact of the Project on the Freeway results mostly from the office and restaurant uses rather than the hotel use. Since the Concept Plan Alternative does not significantly reduce the office and restaurant uses as compared to the Project, it is unlikely to reduce the impact on the U.S. 101 Freeway to less than significant. However, even if the Concept Plan Alternative could reduce the traffic impact on the U.S. 101 Freeway to less than significant, the alternative is infeasible. The Concept Plan Alternative was rejected as infeasible in the 1982 EIR. An economic feasibility study for the commercial area found that the planned commercial development under the Concept Plan Alternative was infeasible and resulted in rejection of this alternative. The same conclusion is warranted today because the size and types of commercial land uses under the Concept Plan Alternative do not meet current market needs and demands and, therefore, would be economically infeasible. Therefore, the City Council finds that this alternative is infeasible. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT AQ-2 - EMISSIONS OF OZONE PRECURSORS (ROG AND NOx) FROM BUILD OUT OF PHASES I, II AND III The impact of the Project on regional emissions for ozone precursors is largely caused by emissions from automobiles from vehicle trips generated by the Project. The primary mitigation measure to address these automobile emissions is a reduction in automobile trips. The Specific Plan and 1982 EIR impose significant traffic demand management and traffic system management programs to reduce vehicle trips on the Project. The FSEIR augments these already imposed vehicle trip reduction measures by requiring that the Project incorporate additional vehicle trip reduction requirements applicable to all land uses with specific trip reduction goals to be adopted and enforcement procedures developed by the applicant in consultation with BAAQMD. In addition, the FSEIR requires certain types of mitigation measures to reduce residential emissions from fireplaces, gas-powered lawn and landscape equipment, and barbecues. The mitigation measures in the Specific Plan, 1982 EIR and FSEIR are the maximum feasible mitigation measures to reduce vehicle trips generated by the Project. However, even with the implementation of all of these mitigation measures, it appears that the emissions of ozone precursors from the Project will still be significant. No other mitigation measures were proposed in the FSEIR or in comment letters to the DSEIR. Vehicle trip reduction measures are the industry standard for reducing auto emissions. Two alternatives identified in the FSEIR - the Modified No Project Alternative and the Concept Plan Alternative - may reduce the impacts of the Project on regional air quality due to ozone emissions. However, for the reasons stated above, the City Council finds that these alternatives are infeasible. 4. Statement of Overriding Considerations The City Council has considered the public record of proceedings on the proposed Project and finds and determines that the approval and implementation of the extension of the Development Agreement and Specific Plan would result in the following substantial public benefits that outweigh the two significant, unavoidable impacts of the Project: 1. Provide economic growth and employment opportunities in the City and surrounding region, by creation of new jobs, especially in construction-related industries. 2. Development of housing units needed in the City and regional area to meet housing demands and needs, particularly through development of more affordable housing in Phase II of the Project. 3. Increase tax base and revenues to City through transient occupancy tax from hotel, sales tax from restaurant uses, and increased property tax from development. 4. Construction of public facilities and public improvements needed by the City generally to serve the resident of the City and the Terrabay Project: a. Construction or participation in the costs of construction of certain roadway improvements and signalization, including but not limited to U.S. 101 hook ramps and flyover. b Provide community services and facilities, including: recreation center, parks, tot lots, and a fee for child care and/or library facilities; all of which will minimize impacts on existing community facilities and expand community services in the City. c Provide water, sewer, storm and energy utilities to service the Project and other areas of the City. 5. Offset the burden and costs created by development of residential units in Phases I and II by allowing commercial development in Phase III to be completed. 6. Preservation and protection of a large portion of San Bruno Mountain as open space through the dedication of 132 acres of property owned by the applicant to the County. 7. Furtherance of the goals and programs of the Habitat Conservation Plan by allowing Phases II and III to be built which will result in the corresponding dedication of land to the County and funding of restoration as required under the HCP. 8. Creation of a transition area between the urbanized portion of the City and San Bruno Mountain Park. Project will also protect the HCP area and County Park habitat by minimizing water usage to a carefully planned landscape plan utilizing non-invasive and drought resistant species to San Mateo County. 9. Retain obligation of applicant to pay certain fees including City overhead and administrative costs for plan checking and inspections and the payment for City geotechnical services under Section 8 of the Development Agreement. 10. Reduce environmental impacts and preserve open space through use of a compact development design and dedication and restoration requirements under HCP. 11. Increase the City residents' access to recreational opportunities in San Bruno Mountain Park through the provision of trail heads and trails as part of Project to the Park properties. J:\WPD~,INRSW~405xltZSOX, DEC96\TERRSOC.DFT RESOLUTION NO. 193-96 EX}TM~IE'' The environmental mitigation measures listed in column two below have been Incorporated into Ihs conditions of approval Ior the Terrabay project in order lo mitigate identified environmental Impacts. A coml:~eted and signed chart will indicate that each mitigation requiremenl has been complied with, and that cily and state monilodng requirements have been lullilled wilh respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (~ublic Resources Code Section 21081.6). MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE ImpI. Type of Monitoring Timing Monitoring and (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Entity~ Action: Requirementss Verification Entity4 Signature Dele LAND USE Compatibility With Hillside Elementary School Play Fields. (Supplemental Impact LU-t) Playfields al Hillside Elementary School immediately adjacent to the site's western end have night-time lighting; night games are permitted as late as 10:30 P.M. Many el the proposed homes in Terrabay Village would be Iocaled as close as 120 feet Irem the edge of the playlields. As a result, nighltime lighting and noise at these playlields could cause a significant land use compatibility impact on adjacent project residents in Terrabay Village. (Supplemental Impact LU-1) Prohibit use of the play fields after 10:30 P.M. In addition, adjust playfield lighting to limit impacts, applying the Illuminating Engineering Sociely of North America standards for safe sports and recreational lighting Ior Class IV activities (social and recreational). I1 possible, a qualified lighting engineer should specily modifications to: (1) ensure that the playfield lighting is no brighter than that required for safety, and (2) orient the lighting away from project housing. Also require disclosure of recxeation center operations to prospective project residents. City/ OTC PPO SSFDECO Appl. POC Compalibility Between Proiect Residential Units and Existing Electrical Transmission Lines. (Supplemental Impact LU-2) Proposed units in the western grouping el Terrabay Commons in project Phase II would be located near an existing PG&E transmission line easement containing 60kY and 115kV lines, which daises concerns regarding possible health and salety risks Ior Phase II residents related to electric and magnetic fields (EMF) Item the lines. There are currently no known lederal, state, Public Utility Commission, county, o~ city regulations regarding setbacks Item electric power lines to limit EMF exposure. However, the Schools Planning Division el the Calilornia Department of (Supplemental Impact LU-2) The signilicance el Appl. the health risks associated with diflerent levels el EMF exposure has not been olficially established. However, it is prudent to reduce residential exposure to EMF when possible. As part el the future review process lor project Phase II, request from Ihs applicant an independent study el this PG&E Iransmission line and its potential project Phase II impacts and mitigation needs. Also require that the project-specific environmental documentation for project Phase II include an adequate evaluation of this transmission line, its potential EMF impacts on Phase II residential units, and warranted miligatio~ needs. Measures that should he considered in this Phase I1, project- SSR PPP SSFDECD ~ Appl. = Al~licanl; City = City el S~uth San Francisco; AFS = Appllcanr fair share CPI = Conslructim Period Inlpec:llo~, OTC = O~e-time Confirmation Action; PC = Plan Che~k; POC: Post Occupancy in-pecllon; SSR = Sub~equ~l $1andard Review; OM~ = O~tOo~ng Mo~#o~ing I~eqMirelt~nl ~ DPC: During Projec! Construction; PPP = Prk~ lo Precise Plan Approval; PeP = Prior lo Issuance el Building Perm#; PGP = Prior to Issuance of G~'eding Ps, mit; PPO = Prio~ to PrC~KI Occupancy; STR = Sp~:ialized Timing HOA = Iflcerporetiorl i~ flomeowrieri Aetnclallon Aereem~tl ' SSFOECD = South San F;an¢ie¢o Oeperlrnent el Economic and Community Develo~menl; SSFDPW = South San Fren¢le¢o Dep~trrm~l el Public Wo~'h~,; $SFPD = $o~lh San Ftanoleoo PolIoo Dlrps, b,:e~tl; BSD = e~'iebane $¢hool P.rw ~ WP5 ~ I,IO[?S15,lSiFSF IRIMMCt I T 549 IDENTIFIED IMPACT Education recommends minimum 100-foot-wide setbacks belween 100-110kY transmission line rights-of-way and new schools. If California Department o! Education setback recommer~dations for new sc/x~ls were also applied as significance cdteria for residential uses, EMF exposure for project residential uses wilhin 100 feet of the edge o! the transmission line easements would represent a potentially significant health and salely impact. RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (CONDITION OF APPROVAL.) specific mitigation i~ogram to limit EMF exposure include: Setbacks. Modification of the project design for the western grouping ot residential structures and outdoor living areas in project Phase II as necessary to provide adequate separation from the edge of the transmission line easement. Disclosure. Notification in writing to all prospective residents of project homes within a prescribed distance of the transmission line easement edge regarding the applicant of the potential EMF risks associated with the existing PG&E power transmission lines. (This could be achieved by requiring that such disclosures be included in the sales and rental malerials to be signed by future project residents.) MONITORING Impl. Type of Monitoring Timing Monitoring and Entity' Action~ Requlrem~lt~s Verification Entity4 VERIFICATION Signature Date TRANSPORTATION Base Case Plus Project Signalization Need Impacls Year 2000 - Phase I. (Supplemental Impact T- 1) Phase I Irallic would further increase Year 2(X)O Base Case (PM peak hour) volumes al the H#lslde Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue intersection above peak hour s~nal warranl aileria levels. Year 2010 - Phase I (Supplemental Impact T- 2) Phase I traffic would also aggravate the Year 2010 Base Case signal warrant far signals at the Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue inlersection With project Phase I, signalize this intersection. (The Terrabay Development Agreement assigns compiele respoesibilily to the project for signalization o! this intersection.) Resultant PM peak hour operation: LOS A. Same mitigation as Supplemental Impact T- I. Resultant PM peak hour operation: LOS A, Appl. OTC STR SSFDPW Appl. OTC STR SSFDPW Al)pl. = Appllcml; Ctly = City of So.th Sm Frlncllco; AF$ = Applicanl flit lharo CPi = ConllflJclion P~iod Inel~Klion. OTC = One-W Conlkmaion Aelion; PC = Plan Check; POC = Poll Occupancy In~oectiofl; SSR = Sublefluenl Standard Revknv; OMR = Ongoing Mort#ming Requirement OPC = luring Pro,c! CoflllruCl~ofl; PPP: Prior Io Precise Plal~ App~ovsl; PBP = Prk~ Io Ii~uance c4 Building Petal#; PGP = Prior to leeuanee of CKeding Pe~m#; PPO = Prior to Pro,ct Occupancy; STfl = S~ecia#zed Timing flequkemenl; HOA = Incm'p4x~ion in -HG~lOV~J~'l Al$ocillion Ag~eentenl SSFDECO = South Sin Fr~lci~co O~c)J, lmefll o! ~conoflllc ~nd Comm~n#y Devi~lnl~m~nt; SSFOPW = Sou~h S~ Fl'mcilco ~lpil'~11~ll of Public Workl; SSFPO = Gotllll Siul F~'~lCbCO Police 0~,1~,.4~; BSD: Brlebl114 Schoot hlrIct ~,,,,,. ? WP51 I. I(3t].~IS.IRIFRFIFliMIt.IC t I T 5,f,q IDENTIFIED IMPACT Year 2010 - Phases l, Il and Ill. (Supplemental Impact T-3) Cumulative traffic Irom Phases I, II and III would lurlher aggravate the Year 2010 Base Case signal warrant at the Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue intersection. Base Case PIu8 Project Intersection Impacts Year 2000 - Phase I. (Supplemental Impact T. 4) During the PM peak hour, all study inlersectio~s would operate acceptably with Ihs addition ol project Phase I traffic with one exceplion: Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue. The proiecl would increase PM peak hour volumes by more than two percent al this intersection, which would already be experiencing unacceptable (LOS F) operation with Base Case volumes lot the slop sign- controlled left turn movement lrom Chestnut Avenue. Year 2010 - Phase I. During the AM peak hour, Phase I traffic would result in a significant adverse impact at the follOWing location, which would already be experiencing unacceptable operation with Base Case volumes: (Supplemental Impact T-S) Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard (more than a lwo percent increase in traffic added to Base Case LOS F signalized operation.) RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Same ml~gatio~ as Supplemental Impact T- I. Resultant PM peak hour operation: LOS B. Same mitigation as Supplemental Impact T- I. Require that project Phase I provide a lair share contribution Iowards the southbound to eastbound flyover off-ramp mitigation recommended for 2010 Base Case (without pro~ct) conditions. Resultant peak hour operation: LOS C in the AM peak hour; LOS D in the PM peak hour. EXHIBI'I "E" MONITORING VERIFICATION Impl. Type of Monitoring Timing Monitoring end Entity~ Action~ Requirement.,s Verification Entity4 Signature Date Appl. OTC STR SSFDPW Appl. OTC STR SSFDPW AFS OTC STR SSFDPW ' Ai)ld. = Ai4)llcant; Cltf = Clly ol South Sift Frsncleco; AFB · Applicant lek share · CPI = Coflltruclion Period Inspection, OTC = One-lime Cofltkmo#~l Action; PC = Plan Check; POC · Poll Occupancy Inq~ectlon; SSR· Subsequent Standmd R~icw; OMA = Ongoing Mon#oring Req~#emen! · OPC = OuHne I~o~c! Construction; PPP = Prior to I~ecice Plan Aplxo~d; PBP = Prior lo Issuance o! Building Perm#; PGP = Prim to icouonce ol Grading Perm#; PPO = P~im to Pro,ecl Occupancy; STfl z ~pecic#zed Timing Requirement; * SSFDECD = SOulh Sen Francisco De~! el Economic and Communll¥ Develop; $SFOPW · 8o~# San Francisco Dlpaflmen! of Public Wo~a; BSFPD · 8oulh San Francisco Police Do~I; BSD· BHebane School 01elrlc! i,,, ,,. ~ WP51 I, !OR,9154~qIF,gF IR~I~ fMC! t T 5,1,'q' IDENTIFIED IMPACT During the PM peak hour, Phase I traffic would result in a significant adverse impact at the following I~tiofls. which wo~JId already be experiencing unacceptable operation without the project: (Supplemental Impact T-6) Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Bays/tore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard (more than a two percent increase in traffic added to Base Case LOS F signalized operation.) (Supplemental Impact T-7) Il the Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue intersection remains unsignalized, more than a two perceflt iec~ease in traffic volumes would be added to Base Case LOS F operation lot the stop sign-conlrolled left lurn movement lrom Chestnut Avenue. Year 2010 - Phases I, II and III. During the AA.f peak hour. Iraffic from Phases I, II and III would resuff in significant adverse impacts al the following locations: · (Supplemental Impact T-8) Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard (more than a two percent increase in volume added to Base Case LOS F operation.) RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Same mitigation as Supplement Impact T.5. Same mitigation as Supplemental Impact T- I. Provide a fair-share cost contribution for each project phase IOWa'ds the Iollowing maximum practical physical improvements recomrnended Io~ 2010 Base Case (without project) conditions: (1) complete these lane additions: Airport Boulevard northbound-1 left turn/2 through/1 right turn lane; Oyster Point Boulevard westbound-add a second through lane; Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound-add a second left*turn lane; - and- EXHIBIT "E" MONITORING Impl. Type of Monitoring Entity~ Action~ Timing ' Monitoring and Requiremeflt$s Verification Entity4 AFS OTC STR SSFDPW Appl. OTC STR SSFDPW AFS OTC STR SSFDPW VERIFICATION Signature Date Appl. = App#canl; City = C~y of SouffJ San Fran¢leco; AFS = A~ l~ e~ CPI = C~e~ll~ ~ ~l~l~, OTC: ~ ~mali~ AcUra; ~ = PI~ C~k; P~ = Poel ~ ~l~l~; SSR = ~l St~d~d R~; ~: ~ ~Hm~ ~k~l ~ = ~ ~1 ~etmcl~; PPP = Pr~ lo ~¢~ P~ ~o~; ~ = ~ ~ 18~¢e of gu~ P~k; ~P = Pr~ lo h~ of ~q Pwma; P~ = ~ lo P~I Oozy; STR = ~b~ T~ R~uk~t; m,,,,. 4 WP51LI(-)R.qLr,.IFIIFSFIFItMMCttT 5.1Fi IDENTIFIED IMPACT (Supplemental Impact T-9) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/US 101 nmlhbound on-ramp (more than a Iwo percent increase in traffic added to Base Case LOS F operation.) RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) (2) oonstruct a US 101 southbound flyover off- ramp connecting to eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard east of the Dubuque Avenue intersection. The geometrics recommended at this intersection for the 2010 Base Case conditions with the flyover and without the project would not provide acceptable opmation with full project development. To mitigate this deficiency, also: · Res~pe the northerly Airport Boulevard approach to include one left, Iwo through, and one right-turn lane, with a lair-share cost contribution from each project phase. Resultant peak hour operation: LOS D in the AM peak hour; LOS D in the PM peak hour. Provide a lair-share cost contribution from each project phase towards the following mitigations recommended for 2010 Base Case (without project) conditions: (1) complete these lane additions: Oyster Point Boulevard westbound-add a second right turn lane; Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound-add an additional through lane; - and - (2) construct a US 101 southbound flyover off- ramp to eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard. MONITORING Impl. Type of Monitoring ' Timing Monitodng and Entity~ Action' Requlrementl~ Verlflcltion Entity~ AFS/ OTC/OMR STR SSFDPW City EXHIBIT "E" VERIFICATION Signature Date ~ Appl. = Appli¢lnl; Cily = City of ~outh Sin FIIncl~¢o; AFS = Applicant Ilk ehlre ~ CPI = Conllruclion Period Inepeclion, OTC = Ofle-lime Coflfirml#on Action; PC = Ptln Check; POC = PoM Occuplmcy Inlpeclion; SSR = Sublequenl Slkqdlrd Revkew; OMR = Ongoing Moil#acing Requirement ) OP~: Ourklg Pfojlct COgll#l~ctiofl; PPP = Prior lo Pl, ectee Plim Appfovid; PBP = Prior Io Ileuence of Buil4k~ Petal#; PGP = Prior to leeuence of Grading Penn#; PPO = PHor to Pro, ecl Or. cupnncy; STR = Splcblized Timing Requkeme~t; ' SSFDECD = Soulh Sm F~on~toco f)~)ortm~n! ol Economic end Co~mun#y De~l~; SSFDPW = Soul# San FroncJoco f~porlmen! of Pubflc Wo~o; SSFPD = Somh Son Feoflcieco Police I~p3~s. ~m; 8S0 = 8Hobffu School Oisuic~ IDENTIFIED IMPACT (Supplemental Impact T-lO) Dubuque Avenue/US 101 northbound oil. ramp~US I01 southbound on-ramp (acceptable base case LOS D operation is changed to unacceptable LOS E operation with the additio~ of Foject lrallic) RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (CONDITION OF APPROVAL.) Resultan! peak hour operation wflh Ihese maximum practical physical improvements alone: LOS E (unacceptable) in the AM peak hour; LOS F (unacceptable) in the PM peak hour. Provision of these maximum practical physical improvements alone would not improve either AM or PM peak hour operation at this intersection to acceptable levels. To mitigate this deficiency, also implement voluntary transportation demand management (TI)M) measures for project Phase III and for olher future new employment intensive development in the area. The city shall continue to cooperate with MTSMA in its elforts to encourage and foster voluntary TDM measures in order to reduce commute peak hour travel. This TOM program would have the potential to reduce commute period vehicular traffic volumes by at least 12 percent. Anticipated peak hour operation with maximum practical physical improvements and 12 percent traffic volume reductio~ from voluntary TDM measures: LOS D in the AM peak hour; LOS E in the PM peak hour. Provide a lair-share contribution from each project phase towards recommended Base Case improvements (addition of a second left turn lane to the northbound Dubuque Avenue approach and intersectio~ signalization.) However, this signalization and lane addition would not provide acceptable AM peak hour operation with the project. MONITORING Impl. Type of Monitoring Entlty~ Action~ AFS OTC STR SSFDPW Timing Monitoring and Requirementss Verification Entity4 EX'IT "E" VERIFICATION Signature Date * AI)l)i.: AIPp#cinl; City: C#¥ of South Sm Francl*co; AFS = Appllclnl lair ih~fa I CP~ = Co~tllt~JglJO4~ Pllo4~ #tl~4CllO41, OTC = Ofl~-#fll~ C~f~mM~t ACJIO~l; PC = Pi C#~ck; POC = Pool Occupmcy Inlpecllon; SSR = ~1 Slmlds/d Revilw; OMR = Ongoing Mofl#oring fleClUlremenl · OPC = During Irboje~:t Conalruclion; PPP = Prlor to Pfecbe Plan Approval; PBP = I;~lo~ to I-euance o! Buikling Peffn#; PGP = Prior 1o b~ua~tce of C~edtng Perm#; PPO = Prkw Io PreWar Or,¢upangy; STR = Specialized Tim~g Requkwnenl; ' SSFDECD = So4Jth Sm Francisco O~pmtmeflt ol EcmtQfllic md Communfly Oevelopflteftl; 8$FDPW :: Sou~h Sin FrlmcIl¢o Oepmlm~nl of Public Wod~l; SSFPD = South ~ Fr~ncIlco Police Oepadnl~lt; BSO = Brlebine School v.,, .,. ~. WP51 I, h')f].qL~.l,elF.qFIRIIt IA ICI I 7 5.t!¢ IDENTIFIED IMPACT (Supplemental Impact T- 11) Bayshore Boulevard/US I01 southbound on- and off. ramps/project commercial access (LOS F operation and lack ol sufficient turning lane vehicle storage for this new intersection). Du#ng the PM peak hour. traffic from the total project would result in significant adverse impacts al the following locations: · (Supplemental Impact T-12) Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Bay.shore Boulevard/Airport RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Resultant peak hour operation: LOS E in the AM peak hour; LOS D in the PM peak hour As an additional improvement, restripe the northbound off-ramp intersection approach to provide two exclusive left turn lanes and a combthe~ left/through/righ! turn lane. Resultant AM peak hour operation: LOS D (with no TDM measures). Provide a fair-share cost contribution from each, project phase towards the southbound to eastbound tlyove¢ off-ramp and the following improvements: · Add a second eastbound through lane; and · Add a second southbound left turn lane and a second northbound left turn lane on the Bayshore Boulevard approaches to reduce vehicle storage queue lengths due to heavy left turn volumes in both directions. · Provide a channelized median opening at the north driveway to the project commercial areas along Bayshore Boulevard to allow loft- turn inbound movements. Resultant peak hour operation: LOS D in the AM peak hour; LOS D in the PM peak hour. Same mitigation as Supplemental Impact T-8. Resultant peak hour operation: LOS D in the AM peak hour; LOS D in the PM peak hour. EXHIBIT "E" MONITORING VERIFICATION ImpI. ' Type of Monitoring Timing Monitoring and Entity~ Action~ Requlremantas Verification Entity4 Signature AFS OTC STR SSFDPW AFS OTC STR SSFDPW Date P.n,' 7 WP5 ILIORR1,~4RIFSFIRTMMCttT 5,tt~ IDENTIFIED IMPACT 8oulevard (more than a two percent increase in volume added to Base Case LOS E operation, resulting in a change to LOS F operation). (Supplemental Impact T- 13) 8ayshore Boulevard/US 101 southbound on. and off* [amps/project commercial access (LOS F operation for this new intersection). (Supplemental Impact T. 14) If the Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue intersection remains unsignalized, more than a two percent increase in traffic volumes would be added to the Base Case LOS F operation tar the stop sign- controlled left turn movement Item Chestnut Avenue. Base Case Plus Project Freeway Link Impacls Year 2010 - Phases I, II and III. (Supplemental Impact T. 15) Traffic from Phases I, II and III would increase PM peak hour peak direction Base Case traffic volumes by more than two percenl along the US 101 freeway segments between the Oyster Point interchange and South Airport Boulevard interchange, locations which are projected to already experience LOS F Base Case operation in 2010 without the project. RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Same mitigation as Supplemental Impact T- 1 I. Resultant peak hour operation: LOS D in the AM peak hour; LOS D in the PM peak hour. Same mitigation as Supplemental Impact T-I. The city shall conlinue to cooperate with MTSMA in its efforts to encourage and foster voluntary transportation demand managemenl O'DM) measures in order to reduce commute peak hour travel on the local freeway network. Implement voluntary TDM measures Ior project Phase III and for other future employment intensive development in the area. EXHIBIT "E" MONITORING VERIFICATION Impl. ' Type of Monitoring Timing Monitoring and Entity~ Action; Requirements$ Verification Entity4 Signature Date AFS OTC STR SSFDPW Appl. OTC STR SSFDPW Appl.I OMR STR SSFDECD C~ty App'. = App#c.nt; Cily = City o! Soulh Sm Fl~:l~¢o; AF$ = A~a~ lak CPI = C~el~lim Pe~ b8~l~, OTC = ~ C~ma~ Acflm; K = Pl~ C~k; ~ = Poet ~cy IDENTIFIED IMPACT Base Case Plus Prolac( Freeway Ramp Impacts Year 2010 - Phases I, II and III. (Supplemental Impact T-I6 and Supplemental Impact T-17) Outing the 2010 AM peak hour, total project traffic would result in significanl adverse impacts (more than a Iwo percent increase in volume to over capacity Base Case operation) at Iwo ramp locations: the southbound off-ramp to Bayshore Boulevard and the norlhbound oil-ramp to Dubuque Avenue. (Supplemental Impact T-18) During the 2010 PM peak hour, traffic from Phases I, II and would not increase traffic volumes at any ramp above capacity. The addition of p~oject vehicles would, however, increase volumes by more than two percent at the already over capacity northbound on-ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard. Prolecl Impacts on Colma Inlersections. (Supplemental Impact T. 19) In 2010 with Phases I. II and Ill, the Serrarnonte Boulevard/ Hillside Boulevard intersection would be expected to experience an approximately four percenl ir~rease in traffic volumes, which would be considered a significant adverse impact. RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Provide a lair share contribution from each project phase towards the following improvements recommended for Base Case (without project) conditions: Southbound off-ramp to Bayshore Boulevard: add a second off-ramp lane connection to, and an extended deceleration lane along, the freeway mainline. Northbound off-ramp to Dubuque Avenue: add a second off-ramp lane connection to the freeway mainline. Same mitigation as Supplemental impact T-15. Resultant PM peak hour operation: Under Require that project Phases II and/or III provide a reasonable lair share contribution towards improvements needed al this inlersection by 2010 il it is operating unacceptably during Ihe peak hour. The contribution should be in proportion to the volume oI project traffic passing through the intersection in relation to the total traffic volume. EXHIBIT "E" MONITORING VERIFICATION Impl. Type of Monitoring Timing Monitoring and Entity' Action: Requlrementa: V~lflc,tlon Entity4 Signature AFS OTC STR SSFD~W City/ OMR STR SSFDECD Appl. AFS OTC STR SSFDPW ' Ap~t. = Ale#cent; City = C#y o( South San Fr~tcl~o; AFS = A~lnt f~ a~m ~ C~ = C~et~ti~ P~ ~s~t~, OTC = ~l~ C~fkm~l~ Acrid; ~ = PI~ C~; P~ = Pool ~cu~cy ~e~t~; SSR = ~t St~d~d ~; O~ = ~g~ ~Nm~ ~ke~t ,, ,, ,. ,~ WP5 Illd),qF;15,1;~IF.qFIFItIt~^f['tlT .'-,,I,'; IDENTIFIED IMPACT SOILS AND GEOLOGY Small, Localized, Posl-Gradin(j Landslides. Since grading for Phase I was completed, some small, localized landslides have occurred on cut and fill slopes and have blocked or damaged downslope improvements, including v-ditches and catchment basins. Since lhen, these slides and affected downslope areas have been repaired. Two localized slides have also occurred on the split level portion of the development. These slides too have been repaired. Similar, small, localized landslides can be expecled to occur in the future on the perimeter slopes of the project. Such small, localized landslides are not expected to be a significant hazard to the pro~ect; rather, their cleanup is expected to be parl of Ihe overall project maintenance program. ErosK)nal Gullies. (Supplemental Impact G- I) Numerous erosional gullmS have formed on cut and fill slopes throughout the Phase I grading area. resulting in downslope sedimentalion of v- ditches and storm drains. The problem persists despite recent repair ol the cut slopes as presoibed by the applicant's geolechnical consultant. Observations ol the city's geolechnical consultanl suggest that the problem is related lo perched groundwater daylighting in the cul slopes. The threat to downslope improvements presented by continued erosion ol the cut and fill slope laces and the formalioo of gullies is considered to be a potentially significant adverse impact RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Include the clean-up and repair of small, localized landslides occurring in proiect Phase I and future phase graded areas as a specific part of the overall project maintenance program. Also, in project Phase I, I1, and III, care must be taken to control surface drainage to help minimize the potential for similar future slope failures. (Supplemental lmpact G. 1) Repair erosional gullies on cut and fill slopes. Such repaics should be completed pursuant to City approval after submission of studies and plans by the applicant. The applicant Is currently working with the City to repair certain erosional gullies under plans approved by the City. The applicant shall complete all repairs of erosional gullies in accordance with the plans approved by the City. Also, remove silt and debris from v-ditches and storm drains. Assign responsibility to the city o~ project homeowners association to periodically inspect and maintain efoeion and sedimentation control tacllities. MONITORING yERIFICATION Impl. Type of Monitoring Timing Monitoring end Entity' Action~ Requirements~ Verification Entitys Signature Date Appl. OTC STR SSFDPW City/ OTC PPO SSFDPW Appl. ' Appl. = Applicant; Clly = C#y of South San Frencleco; AF$ = Appllcenl lek ehlll g CPI = Conel~ucUon P~iod Inepe4:lton. OTC = Ofle-Ilme Confbmellon Action; PC = Plan Check; POC = Poet Occupancy Inspection; SSR = Subelquent Stand~'d Review; OMR = Ongoing Mo~llo~lng Requirement · DPC = O~lltn~ PfoWc! Clml#~cflen; PPP = Pflol' lo Peeclee Plan Apl~ovoi; P~P = Pi, k#' le Illtlll~ce of Bu#dln0 Prom#; PGP = PrNM' lo lemlance of G~edll~ Pm~oil; PPO s Prior lo P~O~CI Occupancy; STR = Specialized Timing Requkemenl; HOA = Incorpos'~liofl In Itr, meowr4rl AI,Bo¢lillon Ag~q~mn! ~ SSFDECD = Somh S~n Francisco Oepmtm~nt oi Economic and Commun#y I~wl.pm.m; $SFDPW = $omh San F~amel~co Dmpmmmm of Pubtle Wo~e; $~FPO m 8omb San F~,m¢lg¢o Police D~I; BSD = g~leb.ne School EX.H~t t L'E" IDENTIFIED IMPACT 'Goat Farm' Cut Slopes. A geotechnical reevaluation of Ihe overly steep (1.5H:1 V) Phase I 'Goat Farm' cut slopes conducted by the applicanrs geotechnical consultant to address the consequences of steep cut slopes within alluvial and colluvial materials concluded that the completed cut slopes are acceptable from a geotechnical point ot view, and that the existing street will provide an adequate 'bullet' area tor collection and dean-up ol debris as part of an overall project mainlenanca program. The city's geotechnical consultant concurs Ihat minor slumping on the cut slope will continue to occur, but poses no significant hazard to proposed downslope residential development and is appropriately considered a maintenance problem. However, temporary blockage of the adjacent slreet due to potential slumping or erosion may impair or block emergency access to several single family homes. Landslide D. (Supplemental Impact G-2) . Recenl evaluation ol Landslide O suggests a larger and deeper landslide that is only marginally stable in its present configuration. A remedial repair plan Ior Landslide D was approved by the city on Oclober 6, 199.5. The plan consists of removing the upper 10 to 20 leer ol the landslide mass, constructing a shear key at the base ol the landslide mass, and providing subdrainage improvements. Repair of Landslide O has not yet been completed. If Landslide D is not successlully repaired. potential future downslope movement could expose pro,ct residents and improvements to geologic hazards and would be considered a s~gnilicant adverse impact RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Indude the dean-up and repair of minor slumping on the 'C-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-~at Farm* cut slopes and associated debris collection and dean-up as a specific pert of the overall project maintenance p~ogram. In addition, require the applicant to prepare an emergency response plan that identilies measures to ensure adequate emergency access in the event ol temporary blockage due to surficial slope instability by providing physical barriers at the base of the slopes or in some other manner acceptable to lhe city. (Supplemental Impact G-2) Remediation and repair plans Ior Landslide O wore reviewed by City and County officials, determined to be adequate, and approved. The City and County issued grading permits, authorizing work to proceed on Landslide D. The approved repair plan shall be implemented by the applicant. (The work is expected to be completed by October 31, 1996.) A summary report of these obse~atlon and testing services provided during the landslide repair should be prepared and submitted to the city. The repot should include an as-built geologic map. A long-term monitering plan of selected existing plezometers and slope indinometers should also be proposed, reviewed MONITORING VERIFICATION Impl. Type of Monitoring Timing Monitoring and Entity~ Action~ Requirements' V~lflcmtlon Entity4 Signature Appl. OTC PPO SSFDPW City/ CPI OPC SSFDPW Appl. Dele Apld. = Al~llcml; Clly = C#¥ ol S~th Sen F;~il¢o; AFS = A~ant I~ CPI = C~l~lJffi Pl~ Nffil~, OTC = ~1~ ~mMim ~; ~ = PIm C~; P~ = POll ~y ~A = ~M~ ~ I1~1~1 AII~ A~I SSFDECD = ~ S~ Fr~co ~ of Ec~ ~d C~y ~; SSF~ = S~h IDENTIFIED IMPACT Phases II and III Supplemental Impacts. In some areas of phase I, geologic conditions were substantially different from these anticipated and have required subsequent addiPonal geotechnical reevaluation, mitigations and repairs. Similar 'buried valleys,' deep landslide deposits, and other unconsolidated materials may be encountered during grading lot Phases II and III and will need Io be addressed as part of detailed design, level geotechnical investigations Ior these subsequent project phases. RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) by Ihe city, and implemented by the applicant's geotechnical consultant. As provided for in the 1982 EIR mitigations, require appticants for subsequent projec! Phases II and III to submit for city review and approval detailed, design-level geotechnical investigations for each subsequent project Phases II and III, These design-level investigations shall include characterization of specific hazards, warranted detailed site-specific mitigations, design criteria for project grading, grading limitations to minimize grading in unstable areas, and provisions for grading progress and completion reporting. The necessary detailed investigations shell also include evaluation el the geologic conditions encountered during grading for Phase I, the specific areas of concern identified in previous geotechnical investigations performed for the applicant to date. and those considerations identified in this SEIR--adequate design and siting o! erosion/sedimentation control facilities and debris flow basins, Ihe potential presence of "buried valleys' and deep landslide deposits, potential fill placement over compressible landslide debris of colluvium, and the potential for differential fill settlement. Future cut slopes excavated in unconsolidated materials should be no steeper than 2:1, unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant of record and approved by the city geotechnical consultant. The subsequent detailed geologic/geotechnical investigations shall be completed prior to approval of precise plans for Phase II or Phase III, and shall address all ['E" EXHIBIT MONITORING Impl. Type of Monitoring Entity' Action~ Timing Monitoring and Requirements' Verification Entity4 Appl. I STR PPP SSFDPW City VERIFICATION Signature Date ' Appl. = AI~Hce~t' City = City of South San Francle¢o; AFS = Applicant fair ahmro ' CP~ = Cod~tlrucU~)~ Period ~e~l~, OTC = ~l~ ~lkmMl~ AC~; ~ = Pl~ C~k; P~ = Poet ~c~w ~8~ct~; SSR = ~l Slmd~d R~; O~ = ~g~ ~N~ ~t ' D~ = ~ ~o~1 ~e~uct~; PPP = Pr~ lo ~ecbe P~ A~ovM; PBP = ~ ~ lettuce of Bu~ ~N; ~P = Pr~ to le~m~ el ~g P~mN; PPO = ~ lo Pr~ Occ~cy; STR = ~bl~ T~ ' SSFOECO = S~ S~ Fr~iece ~Jl~l el Ec~m~ ~d C~y ~nl; SSFDPW = S~h ~ Fr~i,co ~t of ~ Wake; ~FPD = ~ S~ Fr~bco P~ ~p~.lltt; BSD = Br~ ~ ~,,,q,, ,~ WP5 I L IC)R.c;154BIFSF IFIIILflt.fC l t T 5,¢ ~ IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Phases II and III areas proposed fo~ grading and development, including areas to be dedicated to Ihe county into which some grading may extend. MONITORING Impl. Type of Monitoring Entity~ Action~ Timing Monito~ng Requlmmenta~ Verification Entity4 VERIFICATION Signature Date DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY Joint Powers Agreement. (Supplemental Impact D-I) The county of San Mateo has recently raised questions regarding the effectiveness ol the 1983 city-county joint powers agreement in adequately maintaining project*relalad catchment basins on the south slope of San Bruno Mountain, and has proposed disbandment of the associated Joint Powers Authority (JPA). This uncertainty regarding ongoing maintenance responsibilities lot the catchment basins represents a new potentially significant impact. Slormwater Re~l. ulations. (Supplemental Impact D-2) City adoption of a 'Storm Water Managemenl and Discharge Conlrol' program as Chapter 14.04 of the Municipal Code suggests a revision to water quality-related mitigation measures recommended in 1982 EIR. Il those new mitigation standards are not met, the prolect could result in a potentially significant adverse water quality impact. (Supplemental Impact D-1) If the JPA is to be disbanded, werk wilh county and project applicant to ensure Ihat catchment basins are in proper condilJon to allow their dedication directly to county as county suggests (see 'Catchment Basin and Ditch Malfunctioning,' below). If JPA is to be maintained, continue to fulfill city responsibilities in accordance with joint powers agreement of June 21, 1983. City/ County/ (Supplemental Impact D-2) In addition to Appl.I measures recommended in 1982 EIR to~ water Property quality impacts, require project applicant/property Owner o~ lo: Comply with all applicable provisions of city's 'Storm Water Management and Discharge Control' program (Chapter 14.04 of Municipal Code); (1) As required Io~ projects involving construction on rno~e than five ac~es, fife Notice of Intent with the Stale Water Resources Control Board, in order to be covered by city's general NPDES permit; or apply to State (2) OMR STR SSFDPW CPI PGP SSFDPW OMR STR ' AppI.: AppIlc~nl; Ctly = City of South Sit Fr~flcbco; AFS = Apldk:,nl fair el~re ~ CPI: Co~t~lruclimt Pwtod InepdKlio~. OTC = One-lkne Conflrnmtlon Actkm; PC = PI,n Check; POC = Po~t Occul~l~y I~pecllon; $SR = Subsequent $1~ndard Revld~v; OMR = Ongoing Monlloring ReqU~l · DPC = f)L~Jflg Projocl Coflolructiofl; PPP = Prkw lo Procloo Plln .A.~'~'~.ovid; POP = Pl'tlx' to Iloulnce Of BuNdin0 I~m#; PGP = Prim to I~oulflce of G~oding I~#; PPO = P~ior to Pro,lei Occupancy; STR = 6pocbNrld Timing Requirement; flOA = Inc4x~4~141ofl ill ItGII~OWrA~ I AiIOCblIQ41 Ag~llfl~fll ' SSFDECD = Sotl~h Sift F~IIICIICO OIt)lllnllfl! OI ECOflQflli¢ ~ Commun#y Oevelapmefll; 8SFDPW = 8o~h Sm FlllcIico Deplllm~lt Of Public WoOl; 8SFP9 = $ou~h S~n Francisco Police OatxKlnent; BSD = BriC. ne School Otslricl I,.,,,, , ~ WP.~; I l/ORSI54~iF.~-IRl/~f~f~..HT 548 IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Waler Resources Control Board for an individual NPDES permit; (3) Prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for city approval (by the Cily Engineer and/or Stormwatar Program Coordinator) and filing with the NPDES permit, detailing construction activities that could cause pollutants and describing measures/practices that will be undertaken Io control pollutants. City approval is necessary prio¢ 1o issuance of grading or other permits. (See section IV.D.4.d of this SEIR for details.) MONITORING Impl. Type of Monitoring Entity~ Action~ Timing Monitoring ind Requirements~ Verification Enllty* EX ...... I"E" VERIFICATION Signature Date VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE Habitat Restoration Failures. (Supplemental Impact VW-I) Of 80 acres thai were graded between 1989 and 1995 Io prepare sile for Phase I development, 50 ac~es were permanently dislurbed and 30 ac~es underwent habitat resloration in accordance with Terrabay Phase I Reclamation Plan approved in 1988, However, restoration work was done during seasons of unlavorable weather conditions; unusually cold lemperalures and subsequent drought killed most emerging seedlings. A detailed evaluation of habitat restoration work performed in May 1995 identified severe erosion, sparse cover of native plants, and v~jOfous spread of invasive pest plants in almost all reclamation areas. Butterfly observation data for period 1991 to 1995 show little use of restoration areas. These habitat restoration (Supplemental Impact VW. 1) Implement the recommendations for remedying the failure of Terrabay Phase I Reclamation Plan habitat restoration work identified in 1995 evaluation report completed in compliance with HCP mitigation monitoring program: · Prior to retreatment of failed slopes, conduct soil tests to determine need to use soil amendments. · Use combination of emergent and pre- emergent herbicides to eliminate 'weedy' non-native plants in restoration areas. · Use more native grasses, which have proven to be very successful in restoration sites around mountain, in seed mixes; and · Make erosion control a high priority. Use Soil Guard hydromulch or tackified straw in Appl. OTC STR SSFDPW IDENTIFIED IMPACT failures represent a potentially significant adverse project impact. RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) hydroseed mixes to ensure better oover of hydroseeded material. Use erosion blankets in espedally erosion prone areas. (See section IV.E.4.a and Appendix C of this SEIR for details.) MONITORING ImpI. Type of Monitoring Entity~ Action~ Timing Monitoring ~nd Requlrementaj Verlflcetlon Entity' VERIFICATION Signature Dste PUBLIC SERVICES South San Francisco Unified School District. (Supplemental Impact PS- 1) The project would be expected to generate approximately 260 new students attending South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD) schools: 120 attending Hillside Elementap/ School, 60 attending Parkway Heights Middle School, and 80 attending El Camino High School. Hillside Elementary School and Parkway Heights Middle School are already operating at capacity. The estimated cost to the district to provide relocatable classrooms at these schools would be $1 4 million. Costs to add permanent classrooms, a more desirable option, are undetermined but would be greater. Additional restroom facilities and core classrooms may also The SSFUSD has indicated that school impact ' fees accruing from project to the district (estimated at $1.372 million in today's dollars) may not be sufficient to cover the cost of providing additional classroom capacity and associated facilities to serve additional students generated by project. As a result, project can (Supplemental Impact PS-l) As mitigation for cily/ SSFUSD impacts, require the applicant, as a AppL/ provision oI the project development agreement, SS,CUSD to prepare and submit for city review and approval, a school financing plan that includes: (1) Payment of State-Mandated School Impact Fees. Require the applicant to comply with applicable SSFUSD school impact fee requirements. It it is determined by the City that the project fees would not be suffident to reduce project school impacts to a less-than-signilicant level, the city may also: (2) Additional Impact Fees. Require that the project applicanVdoveloper pay additional impact fees or some other additional in-kind contribution or establish other financing mechanisms in consultation with the city and acceptable to the school district sufficient to cover the cost of providing classroom space and ancillary school facilities needed to serve the increased enrollment generated by the project, to the city's satislaction. The City shall periodically monitor c~ossings at the Hillside Boulevard Extension/South San Francisco Drive and Sister Cities Boulevard/South San OTC PPO SSFDECD OMR STR SSFPD ' Alii. = Al~lic~mt; Cily = City of Smith San Francisco; AFS = A~kam f~ e~ ' C~ = C~lt~ ~ ~t~, OTC = ~t~ ~W~ ~fl~; ~ = P~ C~k; P~ = Poll ~y ' SSFDECO = S~th S~ Fr~leco ~1 ol Ec~ md ~y ~; SSFD~ = ~h IDENTIFIED IMPACT be expected to havb a significant adverse knpact on SSFUSD capacity. Note: The school impact lees accruing to the district from the project appear to be underestimated because the size of the residential units estimated by the district is smaller than the actual units being built. Although the SSFUSD has indicated that ail elementary school students would attend Hillside Elementary School. in the event that some project elementary school students attend SSFUSD schools other than Hillside Elementary School, adull c~ossing guards would be needed al the signalized Hillside Boulevard Exlension/South San Francisco Drive and Sisler Cities Boulevard/South San Francisco Drive intersections. Brisbane School District. (Supplemental Impact PS-2) The Brisbane School District anticipates that enrollment ol students from Te. abay projecl would cause both Brisbane School and Lipman School Io exceed capacity, generating need to~ Iwo new portables, which would most likely be located on Brisbane School site. Additional improvemenLs needed at Brisbane Elemenlary School include: physical education, school assembly, and lunch space. multi-purpose room and playground upgrade, and upgrading lO meet tire code and disabled access requirements. Lipman Intermediate School would require upgrading restrooms, one portable, remodeled school yard. and functioning kitchen. RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Francisco Drive intersections to determine if 40 or more elementary sehoo~ children cross within any two h~r period. If the thresll(fld is attained at either of these intersections, then the Phase II project homeowners association shall be required to: (1) fund the provision of an adult crossing guard at that intersection (including all salary, background check, equipment, and training costs), and (2) actively re(~uit candidates for the position and for an alternative part-time, back-up fill-in position from among project residents. (Project residents are preferred because of opportunities for mere familiarity with students.) (Supplemental Impact PS-2) Implement the mitigation measure identified above for SSFUSD impacts (Supplemental Impact PS- 1), and require the applicanl lo provide for sate transportation to Brisbane School District schools for students from the project. This may be accomplished by installing a sidewalk along Bayshore Boulevard and/o~ other streets to allow students to walk to Brisbane Elementary School and Lipman Intermediate School, or in some other manner acceptable to the district. Require the applicant to submit Io the city an official statement in writing Irom the Brisbane School Districl declaring that the needed transportation has be~ adequately provided for to the satisfaction of the district. MONITORING VERIFICATION Impl. Type of Monitoring Timing Monitoring and Entlly~ Actiont Requirementss Verification Entl~~ Signature Appl.I OTC STR SSFDECD City/ SSR PPP BSD Date ' Appl. = Applicanl; Cily: Ctly of SmJlh Sim Francisco; AFS = Appllcartl lek ihlre ; CPI: ConllrUCtien Period kll~liO~l, OTC = Onl-ltntl Cenlkmlllart Ac#ar1; PC: Plan Check; POC = Poll Occupartcy blpl~lloll; SSR: SUbleqUenl Standard Revllw; OMR = O~toolng MO~l#O~ll~g Requirem~ll ~ DPC = During Pro,ct ConMruclion; PPP = Prim to Precise Plan Appfovid; PBP = Prim to lamJ~nce of Building Perm#; PGP = Prior lo IlSUanCe or Grading Permit; PPO = Prior to Pro, el Occupancy; STR = Specie#zed Timing Requirer~flt; ' SSFOECO: So4dh San Fr~ci~co Dl~arlfltartl ~)~ Eco4~;Ic arid Co~ttt, lfl~f Dlv~d~qc)fltefll; SSFDPW; ~)ut# San Fr~m:l~¢o Oq)artmem of Public Works; SSFPD = Sore# ~m Francisco Police DBp~rtnNm; B$O: Brl~l~ne SclK)ol OisIrlc~ IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) MONITORING Impl. Type of Monitoring Entity~ Actiont Timing Monitoring and Requirem~ttat Ve~iflcation Entity4 ' VERIRCATION Signature lIT "E" Date School impact fees acczuing to the district from project are eslimated by Ihe district at $246,000 in today's dollars. According to the Brisbane School District, this amount would cover cost ot providing two additional portables, but may not be sufficient to fund other necessary improvements at Brisbane and Lipman Schools. Note: The school impact fees accruing to the district lrom the project appear to be underestimated because the size of the residential units estimated by the district is smaller than the actual units being built. Also, lhe district does not provide transportation far its students. Brisbane School is located approximately t .9 miles and Lipman School approximately 2.6 miles from the furthest part of the prolecl wilhin the district boundaries, distances which may be too great for young students to walk lo school. There are no sidewalks along busy Bayshore Boulevard belween the project and Brisbane. Because the state-mandated school impact fees may not be sufficient lo cover the total cost of accommodating project-generated enrollment increase, and because the needed Iransportation to school has not been adequately provided Io~, Ihe projecl could be expected to have a significant adverse impact on the Brisbane School District. AppI. = Appltcanl; City = C#y ol So~lh San Franclaco; AFS = A~I~ lair CPI = C~t~U~ ~ ~s~l~, OTC = ~ C~fbmMi~ ~; ~ = PI~ C~k; P~ = Poet ~ IDENTIFIED IMPACT Onsite Sewer System. (Supplemental Impact PS-3) Cily has not accepted maintenance responsibility for portions el onsite wastewatar collection system to be dedicated lo the city (i.e., within South San Francisco Drive right-of- way) because system appears to have p~oblems due Io slorm and/or groundwater infiltration. Until mitigated, these problems represent a potentially signilicant adverse impact. Oltsita Sewer System. (Supplemental Impact PS-4) City has not accepted maintenance responsibility tot olfsite wastewatar collection system improvements inslalled as part of the prelect due Io apparent infil~ralion problems. Until mitigated, these problems represent a potentially slgniPcant adverse impact. Recycling Program Collection Services. (Supplemental Impact PS-5) State law requites p~ovis~On of adequale space fc)~ recycling in multiple lamily residential projects wilh live or more units and all new commercial developments. Future project phase multi-lamily residential and commercial developmenl may not include adequate provision lot collection o! recydable materials. This situation would represent a sKJniticant adverse project impact RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) (Supplemental Impact PS-3) Require project applicant to inspect and repair apparent onsite wastewater collection system infiltration problems to satisfaction of city's Director et Public Works prior to city acceptance of maintenance responsibilities for portions of onsite wastewater collection system within South San Francisco Drive right-of-way. (Supplemental Impact PS-4) Require project applicant ~o, inspecl and repair ottsite wastewater collection system to correct apparent infiltration problems to satisfaction of city's Director of Public Works prior to acceptance of maintenance responsibilities by dty. (Supplemental Impact PS-5) In order to ensure that project waste is recycled in a manner consistent with state-mandated requirement that city divert at least 50 percent of potential waste from landfill disposal by 2000, require design of luture project development to provide common exterior trash and recyctable material storage areas in commercial developments and in those multi-family developments that would use dumpsters, rather than relying on individual curbside pickup for trash collection. Such areas should be conveniently located and accessible to residents and collection vehicles and personnel, properly protected from the elements, signed, screened, and architecturally integrated into development. MONITORING Impl. Type of Monitoring Entity~ Action; Timing Monitoring and Requirements~ VeHflcetlon Entity~ Appl. OTC PPO SSFDPW Appl. OTC PPO SSFDPW Appl. SSR PPP SSFDECD e,.~IT "E" VERIFICATION Signature Date ' Al)pl. = Al~ll¢~t; City = C#y el Soulh San Flint|leo; AFS = Apldlcenl lek ih~'e ' CPI = CO~IIIrUCIIOn P.k~l Inlplclioft, OTC = (~tlme C~tllrmltl~lt Ag#an; PC = Plait Chick; POC = Poll Oecu~ Inlplcl_k~t.; SSR. = Subleq.u~t~ ! ??llld_lrd ,R~.~le~v~; O_M.R = On_g .o~ng _l~oltllm'ktg ~ CPC z hq P~OJICl C~lllrucllk)~t; PPP = Prim Io Pfeclie Plan Apf~ovM; PeP = Prk~ Io li,,~mnce of ~ P~m#; PGP: Pt~ lo le~uarece m ~*rae~ ~-ewms, v~-~w = Prior lo I'rot~l Occuf~y, HOA = Incorpe~tk)n In He, meo~/,.-i i Ailoclelkm · SSFDECO: South San Fr~nci,,co O~f)B~l el Economic and Commu~#y Oeveloef~; SSFDPW = Sou~h Sm Frmcl=o I)epartm~t of Public Works; SSFPO: Soul# San Franci~Bco Po#c~ IDENTIFIED IMPACT NOISE Traffic Noise Impacts. (Supplemental Impact N-l) Exterior noise levels due to traffic noise could exceed 65 dBA CNEL at those Phase I residential unils closest to Hillside Boulevard, Sister Cities Boulevard and US 101. Residential noise levels grealer than 65 dBA CNEL would require mitigation under ci~/noise standards and would be 'conditionally acceptable' under state land use compatibility standards. Additional residences would be subject to exterior noise levels greater Ihan 60 dBA CNEL which, under stale land use compatibility standards, would be 'conditionally acceptable' for single family residences and townhomes. Exterior noise levels from US 101 traffic would exceed 70 dBA CNEL Vathin the Phase III development area where possible hotel developmenl is anticipated, which would represent a 'normally unacceptable' situation under stale standards. In those areas where the exterior traffic noise level exceeds 60 dBA, the interior noise level can be expected Io exceed the state 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard when windows are open for ventilation Aircralt Noise Exposure Impacts. (Supplemental Impact N-2) Single-event aircraft overfPghls would generate high single- event noise levels, which would interfere with indoor residential activities, including sleep, if RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) (Supplemental Impact IV- 1) Retain a qualified acoustical engineer to prepare and submit, for city review and approval, a detailed acoustical analysis of noise reduction requirements and specifications for all project phases, in accordance with the land use/noise level compalibilily standards established by the state and set forth in the city's Noise Element, and consistent with the Terrabay Specific Plan Amendments condition #46 requirements lot Phase I homes. The identified noise reduction requirements and specifications shall then be included in project site design or individual home or hotel designs. Various combinations of common noise abatement methods could be used to mitigale onsite noise levels. These could include conslruction of berms or soundwalls and/or provision of fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, and use of sound-rated glazing in windows. (Supplemental Impact N-2) The noise analysis requiremenl described lor Supplemental Impact N- t shall also recommend methods of design and construction to comply with the applicable portions of Unilorm Building Code, Title 24, Appendix 35, MONITORING VERIRCATION Impl. Type of Monitoring Timing Monitoring and Entity~ Action~ Requirements$ Vm'iflcatlon Entity4 Signature Appl. OTC PPO Building SSR PPP Division Appl. OTC PPO Building SSR PPP Division Oete ' ,4ppi. = Applicant; City = City of South San Franciaco; AFS = AppliceM lair ehMe ~ CPI = ConltrucUo~ PMiod inepelctton, OTC = One-time Co~llrmetion Aclion; PC = Plan Check; POC = Poet Occupancy inepecllon; SSfl = Subeefluent Standard Review; OMR = Ongoing M(mitorl~g fleffukoment · cpc = Du~lng Project CMteiructiMt; PPP -. Prior to Precise Plmt AiN~ovM; POP = Prim, to la~ua~co of Building PMmit; PGP= Prim to ke~ua~ce of Grading PMmit; PPO = Prim' to Project Occupancy; STR = Specialized Timing Requirement; HOA = IncMpMM)MI in lIG~aowr ;e AIIKialkN! AgfeemMIt ' SSFOECD: South San Frencleco DepoSit of Economic and Community I~v,l~;..aM; SSFOPW = ~mut# San Francisco Oep~rlmen( o~ Public Wo~kl; 5$FPO = Soulh ~a~ F~Mtciaco Police De~l; BSD = Brthba~e ~beol Di~l~ic! ),. ,,. ),, WP51 t, IOt~.qlS.I,qIF.qFIFttA fMC./t I IDENTIFIED IMPACT exterior to inmfior noise levels ara not adequately reduced. Construction Noise. (Supplemental Impact N- 3) Phase I and II conslruction activities would substanlially elevate noise levels in portions of Ihe adjacenl Paradise Valley and Peck's Lots neighborhoods and would also affect new Phase I ~esidents RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Sound Transmission Controls, and with Ihe FAA Part 150 Noise Compatibility program, which requires that all single-family dwelling unit conslruction achieve an indoor noise level of 45 dBA, as measured for an airc~atl noise event, The qualified acoustical engineer retained to prepare the analysis shall be familiar with aviation noise impacts. (Supplemental Impact N-3) Require the developer to incorporate conditions in project construction agreements that stipulate the conventional construction period noise abatemenl measures recommended (lis/ed) in sectio~ IVH4.b of this SEIR MONITORING Impl, Type of Monitoring Entity~ Action~ Timing Monitoring and Requirements~ Verification Entity* Appl. CPI DPC Building Division ~, ~.JlT "E" YERIFICATION Signature Dale AIR QUALITY Short-Term Construction Impacls. (Supplemental Impact AQ-I) Project construction aclivities would generate dust and parliculale mailer which could affect adjacenl res~enlial areas. The 1982 EIR already idenlitied construction period dust impacts as potentially significant and ldentifiod associaled mi0gation measures. However, if 'common practice' measures which have come into use since 1982 are not included in the mitigation program, p~ojecl dust impacts, under post-1982 signilicance crileria, would represent a short. term significant adverse air quality impact Regional Air Quality Impacts. (Supplemental Impact AQ-2) Project Phase I emissions of reactrve organic gases (ROG) and oxides ol (Supplemental Impact AQ-1) In place ol the construction period air quality mitigation identified in the 1982 EIR, require implementation by project construction contractors of currenl city construction dust mitigation standards as recommended (listed) in section IV.l.4.a of this SEIR, during all phases of projecl construction. (Supplemental Impact AQ-2) In addition to the transportation system managemenl (TSM) requirements identified as mitigation in the 1982 Appl. CPI DPC Building Division Appl. OMR STR SSFDECD PC PBP SSR PPP &ppi.: Applleanl; Clly = City el Sooth Sm Fran~l-¢o; AFS = A~ lek CPI = C~ll~li~ ~ h~t~, OTC = hh ~lk~tm kc#m; ~ = Pla C~k; P~ = Poll ~c~cy D~ = ~ ~e~l ~s~l~; ~P = ~ to ~ P~ ~ov~; PBP = ~ lo le~e of ~ ~N; PGP = Pf~ to ~ ~ ~g ~; P~ = ~ to Pf~ ~y; STR = ~b~ T~O R~k~t; IDENTIFIED IMPACT niuogen (NOx) (two precursors of ozone), and PM-lO lmm project-related traffic and proposed residential uses would have a less-than- signipcant regional air quali~y impact. However, similar Io the 1982 EIR lendings, the updated analysis indicates that buildout of Phases I, II and III would generate new regional emissions of ozone precursors exceeding the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) signilicance threshold of 80 pounds per day. This ROG/PM-lO effect would be considered a s~gnif~ant adverse impact on regional air quality. RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (CONDITIOH OF APPROVAL) EIR, the project should ince~porate a vehicle-trip reduction requirement applicable to all land uses. Specific trip reduction goals should be adopted and enforcement procedures developed by the applicant in consultation wilh the BAAQMD. In addition, require the project sponsor to submit to the city a mitigation plan that includes these types o! measures to reduce residential emissions: · ResVicl number of fireplaces in residences, or require residential use of EPA-cartified woodstoves, pellet sloves or fireplace inserts. Use of natural gas fired fireplaces should be encouraged. · Require outdoor outlets at residences to allow use of electrical lawn and landscape maintenance equipment. · Make natural gas available in residential backyards to allow use of natural gas-fired barbecues. MONITORING Impl. Type of Monitoring Entity~ Actionz Timing Monitoring end Requirements: Verification Entity4 VERIFICATION Signature Date CULTURAL RESOURCES Potential lot Addilional Cultural Resource Discoveries. (Supplemental Impact CR-I) The project site, which is located on bay margins and at base of hills near sources of Iresh wale~, has high polential Ior previously undiscovered Native American sites, which could be encounlered du~ing project construction (i.e., grading) Such disturbance would represenl a potentially significant adverse impact (Supplemental Impact CR. 1) In the event that subsurlace cultural resources are encountered during pro~ect construction, work in immediate vicinity should be immediately stopped and alteration of malerials or their context should be avoided until resources and thei~ signilicance can be properly evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. The discoven/or disturbance of any cultural resources should also be reported to the California Archaeological Inventory and Native American Heritage Commission, and rec~'ded on Appl. CPI DPC SSFDECD IDENTIFIED IMPACT CA*SMa-40. (Supplemental Impact CR-2) To mitigate identified potential project impacls to site CA-SMa-40, the 1982 EIR recommended caPprng the site with a minimum of one toot of sterile fill and sealing the site under landscaping or parking areas. However, in its recenl review of this roll,gallon recommendation, staff al the Northwest Information Cartier or the Calilo~nia Archaeological Inventory determined that the recommended one tool al fill soil may hal be sullic,enl to avoid damage to this resource during conslruction. CA-SMa*92 (Supplemental Impact CR-3) While site CA-SMa-92 is also within area al proposed Terrabay developmenl aclivilies, site was revealed Io have been seriously compromised by prior underground construction. and 1982 EIR recommended no mitigation. However, because project site does have a high RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation archaeological site records lores (DPR 422). Mitigation measures prescribed by these groups and required by city should be undertaken p~ior Io resumption o! construction activities. (Supplemental Impact CR-2) In addition to mitigations recommended in the 1982 EIR (Table 36), as a condition of'Phase III precise plan approval, require that the project applicant tinaize and implement, as necessary, a mitigation plan for polential impacls Io site CA-SMa-40. The miligation plan should adhere to the mitigation approaches, procedures, limitations and c~iteria specified in Appendix K of the slate CEQA Guidelines. If warranted, the mitigation plan may recommend a mitigation approach other than the site capping recommended in the 1982 EIR. I1 capping is selected as the preferred mitigation approach, CA-SMa-40 should be capped with fill soil al minimum al one foot deeper than maximum depth of const[uction activities above or near site. An engineering lab[ic, such as polypropylene matting, should be placed over site before fill is placed. The capping should be supewised by a qualified archaeologist lamiliar with prehistoric archaeology in San Mateo County so that boundaries at site will be properly delined (Supplemental Impact CR-3) Prior lo commencement of grading for pro~ect Phase III, subsurlace boundaries and significance al site CA-SMa-92 should be properly determined Ihrough further subsurface testing by a qualified archaeologist familiar with prehistoric archaeology in San Mateo County. Mitigations, possibly MONITORING VERIFICATION Impl. Type of Monitoring Timing Monitoring and Entity' Action~ Requimme~tss Verification Entity4 Signature Appl. SSR PPP SSFDECD Appl. eSR PPP SSFDECD Date Appl. = Appli~anl; City = City of Seulh San Franele¢o; AFS = Applleanl lek ehare CPI = CeeMl~ctien Period Inel~cti~l, OTC = One-time Conlkmation Action; PC = Plan Cheek; POC = Pall Occupancy Inlpeellon; eSR: Subeequenl Standard Review; OMR = Ongoktg Men#ming Requirement {)PC = I)~Ing P~o~cI Conetructlofl; PPP = Prim' to P~cIsa Plait Ap~ovl4; ~ = f~k~ tO le~uonca o( B~tlding Pef111#; PGP = Prkl4' lo leeuanc4 o/G~'ading Pem~l; PPO = Prle4' lo Prat~Kt Occupancy; STR = Sl~¢blized Timing HequYem~tl; HOA: Incclq)4xl41Ofl in Ilg...lo'#r l~l AIIKteIkII1 Agrl4mtelll SSFDECD = South San Fs, ancl~co Oq)aflmenl ol Economic end Community Der.l,,4.,, in1; SSFDPW = Saulh Son Francieco Oeparlmenl ol Public Wo~e; SSI:PO = South San Ffanciico Police Ds'pr ,b,.llll; BeD = Briebene School hltcI IDENTIFIED IMPACT potential for containing Native American resources, and because subsurface testing for 1982 EIR was limited, there is substantial probabilily of encountering and disturbing additional cullural resources at site CA-SMa-92 during Terrabay construction, representing a potentially significant adverse impact. (Supplemental Impact CR-4) Site CA-SMa* 234 is slill located outside the area of proposed Phase III development. However, the specific plan and the San Bruno Mountain HCP do allow Ior minor adjustments in the development area boundaries. Il any grading or geotechnical repair work becomes necessa~/outside ol the curten! development area boundaries, such work could potenlially disturb site CA-SMa-234. RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) ' MONITORING Impl. Type of Monitoring Entily~ Action~ including a sampling program followed by capping in a manner similar to that proposed for CA-SMa- 40, may be recommended. The site should be recorded on form DPR 422. (Supplemental Impact CR-4) Future detailed environmental review for subsequent project Phase III should include further consideration by a qualified archaeologist of site CA-SMa-234 to confirm that no impacts, including potential impacts from grading and geotechnical repairs or from project occupancy, would occur and to recommend mitigation, if warranted. Timing Monitoring end Requirementss Verification Entity4 Appl.I SSR PPP SSFDECD City EXHIRIT "E" VERIFICATION Signature Date ' kpl)l. = Apl)ih:mi; Cily: Clly of South Sin F~lcbco; AFS = Apf)#can( lek shim I CPI = Co~etrucllon Pmiod Inlp~ctlo(l, OTC = One-llme Confirms(ion Ac#gm; PC = Plln Check; POC = Poet Occupancy In~pecllon; SSR = Sub~lquJ:*! Standard Rarity; OMR: Ongoing Mmliloring Requirmtt~ll · DPC = Du~ktg Proj~:l Colt,qructio~; PPP = Prk;w to Pre(:i~e Pllm AIDfiwovM; PBP = Prim Io Ii~ulnce o! Building Perm#; POP = Prim lo Illuince of G~ldlnO Pmmlil; PPO = Prk:w lo Pro~l¢l Occupancy; STR = Specie#zed Timing Requiremenl; HOA = In~r~Mion in Ib,.lo,di:lrl AllOCbliOfl Awee~nil~t ' SSFOECO = ...... Frlnctaco I)q~rtmem of Econemi~ md Commun#y Development; 8SFDPW = Soul# 8~ ........ 9 Department ot Publk: Wedge; SSFPD = 8oulh San Francleco PoNce Depertmem; BSO = ;t,l,h.,~ ~chool Dielrlcl I~q'R I I. I; ~fLqt ~.l.'hl ~'; I- I [ ~it~ faf('/I I .'~