HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 92-1989RESOLUTION NO. 92-89
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT,
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
AND ADOPTING A REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM FOR
MITIGATION MEASURES INCLUDED IN THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco, (the
"Agency") as lead agency has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR")
for the pr,oposed Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown/Central Redevelopment
Project; and
WHEREAS, the draft EIR has been prepared and circulated pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines, and
the Agency's Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines
(the "Agency's Procedures"); and
WHEREAS, the Agency received public comments on the draft EIR at a duly
noticed regularly scheduled meeting of the Agency on February 8, 1989; and
WHEREAS, the Agency has certified in Resolution No. 6-89 adopted
May 10, 1989, that the final EIR relating to the proposed Redevelopment Plan
for the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project and responding to the concerns
raised during the review period and at the public hearing, has been prepared
pursuant to CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Agency's Procedures;
and
WHEREAS, the final EIR incorporated certain mitigation measures which are
to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment, and the City
Council wishes to adopt a program for reporting and monitoring the
implementation of such mitigation measures pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21081.6; and
WHEREAS, the Agency at its meeting of June 28, 1989, adopted Resolution
No. 10-89 adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and adopting a
reporting and monitoring program for mitigation measures identified in the
Final Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco has reviewed
and considered the information contained in this final EIR for the proposed
Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project.
NOW~ THEREFORE~ BE IT RESOLVED by City Council of the City of South San
Francisco that:
1. The City Council certifies that the information contained in the final
EIR for the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown/Central Redevelopment
Project has been reviewed and considered by the members of the City Council.
2. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the implementation of
the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project
may have a significant effect on the environment.
3. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the adverse environmental
impacts detailed in the EIR that:
(a) based on information set forth in the EIR and in the Statement of
Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures, detailed in
Attachment "A", the City finds and determines that changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the adverse environmental effects identified in the EIR for:
(i) Transportation, Circulation and Parking: (ii) Land Use and Plan Consistency;
(iii) Employment, Housing & Population; (iv) Hydrology and Water Quality; (v) Toxic
Materials; (vi) Noise: (vii) Air Quality; (viii) Public Services and Utilities;
(ix) Energy; (x) Aesthetics/Light and Glare; (xi) Cultural Resources; and
(xii) Vegetation and Wildlife;
(b) based on information set forth in the EIR and in the Statement of
Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures, the adverse environmental
effects relate to traffic and air quality at the intersection of Gateway and East
Grand Avenue and at the intersection of Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard;
lc) based on information set forth in the EIR and in the Statement of
Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures, further changes and
alterations necessary to mitigate the significant impacts for law enforcement are
within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of South San Francisco
and are reasonably expected to be adopted if and when required;
(d) no additional adverse impacts will have a significant effect or
result ina substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the
environment as a result of the proposed Redevelopment Plan.
4. The City Council hereby finds and determines that all signficiant
environmental effects identified in the EIR have been reduced to an
acceptable level in that:
(a) all signficiant environmental effects that can feasibly be
avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened as determined through
the findings set forth in paragraphs 3(a) and 3(c) of this resolution;
-2-
(b) based upon the EIR and the Statement of Significant Environmental
Effects and Mitigation Measures and other documents in the recordj specific
economic, social and other considerations make infeasible other Project
alternatives identified in the EIR;
{c) based upon the EIR and the Statement of Significant Environmental
Effects and Mitigation Measures and other documents in the record, all remaining,
unavoidable significant environmental effects of the proposed Redevelopment Plan
are overriden by the benefits of the project as described in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations, detailed in Attachment "B", which statement of
Overriding Considerations is hereby approved and adopted.
5. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs that a reporting and
monitoring program for mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and
contained in Attachment "C" be implemented.
6. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs that a Notice of
Determination with respect to the EIR pertaining to the approval of the
Redevelopment Plan and all other actions in furtherance thereof be filed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and
adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular
meeting held on the 28th day of June , 1989 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Mark N. Addiego, Jack Drago, Richard A. Haffey,
Gus Nicolopulos, and Mayor Roberta Cerri Teglia
NOES: 'None
ABSTAIN: ~None
ABSENT: ,None
-3-
ATTACI'IHENT "A" RESOLUTION NO. 92-89
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
AND MITIGATION MEASURES
A. The Redevelopment Agency finds that the initial
environmental review of the Redevelopment Plan Project proposal
revealed the potential for significant adverse environmental
effects resulting from the project. A Draft EIR was submitted to
the State Office of Planning and Research for review by the State
Clearinghouse. The Final EIR which included all comments and
complete responses was submitted to the Redevelopment Agency and
was certified at a noticed public meeting on May 10, 1989.
B. The Redevelopment Agency finds that significant
effects and mitigation measures have been identified in the
Environmental Impact Report for the Redevelopment Plan as
described in Attachment "A" Summary of Significant Environmental
Effects and Mitigation Measures.
C. The Redevelopment Agency finds that the
significant environmental impacts identified in the EIR are
mitigated to a less than significant level except for the
specific impacts identified in Attachment #B" Statement of
Overriding Considerations. These unavoidable significant adverse
environmental effects either have not been mitigated to
acceptable levels through imposition of mitigation measures or
involve significant effects for which there are risks of not
mitigating to acceptable levels because of jurisdictional or
other institutional reasons.
D. The Redevelopment Agency finds that the
mitigation measures for significant environmental effects as
presented in Attachment "As Summary of Significant Envlronmental
Effects and Mitigation Measures will be monitored through a
Mitigation Monitoring Program as described in Attachment "C"
Mitigation Monitoring Program to ensure that the mitigation
measures are implemented as recommended in the EIR.
Attachment
Summary Of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures
1.2.1
Transportation, Circulation Ind Plrklng
Impact - Vehicle Trip Generation
Gross increase in vehicle travel produced by the
Project ranges from 4,600 (year 2000) to 5,400
(year 2020) PM peak hour vehicle trips. This repre-
sents 36% and 40% of the total future increases,
respectively.
Mitigation - Required
· Peak hour trip reduction through aggressive traf-
fic demand management program.
* Peak Hour vehicle trip reduction through public
transit improvements.
· Emphasis on land uses with relatively Iow peak-
hour traffic generation.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Without With
Mitigation Mitigation
Significant
Less Than Significant
Impact - Intersection Traffic Volumes
Peak hour volumes will increase by 0-16% at the
key intersections.
Mitigation - Required
· Same as under "Vehicle Trip Generation" plus the
following:
· New roadway connection between Forbes and
Oyster Point Boulevards (benefits intersections in
southern portion of study area).
· New roadway connection between N. Canal
Street and San Mateo Avenue (feasibility to be
determined).
Impact · Intersection Service Levels
Four of the key intersections will experience ser-
vice levels worse than D for at lease one of the
peak periods. Two intersections (Gateway/E.
Grand and San Mateo/Airport) would operate at
level F.
Significant
Significant
Less Than Significant
Significant (LOS of E
remaining at
Grand/Airport
Gateway/E. Grand)
Sum~nary Of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures
1.2.1
Transportation, Circulation and Parking (ConL)
Mitigation - Required
· Same as under 'Intersection Traffic Volumes' plus
the following:
- Intersection channelization improvements at
Gateway/F_. Grand.
-Upgraded traffic signals at:
- Airport/Linden
- Linden/Hillside
- Linden/Miller
- SPruce/Grand
- Grand/Linden --
- Grand/Maple
- Spruce/Baden
- Spruce/Railroad
- Linden/Baden
· New traffic signals at:
- Oyster Point/New Road connecting Forbes and
Oyster Point
- FOrbes/New Road connecting Forbes and Oyster
Point
- E. Grand/Littlefield
- N. Canal/Linden
Impact - Major Local Roadways
Traffic Will increase on major arteries such as
Oyster Point Boulevard, E. Grand Avenue, Airport
Boulevard, Gateway Boulevard, and Produce
Avenue.
Mitigation - Required
· Extension of Hillside Blvd to Oyster Blvd.
· Widening of Airport Blvd in conjunction with new
Oyster Point Interchange.
· Widening of Oyster Point Blvd from 4 to 6 lanes
between the new Oyster Point Interchange and
Gateway Blvd.
· Resl~iping of Harbor Way.
· Plus mitigation measures listed under 'Vehicle
Trip Generation.'
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Without With
Mitigation Mitigat ion
Significant
Less Than Significant
Impact - Downtown Parking
Increased demand for public parking in downtown.
Mitigation - Required
· ConStruction of about 800 new public parking
spaces in downtown.
- Expansion of Parking District boundary and im-
proved parking management.
Significant
Less Than Significant
--2--
Summary Of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures
1.2.2
6.
Land U~e and Plan Conalstency
Impact- Land Use Conflicts
Potential impacts could arise from specific place-
ment of projected land use development with
respect to existing land uses.
Mitigation - Required
Require further study of all specific projects
proposed under the Redevelopment Plan and im-
plementation of identified mitigation measures on a
project-by-project basis.
Impact - Relationship to Plans
Potential conflicts with General Plan designations
could arise from proposed project under the
Redevelopment Plan which are inconsistent with
General Plan land use designations or goals.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Without With
Mitigation Mitigation
Significant
Less Than Significant
Significant
Less Than Significant
10.
Mitigation - Required
ReqUire all projects proposed under the
Redevelopment Plan to conform to General Plan
land use designations and to the land use goals.
Impact - Relationship to Plans
ProjeCt proposed under the Redevelopment Plan
could affect the usability of adjacent open space
through nuisance impacts such as noise or odors.
Mitigation - Required
ProPOsals in subareas 2A, 5 and 6A should be
reviewed for potential effects on the adjacent Open
Spaces.
Impact - Relationship to Plans
Individual projects proposed under the Redevelop-
ment Plan could be inconsistent with the zoning or-
dinance for the parcel upon which they would be
located.
Mitigation - Required
Review each proposal for consistency with ap-
plicable zoning ordinance.
Impact - Relationship to Plans
Developments proposed within BCDC jurisdiction
could be inconsistent with the San Francisco Bay
Plan.
Mitigation - Required
All proposals in subareas 2_A, 5 and 6A should be
reviewed by BCDC.
Significant
Significant
Significant
Less Than Significant
Less Than Significant
Less Than Significant
3
Summary Of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures
1.2.2
11.
1.2.4
12.
13.
14.
Land U~e and Plan Consistency (Cont.)
Impact - Relationship to Plans
ProjeCts proposed under the Redevelopment Plan
could be inconsistent with the San Francisco Air-
port Plan.
Mitigation - Required
Any project proposed under the Redevelopment
Plan which could be sensitive to airport noise
should be reviewed by the airport authority.
Geology, Soils & Selsmiclty
Impact - G rading
LandSlides exist that could be reactivated by grad-
ing, landscape irrigation, or placement of hillside
fills in the hillside portions of, and adjacent to Sub-
areas 1, 2a and 2b.
Mitigation - Required
Gradlng Permits would require site specific
geotechnical studies to demonstrate site stability
or techniques to produce a stable site.
Impact - Grading
Graded earth materials could erode into nearby
waters, thereby endangering habitat or increasing
flood hazards in portions of the Subareas adjacent
to drainageways (3, 4 and 5) or the Bay (2a, 2c, 5
and 6a).
Miticjation - Required
An E~osion and Sediment Transport Control Plan
would be required as part of the Grading Permit.
Impact- Grading
At least 60,000 cubic yards of material would be
needed to fill the channels between the wharves in
Subarea 5, W~th potential to damage or destroy ad-
jacent tidal-fiat habitat.
Mitigation - Required
Permlts would be required from ~e San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission,
the Army Corps of Engineers, and the City to deter-
mine if filling meets the cdteda for land uses ap-
propriate to the Bay Margin, Section 404 (Clean
Water Act) requirements for adjacent wetland
protection or replacement, and all attendant
erosion and sediment transport control measures
and site/slope stability measures.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Without With
Mitigation Mitigation
Significant
Less Than Significant
Significant
Less Than Significant
Significant
Less Than Significant
Significant
Less Than Significant
4
Summary Of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Without With
Mitigation Mitigation
1.2.4
Geology, SoDs & Selsmiclty (Cont.)
15.
16.
17.
1.2.5
18.
Impact - Construction Over Bay Mud
With the exception of Subarea 2b, some portion of
each Subarea is underlmn by Bay mud, which can
compress or shift under loading from development.
This can lead to settlement of foundations and
amplification of seismic vibrations, both of which
would damage structures.
Mitigation - Required
Building Permits would require site specific
geotechnical studies to demonstrate site stability
or techniques to produce a stable site.
Impact - Construction Over Liquefiable Soils
Liquefiable soils can turn to quicksand very rapidly
during earthquakes causing settling, fracturing and
overturning of buildings supported on them.
Mitigation - Required
Building Permits would require site specific
geotechnicaJ studies to demonstrate site stability
or techniques to produce a stable site.
Impact - Construction in Areas Subject to Severe
Groundshaking -
GroUndshaking during a maximum credible
earthquake would be very strong to violent, caus-
ing varying amounts of damage at sites with poten-
tially unstable subsoils (such as Bay mud and li-
quefiable sands) depending on the type of struc-
ture on-site.
Mitigation - Required
Building permits require the standards for anti-seis-
mic construction specified by the Uniform Building
Code (UBC) requirements for Seismic Zone 4.
Additionally, the City could consider restricting the
~pe of structure permitted on each site to the one
with the lowest damage potential.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact - Water Quality
Construction activities could degrade water quality,
Mitigation - Required
Development and implementation of a spill preven-
tion plan and erosion and sedimentation control
plan.
Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
Less Than Significant
Less Than Significant
Less Than Significant
Less Than Significant
5
· - Summary Of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures
.2.5
19
20.
1.2.6
21.
Hydrology and Watar Quality (Cont.)
Impact - Water Quality
Some development under the proposed project
would handle and transport toxic materials. An ac-
cidental release of toxic materials could con-
taminate surface water and groundwater.
Mitigation- Required
Compliance with federal, State and local regula-
tions governing the use, handling, and transport of
toxic materials. Effective monitoring and Iow enfor-
cement.
Impact - Sea Level
A long-run rise in sea level is presently forecast.
Mitigation - Required
The potential rise should be taken into account
during design of drainage and shoreline improve-
ments.
Toxic Matarlals
Impact - General
Although the analysis conducted for this program
EIR concludes that the overall risk of toxic impact
on development from existing environmental condi-
tions is less than significant, site specific impacts
from existing conditions may remain for develop-
ment associated with the proposed project. It
should be noted that remediation programs for par-
ticular parcels could increase the time and cost of
that site's development.
Mitigation - Required
Detailed toxicological site assessments should be
incorporated into the development program of
each project proposed within the project area.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Without With
Mitigation Mitigation
Significant
Less Than Significant
Significant
Less Than Significant
Significant
Less Than Significant
6
Summary Of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Without With
Mitigation Mitigation
1.2.6
Toxio Material8 (Cont.)
1.2.7
22.
1.2.8
23.
Mitigation - Recommended
Information concerning the types and amount of
toxic/hazardous materials on or adjacent to an
area is an essential took toward minimizing and
preventing exposure to a community. Given the
presence of toxics within the existing environment,
it is recommended that an appropriate database
be assembled containing information relevant to
minimizing and preventing toxic exposure to the
present and future community.
Due to the potential increase in time and cost of a
remediation program for a particular site, it is
recommended that the agency undertake ap-
propriate advance planning for these contingen-
cies.
Impact - Cumulative
Cumulative impacts would be the same as those
discussed under the proposed project.
Mitigation - Required
Mitigation would be the same as that for the
project. The City should consider developing an
Ordinance to address cumulative impacts.
Noise
Impact - Construction
Noise would be generated during construction.
MMiti~ation - Required
uffi~ or control construction equipment W~th a
high noise potential. Limit construction to daylight
hours in residential areas.
Air Ouality
Impact - Suspended Particulate (Construction)
Construction activities would result in temporary lo-
calized increases in small-diameter suspended
particulates, termed PM10. Residents and works in
South San Francisco could be exposed to levels of
PM10 exceeding federal and State standards.
Mitigation - Required
Unpaved construction sites should be sprinkled
with water at least twice per day. Stockpiles of soil,
sand, and other such materials should be covered.
Trucks hauling debris, soil, sand, or other such
materials should also be covered. Streets surround-
ing demolition and construction sites should be
swept at least once per day. Paving and planting
should be done as soon as possible.
Significant
Significant
Significant
Less Than Significant
Less Than Significant
Less Than Significant
7
Summary Of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures
1.2.8
24.
25.
1.2.9
27.
Air Quality (Cont.)
Impact - CO and Odor (Construction)
Construction equipment could emit air pollutant suf-
ficient to cause spot violations of CO standards
and odor complaints.
Mitigation - Required
Construction equipment engines should not be
kept idling when not in use and should receive peri-
odic maintenance, this would reduce emissions of
air pollutants and, consequently, reduce the
likelihood of spot violations of the CO standards
and odor complaints.
Impact - Intersection CO Levels
Project-generated traffic would cause violations of
the 8-hour carbon monoxide (CO) standard at the
Grand/Airport intersection and the Gateway/E.
Grand intersection.
Mitigation - Required
I raffia: flow improvements recommended by Fehr &
Peers would not produce significant reductions in
CO levels at the Grand/Airport and Gateway/E.
Grand intersections. However, CO concentrations
at the San Mateo/Airport intersection would fall
below the standard if congestion were relieved
there by the extension of Utah Avenue over Route
101.
Impact - Criteria & Toxic Emissions
Criteda and toxic emissions from new commer-
ciaJ/industrial uses could have significant adverse
impacts on sensitive receptors in South San Fran-
cisco.
Mitigation - Required
All new commercial/industrial uses which may emit
significant quantities of criteria or toxic pollutants
should be covered by BAAQMD PSD permits.
Such permits would regulate the emission levels of
such pollutants and encourage the implementation
of control measures, such as carbon absorption or
catalytic oxidation of photochemically active or
toxic vapors.
Public Services & Utilities
Impact - Police
It would be necessary to add an additional beat
amounting to at least seven personnel, a patrol
unit, and a motorcycle. Additional parking enforce-
ment officers may be required. Cumulative impacts
may require additional resources.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Without With
Mitigation Mitigation
Significant
Less Than Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
Less Than Significant
Significant
Less Than Significant
Summary Of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures
1.2.9
1.2.11
29.
Public Services & Utilities (Cont.)
Mitigation - Required
Development would be required to comply ~th the
City's Municipal Code, 'Minimum Building Security
Standards' Ordinance. It would be necessary to
fund the additional resources required. The Depart-
ment should undertake advance planning to ad-
dress cumulative impacts.
28. Impact - Parks & Recreation
The project would require the dedication or in-lieu
fee payment equivalent~to about one acre of
parkland. Cumulative development would require
the same equivalent to about 15 acres of parkland.
Mitigation - Required
Compliance with the City's Parkland Dedication In-
Lieu Fee Ordinance would be required.
Aesthetics/Light and Glare
Impact - Utility Undergrounding
TempOrary construction impacts should be fol-
lowed. Construction staging areas should be con-
fined to specified areas and screened from view.
Vegetation should be replaced on a per tree/shrub
removed or on a per square foot basis.
Mitigation - Required
Proper construction practices should be followed.
Construction staging areas should be confined to
specified areas and screened from view. Vegeta-
tion should be replaced on a per tree/shrub
removed or on a per square foot basis.
30. Impact - Shoreline Restoration
CreekSide public improvements to San Bruno
Creek and Colma Creek and the filling of the
'fingers' and restoration of the Bayfront proposed
for Subarea 5 could create significant impacts.
Mitigation - Required
The rehabilitation and restoration should replicate
to the degree possible the water features' natural
condition, and remedial planting should be used
as necessary to restore the visual quaJity of the
area.
31. Impact - Liqht and Glare
Exterior lighting associated with non-residential
construction could have significant impacts.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Without With
Mitigation Mitigation
Significant
Less Than Significant
Significant
Less Than Significant
Significant
Less Than Significant
Significant
Less Than Significant
--9--
Summary Of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures
1.2.11
1.2.13
33.
'LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Without With
Mitigation Mitigation
Aesthetics/Light and Glare (ConL)
Mitigation - Required
Lightlng should be focussed and directional, and it
should provide adequate safety and security
without undue spillover to adjacent land uses. The
City should consider developing development
standards to guide lighting design.
32. Impact Visual Quality
New development could adversely affect visual
quality through poor design.
Mitigation - Required
The City should develop design standards that
recommend building height, bulk, mass, exterior
materials, colors and finishes that create the level
of visual quality desired by the City and that
eliminate significant visual quality design impacts.
Such standards should also prescribe appropriate
plant materials, fence and wall heights and
materials, sign guidelines, maximum percentages
for landscaped slopes, and landscaping design
guidelines for parking lots.
Vegetation and Wildlife
Impact - Loss of Habitats
Loss of salt marsh and mudflat habitats.
Mitigation - Required
The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) should be
consulted prior to approval of any specific project
in Subareas 2a, 5 and 6a, where wetlands or
mudflats exist, to determine if a Section 404 permit
is required for any filling of wetlands. If such a per-
mit is required additionaJ mitigation measures may
be required. Early consultations with the Bay Area
Conservation and Development Commission
(BCDC) is also recommended to aid in this
process.
34. Impact - Loss of Habitats
Loss of wildlife habitats of sensitive species.
Significant
Significant
Significant
Less Than Significant
Less Than Significant
Less Than Significant
Summary Of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures
1.2.13
Vegetation ,.nd Wildlife (ConL)
Mitigation - Required
Habitats suitable for the existence of endangered
species such as the salt marsh harvest mouse
should be surveyed by a qualified biologist to
determine the presence, if any, of sensitive
species, If any rare wildlife species are found to be
present steps should be taken to develop mitiga-
tion measures which will ensure their protection or
avoid any impacts through project redesign. Early
consultation with the California Department of Fish
and Game and the U.S. Rsh and Wildlife Service
should be initiated by project proponents to deter-
mine appropriate mitigation methods if sensitive
species are found.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Without With
Mitigation Mitigation
--11 --
ATTACHMENT "B" RESOLUTION NO. 92-89
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
A. The South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency finds
that although the following significant effects identified in the
EIR are mitigated, that these significant effects either have not
been mitigated to acceptable levels or involve significant
effects for which there are risks of not mitigating to acceptable
levels because of jurisdictional or other institutional reasons.
The Agency finds that in balancing the significant effects and
risks against the benefits of the proposed project, that the
benefitsof the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects and risks, and that the adverse
environmental effects and risks are, therefore, acceptable.
B. The following significant adverse environmental
effects of the proposed project are unavoidable:
1. The project would have unavoidable significant
traffic impacts upon the intersections of Gateway/East Grand
Avenue and Grand/Airport.
2. The project would generate traffic causing
violation of the 8-hour carbon monoxide(CO) standard at the
Grand/Airport intersection and the Gateway/East Grand Avenue
intersection.
3. The project would add to cumulative traffic
levels in eastern South San Francisco ranging from a gross
increase of 4,600 trips (year 2000) to 5,400 trips (year 2020).
4. The project would result in unavoidable
cumulative air quality impacts due to traffic generation.
C. To the extent that the foregoing significant adverse
environmental effects are not mitigated by th~ mi~igation
measures set forth in Attachment "A" - Statement of Significant
Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures and in Attachment
"C" - Mitigation Monitoring Program, the Agency finds that the
following benefits of the proposed project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects and risks of the
proposed project: ._
1. The creation of local jobs in the community,
including construction jobs for on-site and off-site
improvements, and approximately 12,430 jobs in industrial,
office, iretail sales and services to residents of the community
and region.
2. An increase in tax revenues to the City over the
35 years of the Project.
3. Redevelopment and rehabilitation of blighted
properties within the Redevelopment Area.
4. Expansion of the City's industrial, office, and
commercial economic base.
5. Construction of needed utility and circulation
improvements including new and upgraded traffic lights; new
roadwayconnections between Forbes and Oyster Point Boulevards
and North Canal Street and San Mateo Avenue; undergrounding of
utilities; and upgrading sewer and storm drainage facilities
throughout the Redevelopment Area.
6. To expand the retail component of the Downtown,
providing!diversification of offerings and encouraging major
outlets as a draw to new shoppers.
7. Such other benefits as have been described in
the redevelopment plan, project staff reports, and public
hearings.
8. Improvement of quality and expanded quantity of
affordable housing in the community as a result of the
expenditure of the 20% housing set-aside funds.
_~. 9. The construction of about 800 new public parking
spaces in Downtown.
D. The Agency acknowledges that with respect to
significant effects as they relate to increases in traffic by the
proposed project, that the ability of the City to impose new fees
or require contributions for off-site traffic improvements and
new facilities may be constrained by:
1. The necessity of obtaining the cooperation and
concurrence of other responsible agencies,
2. The absence of enabling City legislation
authorizing the imposition of transportation or traffic fees and
requirements, or
3. The infeasibility of imposing such fees and
requirements without jeopardizing the economic viability of the
proposed project and the benefits to the City set forth
hereinabove.
The existence of these possible constraints and methods
for overcoming them, if they exist, should be considered in the
course of further design of the proposed projects within the
Redevelopment Area.
The Agency finds that in balancing the benefits of the
proposed project to the City against these significant effects
and their adverse environmental risks, that the benefits outweigh
the adverse effects and environmental risks, and that the
significant effects and environmental risks are, therefore,
acceptable.
E. The Agency further finds that prior to the approval
of any other permits or entitlements for projects within the
Redevelopment Area, the scope of traffic related impacts such as
those described above, can be further analyzed and additional
mitigation measures imposed.
F. The Agency further finds that all significant adverse
environmental effects set forth in the EIR and in Attachment
- Statement of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation
Measures which are not avoided or substantially mitigated by the
mitigation measures set forth in Attachment #A" - Statement of
Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures and
Attachment "C" - Mitigation Monitoring Program involve
environmental risks which when balanced against the benefits of
the proposed project, are outweighed by the benefits, and that
the adverse environmental effects and risks are, therefore,
acceptable.
ATTACHMENT "C" RESOLUTION NO. 92-89
DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Prepared for the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco
Prepared by
EIP Associates
150 Spear Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94510
415/546-0600
June, 1989
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
MITIGATION MONITORING MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION ii
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ii
1.2.1 Transportation, Circulation and Parking 1
1.2.2 Land Use and Plan Consistency 3
1.2.4 Geology, Soils and Seismicity 4
1.2.5 Hydrology and Water Quality 7
1.2.6 Toxic Materials 8
1.2.7 Noise 9
1.2.8 Air Quality 9
1.2.9 Public Services and Utilities 10
1.2.11 Aesthetics/Light and Glare 11
1.2.13 Vegetation and Wildlife 12
INTRODUCTION
Background
Mitigation monitoring or reporting programs are required for all environmental
impact reports (EIRs) and mitigated negative declarations due to the enactment
of Assembly Bill (AB) 3180. AB3180 (Statutes 1988, Chapter 1232) became
effective on January 1, 1989. AB3180 adds a major step to the CEQA
environmental documentation process, and applies to all public agencies.
A public agency must adopt an EIR or a mitigated negative declaration when
approving a discretionary project that could s~ignificantly affect the
environment in an adverse manner. The monitoring or reporting program is
intended to ensure the implementation of measures that public agencies impose
to mitigate or avoid the significant adverse impacts identified in an
environmental document. Adoption of the monitoring program is to occur when
a public agency makes its findings for EIRs or when adopting mitigated
negative declaration. There is no statutory requirement that a monitoring
program have public review prior to being presented to the approving public
agency.
AB 3180 does not provide state reimbursement for implementing the mitigation
monitoring requirements because local agencies have the authority to levy fees
sufficient to pay for such programs. Local agencies might recover the
monitoring and reporting costs through charging a service fee pursuant to
Government Code sections 65104 and 54990 et seq.
Pul'pose
The purpose of this mitigation monitoring program is to present a thorough
approach for monitoring the implementation of the measures identified in the
Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project
Environmental Impact Report which mitigate the identified significant impacts.
The monitoring program addresses the development of individual projects within
the redevelopment area.
The monitoring program identifies each mitigation measure of a significant
environmental impact and specifies the following:
o monitoring actions
o responsible agencies to conduct the monitoring and reporting
o the frequency of monitoring
o the frequency of reporting the outcome of monitoring activities
o sanctions to be imposed for noncompliance required mitigation
measures.
o type of monitoring
The Planning Division will coordinate the setup of the program and act as the
clearinghouse for the mitigation monitoring reports.
MITIGATION MONITORING MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION
The proposed Redevelopment Plan and the projects anticipated within the
redevelopment area consist of light industrial, office, commercial, residential
and public uses. The expected buildout of the redevelopment project area is
unspecified. Consequently, a specific time frame for the implementation of the
mitigation measures cannot be determined at this time. The monitoring
program will remain operative until all required mitigations are implemented
and the monitoring actions are complete.
Overall coordination of the monitoring and reporting program will be carried
out by the Planning Division. Responsible monitoring agencies are designated
for each mitigation measure. The responsible agency is to manage the
implementation of the monitoring actions assigned to it and ensure that timely
repons are forwarded Planning Division. In some instances outside agencies
such as the Department of Fish and Game and the Army Corps of Engineers
plays a specific role in monitoring mitigation measures that are related to
their respective authorities andpermit requirements. The developer also plays
a role in submitting and implementing plans and that respond to mitigation
requirements, and providing required information.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The mitigation monitoring program is contained in a table format. Monitoring
activities typically are of three types: 1) review of plans and permit
applications to ensure that mitigation measures are incorporated in project
design and/or construction operations; 2) site inspection during or following
construction to certify that mitigation activities are being adhered to or have
been constructed; and' 3) ongoing monitoring to ensure that mitigating facilities
are operational according to standards. Responsible monitoring agencies are
designated for each mitigation measure.
The frequency of monitoring is directly related to the type of mitigation
measure and monitoring activity that is required, and is specified in the
program. The frequency of reporting on compliance with the mitigation
measures is usually on an annual basis, upon completion of mitigation measures,
or upon issuance of certificates of occupancy for a phase of the project. The
timing of the reporting is also specified in the program.
Sanctions for noncompliance in implementing the required mitigation measures
for the project are recommended. Noncompliance sanctions consist of applying
the permit requirement and building code enforcement powers of the City,
along with application review and approval determinations, and nonissuance of
certificates of occupancy. Additional sanctions may be applied by the City as
appropriate.
LOroject:
· ' Address
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT
Applicant:
Name
Address
File No.
Mitigation Monitoring Summary
Subject --
Land Use
Traffic / Parking
Public Services
Utilities
Energy
Hazardous Materials
Visual
Cultural Resources
Soils, Geology
Drainage
Water Quality
Vegetation
Wildlife
Air Quality
Noise
Other (Specify)
* See Compliance Report,
Sheet
Mitigation Required
Yes No
* Mitigation Completed
and Acceptable
Yes Date
File No.:
Project:
Subject Category:
~ EIR Sch. No.
Type of Mitigation:
Mitigation Statement:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
MITIGATION MONITORING COMPLIANCE REPORT
A.P. No.
~ Neg. Dec.
r"-'] Application ~ Construction [-'-'] Ongoing
Mitigation Performance Standard:
Responsibility to I~mplement Mitigation:
Responsibility to Assess Compliance:
Date' 0f'!inspection'i -
Compliance:
~ Acceptable
Consultant
Action Required for Compliance (Describe):
[----] Unacceptable
(Further Action Required - see below)
(Attach Mitigation Monitoring Verification Report)
Responsibility for Compliance Determination:
Timing for Compliance Determination:
Signed:
Sheet No,
Date:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
MITIGATION MONITORING VERIFICATION
?"~ Date:
oject:
Subject Category: :
Date of Inspection:
By:
Verification of Findings (To be
A.P. No.
Consultant City
filled out after Action Required for Compliance is completed).
Signed:
Date:
Attach to Sheet No. 88134
1.2.1
1.
Impact and Mitigation
Transportation, Circulation and Ptrking
Impact - Vehicle Trip Generation
Gross increase in vehicle travel produced by the
Project ranges from 4,600 (year 2000) to 5,400
(year 2020) PM peak hour vehicle trips. This repre-
sents 36% and 40% of the total future increases,
respectively.
Mitigation - ReQuired
· Peak hour tnp reduction through aggressive traf-
fic demand management program.
· Peak Hour vehicle trip reduction through public
transit improvements.
· Emphasis on land uses with relatively Iow peak-
hour traffic generation.
Impact- Intersection Traffic Volumes
Peak hour volumes Will increase by 0-16% at the
key intersections.
Mitigation - ReQuired
· Same as under "Vehicle Trip Generation' plus the
following:
· New roadway connection between Forbes and
Oyster Point Boulevards (benefits intersections in
southern portion of study area).
· New roadway connection between N. Canal
Street and San Mateo Avenue (feasibility to be
determined).
Impact - Intersection Service Levels
Four of the key intersections will experience ser-
vice levels worse than D for at lease one of the
peak pedods. Two intersections (Gateway/E.
Grand and San Mateo/Airport) would operate at
level F.
ATTACHMENT
Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Mitigation Monitoring Program
Monitoring Action
Monitoring Frequency of Frequency of
Standard Monitoring Agency Monitoring Reporting
· P~ep~e traffic
demand manage-
ment program for
Redevelopment Area.
· Review individual
project plans for com-
pliance with Re-
development Area
traffic demana pro-
gram.
· Review transit agen-
cy plans for service
to Redevelopment
Area
· As specified in EIR
and traffic demand
management pro-
gram.
· LOS D during peak
hours.
· Engineering DiviSion
· At time of project plan
applications.
· Annual intersection
volume and Level of Ser-
vice reports.
· Annually
· Same as under
'Vehicle Tdp Genera-
tion" plus the follow-
ing:
· Prepare plans for
roadway improve-
ments.
· Review City
progress in planning
for and construction
of roadway improve-
ments
· City Standards
· EIR Standards
· Engineenng Division
· Annually
· Annually
Non-compliance
Sanction
Incomplete application
Not Applicable
TYPE OF MONITORING
Application Construction
Ongoing
1.2.1
Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Mitigation Monitoring Program
Impact and Mitigation
Tren~pormtion, Circul~tlon Ind Psrklng (Cont.)
MonffoHng A~ion
Mitigation - Reauired
· Same as under *Intersection Traffic Volumes" plus
the follOWing:
- Intersection channelization improvements at
C,~y~. Grand.
-Upgraded traffic signals at:
- Airport/Linden
- Linden/Hillside
- Linden/Miller
- Spruce/Grand
- Grand/Linden
- Grand/Maple
- Spruce/Baden
- Spruce/Railroad
- Linden/Baden
· Same as under
'Vehicle Tnp Genera-
tion' plus the follow-
ing:
· Prepare plans for in-
tersection and traffic
signal improvements.
· Review City
progress in planning
for and construction
of improvements
· New traffic signals at:
- Oyster Point/New Road connecting Forbes and
Oyster Point
- Forbes/New Road connecting Forbes and Oyster
Point
- E. Grand/Littlefield
- N. Canal/Linden
Impact - Major Local Roadways
Traffic will increase on major arteries such as
Oyster Point Boulevard, E. Grand Avenue, Airport
Boulevard, Gateway Boulevard, and Produce
Avenue.
Mitigation - Recluired
· Extension of Hillside Blvd to Oyster Blvd.
· Widening of Airport Blvd in conjunction with new
Oyster Point Interchange.
· Widening of Oyster Point Blvd from 4 to 6 lanes
between the new Oyster Point Interchange and
Gateway Blvd.
· Restriping of Harbor Way.
· Plus mitigation measures listed under 'Vehicle
Tnp Generation.'
· Same as under
'Vehicle Trip Genera-
tion' plus the follow-
ing:
· Prepare plans for
roadway improve-
ments.
· Review City
progress in planning
for and construction
of roadway imp.rove-
ments
Monitoring Frequency of Frequency of
Standard Monitoring Agency Monitoring Reporting
· City Standards · Engineering Division · Annually
· EIR Standards
· City Standards · Engineering Division · Annually
· EIR Standards
· Annually
· Annually
Non-compliance
Sanction
TYPE OF MONITORING
Application Construction Ongoing
· Not Applicable
· Not Applicable
1.2.1
5.
1.2.2
6.
Impact and Mitigation
Tranaportation, Circulation and Parking(Cont.)
Impact - Downtown Parking
Increased demand for public parking in downtown,
Miti~qation - Required
· ~-o~S-trUction of abOUt 800 new public Parking
spaces in downtown.
· Expansion of Parking District boundary and im-
proved parking management.
Land Use and Plan Consistency
~mpact - Land Use Conflicts
Potential impacts could arise from specific place-
ment of projected land use development W~th
respect to existing land uses.
Mitigation - Required
Require further study of all specific projects.
proposed under the Redevelopment Plan and irr~
plementation of identified mitigation measures on a
project-by-project basis.
Impact- Relationship to Plans
Potent]aJ conflicts with General Plan designations
could arise from proposed project under the
Redevelopment Plan which are inconsistent with
General Plan land use designations or goaJs.
Mitigation - Required
Require all projects proposed under the
Redevelopment Plan to conform to Genera~ Plan
land use designations and to the land use goaJs.
Impact - Relationship to Plans
Project proposed under lhe Redevelopment Plan
could affect the usability of adjacent open space
through nuisance impacts such as noise or odors.
Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Mitigation Monitoring Program
Monitoring Action
Monitoring Frequency of Frequency of Non-compliance
Standard Monitoring Agency Monitoring Reporting Sanction
· Prepare plans for
Public pa~ng irm
provements.
· Review City
progress in planning
for and construction
of public parking irn-
provements.
· Review City
progress in improv-
ing parking manage-
ment
· City Standards · Engineering Division · AnnuaJly · Annually
· E1R 8tanc:la~
TYPE OF MONITORING
Application Construction Ongoing
· Prepare project
specific e~vironmen-
tal review.
· Demonstrate consis-
tency with approved
plans via CEQA find-
ings,
· Redevelopment · Planning Division
Plan requirements · Planning Commission
· State CEQA require- · State and Regional
ments Agencies.
· EIR standards
· Upon project applica-
· Upon project approval
· Upon project approval
· Not Applicable v' v'
· Prepare project
specific environmen-
tal review.
· Demonstrate consis-
tency with General
Plans via CEQA find-
ings,
· General Plan · Planning Division
· Planning Commission
· Upon project applica-
· Upon project approval
· Upon project approval
Deny project
· Deny project
'ouk
)rot~
.=roS
1.2.2
10.
11.
1.2.4
12.
Impact and Mitigation
Land Uae and Plan Consistency (Cont.)
Mitigation - Required
Proposals in subareas 2A, 5 and 6A should be
reviewed for potential effects on the adjacent Open
Spa~: -
Impact - Relationship to Plans
Individual prOlects proposed under the Redevelop-
ment Plan could be inconsistent with the zoning or-
dinance for the parcel upon which they would be
located.
Mitigation - Required
Review each proposal for consistency W~th ap-
plicable zoning ordinance.
Impact - Relationship to Plans
Developments proposed within BCDC junsdiction
could be inconsistent with the San Francisco Bay
Mitigation- Required
All proposals in subareas 2A, 5 and 6A should be
reviewed by BCDC.
Impact - Relationship to Plans
Projects proposed under the Redevelopment Plan
could be inconsistent with the San Francisco Air-
Mitigation - Required
Any project proposed under the Redevelopment
Plan which could be sensitive to airport noise
should be reviewed by the airport authority.
Geology, Soila & Seismicity
Impact - Grading
Landslides exist that could be reactivated by grad-
lng, landscape irrigation, or placement of hillside
fills in the hillside portions of, and adjacent to Sub-
areas 1, 2a and 2b.
Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Mitigation Monitoring Program
Monitoring Stand- Frequency of Frequency of
Monitoring Action ard Monitoring Agency Monitoring Reporting
· Prepare project
specific environmen-
tal review,
· ReQuirements and
standards of General
Plan and other ap-
proved plans includ-
ing the BCDC Bay
Plan.
· Planning Division
· Planning Commission
· BCDC and other State
Agencies.
· Upon project applica-
tion.
· Upon project approval
· Prepare project
specific environmen-
tal review.
· Demonstrate consis-
tency with Zoning Or-
dinance.
· Zoning Ordinance
· Planning Division
· Planning Commission
· Upon project applica-
tion
· Upon project approval
· Prepare project
specific environmen-
tal review.
· Demonstrate consis-
tency with Bay Plan.
· Bay Plan.
· BCDC Regulations
· BCDC
· Upon project BCDC ap-' · Upon project BCD(; ap-
plication proval
· Prepare project
specific environmen-
tal review.
· Demonstrate consis-
tency with Airport
· San Francisco Air-
port Plan
· Airport Commission
· Planning Comrrf~ssion
Non-compliance
Sanction
· Deny project
· Deny project
· Deny prOject
· Upon project applica- · Upon project approval · Deny project
TYPE OF MONITORING
Application Construction Ongoing
1.2.4
13.
14.
Impact and Mitigation
Geology, Soils & Seismiclty (Cont.)
Mitigation - ReQuired
Grading Permits would require site specific
geotechnical studies to demonstrate site stability
or techniques to produce a stable site:
Impact- Grading
Graded earth materia}s could erode into nearby
waters, thereby en0angenng habitat or increasing
flood hazards in portions of the Subareas adjacent
to dralnageways (3, 4 and 5) or the Bay (2a, 2c, 5
and 6a).
Mitigation- Re0uired
An Erosion and Sediment Transport Control Plan
would be required as part of the Grading Permit.
Impact - Grading
At least 60,000 cubic yards of matedal would be
needed to fill the channels between the wharves in
Subarea 5, with potential to damage or destroy ad-
jacent tidal-fiat habitat.
Mitigation - Required
Permits would be required from the San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission,
the Army Corps of Engineers, and the City to deter-
mine if filling meets the criteda for land uses ap-
propriate to the Bay Margin, Section 404 (Clean
Water Act) requirements for adjacent wetland
protection or replacement, and all attendant
erosion and sediment transport control measures
and site/slobe stability measures.
Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Mitigation Monitoring Program
Monitoring Stand- Frequency of Frequency of
Monitoring Action ara Monitoring Agency Monitoring Reporting
Non-compliance
Sanction
· Review grading per-
mit applications to en-
sure inclusion of a
s~e
specific geotechnical
reports to address
landslide potential
and site stability in
Subareas 1, 2a and
2b.
· Geotechnical report
prepared by Califor-
nia licensed en-
gineering geologist,
· Incorporation of all
report recommenda-
tions in final design
plans.
· Engineering Division
· At grading permit ap-
plication.
· At plan check.
· Upon project approval
· Deny construction per-
mit/grading permit.
· Review grading per-
mit applications in
Subareas 2a, 4, 4, 5,
6a to ensure in-
clusion of a Cerl~fied
Geotechnical
Engineer's Erosion
and Sediment
Transport Control
Plan element of the
permit.
· Insl~ct construction
sites to ensure
prolect conformity
with Plan require-
ments.
· Erosion and Sedi-
ment Transport Con-
trol Plan.
· Engineering Division
· RWQCB
· Grading permit applica-
tion.
· Plan check.-
· Site inspection during
grading.
· Upon project approval
· Annually
· Deny grading permit.
· Stop work order.
· Permit compliance
order.
· Re, mediation costs if
-- Treble remediation
costs as punitive
damages.,4
· Confirm project
receipt of BCDC and
COE 404 permits for
Subarea 5 projects.
· Approved BCDC or
Corps permit require-
ments
· Planning Division.
· Project application ·
· Grading permit apl: a-
tion.
Upon project approval
TYPE OF MONITORING
Application Construction
· Denial of permits, v' v'
Ongoing
1.2.4
1~.5
18.
Impact anti Mitigation
Geology, Soil~ & Seitmiclty (Cont.)
Mitigation - Reauired
Building permats require the standards for anti-seis-
mic const~uc~n specified by the Uniform Building
Code (UBC) requirements for Seismic Zone 4. _
Additionally, the City could consider restricting the
type of structure permitted on each site to the one
with the lowest damage potential.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact - Water Quality -
Construction activities could degrade water quality.
MiUgation - Required
Development and implementation of a spill preven-
tion plan and erosion and sedimentation control
plan.
19. Impact - Water Quality
Some development under the proposed project
would handle and transport toxic materials. An ac-
cidental release of toxic materials could con-
taminate surface water and groundwater.
MitigalJon - Required
Compliance with federal, State and local regula-
tions governing the use, handling, and transport of
toxic materials. Effective monitoring and law enfor-
cement.
20. Impact- Sea Level
A long-run dse in sea level is presenUy forecast.
Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Mitigation Monitoring Program
Monitoring Stand- Frequency of Frequency of
Monitoring Action ard Monitoring Agency Monitoring Reporting
Non-compliance
Sanction
· Conflnm that Build-
ing Permit request in-
specs which conform
to UBC requirements
for Seismic Zone 4.
· Conformity of · Building Division. · Building permit ap-
plans/building plication.
design to UBC Seis-
mic Zone 4 stand-
ards.
· Upon permit approval
· Deny building permit.
· Review grading per-
mit applications in
Subareas 2a, 4, 4, 5,
6a to ensure in-
clusion of a Certified
Geotechnical
Engineer's Erosion
and Sediment
Transport Control
Plan element of the
permit.
· Confirm that Build-
ing Permit applica-
tion includes a Spill
Prevention Plan.
· Inspect construc- ·
tion sites to ensure
project conformity
with Plan require-
merits.
· Erosion and Sedi- · Building Division · Grading permit ap-
ment Transport Con- · RWQCB plication
trol Plan · Building permit ap-
. Spill Prevention Plan plication
· Periodic site inspec-
tions.
· Upon permit approval
· Prior to issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy
· Deny grading permit.
· Stop work order.
· Permit compliance
order.
· Remediation costs if
any.
· Treble rernediation
costs as punitive
damages.
· Review project
compliance with Haz-
ardous Waste
Management Plan
· Hazardous Waste
Management Plan
· SmCo Health Dept
· Upon project appli(
tJon
· Upon project approval
· Modify or deny permit
TYPE OF MONITORING
Application Construction Ongoing
Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Mitigation Monitoring Program
1.2.5
Impact and Mitigation
Hydrology end Water Quality (ConL)
Monitoring Action
Monitoring Frequency of Frequency of
Standar;I Monitoring Agency Monitoring Reporting
Non-compliance
Sanction
TYPE OF MONITORING
Application Construction Ongoing
1.2.6
21.
Mitigation - ReQuired
The potential rise should be taken into account
dudng design of drainage and shoreline improve-
ments.
Toxic Materlal~
Impact - General
Although lhe analysis conducted for this program
EIR concludes that the overall nsk of toxic impact
on development from existing environmental condi-
tions is less than significant, site specific impacts
from existing conditions may remain for develop-
ment associated with the proposed project It
should be noted that remediation programs for par-
ticular parcels could increase the time and cost of
that site's development.
Mitigation - Required
Detailed toxicological site assessments should be
incorporated into the development program of
each project proposed within the project area.
· Confirm that
development and
building permit ap-
plications for
shoreline projects
and improvements
vedfy that plans
specifically account
for sea level rises an-
ticipated to occur by
BCDC over the
project life.
· BCDC published
sea level nse projec-
tions for project loca-
tion.
· Engineering Division
· Building Division
· Project application · Upon project/permit ap-
· Building permit applica- provel
tion.
· Deny permit, v' v' v'
· Review submission
of detailed toxicologi-
cal site assessments
prior to initiation of
environmentaJ review
for ail projects in
toxic soil and water
contamination.
· City and State · Planning Division · Development applica- · Upon project/permit ap-
standards · RWQCB. tion provaJ
· Building permit Applica-
tion
· Incomplete application.
Mitigation - Recommended
information concerning ~he types and amount of
toxic/hazardous materials on or adjacent to an
area is an essentiai took toward minimizing and
preventing exposure to a community. Given the
presence of toxics within the existing environment,
it is recommended that an appropriate database
be assembled containing information relevant to
minimizing and preventing toxic exposure to the
present and future community.
· Initiate areawide
site histories for ail
lots with potential
soil/water contarnina-
tion within each sub-
area. Correlate past
uses with probable
types of environmen-
tal contsminaticn.
· Local standards
· State standards
(Title PP, Division 4,
Chapter 30)
· State Department of · Upon project applica- · Upon project approval. · Not Applicable
Public Health ~ion.
Due to the potential increase in time and cost of a
remediation program for a parlicular site. it is
recommended that the agency undertake ap-
propriate advance planning for these contingen-
cies.
1.2.7
22.
23.
24.
Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Mitigation Monitoring Program
Impact and Mitigation
Monitoring Action
Noise
Impact - Construction
Noise would be generated during construction.
Mitigation - Required
Muffle or control construction equipment with a
high noise potential. Limit construction to daylight
hours in residential areas.
· Confirm that build-
ing permit applica-
tion includes a con-
struction noise con-
trol element requiring
all motorized equip-
ment to be equipped
with adequate muf-
tiers and which limits
construction to be-
tween the hours of 7
a.m. - 7 p.m. in or
near residential dis-
tricts.
· Periodic site inspec-
tions to confirm con-
formance to noise
control requirements
Air Quality
Impact- Suspended Particulate-(Constru~on)
ConsmJction activities would result in temporary lo-
calized increases in small-diameter suspended
particulates, termed PM10. Residents and works in
South San Francisco could be exposed to levels of
PlVI10 exceeding federal and State standards.
Mitigation - Required
Unpaved construction sites should be sprinkled
with water at least twice per day. Stockpiles of soil,
sand, and other such materials should be covered.
Trucks hauling debris, soil, sand, or other such
materials should also be covered. Streets surround-
ing demolition and construction sites should be
swept at least once per day. Paving and planting
should be done as soon as possible.
Impact- CO and Odor (Construction)
Construction equipment could emit air pollutant suf-
ficient to cause spot violations of CO standards
and odor complaints.
Mitigation - Required
Construction equipment engines should not be
kept idling when not in use and should receive peri-
odic maintenance, this would reduce emissions of
air pollutants and, consequently, reduce the
likelihood of spot violations of the CO standards
and odor complaints.
· Review grading
plan for adequate
dust conffot proce-
dures
· Review grading
and building applica-
tions for air quality
compliance
Monitoring Frequency of Frequency of
Standard Monitoring Agency Monitoring Reporting
· General Plan Noise
Element standards
· EIR standards
· Grading permit re-
quirements
· Building Division
· Engineering Division
· EIR standards · BAAQMD
· Air Quality Manage- · Building Division
ment Plan
· Upon permit application · Upon permit approval
· Periodic site inspections · Prior to issuance of car-
tificat-e of occupancy
· Upon permit applica- · Upon completion of
tion grading
· Periodic site visits
· Upon permit application · Upon permit issuance
Non-compliance
Sanction
· Deny permit
· Stop work order upon
violation and/or daily
non-compliance fine
schedule.
· Deny permit
· Stop work order upon
violation and/or daily
non-compliance fine
schedule.
TYPE OF MONITORING
Application Construction Ongoing
· Modify or deny permit
1.2.8
25.
1.2.9
27.
Impact and Mitigation
Air Quality (Cont.)
Impact - Intersection CO Levels
Project-generated traffic would cause violations of
the 8-hour carbon monoxide (CO) standard at the
Grand/Airport imemec~3n and the Gateway/E
Grand intersection.
Mitigation - Required
Traffic flow improvements would not produce sig-
nificant reductions in CO levels at the Grand/Air-
port and Gateway/E. Grand intersections. How-
ever, CO concentrations at the San Mateo/Airport
intersection would fall below the standard if con-
gestion were relieved there by the extension of
Utah Avenue over Route 101.
26. Impact - Criteria & Toxic Emissions
Criteria and toxic emissions from new commer-
cial/industrial uses could have significant adverse
impacts on sensitive receptors in South San Fran-
cisco.
Mitigation - Required
All new commercial/industrial uses which may emit
significant quantities of cnteria or t~xic pollutants
should be covered by BAAQMD PSD permits.
Such permits would regulate the emission levels of
such pollutants and encourage the implementation
of control measures, such as carbon absorption or
catalytic oxidation of photochemically active or
toxic vapors.
Public Services & UUIitles
Impact- Police
It would be necessary to add an additional beat
amounting to at least seven personnel, a patrol
unit, and a motorcycle. Additional parking enforce-
ment office~s may be required. Cumulative impacts
may require additional resources.
Mitigation - Required
Development would be required to comply with the
City's Municipal Code, "Minimum Building Security
Standards' Ordinance. It would be necessary to
fund the additional resources required. The Depart-
ment should undertake advance planning to ed-
dress cumulative impacts.
28. Impact - Parks & Recreation
The project would require the dedication or in-lieu
fee payment equivalent to about one acre of
parkland. Cumula~,'e development would require
the same equivalent to about 15 acres of parkland.
Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Mitigatio Monitoring Program
Monitoring Action
Monitoring Frequency of Frequency of
Standar;I Monitoring Agency Monitoring Reporting
Non-compliance
Sanction
· Review develop-
rnent applications for
mr quality compliance
· EIR standards
· Air Quality Manage-
ment Plan
· BAAQMD
· Upon permit appli(
tion
· Upon permit issuance
· Modify or deny permit
· Review develop-
ment applications for
air quality compliance
· Air Quality Manage-
ment Plan
· BAAQMD
· Upon permit application
· Upon permit issuance
· Modify or deny permit
· Confirm building
plans conform to City
Ordinance.
· Confirm advance
planning by Police
Department for in.
cremental growth.
· Maintenance of ser-
vice standards of the
department.
· Police Department
· Upon project applica-
tion
· Upon project approval
· Modify or deny permits.
TYPE OF MONITORING
Application Construction Ongoing
---10--
1.2.9
Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Mitigation Monitoring Program
Impact and Mitigation
Public Services & Utllitlae (Cont.)
Monitoring Action
Mitigation - Required · Determine that in-
Compliance with the City's Parkland Dedication In- lieu fees or parkland
Lieu Fep Ordinance would be required, have been dedicated.
1.2.11 Aesthetics/Light and Glare
29. Impact - Utility Undergrounding
Monitoring Frequency of Frequency of
Standard Monitoring Agency Monitoring Reporting
· Per requirements of · Parks, Recreation and · Upon project applica-
parkland in-lieu fee Community Services tion.
ordinance. Dept
· AnnuaJ report summary.
Non-compliance
Sanction
Deny permits.
TYPE OF MONITORING
Application Construction Ongoing
fined to specified areas and screened fi'om view.
Vegetation should be replaced on a per tree/shrub
removed or on a per square foot basis.
Mitigation - Required
Proper construction practices should be followed.
Construction staging areas should be confined to
specified areas and screened from view. Vegeta-
tion should be replaced on a per tree/shrub
removed or on a per square foot basis.
Impact - Shoreline Restoration
Creekside public improvements to San Bruno
Creek and Colma Creek and the filling of the
'fingers' and restoration of the Bayfront proposed
for Subarea 5 could create significant impacts.
· Confirm that grad-
ing permit applica-
tion identifies
proposed staging
areas and screening
rnateriaJs and stand-
ards.
· Confirm grading per-
mit requests provide
~ surveys which
trunk diameters at
chest height in ex-
cess of 6'; drip line
perimeters of all
lesser trees and
shrubbery; and a
photographic inven-
tory of the entire site
prior to consl~ucl~n
which is adequate for
which to judge future
impacts.
cate of Occuparx3y
requests include
photographic
documentation of
replaced vegeta§on
that conforms to
plant requirements.
· Conditions of ap-
proval
· Grading permit re-
quirements
· Engineering Division
· Upon project applica-
tion
· Upon grading permit
application
· Prior to issuance of cer-
ti§cate of occupancy
· Upon issuance of per-
mits
· Modify or deny permit
· Replanting ofvegeta-
tion.
Impact and Mitigation
1,2.11 Aesthstice/Light and Glare (Cont.)
Mitigation - Required
The rehabilitation and restoration should replicate
to the degree possi_ble the water features' natural
condition, and remedial planting should be used
as necessary to restore the visual quality of the
area.
Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Mitigation Monitoring Program
Monitoring Action
Monitoring Frequency of Frequency of
Standard Monitoring Agency Monitoring Reporting
Non-compliance
Sanction
· Review develop-
ment application for
shoreline rehabilita-
~on ~ restoration
program.
· Confirm that
· Conditions of ap- · Parks, Recreation and · Upon project applica-
proval Community Services tion
· BCDC permit re- Dept · Pnor to issuance of cer-
quit·merits · BCDC tificate of occupancy
· Upon project approval
· Upon issuance of certifi-
cate of occupancy
· Modify or deny permit
· Replanting of vegeta-
tion.
TYPE OF MONITORING
Application Construction Ongoing
31.
32.
1.2.13
33.
Impact - Lil3ht and Glare
Extedor lighting associated with non-residential
construction could have significant impacts.
Mitigation - Required
Lighting should be focussed and directional, and it
should provide adequate safety and security
without undue spillover to adjacent land uses. The
City should consider developing development
standards to guide lighting design.
Impact Visual Quality
New development could adversely affect visual
quality lhrough poor design.
Mitigati~)n - Recluired
The C~ty should develop design standards that
recommend building height, bulk, mass, exterior
materials, colors and fimshes that create the level
of visual quality desired by the City and that
eliminate significant visual quality design impacts.
Such standards should also prescribe appropriate
plant materials, fence and wall heights and
materials, sign guidelines, maximum percentages
for landscaped slopes, and landscaping design
guidelines for parking lots.
Vegetstion and Wikliffe
Impact- Loss of Habitats
Loss of salt marsh and mudflat habitats.
Mitigation - Required
The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) should be
consulted prior to approval of any specific project
in Subareas 2a, 5 and 6a, where wetlands or
mudfiats exist, to determine if a Section 404 permit
is required for any filling of wetlands. If such a per-
mit is required additional mitigation measures may
be required. Early consultations with the Bay Area
Conservation and Development Commission
(BCDC) is also recommended to aid in this
process.
· Review for corn- · EIR standards · Planning Division
pliance with condi- · Conditions of ap- · Police Dept
tions of approval proval
· PeriodicaJly update
Design Review
Guidelines
· Review for consis-
tency with Design
Guidelines
· Conduct environ-
mental evaluation
with input of COE
and BCDC
· Review grading per-
mit application for
compliance with any
COF_. or BCDC permit
requirements
· Design Review
Guidelines
· Planning Division
· COE/BCDC permit · Engineering Division
requirements · BCDC
· Grading permit re- · COE
quirements
· Upon permit application · Upon permit approval
· Upoh permit application · Upon permit approval
· Upon project applica- · Upon permit approval
tion
· Modify or deny permit
· Modify or deny permit
· Modify or deny permit v' v'
w12--
Impact and Mitigation
1.2.13 Vegetation and Wildlife (ConL)
34. Impact - Loss of Habitats
Loss of W~ldlife habitats of sensitive species.
Miti[lalion - Required
Habitats suitable for the existence of enda~_gered
species such as the salt marsh harvest mouse
should be surveyed by a qualified biologist to
determine the presence, if any, of sensitive
species. If any rare wildlife species are found to be
present steps should be taken to develop mitiga-
lion measures which will ensure ~heir protection or
avoid any impacts through project redesign;.. Early
consultation with the California Department of Fish
and Game and the U.S. Rsh and Wildlife Service
should be iniliated by project proponents to deter-
mine appropriate mitigation methods if sensitive
species are found.
Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Mitigation Monitoring Program
Monitoring Action
Monitoring Frequency of Frequency of
Standard Monitoring Agency Monitoring Reporting
· Review EIR and
habitat survey for
compliance.
· EIR standards · Planning Division
~ State/Federal stand- · Fish and WJ.,!d!ife
ards and require- · Fish and Game
ments
· Upon permit application · Upon permit approval
Non-compliance
Sanction
TYPE OF MONITORING
Application Construction Ongoing
Modify or deny permit v' v'
BAAQMD:
BCDC:
COE:
LOS:
RWQCB:
SmCo Health:
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Bay Conservation and Development Commission
Army Corps of Engineers
Level of Service
Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Mateo County Health Department
1.2.4
15.
Impact and Mitigation
Geology, ~olls & ~el~niolty (Cent.)
Impact - Construction Over Bay Mud
With the exception of Subarea 2b, some portion of
each Subarea is underlain by Bay mud, which can
compress or sh~ under loading from develotoment.
This can lead to settlement of foundations and
amplification of seismic vibrations, both of which
would damage structures.
Mitigation - Required
Building Permits would require site specific
geotechnical studies to demonstrate site stability
or techniques to produce a stabte site.
i6.
Impact - Construction Over Liquermble.Soils
Liquefiable soils can turn to quicksand very rapidly
during earthquakes causing settling, fracturing and
overturning of buildings supported on them.
Mitigation - Required
Building Permits would require site specific
geotechnical studies to demonstrate site stability
or techniques to produce a stable site.
17.
Impact- Construction in Areas Subject to Severe
Groundsheldng
Groundshaking during a maximum credible
earthquake would be very strong to violent, caus-
ing varying amounts of damage at sites with boten-
tially unstable subsoils (such as Bay mud and li-
quefiable sands) depending on the type of struc-
ture on-site.
Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Mitigation Monitoring Program
Monltodn;] Stand- Frequency of Frequency of
Monitoring Action am Monitoring Agency Monitoring Reporting
Non-compliance
Sanction
· Review grading per-
mit applications for
development in all
~-but Subarea 2b to en-
sure inclusion of and
compliance with a
site specific/project
specific geotechnical
analysis pmparad by
a California
registered engineer-
ing geologist which
addresses Bay mud
associated project
· Compliance with
report recommenda-
tions.
· Engineering Division
· Grading application
· Plan application
· Upon project approval
TYPE OF MONITORING
Application Construction Ongoing
· Review grading per- · Geotechnical
mit applications for in- Report recommenda-
clusion of and corn- tions.
pliance with a site
spec~~
specific geotechnicaJ
analysis of liquefiable
project constralnte.
· Engineering Division
· Grading application
· Plan application
· Upon project approval
· Deny permits.
· Deny perrni~s. ~,' ,/