Loading...
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. ~,' ,/