San Francisco Redevelopment Agency


2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 



EXHIBIT 1

VISITACION VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Responsibility

Mitigation Schedule

Mitigation

Responsibility

Monitoring Actions/ Schedule

VISUAL FACTORS

 

 

 

 

Mitigation 7-1 Building Scale Compatibility.  Add to the Design for Development additional building bulk and/or building articulation controls specifically tailored to reduce the potential visual effects of permitted greater building height and mass on the west edge of Zone 2 on abutting residential properties to the west.  The amended controls could include, for example, a 10-to-15-foot building "stepback" and or "relational height limit" requirement at the third or fourth story along the west edges of Zone 2 that abut existing residential properties, for purposes of avoiding incongruous building height and scale relationships and associated light and shadow impacts.  Formulation of these or similar measures into the Design for Development would reduce this potential for building scale and mass compatibility impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Project Applicant

The Design for Development has been revised to incorporate this measure

Planning Department, SFRA, DBI

Planning, DBI to review designs and specifications as part of the Project-level plan review and site permit processing

Mitigation 7-2 Lighting and Glare:  Add to the Design for Development a set of Development Controls and Design Guidelines for "Lighting," focusing on nighttime internal and exterior lighting of multi-story buildings and nighttime lighting of new outdoor spaces, including the following or similar measures:

 

  • limit exterior illumination of any new building elements above 40 feet;

 

  • require tinting of outward-oriented glazing above 40 feet sufficient to reduce the nighttime visual impacts of internal lighting; and

 

  • to minimize glare and "sky glow" from new outdoor area lighting, require adequate shielding of light sources, use of fixtures that direct light downward, light sources that provide more natural color rendition, possible use of multiple light level switching (for reducing light intensity after 10 P.M.), non-reflective hardscapes, and avoidance of light source reflection off surrounding exterior walls.

 

Formulation of these or similar measures by a qualified urban design professional and their incorporation into the Design for Development would reduce this potential for light and glare impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Project Applicant

The Design for Development has been revised to incorporate this measure

SFRA, DBI

SFRA and DBI to review designs and specifications as part of Project level plan review and site permit processes

 

Mitigation Measure

Responsibility for Implementation

Mitigation Schedule

Monitoring Responsibility

Monitoring Actions/Schedule

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

 

 

 

 

Mitigation 8-1A: 

 

Bayshore Boulevard/Blanken Avenue:  Restripe the westbound approach to create two additional lanes: an added exclusive left-turn and an added right-turn lane. Implementation of this mitigation would reduce the significant impacts in the P.M. peak hour, but weekday A.M. peak hour impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

 

Bayshore Boulevard/Arleta Avenue/San Bruno Avenue: Modify signal timing by shifting 6 seconds of green time from the northbound left-turn movement to the southbound through movement as the delays associated with the southbound through movement are considerably higher than the delay associated with northbound left turn movement. Add bus signal prioritization to avoid delays to the San Bruno bus lines. The Project impacts at this intersection will remain significant and unavoidable.

 

Tunnel Avenue/Blanken Avenue: Signalize intersection.  The Project impacts at this intersection will remain significant and unavoidable.

 

Planning Department, MTA, DPW or owner/developer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Same as above

First Major Phase

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second Major Phase

MTA, DPW

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTA, DPW

Approval of infrastructure plans with major phase

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Same as above

Mitigation 8-1B Intersection Operation: 

Bayshore Boulevard/Leland Avenue southbound left-turn:  Eliminate the proposed left-turn from southbound Bayshore Boulevard into Redevelopment Zone 1 at Leland Avenue. Removal of this left-turn location would have a significant secondary impact, forcing Project vehicular traffic to utilize the left-turn locations at Visitacion and Sunnydale Avenues, which would exacerbate anticipated queuing impacts at these two remaining left-turn locations. This mitigation would reduce the Project impact at this location to a less than significant level.

 

 

MTA, DPW

First Major Phase

MTA, DPW

Approval of infrastructure plans with major phase

Mitigation 8-1C Transportation Management Plan: 

Implement a Transportation Management Plan for Redevelopment Zone 1.  To reduce the amount of auto use and auto ownership rates, and thereby reduce the traffic impacts of Zone 1 development, future applicants for developments in Zone 1 shall prepare, fund, and implement project-specific Transportation Management Plans (TMP).  The TMPs could include the following elements:

 

  • Identification of a transportation coordinator,
  • Establishment of a resident website,
  • Carpool match services,
  • Carshare hubs,
  • Real-time transit information,
  • Reduced fee transit pass program,
  • Parking supply reductions,
  • Unbundled parking supply, and/or
  • Metered/paid parking.

 

Also see similar measures in Mitigation 9-2 (chapter 9, Air Quality) of this EIR.

 

After the first phase of Zone 1 development of 450 residential units, the Project will conduct a follow-up analysis of the Bayshore Boulevard corridor and the Tunnel/Blanken intersection.  This analysis will revisit the status of neighboring projects, account for any shifts in travel patterns, mode share, and transit service (as described in subsection 8.2.4) within the Project Area, and reconsider the range of mitigations available for travel on Bayshore Boulevard, Tunnel Avenue, Blanken Avenue, and affected intersections--including revised signal phasing, pedestrian improvements, and/or traffic calming measures.  This future study may provide opportunities to revise TMP elements and explore additional mitigation options based on revised information regarding Cumulative conditions. This study shall also study pedestrian volumes in Zone 1 and along Bayshore Boulevard. While implementation of this measure would reduce impacts on the adjacent intersections and roadways to an unspecified but limited degree, the Project impacts would still remain significant and unavoidable.

 

SFRA/MTA/Project Applicant

Element of each major phase

 

SFRA/MTA

Confirm establishment as part of first Major Phase approval; Developer to submit periodic status reports to the SFRA

Mitigation 8-3 Project Queuing Impacts at Redevelopment Zone 1 Access Points

Visitacion/Bayshore Boulevard: extend the left turn pocket by an additional 80 feet by relocating the MUNI bus stop currently located at the southside of the Bayshore Boulevard/Leland Avenue. Implementation will improve queuing impacts at one southbound Project site access intersection, but overall impacts at AM and PM peaks are considered to be significant and unavoidable.

 

 

MTA, DPW and/or SFRA, and individual development applicants

Major phase and subject to relocation of MUNI bus stops.

MTA, DPW and/or SFRA

Major Phase Application

Mitigation 8-4:  2025 Cumulative Impacts on Intersection Operation. 

 

Bayshore Boulevard/Tunnel Avenue:  Modify signal timing by shifting one second from the southbound left-turn movement to the northbound/southbound through movements.  Prior to implementation of this mitigation measure, assess transit and traffic coordination along Bayshore Boulevard to ensure that the changes would not substantially affect MUNI transit operations, signal progressions, pedestrian minimum green time requirements, and programming limitations of signals.  Implementation of this mitigation would still result in a cumulative effect that is significant and unavoidable for weekday AM/PM peak hours.

 

Alana Way/Beatty Avenue: Signalize the intersection, restripe the southbound Alana Way approach to create exclusive left- through and right turn approach to create exclusive left-, through and right-turn lanes; and restripe the eastbound Beatty Avenue approach to create two lanes. If this intersection is reconfigured as part of the Brisbane Baylands the developer will pay an in lieu fee for other transportation improvements. Implementation of this mitigation would still result in a cumulative effect that is significant and unavoidable for weekday AM/PM peak hours.

 

 

MTA, DPW and/or SFRA, and individual development applicants

Second phase of development

MTA, DPW and/or SFRA, and individual development applicants

Major Phase Application

Mitigation 8-6: 2025 Cumulative Impacts on Freeway On-Ramp Operation:  These projected 2025 cumulative freeway on-ramp operating condition impacts are anticipated to be resolved by the construction of the proposed new ramps at Geneva Avenue, a planned regional transportation improvement measure. Project fair contribution to these improvements to these planned improvements would be required.  Currently there are no interjurisidiction formulated improvement projects or associated funding programs for the affected freeway segments towards which the Project Developer could be required to make a fair share contribution.  The ongoing Bi-County Transportation Study is currently investigating inter-regional cumulative transportation network improvement needs and priorities, and is intended to identify an associated interjurisdictional fair share calculation procedure.  The Planning Department and Redevelopment Agency will continue to participate in the current Bi-County Transportation Planning Study, and will continue to advocate and participate in similar interjurisdictional study, planning and fair share funding efforts.  Project fair-share contribution to the planned regional improvements would reduce the anticipated 2025 cumulative freeway on-ramp impacts to a less-than-significant level.

 

Planning Department/ SFRA, and individual development applicants of significant projects

Second phase of development

SFRA/Planning Department

Zone 1: Major phase approval Zone 2: approval of significant project

Mitigation 8-7: 2025 Cumulative Impacts on Intersection Operation with Planned Regional Roadway Improvements:  To mitigate 2025 cumulative unacceptable operating conditions (LOS E or F) implement Mitigation 8-1 plus the following additional measures:

  • Bayshore Boulevard/Leland Avenue:  Modify signal timing by shifting 6 seconds from the northbound/southbound left-turn movements to the through movements. Implementation of this mitigation could potentially impact transit operations; this 2025 cumulative intersection impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.
  • Bayshore Boulevard/Sunnydale Avenue:  Modify signal timing by shifting 4 seconds from the northbound/southbound left-turn movements to the eastbound/westbound movements and restripe the eastbound and westbound approaches to create two lanes at the intersection:  a shared left-through lane and exclusive right-turn lane.  Implementation of this mitigation could potentially impact transit operations; this 2025 cumulative intersection impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.
  • Tunnel Avenue/Blanken Avenue:  Signalize the intersection.  It would be possible to modify this intersection from an all-way stop to a signalized intersection under the 2025 Cumulative condition.  Implementation of this mitigation would reduce measure would reduce this impact to a less-than significant level.

 

MTA, DPW and/or SFRA, and individual development applicants

Second phase of development

Second phase of development

Major phase approval

Mitigation 8-9:  The addition of Project-related transit trips would not result in a significant impact to transit capacity (existing transit services currently have capacity to accommodate the new trips).  As a result, no transit service capacity mitigation measures would be required.  However, the new vehicle-trips generated by the Project would result in long delays at several Bayshore Boulevard intersections, as indicated above under Impacts 8-1, 8-3 and 8-4.  Related intersection improvement and left-turn pocket extension measures have been identified under Mitigations 8-1, 8-3 and 8-4 to mitigate these traffic impacts.  Because these measures would not fully mitigate the associated traffic impacts, and could result in additional impacts associated with the relocation of a Muni bus stop, this Project-related local transit service delay impact would be considered significant and unavoidable.

 

Implementation of Mitigation 8-1C (Transportation Management Plan) would help decrease the number of vehicle trips generated by the Project and reduce the magnitude of the Project’s impact on transit operations at these locations, but not to a less-than-significant level.

 

In addition, to encourage additional transit riders (thereby further reducing the amount of vehicular activity), the Project could implement the following measures:

 

  • Consistent with the Design for Development, implement building design features that promote the primary access to new Project Area buildings from transit stops and pedestrian areas, and discourage the location of primary access points to new Project Area buildings through parking lots and other auto-oriented entryways.
  • Implement recommendations of the San Francisco Better Streets Plan in the Project Area, which are designed to make the pedestrian environment safer and more comfortable for pedestrians, including traffic calming strategies, sidewalk corner bulbs, and other features.

 

Provide transit amenities at key light rail and bus stops in the Project Area, including “Next Bus” passenger information, accurate and usable passenger information and maps, and adequate light, shelter, and sitting areas.

MTA, DPW SFRA, and individual development applicants

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTA, DPW SFRA, and individual development applicants

 

Element at each phase

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Element at each phase

MTA, DPW and/or SFRA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTA, DPW or SFRA

Include in applicable major phase application plans

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Include in applicable major phase application plans

Mitigation 8-10:  Impacts on Bicycle Conditions.  To mitigate this potential impact to the Bayshore Boulevard bicycle lane, do not provide the proposed new southbound left-turn into Redevelopment Zone 1 at Leland Avenue.  To mitigate additional bicycle impacts establish an internal connection from Redevelopment Zone 1 to the east side of Bayshore Boulevard/Geneva intersection. This mitigation would reduce the Project’s impact on bicycle conditions to a less-than-significant level.

MTA, DPW and/or SFRA, and individual development applicants

Second Phase of Development

MTA, DPW and/or SFRA

Include in applicable major phase application plans

AIR QUALITY

 

 

 

 

Mitigation 9-1A:  Remediation- and Construction-Related Air Quality Impacts.  For all demolition activity in the Project Area, require implementation of the following dust control measures by demolition contractors, where applicable:

 

  • Water active demolition areas to control dust generation during demolition of structures and break-up of pavement.
  • Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site.
  • Use dust-proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible.
  • Apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers demolition areas after completion of demolition activities.

Implementation of these measures would reduce the demolition-related air quality impacts to a less-than-significant level.

 

Project Applicant

Continuous throughout demolition activity

DBI, BAAQMD, DTSC

Continuous throughout demolition activity

Mitigation 9-1B.  For all remediation, grading, or construction activity in the Project Area, require implementation of the following dust control measures by construction (also remediation) contractors, where applicable:

 

  • Water all active remediation and construction areas at least twice daily, or as needed to prevent visible dust plumes from blowing off-site.
  • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials.
  • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
  • Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
  • Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
  • Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more).
  • Limit the area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one time.

The above measures may be revised or supplemented over time by new BAAQMD regulations.  Implementation of these measures would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Project Applicant

Continuous throughout demolition activity

DBI, BAAQMD, DTSC

Continuous throughout demolition activity

Mitigation 9-1C.  The following are measures to control emissions by diesel-powered construction (including remediation and demolition) equipment used by contractors, where applicable:

  • Ensure that emissions from all on-site, diesel-powered construction equipment do not exceed 40 percent opacity for more than three minutes in any one hour. Any equipment found to exceed 40 percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be repaired or replaced immediately.
  • The contractor shall install temporary electrical service whenever possible to avoid the need for independently powered equipment (e.g., compressors).
  • Diesel equipment standing idle for more than three minutes shall be turned off.  This would include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate or other bulk materials.  Rotating drum concrete trucks could keep their engines running continuously as long as they were on-site and away from residences.
  • Properly tune and maintain equipment for low emissions.
  • Use late model heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment at each construction site to the extent that the equipment is readily available in the San Francisco Bay Area.
  • Use diesel-powered equipment that has been retrofitted with after-treatment products (e.g., engine catalysts) to the extent that it is readily available in the San Francisco Bay Area.
  • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
  • Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site.
  • Install wind breaks, or plant trees/vegetation wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction sites.
  • Suspend excavation and grading where winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour.
  • Use low-emission diesel fuel and/or biodiesel for all heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment operating and refueling at each construction site to the extent that the fuel is readily available and cost effective in the San Francisco Bay Area (this does not apply to diesel-powered trucks traveling to and from the site).
  • Utilize alternative fuel construction equipment (i.e., compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline) to the extent that the equipment is readily available and cost-effective in the San Francisco Bay Area.

 

 

 

 

Mitigation 9-2.  Apply the following emissions control strategies where applicable to Project-facilitated discretionary mixed use, residential, commercial, and cultural development activities within the Project Area in order to reduce overall emissions from traffic and area sources.

Transportation Emissions

  • New or modified roadways should include bicycle lanes where reasonable and feasible.
  • Provide transit information kiosks.
  • Where practical, employment-intensive development proposals (e.g., retail) shall include measures to encourage use of public transit, ridesharing, van pooling, use of bicycles, and walking, as well as to minimize single passenger motor vehicle use.
  • Develop parking enforcement and fee strategies that encourage alternative modes of transportation.
  • Parking lots or facilities should provide preferential parking for electric or alternatively fueled vehicles.
  • Implement and enforce truck idling restrictions of three minutes.
  • Require large commercial land uses (e.g., 10,000 square feet or 25 employees) that would generate home-to-work commute trips to implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs.  Components of these programs should include the following (also see similar measures in Mitigation 8-1C [chapter 8, Transportation and Circulation] of this EIR):

 

- a carpool/vanpool program, e.g., carpool ride-matching for employees, assistance with vanpool formation, provision of vanpool vehicles, etc.;

- a transit use incentive program for employees, such as on-site distribution of passes and/or subsidized transit passes for local transit systems;

- a guaranteed ride home program; and/or

     -             a parking cash‑out program for employees (where non‑driving employees receive transportation allowance equivalent to the value of subsidized parking).

 

Building Emissions:

 

  • Require energy efficient building designs that exceed State Title 24 building code requirements.
  • Discourage use of gasoline-powered landscape equipment, especially two-stroke engines and motors (which burn and leak oil), for public park maintenance.
  • Allow only low-emitting fireplaces for residential uses, such as those that burn only natural gas (standard City requirement for multi-family residences).

The above measures may be revised or supplemented over time by new BAAQMD regulations. Implementation of these measures would reduce the remediation-, demolition-, and construction-related air quality impacts of diesel-powered equipment to a less-than-significant level.

Project Applicant

Continuous throughout demolition activity

MTA, SFRA, BAAQMD, DTSC

Continuous throughout demolition activity

CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES

      

 

 

 

Mitigation 10-1  Destruction or Degradation of Historical Resources. 

The following mitigation measures should be considered if proposed changes to a historical resource are not in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s standards.

 

a) Documentation.  In consultation with a Planning Department Preservation Technical Specialist, the individual project applicant shall have documentation of the affected historical resource and its setting prepared.  Generally, this documentation shall be in accordance with one of three documentation levels associated with the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) or Historic American Engineering Record (HAER).  The Specialist, possibly in consultation with the National Park Service Regional Office, can decide the most appropriate form of documentation, depending on the significance of the affected resource.  The three possible documentation level protocols are described under this mitigation in chapter 10 of this EIR.

 

The agreed-upon documentation shall be filed with the San Francisco History Center at the Main Library, as well as with other local libraries and historical societies, as appropriate.

 

 

(b) Oral Histories.  The individual project applicant shall undertake an oral history project that includes interviews of several long-time residents of Visitacion Valley and former employees of the Schlage Lock Factory.  This program shall be conducted by a professional historian in conformance with the Oral History Association’s Principles and Standards (http://alpha.dickinson.edu/oha/pub_eg.html).  In addition to transcripts of the interviews, the oral history project shall include a narrative project summary report containing an introduction to the project, a methodology description, and brief summaries of each conducted interview.  Copies of the completed oral history project shall be submitted to the San Francisco History Room of the Main Library.

 

(c) Relocation.  Study the feasibility of reacting historical resources aster nearby site appropriate to its historic setting and general environment.  A moved building or structure that is otherwise eligible may be listed in the California Register if it was moved to prevent its demolition at its former location and if the new location is compatible with the original character and use of the historical resource.  After relocation, the building’s preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration, as appropriate, shall follow the Secretary of the Interior’s standards to ensure that the building retains its integrity and historical significance.

 

(d) Salvage.  If the affected historical resource can neither be preserved at its current site nor moved to an alternative site and is to be demolished, the individual project applicant shall consult with a San Francisco Planning Department Preservation Technical Specialist and other local historical societies regarding salvage of materials from the affected historic resource for public information or reuse in other locations.  Demolition may proceed only after any significant historic features or materials have been identified and their removal completed.

 

(e) Commemoration.  If the affected historical resource can neither be preserved at its current site nor moved to an alternative site and is to be demolished, the individual project applicant shall, with the assistance of a Planning Department Preservation Technical Specialist or other professionals experi­enced in creating historical exhibits, incorporate a display featuring historic photos of the affected resource and a description of its historical significance into the publicly accessible portion of any subsequent development on the site.  In addition, the factory machinery in Schlage Plants 1 and 2 should be cleaned and moved to a public space (such as a park or plaza on-site) for public viewing.

 

(f) Contribution to a Historic Preservation Fund.  If an affected historical resource can neither be reserved at its current site nor moved to an alternative site and is demolished, the project applicant may be eligible to mitigate project- related impacts by contributing funds to the City to be applied to future historic preservation activities, including survey work, research and evaluation, and rehabilitation of historical resources within Visitacion Valley in accordance with the Secretary’s Standards.  Contribution to the preservation fund would be made only after the documentation, oral history, salvage, and commemoration mitigations specified above had been completed.  The details of such an arrangement would be formulated on a case-by-case basis, and could also include in-kind implementation of historic resource preservation.  As part of any such arrangement, the project applicant shall clearly demonstrate the economic infeasibility of other mitigation measures that would mitigate impacts to historical resources, including preservation, relocation, and project modification.

 

While implementation of these measures would reduce impacts on historical resources, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

 

 

Development Applicant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Applicant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Applicant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Applicant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Applicant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Applicant

Initiate before demolition

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Initiate before demolition permit and ongoing after demolition

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Before demolition permit for applicable building

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Before demolition permit for applicable building

 

 

 

 

 

 

Condition for demolition permit for applicable building; ongoing implementation as required by measure

 

 

 

 

 

Ongoing implementation as required by measure

Planning Department

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Planning Department

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Planning Department

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Planning Department

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SFRA, Planning Department

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SFRA, Planning Department

Initiate before demolition

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Initiate before demolition and ongoing after demolition

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Initiate before demolition and ongoing after demolition

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Initiate before demolition and ongoing after demolition

 

 

 

 

 

 

Initiate before demolition and ongoing after demolition

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Initiate before demolition and ongoing after demolition

 

Mitigation 10-2:  Disturbance of Known Archaeological Resources.  The project sponsor shall retain the services of a qualified archaeological consultant having expertise in California prehistoric and urban historical archeology.  The archaeological consultant shall consult with the Major Environmental Analysis archaeologist at the San Francisco Planning Department to determine project locations and activities that may affect archaeological deposits/features associated with known archaeological resource sites.  Project activities determined to potentially affect these resources shall be subject to an archaeological testing program (ATP) as specified under this mitigation heading in chapter 10 of this EIR.  In addition, the consultant shall be available to conduct an archaeological monitoring program (AMP) and/or archaeological data recovery program (ADRP) and, if necessary, a human remains treatment program and final archaeological resources report (FARR) as specific under this mitigation heading in Chapter 10 of this EIR.  The archaeological consultant's work shall be conducted in accordance with this measure at the direction of the City’s Environmental Review Officer (ERO).

 

All plans and reports prepared by the consultant as specified herein shall be submitted first and directly to the ERO for review and comment, shall be considered draft reports, subject to revision until final approval by the ERO. Archaeological monitoring and/or data recovery programs required by this measure could suspend construction of the project for up to a maximum of four weeks.  At the direction of the ERO suspension of construction can be extended beyond four weeks only if such a suspension is the only feasible means to reduce to a less-than-significant level potential effects on a significant archaeological resource as defined in CEQA.

 

Archaeological Testing Program.  The archaeological consultant shall prepare and submit to the ERO for review and approval an archaeological testing plan (ATP).  An archaeological testing program shall be conducted in accordance with the approved ATP.  The ATP shall identify the property types of the expected archaeological resource(s) that potentially could be adversely affected by the project, the testing method to be used, and the locations recommended for testing.

 

 The purpose of the archaeological testing program will be to determine to the extent possible the presence or absence of archaeological resources to identify and to evaluate whether any archaeological resource encountered on the site constitutes a historical resource under CEQA.

 

At the completion of the archaeological testing program, the archaeological consultant shall submit a written report of the findings to the ERO.  If based on the archaeological testing program the archaeological consultant finds that significant archaeological resources may be present the ERO in consultation with archaeological consultant shall determine if additional measures are warranted.  Additional measures that may be undertaken include notification of designated members of the community as appropriate, archaeological data recovery program. 

 

If the ERO determines that a significant archaeological resource is present and that the resource could be adversely affected by the project, at the discretion of the project sponsor either:

 

  1. The project shall be re-designed so as to avoid any adverse effect on the significant archaeological resource; or
  2.  A data recovery program shall be implemented, unless the ERO determines that the archaeological resource is of greater interpretive than research significance and that interpretive use of the resource is feasible.

 

Archaeological Monitoring Program (AMP).  If the ERO in consultation with the archaeological consultant determines that an archaeological consultant determines that an archaeological monitoring program (AMP) shall be implemented, the AMP shall minimally include the following provisions:

 

  • The archaeological consultant, project sponsor, and ERO shall meet and consult on the scope of the AMP reasonably prior to any project-related soils disturbing activities commencing.  The ERO in consultation with the archaeological consultant shall determine what project activities shall be archaeological monitored.  In most cases, any soils disturbing activities, such as demolition, foundation removal, excavation, grading, utilities and installation, foundation work, driving of piles (foundation, shoring etc.), site remediation, etc., shall require archaeological monitoring because of the risk these activities pose to potential archaeological resources and to their depositional context.

 

  • The archaeological consultant shall advise all project contractors to be on alert for evidence of the presence of the expected resources(s), of how to identify the evidence of the expected resource(s), and of the appropriate protocol in the event of apparent discovery of an archaeological resource.

 

  • The archaeological monitors shall be present on the project site according to a schedule agreed upon by the archaeological consultant and the ERO until the ERO has, in consultation with project archaeological consultant determined that project construction activities could have no effects on significant depositions.

 

  • The archaeological monitor shall record and be authorized to collect soil samples and arti-factual/ecofactual material as warranted for analysis.

 

  • If an intact archaeological deposit is encountered, all soils disturbing activities in the vicinity of the deposit shall cease.  The archaeological monitor shall be empowered to temporarily redirect demolition/excavation/pile driving/construction activities and equipment until the deposit is evaluated.  If in the case of pile driving activity (foundation shoring, etc.), the archaeological monitor has cause to believe that the pile driving activity shall be terminated until an appropriate evaluation of the resource has been made in consultation with the ERO. The archaeological consultant shall immediately notify the ERO of the encountered archaeological deposit.  The archaeological consultant shall make a reasonable effort to assess the identity, integrity, and significance of the encountered archaeological deposit, and present the finding of this assessment to the ERO.

 

Whether or not significant archaeological resources are encountered, the archaeological consultant shall submit a written report of the Finding of the monitoring program to the ERO.

 

Archaeological Data Recovery Program (ARDP). 

The archaeological data recovery program shall be conducted in accord with an archaeological data recovery plan (ARDP).  The archaeological consultant, project sponsor, and ERO shall meet and consult on the scope of the ARDP prior to preparation of a draft ARDP.  The archaeological consultant shall submit a draft ARDP to the ERO. The ARDP shall indentify how the proposed data recovery program will preserve the significant information the archaeological resource is expected to contain.  That is, the ARDP will identify what scientific/historical research questions are applicable to the expected resource, what data classes the resource is expected to possess, and how the expected data classes would address the applicable research questions.  Data recovery, in general should be limited to the portions of the historical property that could be adversely affected by the project.  Destructive data recovery methods shall not be applied to portions of the archaeological resources if non destructive methods are practical.

 

The scope of the ADRP shall include the following elements:

Field Methods and Procedures. Descriptions of proposed field strategies, procedures, and operations.

Cataloguing and Laboratory Analysis, Description of selected cataloguing system and artifact analysis procedures.

Discard and Deaccession Policy. Description of and rationale for field and post-field discard and deaccession policies.

Interpretive Program. Consideration of an on-site/off-site public interpretive program during the course of the archeological data recovery program.

Security Measures. Recommended security measures to protect the archeological resource from vandalism, looting, and nonintentionally damaging activities.

Final Report. Description of proposed report format and distribution of results.

Curation. Description of the procedures and recommendations for

die curation of any recovered data having potential research value,

identification of appropriate curation facilities, and a summary of

the accession policies of the curation facilities

 

Human Remains, Associated or Unassociated Funerary Objects.

The treatment of human remains and of associated or unassociated

funerary objects discovered during any soils disturbing activity shall comply with applicable State and Federal Laws, including immediate notification of the Coroner of the City and County of San Francisco and in the event of the Coroner's determination that the human remains are Native American remains, notification of the California State Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) who shall appoint a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) (Pub. Res. Code Sec. 5097.98). The archeological consultant, project sponsor, and MLD shall make all reasonable efforts to develop an agreement for the treatment of, with appropriate dignity, human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects (CEQA Guidelines. Sec. 15064.5(d)). The agreement should take into consideration the appropriate excavation, removal, recordation, analysis, curation, possession, and final disposition of the human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects.

 

Final Archeological Resources Report. The archeological consultant shall submit a Draft Final Archeological Resources Report (FARR) to the ERO that evaluates the historical of any discovered archeological resource and describes the archeological and historical research methods employed in the archeological testing/monitoring/data recovery program(s) undertaken. Information that may put at risk any archeological resource shall be provided in a separate removable insert within the draft final report. Copies of the Draft FARR shall be sent to the ERO for review and approval.

 

Once approved by the ERO copies of the FARR shall be distributed as follows: California Archeological Site Survey Northwest Information Center (NWIC) shall receive one (1) copy and the ERO shall receive a copy of the transmittal of the FARR to the NWIC. Copies of the FARR shall be sent to the Agency. The Major Environmental Analysis division of the Planning Department shall receive three copies of the FARR along with copies of any formal site recordation forms (CA DPR 523 series) and/or documentation for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places/California Register of Historical Resources. In instances of high public interest or interpretive value, the ERO may require a different final report content, format, and distribution than that presented above.

 

Register of Historical Resources. In instances of high public interest or interpretive value, the ERO may require a different final report content, format, and distribution than that presented above.

Implementation of the measures listed above would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

 

 

Project Applicant, SFRA, Project Archaeologist

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Archaeologist

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Archaeologist

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Archaeologist

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ERO, Project Archaeologist

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Archaeologist

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Archaeologist, SFRA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Archaeologist, ERO, SFRA

 

 

Project Archaeologist, ERO, SFRA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Archaeologist, ERO, SFRA in consultation with the Corner of the City and County of San Francisco, Native American Heritage Commission, and Most Likely

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Archaeologist

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Archaeologist

Prior to preparation of the ATP &project soils disturbance (including demolition and excavation)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prior to preparation of the ATP &project soils disturbance (including demolition and excavation).  NAHC and Native American consultation prior to preparation of the ATP

 

 

 

Following completion of archaeological testing

 

 

 

 

 

Determination as data recovery requirement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Determination of activities to be archaeologically monitored

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

During project soils disturbing activities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On discovery of potentially CEQA significant archaeological deposit

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On completion of archaeological data recovery

 

 

Prior to Archaeological data recovery

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Upon identification of human remains

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Upon completion of FARR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submittal of approved FARR and site records to NWIC

 

SFRA, ERO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SFRA, ERO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SFRA, ERO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ERO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ERO, Project Archaeologist

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SFRA, Project Archaeologist

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SFRA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SFRA

 

 

 

 

SFRA, ERO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SFRA, ERO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SFRA, ERO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


SFRA, ERO

Sufficiently in advance of project for preparation & ERO review & approval of ATP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sufficiently in advance of project for preparation & ERO review & approval of ATP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prior to project construction demolition and remediation

 

 

 

 

 

Prior to project Construction, demolition and remediation and archaeological data recovery

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prior to project construction, demolition, remediation and archaeological data recovery

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

During project soil disturbing activities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

During project demolition, excavation, construction, remediation activities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Upon completion of archaeological monitoring program

 

 

Prior to archaeological data recovery

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On discovery of human remains

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Upon completion of Draft FARR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Completion of archaeological field, analysis, interpretation, recordation program

Mitigation 10-3:  Disturbance of Unknown Archaeological Resources.  The project applicant shall consult with the Major Environmental Analysis archaeologist at the San Francisco Planning Department prior to any development activity on the Schlage Lock site (i.e., Redevelopment Zone 1) and, at the direction of the Planning Department, shall undertake the following measures to avoid any potentially significant adverse impact on possible buried or submerged cultural resources.

                                                           

The project sponsor shall retain the services of a qualified archaeological consultant having expertise in California prehistoric and urban historical archaeology.  The archaeological consultant shall undertake an archaeological monitoring program (AMP), and if triggered by the AMP, an archaeological data recovery program (ADRP), human remains treatment program, and/or final archaeological resources report (FARR), as specified under this mitigation heading in chapter 10 of this EIR and detailed in Mitigation 10-2. The archaeological consultants work shall be conducted in accordance with this measure at the direction of the City's Environmental Review Officer (ERO).

 

Implementation of this measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

 

Project Applicant

Prior to demolition and grading permits; ongoing implementation as required by measure

SFRA, Planning Department

SFRA to require prior to demolition as part of Project level plan review; ongoing monitoring and consultation as required by measure

Mitigation 10-4:  Accidental Discovery.  For individual development projects in Redevelopment Zone 2, the project applicant shall consult with the Major Environmental Analysis archaeologist at the San Francisco Planning Department prior to any development activity and, at the direction of the Planning Department, shall undertake the following measures to avoid any potentially significant adverse impact on possible buried or submerged cultural resources.

 

The project sponsor shall distribute the San Francisco Planning Department archaeological resource "ALERT" sheet to the project prime contractor; to any project subcontractor (including demolition, excavation, grading, foundation, pile driving, etc., firms); and utilities firm involved in soils disturbing activities within the project site.  Prior to any soils disturbing activities being undertaken each contractor is responsible for ensuring that the "ALERT" sheet is circulated to all field personnel including, machine operators, field crew, pile drivers, supervisory personnel, etc.  The project sponsor shall provide the City’s Environmental Review Officer (ERO) with assigned affidavit from the responsible parties (prime contractor, subcontractors, and utilities firm) to the ERO confirming that all field personnel have received copies of the "ALERT" Sheet.

 

Should any indication of an archaeological resource be encountered during any soils disturbing activity of the project, the project Head Foreman and/or project sponsor shall immediately notify the ERO and shall immediately suspend any soils disturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery until the ERO has determined what additional measures should be undertaken. Notification shall also include designated members of the community as appropriate.

 

If the ERO determines that an archaeological resource may be present within the project site, the project sponsor shall retain the services of a qualified archaeological consultant.  The archaeological consultant shall advise the ERO as to whether the discovery is an archaeological resource, retains sufficient integrity, and is of potential scientific/historical/ cultural significance. If an archaeological resource is present, the archaeological consultant shall identify and evaluate the archaeological resource.  The archaeological consultant shall make a recommendation as to what action, if any, is warranted.  Based on this information, the ERO may require, if warranted, specific additional measures to be implemented by the project sponsor.

 

Measures might include:  preservation in situ (in place) of the archaeological resource; an archaeological monitoring program; or an archaeological testing program.  If an archaeological monitoring program or archaeological testing program is required, it shall be consistent with the City's Major Environmental Analysis (MEA) division guidelines for such programs.  The ERO may also require that the project sponsor immediately implement a site security program if the archaeological resource is at risk from vandalism, looting, or other damaging actions.

 

The project archaeological consultant shall submit a Final Archaeological Resources Report (FARR) to the ERO pursuant to the FARR content and distribution requirements described under this mitigation measure in chapter 10 of this EIR.

 

Implementation of this measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

 

Project Applicant

Prior to grading and demolition permits; ongoing implementation as required by measure

SFRA, Planning Department

Ongoing implementation as required by measure

Mitigation 10-5:  Disturbance of Paleontological Resources If any paleontological resources are encountered during site grading or other construction activities, all ground disturbances shall be halted until the services of a qualified paleontologist can be retained to identify and evaluate the resource(s) and, if necessary, recommend mitigation measures to document and prevent any significant adverse effects on the resource(s), in accordance with standard professional practice.  Implementation of this measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Applicant

If triggered by 10-2;10-3 or 10-4

SFRA

Ongoing implementation as required by measure

 

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

 

 

 

 

Mitigation 11-1:  Potential Impacts Due to Exposure to Existing Soil or Groundwater Contamination--Redevelopment Zone 2.   Each developer of a site in Redevelopment Zone 2 shall be required to comply with all applicable existing local-, state-, and federal-mandated site assessment, remediation, and disposal requirements for soil, surface water, and/or groundwater contamination.  In particular, these include the requirements of the City and County of San Francisco, RWQCB, and DTSC.  Previous subsections 11.2.2 (City of San Francisco Hazardous

Materials Regulations) and 11.2.3 (Environmental Site Assessment Procedures) herein summarize these requirements.  Compliance with these existing local-, state-, and federal-mandated site assessment, remediation, and disposal requirements would be accomplished through the following steps:

 

(a)  Soil Contamination.  In order to mitigate potential health hazards related to construction personnel or future occupant exposure to soil contamination, developers would complete the following steps for each site proposed for disturbance as part of a Project-facilitated construction activity in Redevelopment Zone 2:

 

Step 1.      Investigate the site to determine whether it has a record of hazardous material discharge (Phase I environmental site assessment), and if so, characterize the site according to the nature and extent of soil contamination that is present (Phase 2) before development activities proceed at that site.

 

Step 2.     Based on the proposed activities associated with the future project proposed, determine the need for further investigation and/or remediation of the soils conditions on the contaminated site.  For example, if the location is slated for commercial land use, such as a retail center, the majority of the site will be paved and there will be little or no contact with contaminated soil Industrial clean-up levels would likely be applicable.  If the slated development activity could involve human contact with soils, such as may be the case with residential use, then Step 3 should be completed.  If no human contact is anticipated, then no further mitigation is necessary.

 

Step 3.     Should the Phase 2 investigation reveal high levels of hazardous materials in the site soils, mitigate health and safety risks according to City of San Francisco, RWQCB, and DTSC regulations.  This would include site-specific health and safety plans prepared prior to undertaking any building or utility construction. Also, ifbuildings are situated over soils that are significantly contaminated, undertake measures to either remove the chemicals or prevent contaminants from entering and collecting within the building.  If remediation of contaminated soil is infeasible, a deed restriction would be necessary to limit site use and eliminate unacceptable risks to health or the environment.

 

(b)  Surface or Groundwater Contamination.  In order to reduce potential health hazards due to construction personnel or future occupant exposure to surface water or groundwater contamination, developers would complete the following steps for each site proposed for disturbance as part of a Project-facilitated construction activity in Redevelopment Zone 2:

Step 1.      Investigate the site to determine whether it has a record of hazardous material discharge into surface or groundwater, and if so, characterize the site according to the nature and extent of contamination that is present before development activities proceed at that site.

 

Step 2.     Install drainage improvements in order to prevent transport and spreading of hazardous materials that may spill or accumulate on-site.                                                                     

Step 3.     If investigations indicate evidence of chemical/environmental hazards in site surface water and/or groundwater, then mitigation measures acceptable to the RWQCB and DTSC would be required to remediate the site prior to development activity.

 

Step 4.      Inform construction personnel of the proximity to recognized contaminated sites and advise them of health and safety procedures to prevent exposure to hazardous chemicals in surface water/groundwater.

                                               

Compliance by future, individual, site-specific developments in Redevelopment Zone 2 with established regulations (accomplished through the steps outlined above) would adequately assure that associated potential health and safety impacts due to exposure to existing soil and groundwater contamination would be less-than-significant.

 

 

Project Applicant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Applicant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Applicant

Application for development

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Applicant for Development

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Applicant for Development

DPH, DTSC, RWQCB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DPH, DTSC, RWQCB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DPH, DTSC,

RWQCB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RWQCB prior to site development; DPH and depending on the improvement DBI or DWP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RWQCB prior to site development; DPH and depending on the improvement DBI or DWP                                

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

      

 

 

 

Mitigation 12-1A:  Potential Water Quality Impact Due to Increased Stormwater Runoff.  To comply with anticipated SFPUC regulations regarding stormwater runoff from Redevelopment Zone 1, the developer(s) shall refine the individual development design(s) for Zone 1 as necessary to:  (1) provide retention storage facilities and/or detention treatment facilities as needed to ensure that at least 80 percent of total annual runoff either remains on-site or receives an approved level of water quality treatment before discharge into the combined sewer system; and (2) provide a minimum of 25 percent of the surface of setbacks to be pervious. Implementation of these measures would reduce the water quality impact associated with future development of Zone 1 to a less-than-significant level.

 

Mitigation 12-1B.  Stormwater design requirements similar to those described above for the Zone 1 development shall also be applied to individual infill developments in Zone 2 that meet the proposed SFPUC minimum size criteria.   Implementation of these measures would reduce the water quality impact associated with future development of these parcels to a less-than-significant level.

Project Applicant

Submit as part of subdivision improvement plans

DPW, DBI, SFPUC

Review as part of design and construction plans

Mitigation 12-2:  Increased Risk of Soil Erosion and Contaminant Spills During Project Remediation and Construction.  For future development within Zone 1, design requirements and implementation measures for minimizing Project-generated erosion and for controlling fuel/hazardous material spills would be set forth in the Zone 1 SWPPP, in accordance with SWRCB and RWQCB design standards.  During construction, the SFDPW would monitor implementation of the approved SWPPP.  This plan shall include, at a minimum, the following or similar actions:

  • Following demolition of existing improvements, stabilize areas not scheduled for immediate construction with planted vegetation or erosion control blankets;
  • Collect stormwater runoff into stable drainage channels from small drainage basins, to prevent the buildup of large, potentially erosive stormwater flows;
  • Direct runoff away from all areas disturbed by construction;
  • Use sediment ponds or siltation basins to trap eroded soils before runoff is discharged into on-site channels or the combined sewer system;
  • To the extent possible, schedule major site development work involving excavation and earthmoving activities during the dry season (May through September);
  • Develop and implement a program for the handling, storage, use, and disposal of fuels and hazardous materials.  The program should also include a contingency plan covering accidental hazardous material spills;
  • Restrict vehicle cleaning, fueling, and maintenance to designated areas for containment and treatment of runoff; and
  • After construction is completed, inspect all on-site drainage   facilities for accumulated sediment, and clear these facilities of debris and sediment as necessary.

 

Implementation of these measures would reduce the risk of soil erosions and contaminant spills during Project remediation and construction to a less-than-significant level.

 

DBI, SFPUC and or SFRA, and individual development applicants

Infrastructure plans with first major phase

SFPUC

Review as part of design and construction plans

 

NOISE

      

 

 

 

Mitigation 13-1:  Project-Facilitated Remediation-, Demolition-, and Construction-Period Noise.   Reduce redevelopment program-related individual project remediation-, demolition-, and construction-period noise impacts on nearby residences and businesses by incorporating conditions in project demolition and construction contract agreements that stipulate the following conventional noise abatement measures:

 

  •   Remediation and Construction Plans. For major noise generating remediation and construction activities, prepare detailed remediation and construction plans identifying schedules. The plans shall indentify a procedure for coordination with nearby noise
  •   Remediation and Construction Scheduling.  Ensure that noise generating remediation and construction activity is limited to between the hours of 7:00AM to 8:00PM, Monday through Friday, and noise levels generated by construction are prohibited on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays (San Francisco Municipal Code Section 2908)
  •   Remediation and Construction Equipment Noise Limits.  Limit all powered remediation and construction equipment to a noise level of 80 dBA or less when measured at a distance of 100 feet or an equivalent sound level when measured at some other convenient distance (San Francisco Municipal Code Section2907)
  •   Impact Tools and Equipment. Equip all impact tools and equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.  Equip all pavement breakers and jackhammers with acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment (San Francisco Municipal Code Section 2907)
  •   Equipment Locations. Locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a remediation or construction site.
  • Remediation and Construction Traffic.  Route all remediation and construction traffic to and from the sites via designated truck routes where possible.  Prohibit remediation- and construction-related heavy truck traffic in residential areas where feasible.
  •      Quiet Equipment Selection.  Use quiet equipment, particularly air compressors wherever possible.
  •      Temporary Barriers. Construct solid plywood fences around      remediation and construction sites adjacent to residences, operational businesses, or noise-sensitive land uses.
  •      Temporary Noise Blankets.  Temporary noise control   blanket barriers should be erected, if necessary, along building facades of construction sites.  This mitigation would only be necessary if conflict occurred which were irresolvable by proper scheduling.  (Noise control blanket barriers can be rented and quickly erected.)

 

Noise Disturbance Coordinator.  For Zone 1 remediation and larger individual construction projects, the City may choose to require project designation of a “Noise Disturbance Coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about remediation or construction noise.  The Disturbance Coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g. starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures to correct the problem.  Conspicuously post a telephone number for the Disturbance Coordinator at the remediation/construction schedule.  (The project sponsor should be responsible for designating a Noise Disturbance Coordinator, posting the phone number, and providing schedule notices.  The Noise Disturbance Coordinator would work directly with an assigned City staff member).

 

Implementation of these measures would reduce this intermittent, short-term, Project remediation- and construction period noise impact to a less-than significant level.

 

 

DBI, DPW and/or SFRA and individual development applicants

Provide information regarding compliance prior to construction

SFRA, DPW,  DBI

DPW/DBI to review information prior to prior to construction site permit.

Mitigation 13-2:  Project-Facilitated Groundborne Vibration Levels.    Prior to the development of habitable buildings within 110 feet of the centerline of the nearest railroad tracks, or within 55 feet of the light rail tracks, a site-specific vibration study shall be required demonstrating that ground borne vibrations associated with rail operations either (1) would not exceed the applicable FTA ground borne vibration impact assessment criteria (see Table 13.5 of this EIR), or (2) can be reduced to below the applicable FTA criteria thresholds through building design and construction measures (e.g., stiffened floors). Implementation of this measure would reduce this potential intermittent vibration impact to a less than significant level.

 

 

DBI, DPW and/or SFRA and Individual development applicants

Schematic design approval

SFRA, DPW, DBI

DPW/DBI to review information prior to issuance of construction site permit

Mitigation 13-3:  Potential Exposure of New, Project-Facilitated Noise-Sensitive Development to Ambient Noise Levels Exceeding Standards.  Site-specific noise studies consistent with the requirements of the State Building Code (SBC) shall be conducted for all new Project-facilitated residential uses within 75 feet of the Caltrain line and along the Bayshore Boulevard frontage to identify appropriate noise reduction measures to be included in project final design.  Each noise study must be submitted to and approved by the San Francisco Planning Department and/or the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency prior to City issuance of a residential building permit.  Identified noise reduction measures may include:

  • Site planning techniques to minimize noise in shared residential outdoor activity areas by locating such noise-sensitive areas behind buildings or in courtyards, or by orienting residential terraces to alleyways rather than streets, whenever possible;
  • Incorporation of an air circulation system in all affected units, which is satisfactory to the San Francisco local building official, so that windows can remain closed to maintain interior noise levels below 45 dBA Ldn; and
  • Incorporation of sound-rated windows and construction methods in residential units proposed along streets or the Caltrain line where noise levels would exceed 70 dB Ldn; and
  • Pre-Occupancy noise testing following a methodology satisfactory to the San Francisco Department of Health shall be completed prior to occupancy to demonstrate compliance with noise mitigation objectives.

 

Noise levels at multi-family residential property lines around Project-facilitated development should be maintained at an Leq not in excess of 60 dBA during the daytime hours and 50 dBA during nighttime hours (10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.), unless ambient noise levels are higher.  In those cases, the existing ambient noise level would be the noise level standard.

Individual development applicants noise level would be the noise level standard.

 

Implementation of these measures to the satisfaction of the San Francisco Planning Department and/or the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency would reduce potential Project related noise impacts on new residential uses to a less-than significant level.

 

Project Applicant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Applicant

Schematic design approval

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Schematic design approval

SFRA, Planning Department

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SFRA, Planning Department

Review in all design documents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Review in all design documents

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

      

 

 

 

Mitigation 15-1:  Solid Waste Diversion Impacts.  The City and/or Agency shall require that final architectural designs for individual developments permitted in the Project Area indicate adequate space in buildings to accommodate three-bin recycling containers, as detailed under this mitigation in section 15.3 (Solid Waste Disposal/Recycling) of this EIR.  The City shall ensure that these provisions are included in Project-facilitated building construction prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.  Implementation of this measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

 

Department of the Environment and/or SFRA and individual development applicants

Each development or schematic design application

Department of the Environment

Review within each design document


 VISITACION VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

IMPROVEMENT MEASURES

 

 

Improvement Measures

Improvement Responsibility

Improvement Schedule

Monitoring

Responsibility

Monitoring Actions/ Schedule

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

 

 

 

 

Improvement Measure for Impacts 8-1 and 8-9

Add bus signal prioritization for all signal improvements along Bayshore Boulevard to improve transit and traffic flows.

 

MTA

Second phase of development

MTA

 

Improvement Measure for Impacts 8-1

Bayshore Boulevard/Visitacion:  The Agency will study the possibility of restriping the existing Visitacion Avenue connection to the west side of Bayshore Boulevard (now two travel lanes—one eastbound and one westbound) to create three lanes—one shared left through eastbound lane, one exclusive right-turn eastbound lane, and one westbound through lane.  There are secondary impacts on traffic and bus operation associated with these striping changes.  Implementation of this improvement measure is contingent upon future bus operations and parking demand.

SFRA

Second phase of development

MTA

 

Improvement Measure for Impacts 8-1

Bayshore Boulevard/Sunnydale:  The Agency will study the possibility of restriping the existing Sunnydale Avenue connection to the west side of Bayshore Boulevard (now two travel lanes—one eastbound and one westbound) to create three lanes—one shared left through eastbound lane, one exclusive right-turn eastbound lane, and one westbound through lane.  There are secondary impacts on traffic and bus operation associated with these striping changes.  Implementation of this improvement measure is contingent upon future bus operations and parking demand.

SFRA

Second phase of development

MTA

 

Improvement Measure for Impacts 8-1A and 8-9

Study shared use of LRV lane by buses to alleviate transit and traffic conflicts and improve anticipated delays for bus routes.

 

MTA

Second phase of development

MTA

 

Improvement Measure for Impact 8-3 Queuing Impacts

Study new Brisbane roadway connections that will be developed south of the site to improve access and alleviate queuing congestion.

 

SFRA/MTA/City of  Brisbane

Second phase of development

SFRA,MTA

 

Improvement Measure for Impacts 8-1, 8-3 and 8-9

Study bus route configuration and bus stop relocations to minimize traffic and transit delays along Bayshore Boulevard.

 

MTA

First phase of development

MTA

 

Improvement Measure for Impact 8.8

Study transportation incentives to promote rail travel for Visitacion Valley residents, once Caltrain electrification takes place and Bayshore station receives more trains. 

MTA/Developer

First phase of development

Developer. MTA

Subject to Caltrain electrification schedule

Improvement Measure for Impact 8.8

Facilitate the construction of a temporary pathway to the Caltrain Station from Bayshore Boulevard.

SFRA/City of Brisbane

First phase of development

Developer, SFRA

 

Improvement Measure for Impact 8.8

The City will work with the Bi-County Study team and CalTrans to explore the utilization of HOV lanes and ramp meters in San Mateo to reduce SOV.

MTA, SFRA

First phase of development

MTA, SFRA

 

Improvement Measure for Pedestrian Safety Condition

In addition to the traffic calming measures described in the Design for Development, implement Bayshore Boulevard pedestrian safety measures, such as speed radar signs on Bayshore, enhanced crosswalk marking, additional signage and motorist education for the Visitacion Valley neighborhood.

MTA

First phase of development

MTA

 

 

 

 


 

 

RESOLUTION NO. 2-2009

 

 

 

APPROVING THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE VISITACION VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND MAKING FINDINGS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTIONS 33445 AND 33679; RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; AND SUBMITTING THE AGENCY’S RECOMMENDATION, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; VISITACION VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT SURVEY AREA

 

 

BASIS FOR RESOLUTION

 

  1. The Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco (“Agency”), the Planning Department (“Planning Department”), the Mayor’s Office, and other City Departments have been working on a proposed redevelopment plan that would create an approximately 46-acre Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Project Area (“Project Area”), consisting of the former Schlage Lock factory and surrounding industrial properties (“Schlage Lock Site”) and the neighborhood commercial corridors along Leland Avenue and Bayshore Boulevard.
  2. The plan would transform the vacant Schlage Lock Site into a new transit-oriented community, revitalize the commercial corridors along Leland Avenue and Bayshore Boulevard, provide new community facilities for the Visitacion Valley neighborhood and encourage infill development.
  3. On June 7, 2005, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors established the Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Survey Area (Resolution No. 424-05).
  4. On November 6, 2006, the San Francisco Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) approved the Visitacion Valley Preliminary Plan (Motion No. 17340).
  5. The Agency has prepared a proposed Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Plan for the Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Survey Area (“Redevelopment Plan”).
  6. The Redevelopment Plan is being proposed to meet the following community goals:  (1) Create a livable, mixed urban community that serves the diverse needs of the community and includes access to public resources and amenities; (2) Encourage, enhance, preserve, and promote the community and the City's long term environmental sustainability; (3) Create a pedestrian-oriented environment that encourages walking as the primary transportation mode within the Project Area; (4) Encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation by future area residents, workers, and visitors and support the development of the Caltrain Station as a major multi-modal transit facility; (5) Create well-designed open spaces that enhance the existing community and new development; (6) Develop new housing to help address the City's and the region's housing shortfall, and to support regional transit use; (7) Establish the Project Area and surrounding neighborhoods as a gateway to the City of San Francisco; and (8) Encourage private investment by eliminating blighting influences and correcting environmental deficiencies.
  7. Pursuant to Section 33445 of the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.), the Redevelopment Plan will provide for financial assistance to construct and install portions of public facilities in the Project Area, including but not limited to new streets and transit infrastructure, improvements to existing transportation facilities and streetscapes, new public parks, and a community center.
  8. Pursuant to Section 33352 of the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.), the Agency has prepared a Report on the Redevelopment Plan.  The environmental document prepared in conjunction with the consideration of this proposed Redevelopment Plan has been included as part of the Agency’s Report on the Redevelopment Plan.
  9. The environmental effects of the Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area have been analyzed in the environmental documents, which are described in Resolution No. 157-2008.  Copies of the environmental documents are on file with the Agency.
  10. The Agency held a public hearing on January 6, 2009, on adoption of the proposed Redevelopment Plan, notice of which was duly and regularly published in the San Francisco Chronicle, a newspaper of general circulation in the City and County of San Francisco (the “City”), once a week for four successive weeks beginning at least 30 days prior to the date of that hearing, and a copy of that notice and affidavit of publication are on file with the Agency.  After receiving public testimony, the Agency Commission continued the public hearing until February 3, 2009.
  11. The Agency mailed by first-class mail copies of the notice of public hearing and the statement regarding purchase of real property by any means authorized by law, including eminent domain, to the last known address of each assessee of land in the proposed Project Area as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the City.
  12. The Agency mailed by first-class mail copies of the notice of public hearing to all residential and business occupants in the proposed Project Area.
  13. The Agency mailed a notice of the public hearing to all addresses within the 94134 zip code.
  14. The Agency mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, copies of the notice of public hearing to the governing body of each taxing agency that receives taxes from property in the proposed Project Area.
  15. The Agency has provided an opportunity for all persons to be heard and has considered all evidence and testimony presented for or against any and all aspects of the proposed Redevelopment Plan.
  16. The Redevelopment Plan has been the subject of frequent discussion by the Visitacion Valley Citizens Advisory Committee (“CAC”) for the proposed Project Area over the past two and one half years.  The CAC unanimously endorsed the Redevelopment Plan on October 14, 2008.  The draft Redevelopment Plan was presented to the Agency Commission at a workshop on February 6, 2008 and at a public hearing on January 6, 2009.

 

  1.   At its meeting on December 18, 2008, the Planning Commission also certified the FEIR (Motion No. 17789).
  2. On December 18, 2008, the Planning Commission also determined, pursuant to Motion No. 17794, that the Redevelopment Plan was consistent with the San Francisco General Plan and recommended its adoption.

 

  1. The Agency Commission hereby finds that the Redevelopment Plan is part of the Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Program for purposes of compliance with CEQA.
  2. In Resolution No. 1-2009, adopted on February 3, 2009, the Agency Commission adopted findings that various actions related to the Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Program, including the Redevelopment Plan, were in compliance with CEQA.  Said findings are on file with the Secretary of the Agency and are incorporated herein by reference.  Said findings are in furtherance of the actions contemplated in this Resolution and are made part of this Resolution by reference herein.
  3. Staff finds and recommends that the Agency Commission adopt these findings required under the California Community Redevelopment Law and to submit these findings to the City Board of Supervisors.  These findings are explained in detail in the Report on the Redevelopment Plan, are incorporated herein by reference and include, but are not limited to the following:  (1) the estimated available total tax increment is $70 million, in constant Fiscal Year 2008/2009 dollars, after the deduction of pass-through payments to the taxing agencies and Agency administration costs; (2) the projected allocation of tax increment for the three key programs includes $35 million (one half of the total tax increment) for affordable housing, $17 million for economic development and $17 million for community enhancements; (3) no other reasonable means of major financing to implement redevelopment activities is available; and (4) the use of Agency funds for redevelopment activities will assist in the elimination of blighting conditions in the Project Area.

 

 

RESOLUTION

 

ACCORDINGLY IT IS RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco that:

 

  1. Resolution No. 1-2009, adopted by the Agency Commission on February 3, 2009, sets forth the Agency’s CEQA Findings for this action.
  2. The Agency Commission hereby adopts the proposed Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Plan, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopts the Redevelopment Plan.
  3. The Executive Director is hereby directed to submit a copy of this Resolution, including the proposed Redevelopment Plan, to the Board of Supervisors for its consideration in acting on the adoption of the proposed Redevelopment Plan, and its consideration in making the required findings pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Sections 33445 and 33679.

 

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

 

 

 

________________________

James B. Morales

Agency General Counsel

 

 


 

 

RESOLUTION NO. 3-2009

 

 

 

APPROVING THE REPORT ON THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE VISITACION VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF THE REPORT ON THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; VISITACION VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT SURVEY AREA

 

 

BASIS FOR RESOLUTION

 

  1. The Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco (“Agency”) proposes to adopt a Redevelopment Plan for the Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Project (“Redevelopment Plan”).
  2. The proposed Redevelopment Plan would create an approximately 46-acre Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Project Area (“Project Area”), consisting of the former Schlage Lock factory and surrounding industrial properties (“Schlage Lock Site”) and the neighborhood commercial corridors along Leland Avenue and Bayshore Boulevard.
  3. The Agency has prepared a Report on the Redevelopment Plan (“Report”) for the proposed Redevelopment Plan.  The Report conforms to the requirements of Section 33352 of the California Community Redevelopment Law.
  4. On December 16, 2008, after reviewing and considering the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report (the “FEIR”), Resolution No. 157-2008, the Agency Commission certified the FEIR for the Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Program as adequate, accurate, and objective and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.)(“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et seq.). At its meeting on December 18, 2008, the San Francisco Planning Commission also certified the FEIR (Motion No. 17789).
  5. The Agency Commission hereby finds that the Report is part of the Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Program for purposes of compliance with CEQA.
  6. In Resolution No. 1-2009, adopted on February 3, 2009, the Agency Commission adopted findings that various actions related to the Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Program were in compliance with CEQA.  Said findings are on file with the Secretary of the Agency and are incorporated herein by reference.  Said findings are in furtherance of the actions contemplated in this Resolution and are made part of this Resolution by reference herein.

RESOLUTION

 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco that:

 

  1. Resolution No. 1-2009, adopted by the Agency Commission on February 3, 2009, sets forth the Agency’s CEQA Findings for this action.
  2. The Agency Commission hereby adopts the Report on the Redevelopment Plan for the Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Plan.

 

  1. The Executive Director is hereby authorized to transmit the Report on the Redevelopment Plan for the Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Project to the Board of Supervisors in connection with its consideration of the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Project.

 

 

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

 

 

 

_________________________

James B. Morales

Agency General Counsel


 

 

RESOLUTION NO. 4-2009

 

 

 

APPROVING THE VISITACION VALLEY SCHLAGE LOCK DESIGN FOR DEVELOPMENT FOR THE VISITACION VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT; VISITACION VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT SURVEY AREA

 

 

BASIS FOR RESOLUTION

 

  1. On June 10, 2005, the Board of Supervisors endorsed the Schlage Lock Strategic Concept Plan (“Strategic Concept Plan”) and directed the Planning Department to utilize the Strategic Concept Plan for future planning documents (Resolution No. 425-05).
  2. On November 6, 2006, the San Francisco Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) approved the Visitacion Valley Preliminary Plan (Motion No. 17340).
  3. On February 3, 2009, the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco (“Agency”) approved and recommended for adoption a redevelopment plan for the Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Project (“Redevelopment Plan,” Resolution No. 2-2009).
  4. The proposed Redevelopment Plan would create an approximately 46-acre Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Project Area (“Project Area”), consisting of the former Schlage Lock factory and surrounding industrial properties (“Schlage Lock Site”) and the neighborhood commercial corridors along Leland Avenue and Bayshore Boulevard.  The Redevelopment Plan establishes Zone 1 over the Schlage Lock Site where the Agency shall approve future projects pursuant to  owner participation agreement(s), as authorized under Section 33380 of the California Community Redevelopment Law.
  5. The Redevelopment Plan addresses the following community goals:  (1) Create a livable, mixed urban community that serves the diverse needs of the community and includes access to public resources and amenities; (2) Encourage, enhance, preserve, and promote the community and the City's long term environmental sustainability; (3) Create a pedestrian-oriented environment that encourages walking as the primary transportation mode within the Project Area; (4) Encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation by future area residents, workers, and visitors and support the development of the Caltrain Station as a major multi-modal transit facility; (5) Create well-designed open spaces that enhance the existing community and new development;

     

    (6) Develop new housing to help address the City's and the region's housing shortfall, and to support regional transit use; (7) Establish the Project Area and surrounding neighborhoods as a gateway to the City of San Francisco; and (8) Encourage private investment by eliminating blighting influences and correcting environmental deficiencies.
  6. In connection with the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency and the Planning Department proposes to adopt the Visitacion Valley Schlage Lock Design for Development (“Design for Development”) for the Project Area, which provides an urban design framework plan and specific development controls and design guidelines for the Project Area.

 

  1.   The Redevelopment Plan establishes Goals and Objectives and basic land use standards for the Project Area.  The Design for Development provides legislated development requirements and specific design recommendations that apply to all developments within Zone 1 of the Project Area.

 

  1. The Agency shall utilize the Design for Development, along with the Redevelopment Plan in consideration of entitlements of future developments in Zone 1, and will follow the design review procedure described therein.
  2. The environmental effects of the Design for Development for the Project Area have been analyzed in the environmental documents, which are described in Resolution No. 157-2008.  Copies of the environmental documents are on file with the Agency.
  3. On December 16, 2008, after reviewing and considering the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”), Resolution No. 157-2008, the Agency Commission certified the FEIR for the Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Program as adequate, accurate, and objective and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.)(“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et seq.).  At its meeting on December 18, 2008, the Planning Commission also certified the FEIR (Motion No. 17789).
  4. The Agency Commission hereby finds that the Design for Development is part of the Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Program for purposes of compliance with CEQA.
  5. In Resolution No. 1-2009, adopted on February 3, 2009, the Agency Commission adopted findings that various actions related to the Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Program, including the Design for Development, were in compliance with CEQA.  Said findings are on file with the Secretary of the Agency and are incorporated herein by reference.  Said findings are in furtherance of the actions contemplated in this Resolution and are made part of this Resolution by reference herein.

  1.   The CAC unanimously endorsed the development requirements and design recommendations in the Design for Development on November 18, 2008.

 

  1. The draft Design for Development was presented to the Agency Commission at a workshop on February 6, 2008 and at its public hearing on January 6, 2009.

 

  1. On December 18, 2008, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the Design for Development (Motion No. 17795).

 

 

RESOLUTION

 

ACCORDINGLY IT IS RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco that:

 

  1. Resolution No. 1-2009, adopted by the Agency Commission on February 3, 2009, sets forth the Agency’s CEQA Findings for this action.
  2. The Agency Commission hereby adopts the Visitacion Valley Schlage Lock Design for Development for the Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Project is hereby approved, substantially in the form lodged with the Agency General Counsel, subject to a final adoption by the Board of Supervisors of an ordinance adopting the Redevelopment Plan.

 

 

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

 

 

 

_________________________

James B. Morales

Agency General Counsel


 

 

RESOLUTION NO. 5-2009

 

 

 

CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE RULES FOR PROPERTY OWNER PARTICIPATION, RELOCATION PLAN AND THE BUSINESS OCCUPANT RE-ENTRY POLICY FOR THE VISITACION VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT; VISITACION VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT SURVEY AREA

 

 

BASIS FOR RESOLUTION

 

  1. The Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco (the “Agency”) has prepared a proposed Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Plan for the Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Survey Area (“Redevelopment Plan”).
  2. The proposed Redevelopment Plan would create an approximately 46-acre Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Project Area (“Project Area”), consisting of the former Schlage Lock factory and surrounding industrial properties (“Schlage Lock Site”) and the neighborhood commercial corridors along Leland Avenue and Bayshore Boulevard.
  3. In connection with the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency proposes to adopt Rules for Property Owner Participation (“OPA Rules”), Relocation Plan and the Business Occupant Re-entry Policy (“Business Re-entry Policy”) for the Project Area.
  4. The purpose of the OPA Rules is to establish the terms and conditions under which owners of real property in the Project Area may participate in redevelopment by developing or improving their property in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan.
  5. Although the Agency does not anticipate that redevelopment activity under the amended Redevelopment Plan for the Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Project will result in any displacement of persons or businesses, the Agency is required by law to develop and adopt a Relocation Plan.  Pursuant to Section 33411 et seq. of the Community Redevelopment Law, the Agency has developed a Relocation Plan to govern the relocation of displaced persons and businesses, if any.
  6. The Business Re-entry Policy will establish a preference for the re-entry of businesses into the Project Area that were engaged in business but were displaced by Agency acquisition, lease or other displacing activity.
  7. On December 16, 2008, after reviewing and considering the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report (the “FEIR”), the Agency Commission adopted Resolution No. 157-2008, certifying the FEIR for the Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Program as adequate, accurate, and objective and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.)(“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et seq.).  At its meeting on December 18, 2008, the San Francisco Planning Commission also certified the FEIR (Motion No. 17789).
  8. The Agency Commission hereby finds that the proposed OPA Rules, Relocation Plan, and the Business Re-entry Policy are part of the Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Project for purposes of compliance with CEQA.
  9. In Resolution No. 1-2009, adopted on February 3, 2009, the Agency Commission adopted findings that various actions related to the Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Program were in compliance with CEQA.  Said findings are on file with the Secretary of the Agency and are incorporated herein by reference.  Said findings are in furtherance of the actions contemplated in this Resolution and are made part of this Resolution by reference herein.

 

 

RESOLUTION

 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco that:

 

  1. Resolution No. 1-2009, adopted by the Agency Commission on February 3, 2009, sets forth the Agency’s CEQA Findings for this action.
  2. The Agency Commission hereby approves the Rules for Property Owner Participation, the Relocation Plan, and the Business Occupant Re-Entry Policy for the Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Project Area, substantially in the form lodged with the Agency General Counsel, subject to a final adoption by the Board of Supervisors of an ordinance adopting the Redevelopment Plan with such changes as do not materially increase the burdens and responsibilities of the Agency.

 

 

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

 

 

 

_________________________

James B. Morales

Agency General Counsel


 

 

RESOLUTION NO. 6-2009

 

 

 

APPROVING THE PROPOSED VISITACION VALLEY COOPERATION

AND DELEGATION AGREEMENT FOR THE VISITACION VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA; AND DELEGATING TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THE AUTHORITY TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE, AT THE REQUEST OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT,

A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING CERTAIN

PRE-DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE DEMOLITION PERMIT FOR THE SCHLAGE LOCK SITE;

VISITACION VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT SURVEY AREA

 

 

BASIS FOR RESOLUTION

 

  1. The Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco (“Agency”), the Planning Department (“Planning Department”), the Mayor’s Office, and other City Departments have been working on a plan to transform the vacant Schlage Lock Site into a new transit-oriented community, support revitalization of the commercial corridors along Leland Avenue and Bayshore Boulevard, provide new community facilities for the Visitacion Valley neighborhood, and encourage infill development, via the proposed Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Program.
  2. On June 7, 2005, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors established the Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Survey Area and endorsed the Schlage Lock Strategic Concept Plan (“Strategic Concept Plan”) directing all City Departments to utilize the Strategic Concept Plan for future planning efforts (Resolution No. 425-05).
  3. On November 6, 2006, the San Francisco Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) approved the Visitacion Valley Preliminary Plan (Motion No. 17340).
  4. One February 3, 2009, the Agency approved and recommended for adoption a redevelopment plan for the Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Project (“Redevelopment Plan,” Resolution No. 2-2009).
  5. The proposed Redevelopment Plan would create an approximately 46-acre Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Project Area (“Project Area”), consisting of the former Schlage Lock factory and surrounding industrial properties (“Schlage Lock Site”) and the neighborhood commercial corridors along Leland Avenue and Bayshore Boulevard.
  6. The Redevelopment Plan establishes Zone 1 over the Schlage Lock Site where the Agency shall facilitate future redevelopment through entitlement procedures in accordance with owner participation agreement(s).
  7. The Redevelopment Plan establishes Zone 2 over the neighborhood commercial corridors along Leland Avenue and Bayshore Boulevard where the Planning Department shall facilitate future redevelopment through entitlement procedures in accordance with the San Francisco Planning Code.
  8. In connection with the adoption of the Project Area, the Agency and the Planning Department adopted the Visitacion Valley Schlage Lock Design for Development (“Design for Development”) for the Project Area (Resolution No. 3-2009 and Motion No. 17795, respectively) which, building off the Strategic Concept Plan, provides an urban design framework plan and specific development controls and design guidelines for the Project Area.

 

  1. The Agency and the Planning Department wish to enter into an Cooperation and Delegation Agreement (“Cooperation and Delegation Agreement”) to facilitate development of the Project Area, to provide a working agreement between the Planning Department and the Agency in administering the process for control and approval of entitlements, and all other applicable land use, development, construction, improvement, infrastructure, occupancy and use requirements and in establishing the policies and procedures relating to such approvals, and community review of such approvals, all as more particularly set forth therein.
  2. The Cooperation and Delegation Agreement is necessary to establish general responsibilities for the Planning Department and the Agency regarding review and approval of specific project development proposals within the Project Area.
  3. The Cooperation and Delegation Agreement establishes a process within which the Planning Department and Agency staff shall work cooperatively to coordinate review and development within both Zone 1 and Zone 2 of the Project Area and to facilitate approval of projects submitted for review.
  4. By adopting the Design for Development document, with its required site plan, urban design framework, development controls and design guidelines, the Agency and Planning Commissions have provided a shared set of regulations to facilitate the future approval of land use and development permits which meet the requirements of that document.
  5. The Agency shall achieve high quality design for the Project Area, and particularly the Schlage Lock Site through the Cooperation and Delegation Agreement.
  6. The environmental effects of the proposed Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Program (“Project”), including the Redevelopment Plan and Design for Development for the Project Area, have been analyzed in the environmental documents, which are described in Resolution No. 157-2008.  Copies of the environmental documents are on file with the Agency.

  1.   At its meeting on December 18, 2008, the Planning Commission also certified the FEIR (Motion No. 17789).
  2. The Agency Commission hereby finds that the Cooperation and Delegation Agreement is part of the Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Program for purposes of compliance with CEQA.
  3. In Resolution No. 1-2009, adopted on February 3, 2009, the Agency Commission adopted findings that various actions related to the Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Program were in compliance with CEQA.  Said findings are on file with the Secretary of the Agency and are incorporated herein by reference.  Said findings are in furtherance of the actions contemplated in this Resolution and are made part of this Resolution by reference herein.
  4. On November 18, 2008, the Visitacion Valley Citizens Advisory Committee  unanimously endorsed the proposed Cooperation and Delegation Agreement.

 

  1.   The purpose of the MOU is provide assurances to the Agency that the appropriate entities fulfill their obligations on these issues.

 

  1.   Nothing in this Resolution, however, is intended to limit the authority of the Executive Director to decide, in his sole discretion, whether the Agency should enter into a MOU or whether the Agency Commission should ultimately review and approve the MOU.

 

 


RESOLUTION

 

ACCORDINGLY IT IS RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco that:

 

  1. Resolution No. 1-2009, adopted by the Agency Commission on February 3, 2009, sets forth the Agency’s CEQA Findings for this action.
  2. The Agency Commission hereby approves the proposed Cooperation and Delegation Agreement in furtherance of the implementation of the Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Plan.
  3. The Executive Director is hereby authorized to execute the Cooperation and Delegation Agreement in the name and on behalf of this Agency Commission,  substantially in the form of agreement presented to the Agency Commission.
  4. The Executive Director is hereby authorized to negotiate and execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the Owner, prior to the Planning Department’s issuance of any demolition permit related to the Schlage Lock Site, addressing the issues raised in the Planning Department’s letter dated December 1, 2008.

 

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

 

 

 

_________________________

James B. Morales

Agency General Counsel


 

 

 

 

RESOLUTION NO. 7-2009

 

 

 

COMMENDING THE VISITACION VALLEY CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) AND EXPRESSING THE INTENTION OF THE AGENCY TO CONSULT WITH THE CAC ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE VISITACION VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN; VISITACION VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT SURVEY AREA

 

 

BASIS FOR RESOLUTION

 

  1. The Visitacion Valley Citizens Advisory Committee (“CAC”) was established by the Mayor of San Francisco in 2006 to serve as an advisory body to the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco (“Agency”) in the planning of the Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Project Area (“Project Area”).

 

  1. The CAC has worked diligently over the past two and one half years with the Agency and has contributed substantially to the planning of the Project Area, and the Visitacion Valley / Schlage Lock Design for Development (“Design for Development”).

 

  1. The Agency has adopted a Redevelopment Plan for the Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Project (“Redevelopment Plan”, Resolution No. 2-2009) and approved the Design for Development (Resolution No. 3-2009).
  2. The proposed Redevelopment Plan would create an approximately 46-acre Project Area, consisting of the former Schlage Lock factory and surrounding industrial properties (“Schlage Lock Site”) and the neighborhood commercial corridors along Leland Avenue and Bayshore Boulevard.  The Redevelopment Plan establishes Zone 1 over the Schlage Lock Site where the Agency shall facilitate future redevelopment through entitlement procedures in accordance with Owner Participation Agreement(s).
  3. The Agency shall utilize the Design for Development in the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan, especially the approval of future developments in Zone 1, and will follow the design review procedure described therein.
  4. The Agency will consult with the CAC regarding the implementation of the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Plan, upon adoption by the Board of Supervisors.
  5. The actions related to the CAC herein are administrative activities of the Agency that do not constitute a Project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).

 

 

RESOLUTION

 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco that the Agency extends to the members of the Visitacion Valley Citizens Advisory Committee (“CAC”) its commendation, gratitude and deep appreciation for their efforts in the planning of the Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Project Area, and

 

IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Agency intends to continue to consult with the CAC in its advisory capacity on the implementation of the Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Plan.

 

 

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

 

 

 

_________________________

James B. Morales

Agency General Counsel

 

 

HPS Implementation 2008-2012 (PDF)