HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal EIR Terrabay Phase II & III 01-01-1999
Final
SuppJem~ntal
.Environmental impact Report
TERRABA Y
PHASE 1/ AND III
. Precise Plan Approval - Phase il
· Specific Plan Amendment - Phasgll and 11/
.'Vasttng Tentative Subdivisicn Ma~ Approval
. TelTlibay Specific Plan District Amendment
· Development Agreeml3nt Amendment
u, CC&R Approval
. Gtading Pemlit issuance
COMMENTS
AND
RESPONSES
CITY O,r:: SOUTH SAN FRANC:SCO
January 1999
,,'
',.:
L::~7IiOCOMMENTSANDRESPONSES
7.1
'C<TABLE 'OF CONTENTS
"l:.....:,'.Jl::
. - - '
- ,. -. - . - ., .'"~ .
.. -"~'.-
.,'. '.J" . _~_-., .'_' .....~ ..-..... ...'1:.-", .,....
7 .2 PERSONS COMMENTING
.7.3 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Master Response 7.3-1 Analysis ofPrgject ~ponsor~s Mitigation Development
Alternative ", ' ,,' , ,
Master Response 7.3-2 New Alternative, Project Description, Recirculation
Master Response 7.3-3 Application of the National Historic Preservation Act
Master Response 7.3-4 CEQA 'andCalifomia1Registei:of HistoikResources
Master Response 7.3-5 Relationship Between CA-SMa-40and CA-SMA';'92
Master Response 7.3-6 Native American Burial Concerns
Master Response 7.3-7,' Cumulative Loss of Archaeological Resources
Master Response? .3.;;8:Wetlands
Master Response 7.3-9 Callippe Silverspot Butterfly
Master Response 7.3-10 Cumulative Impacts
Master Response 7.3-11 Project Merits
7A RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
'Written Comments
Govemoi'~ Office of Planning 'and Researeh
James and Theresa Bums
Ann Smith
'Marjorie Colt
Del Schembari
The Willow I Grand Condominium Association
Nicole Cherok , ", _ " " " '.,
Sierra Club, San Francisco Bay Chapter Wildlife Committee (VandeIIl3lJ)
Joseph Vaca '
Jean Jenks
Shirley and Jefferson Graves
David Tomsovic
David Harlow, u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Timothy Cremin, Baker & McKenzie (applicant's attorney)
City of South San Francisco Public Works Department
Liliana VaIle
Robert Carrillo
Betsy Burr
Patrick Orozco
Foster.Ci~ Rod and Gun Club
-Fred-Rinrie
San Bruno Mountain Watch '(Schooley et iil)
San Bruno 'Mountain Watch (Batehelder) .,'
Mishwa Lee
Will Two Bears
Ken McIntire
1
2
4
5
26
29
31
34
34
36
37
39
41
42
43
Letter 00.1 '
Letter 1.1
Letter 2.1
Letter 3.1
Letter 4.1
Letter 5.1
, Letter 6.1
Letter 7.1
Letter 8.1
Letter 9.1
Letter 10.1
Letter 11.1
'Letter 12.1
Letter 13.1
Letter 14.1
Letter 15.1
Letter 16.1
Letter 17.1
Letter 18.1
Letter 19.1
Letter 20.1
Letter 21.1
Letter 21.6
Letter 22.1
Letter 23.1
Letter 24.1
73-1
'7.3~2
'7 .3~3
7.3-4
,,;City,ofSouth-San:Francisco.Historic Preservation Commission
City of Brisbane
-;California'~parttnent of Transportation (Caltrans)
''''Sieiri'Cl1ib:~ioina Prieta Chapter, (Bott)
San Bruno Mounta4l,W~h~(I:a,:,gj1Je} ::,:: "
'Pajaro Valley Ohlone Indian Council and San Bruno Mountain Watch (Miller)
Susan Vigil
Michelle Brewer
Jan Pont '. ", "
DanShattuc, ".',., ."..0
Sait!Gregori6 EnvirOnmental Resource'Center)
Sylvia,~gofY
Ora/.Comments
Dennis, Breen (projectsponsor)(alsosee'Letter 13)
Dan Shattuc,{alsoseeLetter34)
Betsy Burr (also see Letter!?).,
David Schooley, San Bruno Mountain Watch (also :seeLetter21)
Julia Bott, Loma Prieta Chapter, Sierra Club (also ,.see Letter 28)
Perry Matlock
Mary Thompson
Patrick Orozco, Pajaro Valley Dione Indian Council (statement read by
Speaker 9)(also see Letter 18)
Lois Robin
Dana Dillworth, Bay Area Mountain Watch
Judy Talaugon,Califomia Indians for Cultural and EnvironmentaLProtection .
-Will Two Bears (see.also Letter 23) '. -'.'",,~ _'__, c
Celeste Langille, San Bruno Mountain Watch (see also Letter 29)
Robert Carrillo, Daly City (also see Letter 16)
Cathy'Manus,'Friends of San Bruno Mountain
Michelle Salmon
Leland Beham
David Tomsovic (also see ,Letter 11) ,
Jan Pont(also see Letter 33)
Gail Mallimson, San Bruno Mountain Watch
MishwaLee, San Francisco (also see Letter 22)
Michelle Brewer (also see Letter 32)
Heather Gilbert
David Schmidt
David Grace
Elliott Goliger
Albert Lannon, Friends of San Bruno Mountain
'Mark Batcholder
FredAndres, San Bruno Mountain Watch
Letter 25 .1
Letter 26.1
.Letter 27.1
Letter 28. 1
'Letter, 29. 1
Letter 30.1
Letter 31.1
Letter 32.1
:Letter 33.1
Letter 34.1
Letter 35.1
Letter 36.1
Speaker 1
Speaker 2
Speaker 3
Speaker 4
Speaker 5
Speaker 6
Speaker 7
Speaker 8
Speaker 9
Speaker 10
Speaker 11
Speaker 12
Speaker 13
Speaker 14
Speaker 15
Speaker 16
Speaker 17
Speaker!8
Speaker 19
Speaker 20
Speaker21
Speaker 22
Speaker 23
Speaker 24
Speaker 25
Speaker 26
Speaker 27
Speaker 28
Speaker 29
;iLI5.T,OF EXHIBITS
Phase ill Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative " ,'. . . 7
Trip Generation Phase ill Site MitigationPlan.DevelopmentAltemative 10
.Net New Traffic on Local Roads due to Project and Phase ill Site 11
Mitigation Plan Development Alternative
Year 2000 AM & PM'Peak Hour Volumes (Alternative) 12
7.3-5
7.3-6
7.3-7
4A-6
7.3-8
7.3-9
4.4-8
7.3-10
7.3-11
7.3-12
7.3-13
7.3-14
Year 2010 AM & PM Peak Hour Volumes (Alternative)
AM & PM Peak Hour Increment (Alternative)
AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service (Alternative)
AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection. Levels of Service (Proposed Project)
AM and PM Peak Hour U.S. 101 Freeway Levels of Service (Altemative)
AM (and PM) Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Operation(Alternative)
,AM (and PM) Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Operation (Proposed Project)
Lane Striping (Alternative)
AM and PM Peak Hour Year 2010 Maximum Queue Lengths at Bayshore
Boulevard Intersections Adjacent to Phase ill Site (Altemative)
Mitigation Measures for Phase IT Project and Phase, ill Site Mitigation Plan
Development Alternative where Different than Required for Proposed
Project
Comparison of Estimated Phase ill Site Police Service Needs
Comparison of Estimated Employment and Student Generation
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
17
22
24
25
,'\: ,,/Z;;O.:COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
,:.~. ".;;, 'II . , ;.-, ~;.
The City of South San Franciscoprepared:andon July:l,;1998:circtilated'theTerrabayPhase'lI cind III
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (1998 DSEIR) on: ,.
, '. ,Amending the Terrabay',Specific ;Plan.relatedto 'thePhase;'llandillsites,approving a' Precise
:Plan for the PhaseJI site,: approving 'a 'Vesting' Tentative Subdivision Mapforthe'Phase"ll and ill
,'sites,;'amending'.theT errabay 'Spedfic:Plan,Distrlct< in ;;the"Municipal 'Code'(Zoriing ;'Oriiinance),
amending the Development Agreement, approving Covenants, Conditions,::andRestrictions, and
granting of grading pennits for the Phasell and ill sites (all requested by SunChase a.A.,
:'Califorriia:J,cJnc., 'sponsor of the Terrabay development project) and '
.. .Rebuilding:the existing southbound U.S. 101 IBayshoreoff.;.rampand building a new southbound
U.S. ,101on-ramp,Gointly ;knownasthe'~'hookramps''-)(sponsored'bythe City of South San
. Francisco)ant/
. Realigning a segment of Bayshore Boulevard (which the Cities of Brisbane and South San
Francisco will determine who will sponsor)
During the public review period from July 1 to August 14, 1998 and at the piiblic'lieanngheld by the
City of South San Francisco Planning Commission onJuly 23, 1998,the City solicited co~nts from
govemmentagenciesand the public. This document provides responses to cOmInents, as discussed
below (7.1 Introduction to the Comments and Responses).
This Comments and Responsesdocument"t()gether with the 19.98DSEIR,~onstitutethe Terrabay
Phase 11 and III Final Supplemental Envir()nmental1.in,pact 'Reporl(19.99 FSEIR).This Comments
ant/Responses document will be distributed to'CityofficiaIs and the . public before the:Planning
Commission and Council consider its adequacy and the Council certifies the 1999F,:SEIR asc~mplete.
Once certified, the City will republish the 1999 FSEIR as the Certified SEIR. The Certified SEIR will
consist of ,as a single . document ,combining, the 1998 DSEIR, revised jD response ,to comments, and
inserting this Comments andRespo~es,~~p~r~, ,,',' , . '
7.1/NTRODUCT/ONTO THE,COMMEN:TS,ANDJilESPONSES
The government agencies, organizations, and individuals who commented ;onilbed998 ,DSEIRare
listed below (7.2 Persons Commenting), followed by a discussion. of severalcommonissuesfrecurring
in written and oral comments received (7.3 Summary of Comments andResponses).:Theremainder
of this chapter presents and responds to all comments on the 1998 DSEIR and the ,project'.s'significant
environmental effects (7.4 Response to Comments). These include comments submitted to the City in
writing and made orally at the public hearing.
". . ,..- ,
. . ~" . ~ .
Some comments express conunentors'preferencesm 'relatioD:to":the ;,merits\of<theprojector the
alternatives studied in the 1998 DSEIR but do not raise ' questions ,abouLthe /I998.:DSEIR (analyses.
These comments are included in this chapter, although responses to project-relatedcomments:.are not
necessary in an EIR. However, inclusion in this document will make the commentors',views,available
to public officials who will make decisions about the project itself (7.3Summary?ojComments and
Responses, Master Response 7.3-11).
7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
TfltTllbtly Plulsell.nd HI F/1IIIISElR
'Original letters are reproduced ,in Section 7.4 Responseto,Comments,and comments are numbered,to
refer to responses. ,Responses to individual comments raising significant environmental, points are
;.;Y:':;\preserited;:iIIlmediately":~,\:each ZCOnDnent letter. Some responses refer commentors to other
comments or responses in this chapter (including to "master responses" 'presented in 7.3 Sum11Ulry of
:', Comments,tmd;Responses)or:to':1:?e, p~ ~f,theq~8DSEI~-(DSEIRl;age tX)) ,where.specifictopics
are discussed. " < ':>?:~i;:,;/:c.:Y.';:(,'\:;',;;,,(:::;;~,;:,:'j; '::";"" ":+~{:vo.',,,. .:""'>::,'.,,,;.:;;';,;.-.i ',.." ',",
!---
~In :some ,instances,texLchanges;resultm,g.5.fromcomments ,,and .responses ,will /beincorporatedin
.! ...J::Ju~ptllcrs;l.O .throu.gh.6.0,of.the, otiginal :l998:DSEIR.text':wben)~ptiblished .ini:the ,Certified SEIR, as
, . ,:indicated jp,the:responses, ,;.Revisions,are;:made:in ,strilEeeBt.mode 'to:show,8el~eBI5(HBeseBt) and
,insertions (underlined).
:7.2'PERSONS;COMMENTING
The City ,receivedcomments.on;the ,1998 DSEIRfrom:the ,following 'agencies, organizations, and
'individuals. Numbers "refer:to, the. order of written comments and, their ,responses' presented in section
7.4 Response to Comments. Speaker numbers refer to comments made at,thePlanning Cornmission
hearing on July 23, 1998 and the responses to those comments.
WRITTEN COMMENTS
.. . '. .:', 'd .. .c....... _,".
",U ..S.Fishan~;Wildlife Sf?J:Xice,(Letter12);
State Agencies
. . " ..','.. ." ,
':. 'c.:_ .,;-. . " . :,. .....,. ,",", "--',",: -', _ _ J..':l' '-,,: _'..,i';' .:, ~";' '.",,_. "'~;<" '..' ;"':-" -.__ .':....:. >:.:'n-.""::"'--'" .-__ ''-',:-:.:-:. '.
Governor' sOffice of l'lamiliigand Research (Letter 00)
"c:aliforniapePartn'1ent,of Transportation,(caItran~).(Letter 27)
-'. <:,........-. .. . --. .-u
';Local Agencies '
"'CityofBriSbane(Letter26) , ','..., ,',".,. , ," '.,'.""','"
. ';;CitYofSouth San 'Francisco 'HlstoricPreservation'Comniission ILetter25)
,City of South San Francisco Public Works Department (Letfer '14)
i'lndiViitiuBls,iindOrgan1Zatlor,s
. Michelle Brewer;(Letter' '32) .,'",
, iJames and Theresa 'Burns (Letter 1)
.iBetsy Burr (Letter,:l7), ..'..
,!Robert Carrillo (Letter d6)
.rNicole;Gherok '(Letter:6)" ',..
Marjorie Colt (Letter 3)
Timothy Cremin, Baker &McKenzie (applicant's attorney) (Letters 13a and'b)
: ,'Foster.City:Rod 'and'Gun'Cllib,(I:.etterI9) . ,
'i'Shirley,;aiJ.dJefferson ~Graves(Letter 10)
",:'SylviaGregory' (Letter '36),: .,'
.'Jean Jenks (L;etter9) ,',,' ::,:"
. !MishwaLee\(Letter22)
1(enMcIntire (Letter 24)
Patrick 'Orozco (Letter 18)
2
7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Tet78bIlY Phllse IllInd III Flnlll SEIR
'.".,; 'iPajaroWalley:'ohlonedndian,:Qouncil 'and.:San'Bnmo,MounurinW atch(Letter 30)
Jan Pont (Letter 33)
,Fred Rinne (Letter, 20)
",San Bruno,'MountainWatch..(Batchelder} (Letter21b)
San Bruno Mountain Watch (Langille) (Letter 29)
San Bruno Mountain Watch (Schooley'et al) (Letter 21a)
;San ;GregorioEnvironmental:Resource.Center(Letter35)
Del Schembari',(Letter 4)
,:DanShattuc;;~ttet::34} .,
;:Sierra Club.~Loma:;Prieta,Chapter,(Bo~)' {Letter.za)
,,:Sierra,Qub,San FranciscoB~y ChaptertwildlifeCommittee(Vandeman) . (Letter 7)
Ann Smith (Letter 2)
The Willow / Grand Condominium Association (Letter 5)
DavidIomsovi~(Letter J~)
Joseph Vaca (Letter 8)
Liliana Valle (Letter 15)
Susan'VAgil.(Letter3~
Will Two Bears (Letter 23)
PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS
Fred Andres, Sa,r{B~o Mouiikmw atch (Speaker 29)
Mark Batcholder (Speaker 28)
Leland Beham (Speaker 17)
, . Julia Bott, Lorna, Prieta Chaptef, Sierra, Club.(Speaker 5)(alsoseeLetter 28)
'DennisBreen ($pe8ker 1)(31So see Lener,13), ."""".
Michelle Brewer (Speaker 22)(also see Letter 32)
Betsy Burr(Speaker 3)(also see Letter 17) :" ", '.,.,.' '.'. '.'. ,"
Robert Carrillo, Daly City (Speaker 14)(also see Letter 16)
:Dana Dillworth, B~)' Area Mo.untainWatch,(SpeakerlO)
'Heather Gilbert: (Speaker 23) " ,,'.,. '
Elliott Goliger (Speaker 26)
David Grace (Speaker 25) ,,' .", ^ ,'. '.', .., ;"'."" ".':,, ,
Celeste Langille, S3Ii BrunoMountain W8tcb (Speaker 13)(see also Letter 29)
Albert LanIl,on, Friends of San Bruno Mountain. (~peaker 27)
Mishwa Lee,~~an.Francisco(~peaker 21)(C1lso see Letter 22)
Gail MallimsoIl,'SanBnmo 'Mo1llltainW atch(Speaker 20)
CathyManus,Friends ofSanBrunoMountain(~peaker,15)
Perry Matlock (Speaker 6)' " "
Patrick Orozco, ~aj~ V a11~y, Olone Indian Council (Speaker 8,statement,read l~y Speaker 9)(also see
'Letter18),' '., ....
JanPont{Speaker 19)(also see Letter 33)
Lois Robin (Speaker 9)
Michelle Salmon (Speaker 16)
David Schmidt (Speaker 24)
David Schooley, San Bruno Mountain Watch (Speaker 4)(also see Letter 21)
:Dan Shattuc (Speaker 2)(also see Letter 34)
Judy Talaugon, California Indians for Cultural and Environmental Protection (Speaker 11)
Mary Thompson (Speaker 7)
David Tomsovic (Speaker 18)(alsosee Letter 11)
Will Two Bears (Speaker 12)(see also Letter 23)
3
7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
"Te,.,."blly Phll8flll and III Final SElR
'i,7.3:SUMMARY;OF'COMMENTS,i"ND'RESPONSES
1"'--
,
The SEIR, analyzes 'several diverse and, complex issues,and. as. ~ result,J:nuiriber:Ofqu~Stions,and
comments were made on the 1998 DSElR.The'moreccimmon:ma..jot-comments;involve the_following
main issues:
. The applicant's submittal, duringthepublic'reView'period .(after pliblication6f th6q998 DSEIR),
of an alternative development concept ,for the PhaseID site, 'proposed cto-mitigateimpacts
identified in the draft report (Master Response 7.3-.1). Related to this issueiarecomments on the
adequacy of the ,1998 DSEIRprojectdescription: in Viewrifrthis 'perceived cchangeand qliestions
about'the:needto':recircti.lateitbe:'EIRlfor.addition81 ptiblicreView:arid 'comment '(Master
Response 7.3-2).
. The applicability of Federal statutes, including those on preservation 'of historic resources, to the
project and Phase ill site archaeological resources (Master Response 7.3-3). '
. Whether or not the EIR should analyze the site as an historic resource under 'CEQA and its
eligibility for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources {Master Response
7.3-4).
. The relationship between CA-SMa-40 and CA-SMa-9.2 (Master Response 7.3-5).
'. Native American burial concerns (Master Response 7.3-6).
. The effectiveness Of ~1998;DSEIRrnitigat:ionm:kures:forthe'Phase;:m si~inview of the historic
cumulative loss of archaeological resources throughout the Bay Area (Master Response ,7..3-7).
. The loss of wetlands (Master. Response 7.3-.8).
.
0-. . _.. . -.. .' .. ....... .....'
Impacts on the Callippe Silverspot butterfly' (mui larvlilh'ostplant) in reJitiori,to' the San Bruno
MountainHabitat Conservation Plan (HCP) (Master Response 7.3.;.9). '
'.
Cumulative effects" o~,j:rr~~tementing the.project (Maste~l}~f~o..ns~Z.3,:'l 0).
In ,addition to these issues related totbeenVltOIlmental irnpa.ctS:'df theI)f()jectcovererl by the 1998
SEIRand the adequacy of the 1998 DSElR:inaddressing '~e~~ycomme~torsexpressed their
overall views about the site in general and ,proposed development there inpalticularand I or
recommended specific City actions when considering the projectitself{MasterResponse 7.3-11).
These issues are-discussed · below in response to ,specific comments raised :by individual writers and
speakers (and to reduce ,repetitious responses to those comments by referring ,readers to these
discussions) .
4
7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
,Terrabay Ph..e II and III F/IUI/ SEIR
,MASTER RESPONSE 7.3-1
,ANAL YSIS OFPRCJ.!ECT:SPQNSOR'S,I4ITIGATJONPLANDEVELOP.MENTALTERNA TIVE
~,;';,'- "',';:"', ;\..~,."
~: '~~.-~ -;~:..,;:: ~ --_.-'~- ::.~'- -;-
,.
.' . '., -'," ->~: ".,~;". ..;>......- '.~.;"',' ..,.';--." ,':)-:';';~. ,,~~_\ " .;:; ':>' ........:., -:-:~;~;~ ":" \-::-;:::~ ~'~;'j.. -.(;i :'- :':,f .:-.y. \<.;' <>'( ;'.>:-'~'~.,y.t;.!~;f~- -J;~'~':'.:Uf;~-!.rt.....~.<" .~_~.:
'MaSierRe,rponse7.3.;il 'aescn"besthe ,prQjeci S,ponsor'sClev~loj)ment;con~tJQ:t:.the Phase ill site and
assesses the envifonmentaI 'consequences of implementing'thedeveIgpment:concept:. ,As discussed in
Master .Response'7.3-2, . for the ,purposes ofthe'SEIR,thisdevelopment concept, constitutes an
alternative to the 'project as. proposed and ,~,referred,toas the.P~eI11 ~iteMitigarion Plan
'Devel~pment Alternative."" .., ,;.~:';","" , ' '
. ':";':.~~i ,<. ':it ','".." :--.'~' ~ '.
Description of Aftemative
Forithe 'pwposes'()fanalysis :,in 'this environmental document; 'the 'project sponsor's 'Phase III Site
Mitigation Plan DevelopmentAltemativeis'assumed to have the following features::}
.... ,"",; .. ~-.,.,~. ...-..
De,velopmentAresThe 'Phase,illsite'wouldconSist ofthree:proposed developmenfparcels (a total of
9 .6 acres), circulation, and 'open 'space 'on 'the remaining site area; "One development 'parcel (parcel
"A") would be located north of archaeological site (CA-SMa-40),andtwodevelopment parcels
(parcels Fand G) would be located south of CA-SMa-40 (see Exhibit 7.3-1).2
· Parcel A(4.9 acres) would be developed witl'laten-lb 12-story'bulIding (up to 250 feet high)
containing approximately 340,000 square feet of office space and a Jive';'level (50-foot high)
'parking garage containing 1,360p~kingsta1ls.J (Thepr()posed<pn:>ject analyzed in the 1998
Applicant's Conunentson TerrabayDraft Supp~l Env..ironme~tal Impact ReportforT.errabayProject Phase II and
III, Dated July /998-ApplicOnt's Proposed Mitigation Measures for Project Impacts, Tunothy Cremin, Baker &
McKenzie (project sponsor's attorney); August 5, 1998(Letter13a).
, ,
. ',.,',. , ,...~-~':-,-:~.i..--;,'_ ': -. _._~",..-:;'_.-,~;_,'..(,~. .'_ .", .;_, ", '. ;..~;:_'_.._ ,.;. ...~.
2 CurrentPropose'd M;.#galion pliui, BriariKaDgasFoulk(BKF. the projectsponsor's>~gineer),"Aqgust 6,1998.BKF's
'''Mitigation Plan", mapidentifies'ParcCls F. and,G which,gencr&,ly correspondtoPBrCelsFandGshown'on ,the pending
JanllllU' l5,1998Speqijic Plan maps and'Deccmber 1,J997 Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map.. Jiowever,the BKF
'~Mitigation Plan" does not designate theparcc1northofcA~SMa-40 which generallycorresponds:toproposed Specific
Plan Parcels A.BaJd D-E..The ,discussion,pe1()\V'refC?fSthe.P8!Celnorthof,~ CA.SMa-40. toas.Barcel A
3 Terra Bay Project Area Summary, Site PIan, and Pians"HOK;{projcct sponsor'sPhaseID.site architect), ,undated. These
" HOKdocuments,providcinfonnatlon in addition to the descti,ption,presentcd in Lelterld. ;That.additional information is
discussed furthcr in this footnote but is not described in the main text above as assumptions Jor the analyses conducted
for and presented in this environmental document The reason the HOK information is not used is thatit only addresses
,;Parcel A whereasLetur,J3 '8ddresses the entirC'Phase m'Site,.thuS'.8Isoprovidinias~ptionHor'Parce1 F and Parcel G.
, /In order forthc 1IDlIlysis. of the Plu:zse'l1/.Site'Mitigation.plan. DeveLOpment'Aliiiriativeto be lricaningfulfor City officials
:,andlhe public, it DlUSt'be consistent with othcr'PhaseID' site alternatives assessed m the '1998 DSEIR. "Moreovcr, Let1er
a3 indicates tbat the project sponsor would further adjust.the square:footagesof development proposed,sothat "overall
"trip generation of Phase ill [would]not,exceed the amount anal~ i~~eDS.EIR". ',':, '.
According to HOK, the Parcel A office building would be a ten-story (130-foot high) building containing approximately .
341,800 gross. square feet of office space, .andthefive-Ievel (50-foot hlgh)parkinggarage-would contain about 424,700
square feet rounded (in addition to the office space noted above) and provide .1 ;347 iparking stalls.
5
"7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
TefTllb.y Phllse lI.nd./U Rn./ SEIR
DSEIR anticipates development of 178,000 to 218,000 square feet of retail space, restaurant uses,
and two hotels on this parcel.) . . , '.
. . _":!' ."'.; _ ,~(.~?~~~~..~'!":"~~:i1:~:'{~~~~-:i:T"~~ .;.~;'J,~;-~
. :' _.. "., :~'." . ,,- ,". -, ,-.-.;.~ ,._.,~.._.joo-: _ ":-.,,_ ;~'~'~"-'" '. .....:_ '/"',_ ~." :."'" __ ~i;.. ~'. !"'-~': ~> -~.: ,t-,< ':.: ~: ,'i~,"':' _-<,,'--:,-,;r.; :'~ ':";:;..;",: -,:..,.~ ,.:::.~: ~;~-~!~'-.:: ~...~.~.'~." ;....f:.~. ..\....~..:;/ '( . <~. 4.~;:.,-,;.
. ';"Parcei"F (1~8:aCrei;rwoUld be 'designatedfoi~otel; :restaririiDt,'oroffice:iise ana sUffaceparking.
.' The amount. of develQPII1entwould be'.determinedb.Y .tl1~~P .gene~c:>~.)~~ :tl,:ae;~p?'sed use,
>S1ich that"the 'ovemIhripgenenwcm. 6{ Ph8S(; "ntlwoUId]'notexceed1he ,amo~' ~~YZed 'in the
. __:_ ! _ " -.' _ ' -~, -".".' '", ':-f_, :..'~"'{.":.:,., ":"" '. ~ "':" ,:. .:~. ~':. .'j~~",~-~-: -. .~. . ~.. .......,. '.", -':",: .,-;"_' ~.:'_'~ i . .. ._ -,' '.:' "', .,'-,' .~". - . ,: '. '; ..:.
u:':" DSEIK'.;4 'The.pr9jectsponsqr .cmicn~y,'antiqpate~'''llP to,fa] lQ,ooo-square Ioothjgh-quality,
" 'sit-down 'restaurant" .on this :parce1.',~anazyses jJresentea.. below, ,assume, a.-z,~tJO-s.q~re foot
:highqualityrestaUrant. '5 '('nie' proposedprojec( anlilyzedin,tbeA89cS~J.)SEIILanticipates
development of 30,000 to 35,000 square feet of, mixed.,.useretail,restaurant,or office use on
Parcel F.) ,
'. . Parcel G(2~9 . acres) .would ,be ,developed with a hotel, of up to .200 rooms ",in., a building up to 75
feet high and .with surface;parking. The ,amount of development similarly ,woUldbecdetennined
by trip generation .'such ,that the overall 'trip generation, of Phase m [would] not exceed the
amount,analy.zed in ,the,DSEIR". ,6. The,:analyses presented below ,assume, a d 5G-room.hotel. '(The
,:;proposed ;'projecLana.tyzed .in,the '1998,DSEIR.. anticipatesdevelqpment :ofa 130-40 200-room
,hoteLo.~ Parce!G~) '''',
CircuJationThe Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Developme;'tAltemative shows three site entrances
on BayshoreBoulevardbut no internal roadway. connection,betweenthenorthemand,southern parts of
, .' the J:'has'em site ,{as p~posed by the project): .
. OnehUrin'~igri~C;ri~~~ l"e~t ori'the n()rtl1ern end 'of ParcelA(~ithlc~~tly ,proposed
unsignalized right,.in / right-out driveway)
. One unsignalized secondary driveway on Parcel A connected to the parking garage
. One main signalized entrance / exit between Parcels F and G , (at the fully signalized entrance /
exit currently proposed for this location)
,. .., ~, ,-. ~,:~:_,,;,:, ..'. '.::-'f_'i~~';'.;.; "
The 1998 DSEIR's 2.3 Project Description did noi quantify the area devoted to parking on the Phase ill site, including a
possible parking garage. on Parcel C. The 1982 ElR and 1996 SElR did not quantify parkingstJUcture square footage and,
>thus; did not includethatamount'iij bUiIdingareas.jdei1tifiecl.paiicing P:ragesWeleprOposeo' explicitly for the Phase ill
"site by the 1982 development concepf(and.in the absence ofchlijJges to the Concept, implicitly in 1996). . Draft
Environmental '1",pactReprmforiheTerrtibay DevelopmentProject~EnvironmenW Impact Planning Corporation,
'August 1982: (1992iElR),page'aO, and DraffSupplementalEnvironmenriillmpact'Reporr for iheT errtihqj:;pecific Plan
and Development Agreement'ExtenSion,'Wagsmff and' Associates,January'1996 (1996'SEIR). ' .
: '4'Applicaizr'sCommenu on TeTrabay 'DTrift SiqJplementDl En'Vitonnle~11r1iP&t"ifePorJjor T ~lTabayPTpject Phase II and
, ,.<JII,;DatedrTUly 1998 :"1!'P~~'s :PTOPC1seiJMiti~anon M~rl!ffC1rJ7y)jec,tJ1!fI'acts~TImotlJy Crernin.tJP. cit.
. -.:.." '" : :; .:.:- '.' _'. .-- ':' ;_':. .:",;. :. _', J:', '. :-: ~":' .. '. :; - ,. -- _'- . " ,.. -,.. ..-:'. -', -- ..... ' :.' . .-'" .... - .. - , - . ", -. _
"'.~ '......., .:-: ,_ '. '.': ~ I -"~:_" ",;: ~.-:. ~ -.. '.' ': -;; :~'- ;', ::_':":4t ~ _-,' -':. _;~ . .....". J;:, .,,_,;-". ::-;::.i: ~' 1::::-.i '~':.','. :; .~. ..".-:- /,:,.,;,.;~' -;: ": '~,:<: ~', ,':~('-' "':_'
-S' .<TheEIRuafficen~,~tbe:~p~on~distrib~ti~n ~fP~i..'F;.and G:~g,theproject's
.,,' sponsor's'development concc;ptJlncHound.that outboundtJ;ips,durillg'theP...M.'peakbour -:the critical ,time and direction
- would .exceed. those_ofthe.Pb~ Wsi~!project. JlSj]Jroposed .apd.-therefore,wouldresult in significantlnew impacts. In
order to analyze the maximum amount~fofticewace.the sponsorisconsideriQg(340,OOO,squarefeetoIiParce1 A), the
,amount Of space assumCdon ParcclsF..andG ,wcrereduced, as noted in,italic.s.The subsection of MasterRe:spon:se 7.3-1
on ,Traffic further.discusses these assumptions and the reasons for using them.
6 ,Applicant'sCommenlson Terrabay DraftSupplement/llEnvironmenl/illmpilct Report forrerrabay Projedt Phase II and
Ill, Dated July 1998-. Applicant~s Proposed Mitigation 'MeasuresforProjectlmpacts,TImothyCremin,op. cit.
~ .>. :~-.- .. -.::-;'" . -- ..:- "~~.-'
6
,,'
"
.:~ . i..
t'
,/
. l
~ ;
I DB~.i
~~ ~ It ~~
~. :3 fa- I ~
-. en i5. 0
~ ~ ~ I ~
~ CD 'i ~ ~
- Q. !!
iii
::J
Q.
I
i
\.
cr
6-
~
t," .
,.,::,:"X..',',' ;"
a'~
II
Q"CD
l:I;::
i-
::tl
...::::trn
'.h. ce ~.
~!"Io::Jo
qa....ij:
ag::;
-:0:'"
::t-~
~!.
CD.......
7.0 COMMENTS AND'RESPONSES
TelT8blly Phssell and III Final SElR
Although' not'defined"by the -project ,spOnsor, 'this analysis 'assUIlles''iinplementationoftheaIternative
'...land 'use, and 'develgpment'concept on lhe 'Phase ill 'site and completion ofllie adjacent'transponation
'facilities:.a1so"coveredby "the:1998'SEIR: (hook 'ramps ::construction ., and . '~Baysho~'Boulevard
':Te3lignment).
An additional element of the alternative, besides these facilities, would be formulation, and long-term
-< implementation 'of :,~'~'1Tan~rnrtafin1)':8emand;management ltransportation '~s-ystemS ~management"
(TOM FTSM)progtam''designed to reduce. peak hour trip -generationofPhaseim site development by
',' ',~:13percent or1Dore;-~:mM'I~SM'programcomponents'are-discussedin;the'Tra.ffic analysis below.
.. _ ~~';~~;'," -~-,~-.:-._ -:<'t\~'>:~.'i-.:::'.'.<~,'...:,;,~~~-_...-,-":~-" ::._>__~:.:-;:J_;:'_"~~_:,:::""_::"':~.'~":.'::~;.")';:.;:" .~..,_;, . >.'.:i;'..' ',--.'.> -.
OtherFBBt1.I~s,.The P1ulse ~II Site Mitigation'PltJllDevelqpTJient.Alternative would;provide_a 3D-foot
.'bufferaround.CA~Ma-40!to', setdevelQpmentbackfrom. the archaeological ,site. The:site would be
left in its present; condition -.noJi1lwould'~jplaCed,mogra.din.g ,\youlg,occur, no ,utilities would be
installed,..andnojiarlC-would,be,createdon or across ,the site. The:pr9ject sponsor would own and be
responsible for.maintaining or managing CA-SMa-40fortwo years;after approval ofa precise plan for
the Phase IDsite and would provide. an_.offerofdedication .to the City .at,the.timeof final map or parcel
map approval.
AssessmentofAltemative
"'Except" forth~',tnil1icassessnknt, the '. following 'environmental :;'aniilyse~ ,of the' Phase III Site
Mitigation Plan Development Alternative examine the Phase m site alone- without consideration of
land use or development on the Phase II site - as with the alternatives evaluated in the 1998 DSEIR.
This was doneto.a1lowrea.ders toJud,ge"select..andcl:)Jnbine,~onc~pts.forfhe.two ,Terrabay,sitesinto a
'single, alternative themSelves"iather than assessing ,the numerous possible. combinations :in the DSEIR.
That approach ",()wd nof'demonstrateguantifiable ,differences among ,alternatives. which' would alter
: determinations ofsignificance'identifie,dm ,tp~ DSEIR.,)Ho~ever..forconsistenc;y with. the DSEIR
text, this, traffk:assessmen(assumestbe, proposed.projec((Precise.Plan),on~e -Phase'Usiteand the
"Phase. IIISiteM}tigatio7/1'lanDevelopmentAiiernative~,(Sepaiaie' traffic '8i1alysesof the Phase II site
aIoneand,the Phasem site~one,'~,.~posedb.:r,the,pi6ject, ~present~d mthe DSEIRappendix.)
>,.,..-:;,'.: <~. -."",i. '-~"'~"",-'-'. _'....>....._,' ....:'. ''':'_''-'. : ._;~I,.",:':." """';""":"':'~;_"""""':"" _""~':,.~.. ___,,,"_.:.'"
Also '. except-for'the-tI1ifficassessmen2' tbe'evaluation 'io(:ihePhase''111:Site},fitigation Plan
De'VelopmentAlternative 'is conducted at the same levelef d~t3il as affofdeathe analysis of 1998
DSEIRalternatives except 'for.the traffic assessment'which'is conducted atageater level of detail.
That level , of detail'comp~esthe results of implementing the, 3Iternatiye'Witb those ofir11plementing
'the,project aspr~~?,sed."':"+"': ',;;,;'" '.. '.'., "..:; .;. "'~,".'_':n .,
GeologYThePhase:lIrMitlg~onPlan'Development AltenUmvewouldsignificantlyreduce cuts into
the southern part of San 'Bruno 'Monntain.' 'This reduction woilld contribute to a siniilar reduction in
the potential adverse impacts (such as erosion I siltation and slope stability). This alternative also
would reduce the area needed for winterization, revegetation,' and rock slide potential, compared with
the project as proposed.
Hydrology The development concept for the Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative
assumes roughly the same mix of development as.proposed by the project, except that the extent of
development north of the archeological site would be reduced. The upslope extent of this alternative's
. grading zone also would be reduced. The main differencein.theleveI..of.hydroIQgicimpact would
occur in the avoidance of some seeped areas and partial avoidance of the willow thicket wetland areas
, within the delineated archeological site. ,ReducedgradiIlg along the westembonndaIy ,of. the Phase ill
site;31sowouldaddress 1998DSEIRhnpact 4.2-11. Thisis,becausetheradica1 change in ,the path of a
potential debris flow triggered along the;middledrainageway:.diversion ; (between the project' s
8
7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
: TelT8blly Phae II and II/Final SElR
proposed southern aDd northern debris basin locations) would be eliminated. Instead, the alternative's
.debris,basin .location :would.allowJor.a (:lirectentJ;y. of ,middleidrainagewliy',(iebris,flo!,nmaterial to the
',' _.,.:debris,basin,{that is,With!lut a tunl. enforced, Qy~g wall constmction).,.I'J:'his:altemative would be
',;an .iInpI'nvement: over ',the.,proposed,,:projec~, yet would "not ,offer <the, .'further.I:eduction ,in 'sensitive
habitat impacts (seeped areas) ,associated with the EnvironmentallySuperior'A.lternative (or
Environmentally Preferred Dev.ewpment Alternative).. '..," . ',""", " " " ',,'
, .. ~,~ .~:. ~ :.~:::~:;~. :.-I~'~.'~_ .~.::i!... .X:"-::..... -:-'~'['. ,-"'<: ~:::~ '7'/;;"~- :~.;,~~,:_:: >~:~, ",.:::,. ::'f, .;~..:.~"'~~ t;J:.:"., ,~-. .~': ,:y.;~.,..:~-;<;,~.: ;,.<:~~~: H ':~:'f::-~. ',~;,v\, r.,,:~, '-';,~. ..:~!...-.~:.~:t~~';;-:_,;,~' -~~. ~.!~- _ :-:.,
.:Blology.The .Phas~,lll-:.Site Mitjgation ;JUan l)evelopment,Alternative'would:reducedmpacts on
;biological.resources co~~,with,~,pr9jec;tas .currently ;proposed,.althoughsome loss 'of, sensitive
,resourcesstill,wouldcocC1l1'.-R(:Source~-protectedbythisa1temative,wouldinclude the large, population
of larval bost.plantfor the c~pesilve~potatthe, northernedge:ofthe Phase,em si~, parts of
'scattered' freshwater" marsh"wetlaIids,' -'aDd' .The 'sourCe '" of<the'acfive,.pereiuUai"Spfuig':]Ocated just
:south\Vest of,the"office)blillding' asmIned :'by,this'alternative.':?More'.'than1W~thifdsof the, willow
'thicket along'the.eastel1l,frontage6f ,the':site"wotlld'be 'elimimlted'ordiStmbed ,as a result of the
"BaysboreBoulevarilreaIignment,;aswoUld'the larger 'mas of Jresh\Vater -inarSb wefumds located
within the Iimits:of the Parcel A parking structure anddfficebriilding.Collectively,a minimum of
more :than one acre of wetlands aridjurisdictiorial' "other waters . of the 'U;S;"still'would be affected}:)y
development under this alternative which would represent a significant impact on wetland resources.
Most of the mitigation measures ,recommended in the 1998 DSElRibiology" analysis would be
required for this alternative. Mea.sure,sinclude,those recommended to address impactsonvegetation
and sensitive wildlife habitat, JandscClpe compatibility, effects on callippe silve~ofbutteifly, and loss
';,ofeXis~g \yetland, ~~urces~" ,C" . ".' '. ". <" "','
;:Tmtlc:'OO:'site :cirduiation"impaCtS..of'impremeIltirlgthe'PiUl:/elI1.Sit~~itrgation'PIan 'tJ~elopment
,Alternative'~eIe~yzedin coJiilijnation '~tll:~ep~()1>osea "Phas~'nre~idential,pt;oj~:7:0verall,
impacts of the 1!lylseJI! Site '~i~gation Plan Develqpme1it :;4lte~e.~oli1d be th~ '~aIDf? or :less at all
locations previouSly identified .1lS recei~g, sigriificantimJ?ac~fro~:~the.],r9Ject,~,proposed.., ,Revised
~actsandm1tigation~~~:are'listetlbclo\V ..:Nso":restriction~. to,widening,the()yster Point
,Boulevard :freewajov~Ipass ~~valuated-in re,sponse to cOmments. on fhe'19S}8 DSElR -:-neeessitated
revisions to mitigation; nieasuresicIentified for the Baysbore TSister Cities I Oyster point! Airport
Boulevard intersection in the ~SEIR .for ,the,prQposed prQject: ,Mitigation needs for the Phase III Site
MitigationPlan,DeveltjPment Alterruitiv~ at this location,hav~been;evaluatedin the.context of the
,reVisei:l IDitigation measures for -the,pIQjeci:l'inally ,a. more detailed ,:vehicle storage .analyses has been
,conducted for thetrafficJlow~t\Veen, intersections .aIo~g Bayshore Boulevard ,adjacent ,to ,the Phase
'ill site for'the project and:Phase' III Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative. . Results for the
project are contained in the DSEIR while results for the Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Development
Alternative (and a cOIDparison to ,projectiD;Jpacts} are ,presented in .this,analysis. :Sa1ient,~pectsof the
,,;project,and alternativ~.~ summarized and compare~on the,follo~g page:.
, '
. - -
. . .-'. .
, ,As noted above, this is the only topic for which :bOth thd)llase'n and IDSites are cOnsidered. .'Matter Re;Po1l8e 7.3-]
'enminesall other topics for thePhasem 'site alone.(5~O Allenuztilles to'the Proposed Project of the.199B DSEIR
'assessesthe,Phasell site aloneand,thePhase IDsite:a1one.) ,
9
" '
7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Tel77lbay Phase II and III FInal SElR
Item'"
.Summary~of 2010 Significant Off-Site Circulation Impacts
"."";;Mltigatlon,,PJan DevelopmentAlternatlvf!versus ,Project
-' ,L,. ::'c:' "~:':";" ;'~.::t.;: ':;';~;'"~:~(SiimmaiJ"of1tM"'d PM'Condltions)
,"'~ ".;::f::::.::~,'._",.,""" .Lot:ations,with,Significant,IIIJPBcts '.,2, ,",
Proposed Project
, . ,:':2
':(BllyshorelOyster:Point '!,'Sister
..cities lAirport .and Qyster Point
, , "I Dubuque)
,.1
(NBOn':RampJrom Oyster
Point I Dubuque intersection)
'10
, Intersections
Ramps arthe Oyste'iPoint'Interchange
, ,1 ".,.
'(NB On-Ramp from Oyster
'Point I Dubuque intersectiOIiQ)
9
2
u:s. '101 Freeway Segments
Vehicle Storage between Intersections
along Bayshore Boulevard FroDtage '
Source: Crane Transportation.Group
a Lower volume increase than'proposed project
3
Trip Generation and Distribution Exhibit 7.3-2 shows the gross AM and PM commute peak hour trip
, generation expected from .the . 340;0~square foot :office'building,'i50-room'hotel, and 7 ;500-square
foot. quality restaurant assumedbythis,altemative..A;traDsitdemandmanagement(I'DM)plan would
,be part ofthe'newofficedevelopment.''Ihe:plan wouldguarantee.that . office trip 'generation would be
'at least 13 percent below: average during,the,morningand.evening commute.peak,trafficperiods.
,C
0.36
2.47
LN = National Log
X = 1,000 square feet (SF)
'T ='Trips
,Exhibit.7.3-:J, on, the" following,. page, cOIDpares tripgenerationoLthe,Phase III Site:Mitigation Plan
Development Alternative ,and the .,project./The .alternative,wouldproduce,a, six'percenbreduction in
total two-way traffic duringthe,AMcommute:peakhour, (altho'!ghwithdistinctdifferences:in inbound
versus outbound directional flow) and a significant (35 percent) reduction in two-way traffic during
the ,PM commute,~peak,hour, (with.a minorchange.,in outbound flow and. the majority,of,thereciuction
in ,inbound traffic during this time peri04). '.,._'.
.Exhibits 7.34 .and ,'7.3-5 present AM "and ,PM' peak hour ,Base ,Case,' + Phase 'UProject ,+ "Phase m
Alternative (Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative) !,volumes .for 'year.2000and 2010
conditions, respectively. Exhibit 7.3-6 shows Phase JIISite , Mitigation Plan Development Alternative
volumes only. ,Exhibits7.3-4,and 7.3-5. are comparable to 1998 DSEIRExhibits 4.4-13~and4.4-14 for
theproposedpr,oje~t.
10
7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Tel7'llblly Ph..e II and 18 Final SEIR
. ;' "," .~. .': ._, .'.
Exhibit 7.3-3
",",y",;,'",,~':;-S>i<':::;~Wet'New,Traffic. on ' Local Roads Due to Project
':~>;:iVel'Sus tPhasiFlllSlte,'Nitigation Plan Development Aftemative
", ..:.;AM'P_k HOUTrTri "PM:PeskHoUT"Tr1 s
':Inbound,.,.,.., : ,Outbound Inbound Outbound
,'~,'i345 ",,,,, '~,' ,;':228 411 ::'435
444 95151 '398
+99, (-133) (-260) (-37)
Project - ,
Mitigation,Plan Alternative
, Difference with Alternative
'. Source: Crane Transponation Group
a 'After' anowallccfor'intemal trips and pass:byeaptiiiC: ',i,
.. '.. ~
. ;,,".:',. ,.......-......,...; y."_. _....., ~ ..~_. dO"'
Intersection Impacts With in:JplementationofthejJr()posed 1998 DSElRproject,both the,Bayshore /
Sister Citiesl0yster,Point/Aiwo~~d~,the ,QysterPoint / Dubuque intersections would be expected
toexperiencesigriificant impacts during 2010 ,PM pe8.k hour conditions.,Witbthe,Phase 111 Site
Mitigation Plan Development 'A1temative,there would be :no ,significant .-level'of : service (LOS)
impacts during this time period at the ,Oyster Pointl Dubuque mtersection, , while the LOS impact
would ,be significant but slightly less at the Bayshore / Sister,Cities/'Qyster 'Point 'I Airport
intersection. Exhibit 7.3-7 shows intersection LOSresults;,forthePhaselII'SiteMitigation Plan
Development Alternative (see Exhibit 4.4-6 for the project, revised and also presented below).
FreswayMEiinline 4mpacts ,I'hellroposed d998::DSEIR 'project 'and Phase III Site Mitigation Plan
,.Development .Alternative :w.ould,;produce'similarsignificant .impacts on U;S.lOl:,during'year 2000 or
2010,conditions.:During,theFM;peak.traffic hour,:a1lfreeway'segments,:wotildireceive 'lower ,volumes
withsthe:iBhase }miSiteMitigation::Plan ;Devel.opmentiAltemative ; than ifrom:'the }proposed, project.
During the AM peak traffic hour, i the Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative wotild
>-increase volumes on two segments accommodating inbound flow towards the project site and reduce
"'volumes:on,se~nts 'carrying~~9'o;!~~Y;~froIJl'thf;,Si~:;{eolT1paredWiththeproject).".Whileone new
freeway segment:in theyear2<x.>()!'<r.illd;fb~~ ~~lll;J;;PSEtoLOS .Foperation during the AM peak
, 'hour with Phase.1I/.SiteMitigtiti~n:.:~la11., Deye!oEpent;.iUteT!J:llfive volumes,ithepercentincreasein
'c'traffic;forthissegment!ille'tothe.~ll!te~v.estil!~otildbe lower than the maximum ,percent increase
in traffic 'found for segments~ !'Qpe~g at 'unacceptable Jevelsdueto,the.,proposed'project.
That is, in order to reducefreewayimpactsto,a1ess.,than.,significant levela'larger,decreasein the total
amount of development ' would ,be: required .for the project . than far the : Phase 111. Site Mitigation Plan
.Development Alternative . :Ex~:~.~.~8. i:~septsfi."eewa.ymalnJineLOSresultsfoz: the }'Juzse III Site
Mitigation ~lan Devel()p~,:tAltemative(se~J:J:!'!J'#. 4.trtorthe.projecO. ",
~." ,', ". ". - - .
F'feeway R~r"p Impacts The Phase III SlteMiti;;monRlaTtDevelopmentAlternativewotild produce a
,slightly reduced impact at the one ramp experiencing. a significant impact due to the project. 'During
2010 PM peak hour conditions Terrabay traffic would decrease at the northbound on-ramp from the
,Oyster Point lDubuque intersection With ~the Phase1IISite 'Mitigation Plan Development Alternative
(compared With :theproject)~ '!.Eihibit:7:3,j9 'presentsres1iltsfor the Phase III Site Mitigation Plan
,Development Altemative (seeE%hibit 4.~ -for'the proposed.project) ~
;. .:..~._<'!t._:r' . "-~-~--:. ..:-.~_::; ~ .;" .:'~' .:.. '. -'. '.. .
"-'-
:Storags'JmpactsAccess to thesouthem part 'ofthePhasem'site wou1d,be~thesame'for the 'Phase III
'Site Mitigation Plan Development Altemativeas proposed 'for ':theprriject.'~However;' access from
Bayshore Boulevard tothenorthernl'art .of the Phase ill site would be somewhat different with the
,Phase 111 Site~Mitigation,Plan)Developinent"'AlteTNitive than-With the'.project Access'tothe-'northem
:development area'(theoffice'ibuildingand 'parking'garage) 'wouldbefrom'BayshoreBo1ilevard via a
'signa1izedintersection abo'Ut'1~150'feetnorth of the new' hook ramps intersectioriandVia a right-turn
inJright-tum out drivewayfur,soutbbourid traffic:orily]ocatedabout750 feet north of the hook ramps
intersection. In contrast, the proposed project'wotild have a signalized access about710 feet north of
11
~.
I ':it
t'I)~
t-.:1ij
,- ~
:a~
.....12
~,:q:
1.I.i-
c:
CD
'E
,'Q..
oS
~
'CD
Q
::
.~,'
-:,Q.;
'C:
'Q
:;:
as.
Q
':;::
,~
.12
CiS
5:
CD
'fIJ
as
f
'b
c:
as
-
u
CD
.~
,'~'
!:L:
-'
~;
=.
as
.e
~,
.c:
-,
l:
fIJ
CD
l::
S
-
.~
'...
::I
Q
:z:
,~
.as
,~
':5
~
ots
==
~
'Q
'Q
Q
'~
...
as
~,
cl
-c-e
I: ~ c
giiii
.Q ~ :.0,
'€It::.~
~o
:-!~
.~(;
~.r~a
@S@
II)
~ 11).0
... '"
1"~,,,
',& ID r!:'" , ; ''': .. '.'j
,~ ~;t ",.,,'\ ',.'t~,i~i
'0~'~lir~~!
~N.- CD
"'~;@ ,..Ji~ .
.~ ~ ......: ~,.~: ,.z "~.1JIII88101/BM18 ~ ,..' ~~I J'(
~ C) ~.... C"oI J",(i, ",II) .
"g~ ~ S@ 'fa ~ -+~@-+ ."@@., ,~, '~-+,!,
""I:::J ::: . N ~ ,~'" Q)~@?,-~ ~ ,~~~~
~ - U) "~ ~ .U)"
.Q GlU) ~ ::: .Q Gl .U) ~ .!!
li g i i ~ m jg~ @~
~-~ ~!8 ~Q..~ell)'
~Q..~ 2~
CI)~
~Cl),1I)
~.
..~@
.Jl.
-L~@
-@
~,.:g\.3l' .
~.t .,..',.
.' .~-.~ @)
62Nco
:'.... ..;~ :cg
:...-
.1JIIIfJ:JJ 'f'rI
~::::::U)
.Q. Gl .U)
".Ill'U),Gl"
,..,~!H
~.a:~,
,~- U)
.Q::
;(g,"~8
,~Q..'~
]Q.
:.E
.&~
F!'ll!:
,~O
w ~_
::l ':::I
o '0
:c ':c
1:i ~
Q) .Q)
c.. c..
::E :::E
-< c..
II 'III
~@
, Q,
=
o
..
(;)
c
o
'J:l
,'"
1:
o
,Q,
'"
,C
,'"
,:
,U
C
'Ill
..
U
"ii
u
J:j
o
CI:l
~ ~ ....~, ~ ~ "CD~
~ t@ I CDt; J
~8. ~~'~ @EY)~:.....
C\I -..'C&) 'I""'" 'I""'"
'N
~== rt;)
III CD ro
-aroCD
~ III t.l
~if~
~~
'CO) _
....:~
':!:: E
:S.!
..s:::-
'~~
c::
iCl)
e,
:,Q,.
o
,-
'~
a
c::
,'.!!
olQ,;~ ,":
1:
o
==
QI
~
-
i
.!
,'en
==
.CI)
,(I)
QI
ct
"0
c::
ca
-
Co)
;!.
e'
Q,;
:::::
CI)
(I)
QI
it
:S
"i
U)
CI)
e
:=
'-
:0
:s
"~
::=
o
~
~
QI
'-f
:e
Q.
.oa
':S
~
Q
,-
Q
'.C\I
...
11:1
,CI)
);;;
..,~
..-, ClI..,
~,..
o
,~~
-
~:::: ro
.QCDro
~ ro CD
III t.l
..c:t.l
~c..'oo::c
88,..,.~ ',.,. ,~" ,~.;a 8 j
...,.........., 'CD...,.,
...,.',',.: fcilI. fcD\
.. .~ .~ ~
~,~~': 'CDY) ,
eJ :_..-..N
,~''::::
'Cll -;'~
.Q ro 'CD
ItI QI t.l
t: .,;: t.l
.,~ c.. oo::c
.,
;,'.'" CD -, 8-
....,..., '...
:,N CD '
~
-
~,~
.16 1;,:
~l,.~
\'~;(i)@
~'~ S
).;.~-,!;"'CI) ~
"-~
;P/Vf1
'IV
<:g'~.::..
~';'1Il'
Q)~ts.
~,~oo::c.
g~3
:r: "~
1:i':1:i
~'~
~ '';.E
< .;.c..
II 'ill
,"~-
'Cll -_
;,;.Q ,;II) :0)
~/;:L~
Q) ";:.t.l
J.;;.c..oo::c
~@
Q,
=
e
o
,C
.,.j
'"
t
'0
~
,C
'"
...
'!-
..,
c
'"
U
. ~ii
~
.,
o
v.>
N @ --r ~',.. ~ ,,.. '~~..J.
~e~- ~e ~ "'.~
'.... ..... II):N@-"
"'lIt' N ...... N"l').,\C}
.,~.:S
":CD 'UJ
,,,Q CD 'UJ'
,Ill UJ CD
t::'CDU
CD fFu
'~- ..q;
<0"1>>
,~~
~li
~,E
:S,;!!
.c:: -
~~
,'.c:
';Q)
,:E
;~
';;;
'~
"Q)
>Q
c::
'QI
it
c::
,Q
==
QI
.~
'-
':i
Q)
-
'-
CI)
'=:
Q)
fI)
QI
s:
',fI)
Q)
E
oS
C):,
:S,
-
"C::'
Q)
'E
e
Co)
oS
a..
~
~
.:c
QI
Q)
'~
,;:
a.:
CIfS
:!i:,
~
...~zY,Z
0'
',z
..'..1
. '_I.
::.s"
i~t'~
'~,:,\8;;e :t
'5-'.
;':'~~ Q.1
:~
"'-"'8
.~@
~:s
CD CD UJ
,,cUJ UJ
llICD ~
t:: -l:: U
~Q",'l;(
..~
.,,},l.,
t...~@
...- '~(.;;\
N~
...- ~@
N <-
CD
',....
~
@
:N
II)
",PIV8,
~::::: UJ
,c J1 ":
",~CDU
CDfF U
~-,,,,,
l.
i t .. ..
= =
c: @) 0 0
',. ... :I:
,';H -
c ,~ ~
I II) 'Q,)
~ ~
8@8! ::E ::E
Q <: ~
.... ..- Q -t...N8 " "
~- UJ .,,} t l. ~ @
,c CD ,UJ
~ UJ CD
CD U t IS uotU8JIer
-l:: U .., e ..J.:
~Q",'l;(
@
CD
~
Cl.
=
e
o
c
.~
liS
t::
o
C.
'"
=
'"
~
u
c
'"
...
u
;;
~
=
o
II)
7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
.T."."y Pha.. II and HI FJIJII/cElR '.
. , ,:Exhlblt 7.3-'
;.'".'.:"l\",.. ",' "..'..~'(:.';,,'i.." ':\;>"ytMand PM Peak HourlnterseCtion Levels of Seniice'
"'EXlsting~ 'Base Case snd:BaseCase,.PlusMltigation Plan DevelopmentAlternstive'
.., ".,;' , " ,,:.:,: >,:,'::~i1:~_"";:<'" , <'Y. a:r,;.2 0'0 D' , ,: 'Y. a r ,:2,'0 10 ' "
, , " ExJstJng;' ~Bae,'Case., I WIth Project;; }Base" ,ClUUI ,I "WIth, PrDjet:t
"", ' " '''' ',' . , , , " ",' ' '",. " Ph...11+I1J';' " i ' "" '~iPlulse 11+1I1
AM PBBk Hour
Hillside I Chestnut B-14.7. C-19..0 C-23.1 ~37;1 'D-39.:4
Hillside I Jefferson B-6S B~9. .1 ' B-9..8 C-17.4 C-22.7
,Hil1sideISister,Cities;, . ,. ' ,.',,, " , o ,,'.,B..8.8" ";, ^B~lO.8 " :.tB-12.2 ' ' <>,~~C~ 16.4, 'C-21.5
BaysborelSistcr:eities,LOystcr,Point I.Airport ~o.,28.:3. ,. .,C~23.1 .. .,C~23.7 , ,; ,,&42.6 " ,D-37.4
,Oyster Point I DUbuque B-14.0" C-17.l .'," .. 'C-16.5 E-44.9. ; D-33.0
DubuqueIUS 101 Ramps B-9.2" .;B-14.:3 B-12.2 C-21.9. C-17.8
Bayshorel SB US 101 Off-Ramp (All-Way':'Stop) , I).,20;6b A-4.8 NA B-7.0 NA
Sister Cities I Phase II Access NA NA B-8;1 a NA B-13.:3
Bayshore I Phase ill North Access NA NA B-9.8 Q NA B-12.2
Bayshore I SBOn-Off Hook Ramps NA NA \B-ll.5 Q NA B-13.8
Bavshore I Phase ill South Access :NA NA B-8.8 Q NA B-11.0
~B-IL6 ;,B.:.15.0 B-14.8 C-19.2
B-6.9 B~7;2 B':13.2 :C-19.5
B-7.2 B~7.5 B.:.9.;6 B-l1.2
C~19.0 C.20.5 D-35.6 Fe
C-20.4 C-22.7 D-36.S D-39.3
.B-l1.4 B-9.9 0.,34.9 C-lS.6
'B-8.6 NA D-2S.2 NA
NA B-12;S u NA C-21.2
NA B-S.7 Q NA B-9.3
NA 'B-15.6 · NA 0.,37.1
NA B-8.7 u NA B-1 1.2
c
15
7.0 ,COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
T."."bsy Ph".. II and III Final EIR
;.:-<..;......
:J:
. ",. ;~ !.:~..:;"o\~;
. ,:".i
'.,c,,.,,;}.;.';';l ",Y'..r,2;,Q,Q 1) ..
~~~~~ '~:iiU.{f,;~~: '~':;'.".:;::;":':"
0,' :,,,*,Case, :'PhaseD' "PhIuIe,R':''PIuIse'11+I1I
-exhibit 4.4-6
,AM and PM Peak Hour.lntersection Levels ,of Service
'-EXisting,:!;Sase"Case, and Base Case Plus Proposed Project
I
Year2010
, ~', . i ,
"&iiij" ~'~WItIt '~"..Wlth ,With
'PTojectProjsct, Project
Case lei' "Phastill 0 'Phase III 'Phase 11+//1
AM Peak Hour ,
Hillside I Chestnut B-14.7" C-19.0 C-21.7 C-20.0 C-23.4 0.37.1 0.38.9 0.38.8 liD-395
Hillside I Jefferson B-6.s" B-9.1 B-93 B-9.5 .B-9.6 C-17.4 C-195 .C-.19.7 C-21.6
Hillside I Sister Cities B-8.8" ' B-10.8 ,B-1 1.1 8-11.4 B-1 1.9 C-16.4 C-17_7 . C-18.7 C.20.4
Bayshore I Sister Cities I D-28.3" -.." C~23.1 'C-24.8 - C.22.5 ~.7 \ ;E-42.6 ,:. '&45.9 ' : I'" , d ". 0.39.2
....0.32.3 ,..'~:
Oyster Point I Airport , .', '
Oyster Point I Dubuque B-14.0" C-17.1 C-175 C-16.6 C-16.9 E-44.9 \ &49.2 ,:0.:38.5 D-39.5
Dubuque I US 101 Ramps " B-9.2" 8-14.3 B-14.7 B-IO.1 B41.5 C-21.9 .,C.2.3.6 C-15.2 ' C.165 I
Bayshorel SBUS 101. D-20.6b . A-4.8
Off-Ramp (All-Way-Stop)
,B-5.2
NA
,NA
oB-7 :s
:NA
NA
Sister Cities I Phase II NA NA B-7;9 NA " B-8.0 " -NA 'B-1 1.7 'NA B-12.8
Access
Bayshore I Phase ill North NA NA NA B-9.4 'B-9.6 NA "NA 'B~12.2 B-123
Access ,
Bayshore I SB On-Off NA NA NA B-1 1.9 B-12.0 NA .'NA .C~19.6 C-19.7
Hook Ramps ,.,;'
.BayshorelPhase m South NA 'NA NA B-8.4 B"10.4 NA 'NA :B~'8:8 , B-ll.4
Access 'to
PM Peak Hour , , ,
Hillside I Chesmut B-9.2 " B-l1.6 B-14.0 B-12.4 C-15.2 B-14.8 ,,'C-16.1 .C-16.1 C-20.0
Hillside /J~on , ' B-5.6 " B-6,9 ' ," B-7~0 'B~7.2 "B-73 '~B.13:2 "B~13;9 "C~15A C-19.6
Hillside I Sister Cities B-6.8 " B-7.2 B-7.4 B-7.4 B-7.6 B.9.6 B-1O.4 ,':'B-IO.2 B-I13 .
Bayshore Iffister Cities I
Oyster PoiD!? Airport
,Oyster.PointIDubuque
Dubuque IUS 101 Ramps
Bayshorel'SB US 101
Off.Ramp.Way..Stop)
Sister CitiesI'Phasell,
,Access'
Bayshore 1 Phase 'ill North
Access
Bayshore 1 SB On-Off
Hook Ramps
.Bayshore.1 Phase ill South
Access
Source: Crane Transportation :iroup
,aSignalize(l Level of Service - Average Vehicle Di:1ay (in seconds).
b ., All- Way~Stop Level 'Of Service "~verage V ehicleDelay (in seconds).
," c "F =.De1ay greater than 60seconds.Specitic:delaymeasurements not provided by softwarefor LOS Foperation.
C-21.2
B-12.4
C-11.0
D-36.8
D-34.9
0.28.2
E-44A
0.35.8
"E-36.2
F"
C-18.9
NA
Fe
C-22.9
A
C-213
C-18.6 "
C-19.0
C-21.2
C-25.0
01).:35;6
:&42;2
Fe
C-22.4
B-lO.6
NA
-,;;,..
'B-9.7
NA'
C-B.5
C-16~0 ..,
NA
NA
D-29.0
0-35.8
NA
B-6.9
B-8.6
} :'NA
NA
B-11.8
16
:....' ...<.;:';:-..
" ,., '-.'.
'US?tD1"F""!WiiY$,,gment
7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
,Ten'8bllyPhuslllllld III FI"", E1R
"'F/F,'
.', . -::. -;~..;:' "0 .,Exhlbit 7.3-8
,;.AN/,snd.RIII,Pssk.Hour u.s. 101 Freeway Levels of Service ,
. .,,' '. ,--,,' ,,', '- ~.. " -- , .
",,~-,,::<:"::;~~~;~:::,:~::~;::~sting, ~Base,Case;',and'Base'Csse Plus'
. Phase!JII Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative
" '.'""}.'.;,,F..<, "Year,2000""" ".... ," 'Yesr2010
". ",{ExJsting,:~":BaseCase,::<WlthPhBses Base Case With Phases
,;, " ~11+llr' :>':Jl.l.lJI
, .,; AMPelik Hour
NorthofSB Off-Ramp & NB",
, Flyover.Off-RamptoBayshore' i, '"
, ,From Oyster Point NB On;'Ramp..
, 'to'BavshoreNBOff~Ramp ",;
At the Oyster PoinrOverpass
From Oyster Pointlntctchangeto:
. Grand AvenueInterchan~
,PM Peak Hour
North,ofSB Off-:-Ramp & NB .
Flyover Off-Ramp, to Bayshore
From Oyster Point NB On-Ramp
.. n_~_ to Bayshore 'NB Off-Ramp
At the Oyster Point Overpass
From Oyster Point Inter.change"to;. . '.' -E lEa,." , ,
. Grand Avenue Interchange '
, Source: Crane T~rtation Group;SpecUlIReport209, Transportation Research'Board; 1994Highway.Capaciry Manual AnalySis .
':' .'Methodology"', ',,,.,
:aFrceway LevelofScrvice-Southbound J.Nortbbound., .,
EIEa
.ErDa
'FlEa
,DIEa
'Dlpa
D/EG
EIE
FIE
ElF
DIE
,-ElF
EIE
F/F
;E/F
DIP
DIE
",FIF
.,F/F
FIE
F/F
F/F
ElF
ElF
F/F,
<FlF,:,'
'.FIE
F/P
E/P
" ", ,'. ,,', , . '. "'" ",: .' ".. '. ".: ,. .;."'. ,:.","EXh/bit7.3-11
AM,and-PM 'Peak'Hour~Yesr2010'Maximum..QueueLengthsBt:Bayshore~Bolilevard
;Intersections Adjacent:to ,Phase, 1I1'Site
'.BaseCase+Phase'JI/ Site Mitigation Pian Development Alternative
, cMo1fement
:Storage
tLength "
Sa hare / Phase /1/ Northern Access
NB Left 503 m
NB Through 320m
SB Thrau lRi t300 m .
d 1 R
;Lanes
. AM Peak Hour
U2010
,VDlume
2
1
2
401
~93
1,493
,AfaxJmum'
iOueue
, 'LlIIIgth'
31 m
16m
46m
'62
'731
'1,296
8m'
',23m
39m
Savshore/So~boun 10 amos
NB Through I Right 92m 2 682 46m 677 107m
SB Left , 115m 1 389 39m 520 176m
SB Through 320m 2 1,121 16m 976 8m
WB Left 260m 1 348 54m 669 237m
WB Right 105m 1 177 31 m 139 23m
Sa hare / Phase /1/ So~em Access
NB Left 92 m
NB Through ,305 m
SB Throu I Ri t 92 m
Source: Crane Transportation Group
a ' Based on Passer U-90 software analysis of tbr= new lli8J"'li7P.d intcISections.
bMetric measurement in meters (m).One meter = 3937 inches (3.28 feet).
1
2
2
42
663
1.469
17
8m
8m
39m
53
648
1,745
16m
8m
54m
7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
. TfltTllblly Phssell snd 01 Final EIR
Exhibit 7.3-9
.' ',." " ," '. ," ,:AM (and,PMJp;eakHour,FreewayRampOperation a
'EXisting,8ase Case, .and Ba_Case +.:MJtlgatlon!Plan Development Alternative
,Existing _, ;BsS8'C!lse-- . Base Case + PIulseO"'//11
".Capat:'*t b,. ' .
VdJUm.'VOIume iUnderlOwr'. ':Volume Under/Over
Capacity Capacity
I
Year 2000
SB Off-Ramp to
Bayshore
NB, On-Ramp from
Oyster Point
NB Off-Ramp to
Dubuque
SB On-Ramp from
Dubuque
SB On-Ramp from
Baysbore (phase ill)
SB Off-Ramp to
, Bayshore (phase Ill)
SB to EB Flyover
Off-Ramp
Year 2010
'SB Off-Ramp to 333 Under
2,100
'13ayshore (659) (Under)
}NB On~Rampfrom 2,100 1.589 <Under 1.683
'Oyster Point [2..600] d . (2.191) '(Over) (2.330)
,NBOff-Ramp to "1.520 Under 1,705
Dubuque.(1.240) i(Under) ,0.378)
'SB On-Ramp from 1.485 '. Under J .203
Dubuque (2.402) (Over) (2.075)
'~.:"SB On-Ramp from 'NA'NA 405 .
"Bayshore (phase ill) (543)
SB Off-Ramp to NA C NA NA 525
Bayshore (phase ill) 1.900 (808)
SB toEBFlyover ,2.100 NAC1(.38OO1'O) .,(U'Undder) '1(.380100
Off-Ramp . ' n er )
Source: Crane Transportation Group; SpeciJll Report 209., Transponation Research Board, 1994 Highway Copaciry Manual.
a # = AM peak hour;(#) = PM peak hour.
bPassenger car equivalents. 'Existing and.basecase volumes should be increased by about one'to two percent to reflect heavy trUck traffic
impact and conversion of passenger car equivalents..
c Not applicable. ,
d [2,600] =Total on-ramp capacity with second on-ramp lane.
e Borderline with total volumes increased one to two percent to xeflect Don-project traffic heavy trUck impacts (as represented by
passenger car equivalents).
US 101 R8mp
2.100
2.100
[2,6OOJ d
2.100
2,100
[2,600J d
1,900
1,900
2.100
795
(535)
925
'(1.130)
740
(490)
800
(1.215)
NAC
NAC
NAC
'283
(424)
1.156
.- "'(1;506) :,
"1;065
,(760)
1.090
(1.747
:::Under
(Under)
, Under
i(Under) c:
"Under
(Under)
'Under
(Under)
NA
NA
865
(445)
18
.NA
NA
Under
(Under)
NAC
1,250
:(1,645)
,1.250
(898)
900
0.541)
305
(396)
435
(501 )
865
(445)
NAC
NA
Under,
(Over)
Under
(Under)
Under
(Borderline)" '
'Under'
(Under)
Under
(Under)
"'Under
(Under)
Year 2000
SBOO-., ;,~.;2,lOO
Ramp to ", 'ii,"
Bayshcne '
NB On-
Ramp
from
Oyster
Point
NB Off-
Ramp to
Dubuque
SB On-
Ramp
from
Dubuque
US:lD1o: .
Ramp, ~;
Exhibit 4.U
. ExIsting and Base Case Freeway,RampOperstion I
AM and (PM) sPesk Houry Without sndWlth Project ;--,
SatMtCa.se + Phase /I . !
'Project
',UndetJOwt, ,
. . ~.'
Bas. Ca8
~~ .
,.'283.:._,.; :.Under .'295 :Under",:,c",';c '~NA< .",'NA< NA<
".\(424)',: , :JUDdc.r) , ''<4~) : (Under)
"
Under ", 1.225 ,:1,290 Under
"'(Under) (1.631) " '0.656) (Under)
.1.183 Under
(912) (Under)
800 '1.090 : Under 1,071, " Under 814 Under Under
(1.215) (1.747) (Under) (842) (Under) (1,498) (Under) (Under)
2,100
2.100
r2.6001 d
1.900
345
,(416)
Under
(Under)
SB On-
Ramp
from
Bayshore
(phaseD!)
SB Off-
Ramp to
Bayshore
(phase.nI)
SB to.EB '2,100
Flyover ,;;
Off-Ramp'
Year2010
SB Off- , ,',
Ramp to:'
'Bayshore' '.':'
NB On-
Ramp'
from
Oyster
Point
NB ,Off-
Ramp ,to
Dubuque
SB On-
Ramp
from
Dubuque
SB On-
Ramp
from
Bayshore
(Phase D!)
SB Off-
Ramp to
Bayshcne
(phaseD!)
SB to.EB
F1yover
Off-Ramp
Source: Crane TransporWion Group; Speci4l Report 209. Transportation Research Board; 1994 Highway Capacity MD1JJIDi..
a# = AM peak.honr;(#) = PM peak hour. .
bPassenger car equivalents. Existing and base case volumes should be increased by aboot BYe one to two percent to reflect ~ truck traffic impact and conversion
to passenger car equivalents.
:c NA = Not Applicable.
d r2.6001 - total on-nmm caDllCitv with second on-ramo lane,
e Borderline with total volome increased onem two oercent to reflect non-oroiect traffic heavv truck imDacts (as reoresentcd bv Dassen~ careauivalents).
345
(416)
Under
(Under)
NA<
NA<
NA<
NA<
NA<
412
(573)
,400
'(503)
Under
{Under)
NA<
NA<
NA<
:NAC
NA<
'NA~
:..\.865
;.:"(445)
NA
740
(49())
1,203
(2,068)
800
( 1,215)
r2.6001 d
.445
(563)
1.900
NA<
NAC
NAC
'NAC
NAC
502
(880)
493
(810)
, Under
(Under)
N~C
NAC
NAC
NAC
'NAC
NAC
1,300
(810)
Under
(Under)
Under
(Under)
Under
(Under)
1,300
(810)
1,300
(810)
2,100
NAC
1 ,300
(810)
Under
, (Under)
Under
(Under)
Under
(Over)
Under
(Under)
Under
~
(Borderline).
Under
(Under)
Under
(Under)
Under
(Under)
..~L-
7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
,Terrablly Phase n and HI Rna/SElR
the hook ramps intersection aDd a right-turn in I right turn out access at the north end of the site.
Access to the southern development area (the hotel and restaurant) would be from Bayshore Boulevard .,'.
viaasigna1ized intersection 3.bout 460 feet south of the hook ramps intersection (and about 1,100 feet",~~
north of the Oyster Point intersection). There would be no internal connection between the northern' '
and southern parts of the Phase ill site (as is proposed by the project). Exhibit 7.3~10presents lane
striping recommended by the .project ~onsor's engineer. for the three new' signalized intersections
along Bayshore Boulevard.
An analysis was conducted of the ability of the three new signalized intersections along Bayshore
Boulevard to accommodate projected 2010 volumes as a systeinin order to make certain that backups
from one intersection would not extend to or through adjacent intersections. The Passer IT-90 arterial
software program was used to test system operations (see Exhibit 7.3-11). Program output indicates
that storage would be deficient' at two 'locations ,with, the Phase III Site Mitigated Plan Development
, Alternative in contrast to three locations experiencing storage deficiencies with the proposed project.
The two locations experiencing deficiencies, with the Phase III Site Mitigated Plan Development
Alternative also would experience, deficiencies with the project. With the Phase III Site Mitigated
Plan Development Alternative, queues at all three intersections would be shorter than storage lengths
,provided " eXgept}ortwoloc:ation~".on,tl1e,~pro~h,estothe,B~yshore..Boulevard/, hook ramps
intersectioni.,4uriI!g,the201O-RM_;c;:oDlIIl1l,~~peak,traffic.,hour'i,.The,le~gth. ,of.the ,southbound left-turn
lane (serving vehicles'entering the new.on~I"3lllp) would not 'be adequate. Likewise, storage for
northbound through and rj,ghttuming vehicles. (between the hook ramps intersection and the southern
signalized access to the hotel I restaurant development) would not be adequate. These would be'
tsignificant ~pactsof the Phase III Site:Mitigated Plan Development Alternative, as well as the
"";proposed project (Impact 4.4.-:12, DSEIR page 207). 'Also, during the 2010 PM peak commute period,
'maximumoff-ramp queues for~left-tum'movements to Bayshore Boulevard would use up to 91 percent
=~ofpr9Jlos~~st()~g~ le~~. This,~w:()~C:1~ a.:~~gn,~fi~~~,~~t()f~()~}he ~tl?~llt?:ve as well as the
>:prcijeCC~'"?';'" ',' .", , ":~,',.';;,<t;.;..,."..\..:,""""",,,,,, ...~".~'" .,'.'..J,.,,'{,. , . ...,""'..H.'..'.,',.."."'\""" ,
,-:.At the Oyster'Point I Dubuque I northbound on-ramp intersection, while LOS with theP~e III Site
:Mitigated PlanVevelopment Alternative is projected to be at acceptable levels for all '2010 commute
periods with existing intersection geometrics, the Passer n analysis indicates that there would be
insufficient storage for vehicles between the closely spaced intersections within the interchange area
without improvements proposed for this location by the DSEIR for the, project.
, ,
. '. -' . , - -
Intersection Mitigation Measures (Exhibit 7.3-12) ", Two' sets{ofimprovements/arerecommended for
consideration at the Bayshore Boulevard I,Sister Cities~Boulevard I Oyster,Point,BoulevardJ Airport
Boulevard intersection for the Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative. The first
,would involve restriping the southbound' Bayshore Boulevard intersection approach and the proposed
project and would provide acceptable 2010 peak hour operation at this one intersection. However, if
,as expected, vehicle storage (or lack of storage) on the Oyster Point Boulevard overpass of the freeway
becomes an issue, an alternative, restriping of the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach, is
recommended. This restriping would allow through movements from three westbound lanes and
would require provision of a third westbound exit lane on Sister Cities Boulevard. The third exit
lanewould ,merge ,into the .existing two exit lanes just west of the intersection. Both alternatives
, preclude any widening of the Oyster Point freeway overpass. '
20
. ;;~
a.
-~
'C; :z::
~.
'~i
:e ,<2:
.;;:"IIllt
..~"l:
'.
?E
:~
:09
~
~
,I:
S
:Q:
I:
oS!
',-
;&
'....
;=:
:I!
'II
'~
(I)
5:
'.
-
..
0;:
Q.;
.J'
.,~
.....
!
...
'CI)
'.
I:
'.
...
,~
"f""
,,~'<i><<,.
--+: ~,..,..
'.,.,~,)
."i'.., ,:.'
-~,.~,;-
... ,..
PAlfl8DllM1Ifl
" . . -. . - '.. -
. . ,..... . '-,."
...'C,*',~.,..,'
-+ ~.....
-+
i
~:::: l; i
,e - !2....
.,,,4 e.. '"
',::ili :S\8
~Q,:~CI)~
.;1'>'
>.,- ~ fi
,..)e ~;,~'-,a.=
i"e,,, .11
'~f'i,t ~>!
,i'
,.,,;
..,""".'e,
,~:::11
",_". ....1r ,.Il! :..
:~'; C:':i;,.e:
.; <l:lil;i,'s
,~ Q,:CI) ~CI) ~
.j
I J,
I-
i
"
i--
-1_,_; I
'r
c.
"'..
'iI
,.G
~
,(I)
= "0.
.- ::J
'! e
.. .~
'.'OG ,1::
'j:l., ,0 ~,-,
=- .;a
J:l ,'t:
6 8.
"rn
'~ c:
'I:l :!!
u '~
III ,Q)
! c:
as
....
,0
. CD
:. E:!
- ::J
0
UJ
C'I '1)'-
"~~2
,CO) .... ~
t-.:!2
_a.;Q,:
:a~'tJ
:C'ct:Cb
,)( - 0)
'I.I.i'C:: .&
11)0
E~
Q.....
0....
-0
~..-
1I)'tJ
Q!
.....
c:: ==
ca,.,tJ<
itlD
'C:: i,1t:
Ot:
,;: '.ca
ca.:;:
~-
:>W::
~e
.!~
'..,US CS
;: ,<<I)
-I;;;
II)lD
. O)'.'~
ca~
is:
'tJ
c::
ca
-
(,)
.Q)
1)-
It
::::
':CI)
'0)
'ca
.;z::
Q"
.","
.E!
,0)
'e
~
0)
ca
~
c::
.0
.:::
ca
~
-
~
Q
....
Q
C'I
"'"
ca
II)
~
'.(,".."
"
'Z
::Q)
c:
';'CO
..J
"0
Q)
'0 -
'OC:
c..2
0-
... t'll
[Lt>>
a...E
"O~
t>>
,c:,!
':0::0
0.....
XQ)
'W'e
"
~
-0
C
:~
o
,.Q II)
~C
1:: 'm
O...J
ZE
C ~
~I-
.'.,~';'ii
,en ...J
C
"0
'.,';
"'CO
t>>
".E
:~
"
-----
~
t>>
:;E
C.
'~-'1:
-
.,0
Q)
:0::
"
Q)
II)"C
(,)-
->
i:: e
1I)c.
_ ClJo
c: --
.Q)O "C.C:
~E ''i"lI) 'm
?~;~ >i'~
Q. ...E.c
E .EE Q)
;"'''0 0 t>>
II) (,) CO
,CO ... eo.
-= - .....
".. ,:l -0 C
-0- ~ 0
,Q).Q .!:o::
'E :O::':'CO~
.::l . _ ,,(,) ::l _
"E"O 'co'a,t;:
'2 ,c. :Q) .Gl
"E "'E "C -
',~ :II,~CO~
1I'4e
* ole
**oIe
,-
" .(,)
,Q)
0'
...
0.
"C
Q)
o
o
c.
o
,...
,'0.
'fI)
"CO
'Q)
::E
as
00
II
0=:
}i
*
'" ,0=:.4:l..
;:.1.-1
:e -"I
,:"g
1Il'ii"~
if<>'t1
,~~J
-'.;.Q '.......~
,~,~i
J!2:lI)
,.,;) ,l..'
~~
'. ,*,'
, . . - -. . -
,-0
, ,'5
,0
.Q
~
- II)
~c:
Om
en...J
IC 1::
II) ....
,~ ,~
-l-
t>>
c'=
,II) 'Q)
-'...J
,""" ,
::'0=:
<(
.11)
:~
,II)
II):E
C I
m OJ 1;)
-1CII)
",11) ,-:-"c.;>
"a;. ;>
'~::s -
'1::'0'0C
m'CD ~ 0
;c. 0::"::' -(,)
'II) ,....
eN..CD II)
~'=ie
C1)<-'S
-0':= C
-o....N-
<~.Eo
*
,*.
***
*
, "l'l " ",0
~ .,,'..,' ""':'..'.
I . 'II '
,..,.: ". ~~;.
,.J~ ,l~l..
'~
,.t..,t..,.*
.,,',.,: +-**
~;.. r*
" .,.
-
'..,*,>'..
~Jl~
..~.J,,',l;~";~
'j
. ,~.:j
-+,
T
..
,P/II81J0C1If'(
''0
"'!
,',',-::;;~
,'-'0
u_
'Q)"O
J'"Gl
"...
E::; '.rn
'::l urn
,EGlCO
-o::'c.
,C ~
;- Q) "Q)
,~- >
,co.o
",~"E,.J:
-::0
.. c:'.....
',_.-J :Q)
II II C)
'r"NE
_ _'.0
---
<.<00
, Cl.
=
e
o
c
.E
..
't:
o
Cl.
'"
=
eo
~
'"
c
f!
t)
OJ
~
=
o
,CI.l
..
N
~
,-
<C
.
.
.
.': --~;
.
..:,~.~ ;,
',.'.<'.y~' 'l,
*
'~ ,y
7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
TelTlllMy Pha.. II and 11/ F1na/SEIR
ei Altemative ,1 Restripe the southbound Bayshore Boulevard intersection approach to providelwo
exclusive]eft-tom lanes, an exclusive through lane, a 'shared through I right-turn lane, and an
exclusive :right-tomlane2
Resuitanf26iO bpemnon: , ' ,
PMPeakHour <LOS DIDelay = 35.8 seconds
. . - . . .
. ".
e ,Altemative2,To reduce:storage impacts on the.Oysterl?:oint Boulevard freeway ,overpass as well
as im})ro"elevel of service to acceptable levels, adjUst striping' on ,the westbound, Oyster Point'
,:interSeCfion approaCh 'to ;provide one exclusive :left.,.turn<lane, two exclusive ,through lanes, and:a
shared through / right-tom lane. Also,provide a third departure ,lane on Sister Cities Boulevard
which would merge into the existing two-lane departurejust west of the intersection.
Resultant20 1 0 Operation:
PM Peak Hour . LOS D I Delay = 30.4 seconds
Potentially,Alternative 1 could beirIyJlemented first, followed by:,AlteIn~~Ye.2, if and when needed.
'Freeway MainlinitMitigatiorJ'Measures 'No,ai:lditiclnal measures 'wo1ild'be'necessary for the Phase
III Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative.
: ,-j.-" .:;~,.:,-_:., ~.<.;
Ramp Mitigation Measures No additional measures would be necessary for this alternative.
Storage Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 4.4-12 in the DSEIR is modified to include the
following specific mitigation options: '
. ,..
. Baysho,e BoulevardIWS.101 Southbound Hook: Ra",ps 'Intersection Proposed Redesign
Coordinate signal timing between intersection ,and restripe.the off-ramp intersection approach to
include oneexclusive1eft-tumJane. and a shared left-/ right-tumJane.While this improvement
would eliminafe thtdheoretica1 need to lengthen 'tbeproposedJeft-tuni1ane on the southbound
Bayshore 'Bo1ilevard"approaeh to the hook ramps . intersection,oit is recommended that a longer
southbound"1eft-tum:.1ane~be'provided in the original design (lengthening from 115 meters up to
180 meters. and at the same:timedecreasing the length of the secondJeft-turn lane on the
northbound approach to the-;northern site (office) access intersection by 65 meters).
. Oyster 'Point Boulevard I Dubuque AvenueJNorthbound On-Ramp Although no
improvements would be indicated in order to provide acceptable 20 10 commute peak level of
service operation with the Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative (if evaluating
this location, as an,.isci1ated intersection), widening recommended on the north and westbound
intersection ,approaches to mitigate impacts of the project site development is still highJ.y
recommended ,in iorder'toprovide acceptable storage between the closely spaced intersections
within the interchange. '
Air Qual/fy Potentially significant construction impacts would occur ,with this alternative but would
be less than fromimplementation:ofthe proposed project. Significant long-term impacts on regional
air,qua1ity still would occur but wotild'be somewhat less severe'than with the project. Similar to the
proposed project, no significant iD:JpactS on local long-term air quality are anticipated with the Phase
III Site Mitigation Plan DevelopnientAlternative.
23
7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
TerrsbBy Phil.. II.snd III Flnsl SElR
Noise Commercial development under this alternative would. be concentrated on. three development
parcels-located adjacent to the V.S.IOl! BayshoreBoulevard corridor. Noise related issues would be
no different for the Phase 1IISiti-Mitigation"Plan Development AlteriUziive'than for the project.
Because this alternative rnakesno land use or develQpmen.tassumptions about the Phase n site, there
,would .be ;no'~dusecoDJ.j>atibility 'issuesassoc~tedwithresidential cO,IW><?Ilents of the,pr9j~t.
':._ ." '.''',~jl...; "';S'~.:_ ...\:..~~., ,;.....';-;_:_:.;._:.,:.'.-._::.,.>:; .,:_,.,::-<_' .", 'C_'"<_''':'.' .,.>~.-, '. :"_'_'.':~' ..~_.,..:<:. .......;';.::...: ;..:.;,.:.:...._~_'.._...~,_.,.__..-'_ -,
. . .- . '. . . . ,~. . '.- ". ~. .
"Pu"'ic:sfii1;i~ '-:-lIripl~~~tationof-theP~~ ~m Site'Mitiidtibh'7Pzdri iYd,Mi/jJdrJ,i{Alternative
would~in~e" calls for service . (CFS)~,' cQmpared-with the project, due to, the types and ,amounts of
coIilmercial~acej>I'oposed. ':cans forserViceattribut@lelo.this~temative woilld~inorethan. triple
the numberexpecred as arestilt of the project.1iowever, the 8ltemative's'"implementation would not
require the South San Francisco Police ,Department (SSFPD) to add a full officer position. The
",ad, di,,' tI.'" on, of. .all, 0, ffi.,lcer, positi,o, n""", or,p,atrol. v. ,.e., hi, . cl. e, is, the. thre", ,,8. hOI.d",used, in the 19,9<, 8 DSEIR to de. termine
the-significanceofjmpact. ":'Based~on'2.the :DSEIR:'s:~:,significance:criterion,therefore, ..the increase
,attributable ,to '>the,;Phase I1I Site Mitigation Plan> Development Alternative would not constitute a
significant impact, as shown in Exhibit 7~3.-13 ~ ' ,
" . . :Exhlblt 7.3-13
Comparison of EsfimatedPhaselllSitePo/ice Service Needs
Land Use. Csl/sfor Serviceb .' :Swom' Officer 'C Street Pstrold _.H .Total NeedfJ
Proposed Proiect .' " ,
. Size 'Rate NuIIlber Rate ~Number Rate Number
Hotel . 600 ,0.32 192 , 1 ;356, 'OA4 1 ;950 ',,', 0.31 0.75
Mixed Use 1 35 4.00 140 1.759.286 0.02 2.592,631 0.01 0.03
Restaurants " 18 LIO ; ,. ,20 396;360 ' "'0.05, '582;727 , :'0:03 0.08
Retail 10 L50 "15 ; '290,852' ,; '0:03.". ,: 436,628 .'0;02 0.05
Toral 367 0.54 .' , "0.37 0.91
, , ,
Phase 111 Site Mitl at/on Plan Devalo ment Alternative
Size Rate Number Rate 'Number 'Rate Number,
Hotel 150 0.32 48 1,356 0.11 1,950.0.08 0.19
Mixed Use 1 347.5 4.0 1,390 1,759,286 ,0.20 2,592,6310.13 0.33
Total I 1,438 0.31 "0.21 0.52
a Size indicates the amount of space by use given in number of rooms for'hotelsand'inthousands (1,000) of square feet.
h ,Annual calls for service (CFS). Rate shows CFS per hotel room and per 1,000 square feet of other commercial use.
,C ".Ral:eshows, neecltoempl()yone. (D additional sv.voJOD officer per thenumber.ofsquare,feetgiven. .
d Rate shows need to assign oneadditionalswom officer to street patrol activity per the number of square feet given.
eNI1I1ibef of sworn officers and SlJ'Cet patrol personnel positionS. . (Fewer than]:O would be a less-than-significant impact)
. . f 'Flex-space and'rnixed-use commercial (the category used by the SSFPD for offices).
;Building .with heights Clf75 to 250 feet at the locations assumed'by the PhaselIISite'Mitigation Plan
Development Altemativewould be'situatedin 'theshadowof'San'Bruno'Mountain. 'The'SSFPD will
require installation of communications relay equipment in the fIrst project built within this shadow,
whether east of U.S. 101 or on the Phase ill site, as also would occur with the project as proposed.
. ,The BrisbaneSchoolDistrict(BSD):uses astudenl generation :rateoP1.0studentper130to240 new
jobs. ,Based on the 'projecl'sponsor' s employment :factors (LOemployee per 200 square ,feet of retail,
restaurant, and office development and 0.75 employee per hotel room) used by the 1998 DSEIR to
estimate employmen.t of the project and other alternatives;"the Phase III Site uMitigation Plan
24
....; ,
7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
TlITf7Ilny Pha.e II and III Final SElR
DeveiopmemAlt;r7UliiVe coUld create approxnnateiy'1;851 Jcibs'66~~~ ~th~pproxhnately 720-
780 ne~job~ atliib~tablet(Jth~p~Q.Ject~sPhase III development concept. '8 . ",'
'. '. -. ' .. - '. .-; " ,-' -- "-' ,. -.' ,".;". .., , ',' --' .;.: .', . '-- . '::." .'- -. ..~...---;. ;. .; ....'- '. .'. .-. -', '- '., ' :', " .
. ''- -
. ' .'.'
. .... , ..'- '
. ."' .' ,;'_. .. :',.::.:. _' . _:-.:: ....:".~. "_:~~".,.i .: ";~.. . . '...~ ..r__~~"', ":,, .- ,-',' , ,:-. ,'-: -:,'" '/<'.:.-':,_:'. --;': :." '. ~': ,.. ;__:,::-' ,---; - ~ -~ ,'':'':', ,>:'';:' ..;~ _,' ~.;.. ' . ~_:,; _ :.:. ,,<::,...:. ", ~' :' -, .,~', ',. :"'." <\'- - ,
The 1,851' eII1PIQY~s, geneni@'py"thiS_.,81ternativ~"co.1ild_genem~.eight':t~.)4~SD;snidents. This
.nunlber comparesWithtbi'eeto six newsttidents the 1998 DSEIReStllnated for720-780 new jobs from
. implementation of the pr9ject'.g, Phase .m developmentconct:-pt,~~ethePhase.:lIl,Site,Mi#gation
, Plan Deve1o.pment"AltemativewoUld resUlt in, more , BSI? studentsthan.estimated'''from the project's
Phase m devel()pme~tconc~pt, additio~ students, attributable to tI$ ,alternative w()uldnot constitute
a .sigIlific~tiIl:q>act uri(iergEQi\. aJ1,~" th,;.,,~i.gnific~~~ ,~terjl1.~cl~~t:ifi7d P~'l'~~' ~5 ~ ' oft.he, DSEIR.
, f"
,LBnd,Use
. . " ,>' . ,;EJihlblt7.3-14
-'Companson ofEStimtited EmploymentaiJdStudent Generation
<;Job ,Rate · ,JobsiStudent Rate:Students
. ,Size
Proposed Proiect
Hotel 360-600 rooms b 0.75 employee /'room 270-450 c 1 / 130-240 jobs 1.1-3.5
'Mixed Use 35,000 square fcet 1.00 employee / 200 sQUare feet 175 1 / 130-240 jobs 0.7-1.4
Restaurants-: 18;OOOsquarefcet ,1.00employee /200 squarefcct " 90 1 / 130-240 iobs 0.4-0.7
Retail 10.OOOscjuarefeet LOOemployeel 200 square feet 50 1 / 130-240 jobs 0.2-0.4
Total ',' .. , 585-765 ti 2.4-6.0 .
Phase /II Site Miti ation Plan Develo ment Altemative
Hotcl150,roomsO.75 em 10 ccs / room 113 1 / 130-240' obs 0.5-0.9
MixedUse ','347.500squarefcet, 1.00 loeel200s are feet 1,738 .1/130-24O'obs 7.2-13.4
Total 'J;85] 7.7-14.3
a For the 1998 DSElRProject Description, thcproject sponsor identified' all the employee generation ratcsshownabove
'andestimatcdthaube:Phase'mproject'would emplQY a total of approximately 780people. "
''b'Ibesponsonissuu1ed developmcntohnavcrageof180 rooms perhoteI (for a total of 540 rOOIDS).comjlar,ed with the
360,to 6OOpotentia1 rooms identified bythc1998SpecijicP1an:Amendment; .,.,...,' . ,. .....", ,..... "..',
-,c The sponsor estimated 405cmployccs (assuming 540 rooms and uSingthe.ratcofO.75cmployee pcrrooDl}whcrcas 360-
600,roomSwould.gencratc270-450 employees.{using the same ratc,of'O.75employeeper,room).
dThe J998,DSEIRused the range of 720-780employccs.720employeesrcprcsent the SUDlof 405 hotel empioy.ees plus
315 othCC-CIJ;lPloyccs(for720 totalempI9y~),asdiscussedinfootnote:rb andc, above. 780 clJ!ployees'rcprcsent the
projectsponsor'sestimate. . .~ .,'"
e' 72()" 780 cmplQYees would rcsultintbreetosix new students.
Hazards Because';this:a.lternativemakesnoassumptions 'aboutthePhase'U . site; 'potential impacts
'fromexposure-electroInagnetic~fieldsareinoot'hMoreover, ',hazards,.:and ,associated 'regulatory
requirementS resulting from aerially deposited lead do notrelatetodevelo.pmentof,the.Terrabay Phase
ill site, only to' the' proposed hook ramps and Bayshore Boulevard sites. Since this analysis assumes
construction of the hook ramps ,and realignment of Bay shore Boulevard with implementation of the
:projectand. the .,Phase 1/I 'Site;Mitigation,p.lan Development Alternative, ,aerial lead impacts would be
identicalJor both.:
Archaeology The 1998 DSEIR identifies the project's impacts on DSEIRpages 286-288. Mitigation
Measure4.9~l(aHDSEIR page.288).orMitigation Measure 4:9..J(b))(DSEIR,page 290) would satisfy
'CEQA:requirements for reducing impacts ;toaless-than"'significant ,level. ':Bycomparison,the Phase
8 Therangc of 720-780 new jobs reflects estimates by the EIR consultant (720) and the sponsor's estimate (780). The EIR
consultant used employment densities identified by the project sponsor. These densities estimated the number of jobs per
1,000 square feet by specific commcrciaUand use) or the number of jobs per hotel room. The 1998 DSEIR presented this
employment range in the project description (DSEIR pages 4243) and also used this estimate in calculating student
generation of Phase m site commercial development to the BSD. The range presented in Exhibit 7.3-14 accounts for
hotel sizes as further explained in Footnotes b, c, and d.
25
7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
, Terrtlblly PhlIse II end III Final SEIR
III Site Mitigation.Plan Development Alternative would eliminate all projectactivi~yonandwithin 30
'feet of the boundaries of CA-SMa-40~ resl11ting in the; :preservation of the site: "
" .,.' ..-..... -,., . . .,. < .... - ":" .
According totbe'desCriPtion '''of the~e1iISite Mitigati(}~ piart' DeVelopminiAlt~rnative, the
following elements of development which would have impacted CA-SMa-40 with implementation of
the ,proposed, pI'9ject" \\iould . be" eliminated by thisaltemative:,.fill ,over:. the.,~haeological .site, an
intenictive:parkori tlu:sire,'ari'iriterriaI ro8dwa,y above the westem.luirt ofthe.site~'andparking lot pads
which encroached on parts of the' northern and southemb01indaries ,of the site. "The limits6f grading
under the 'PhaselIISiteMiti.gationPlan Development Alternativ~would'beat least.30 feet from the
,edgeofthearchaeolqgic81 site. Since the mapp~gof thearch~ological siteinc1udes,a3Q.,foot buffer
'beyond the ,surveyed edge of the site, thegradin.gline wowdbeat least 60 feet from the,known site
boundaries.' The elevation of Bayshore BoUlevard east of the site wouldbelowered,sli,gh~yto reduce
fill adjacent to the site. Drainage of developmentpads would be towards BayshoreBoulevard, not the
archaeological site. The development pads on the north and ,south would be constructed with
elevations slightly higher than the archaeological site on a natural 2: 1 ,slope with no retaining walls or
structures on thes1clpe. "
While MitigatioIiMeasure 4.9.,1(b) was the;preferred mitigation measure of the 1998 DSEIR because
it would preserve. the sheIlmourid, the Phase III Site,MitigationPlan.DevelopmentAltemative would
essentially eliminate all physical activity oDand immediatelyadjacentto the site. ,By comparison, the
Phase HI Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative would totally reduce impacts to a less-than-
significant level and would be even more in keeping wi~ CEQA' s emphasis on preservation of
sjgnificant cultural resources.
, ,
" -,' - . __, :' '-, . ':. .- c: ,. . '--", -:--,. ." _ ",,-; ~ -- :, . -' . -- ,_-; ,
'f\rchaeolo.gicaI' monitoring'~g' allconstructioD' activities still would.be're9uJred, as recommended
by Mitigation Measures if.9-1(a)and 4.9..'} (b). The ,potential for, ,discovering ,off-site finds and
measures for 'mitigating "such circumstances 'are discussed in Master :Response 7.3-6 and a new
Mitigation Measure.,., 4.9,-1(d), w" hic, h,has been added,., tothe..1999B, 'SEIR.
.. . . . . - - . -.
MASTER RESPONSE 7.3-2
NEW,ALTERNA TIVE,"PROJECTDESCRIPTION, AND,RECIRCUL:ATION
After the City published the 1998 DSEIR on July 1, 1998, theproject sponsorJonnulated a new site
'. planning and development concept for the Phase :IDsite. 'The 'sponsor'first;presented, the concept
publicly 'at 'the July d 6 Historic Preservation 'Commission meeting, :at . 'the Jrily:23 'Planning
Commission -public hearing, and' at subsequent 'Planning ,Commission study sessions and submitted
<,written' and:illustrativematerialsto 'the City 'describing thecoriceptin 'thefonn of comments on the
"1998 DSEIR.' Thenewdevelopment'concept departed in some ways from the "Phase 'ill project and
alternatives analyzed in the 1998 DSEIR.
The City received many comments on the 1998 DSEIR, which refer to the sponsor's new Phase ill site
development concept. Concerns focused on the timing of the sponsor's submittal. According to those
comments,'submittal 3fter"lmblicationofthe 1998 DSEIRprevented an analysis and full public
'disclosure of the .envirorimentalimpacts' of the ,concept' in the DSEIR andinhibitedpiiblic review, and
"an opportuIlityto comment on thedevelopinent concept':Other conunentSassertedthat1hesponsor's
....new,developmentconcept 'Constituted a change ,to 'the 'project description ( or another change to the
'projectdescriptiori),thus confusingreaders,n~ing theSEIRanalyses, orboth.
Project sponsors often revise or modify their projects during the planning and environmental process.
This includes changes' during 'the public review period of environmental documents. 'Modifications
26
:,-.'-J,
7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
TerrMHly Phase II and III F#na/SElR
.' ~
caniDClude changes toincoIpO~,mitigationIoeasures-iaeJ1tified'by anEIR~tl.y'n1tothe project.
Modifications also can 'include'changes to avert 'impaCts altogether, thus avoiding the necessity to
jmplement~tig~ .me~s. ,~~ore,~odifi~CJ1lS ,canad~pte,lemet;lts9falte~ti\'7~ ~yzed
,'..m an EIR, . '" ' ,,',.. , , ,
....:..._~:~--;>.';..'
. . -- '- - "..'..
:.... _ .'_'~ .::".,_;;>,:___.~_:.~;. / _~"::::" :_'1'.,- ~"'_~!'''''.; .J..;:-. .__~.~:_.' <.:,':,:;: ,_._I.......,::.-_.:,:;.:;~:......<;.<:.".';....J .T.:_~:.:;-".-:'<,..:."..:.;:.~~'''.__: .~.~"':_:~'.......',;..:'_.:.~> _,.:__..~:, '.:
. 'Besides :resPondiJlg to cOllcluSioJlSofenVironmetitiU, documents,sponsors.'aiso reVise' or.inodifytheir
projects in response to; public input. Public: review of environmental documeritsllsWillyis the first
:opportunit;yformost decision-makers and the public~at""1argeto.examine.a project itself. This means
.that iriformal studysessions,al}(~ fOIImi.lpublic.h~gs onEIRs provid.e. the first fol1lll1S for reviewers
'lO make comments on the ,. merits, oftbe .:pr()ject and for. public officials to ~proVide . direction about
'elements of the project -despite the statutory :inte~tofthe:publicreview ,period to ,submit comments
'on the project,' sen"vironmental consequences.
The project sponsor hasnofformally amen~edthependirig application to slibstitutethe newPhase ill
site 'development concept. This : is not necessary 'because the City has the authority to approve (or
disapprove) the project or an alternative. Therefore, the City can approve the pending application (a
pr9posed Specific Plan Amendment), the ,sponsor's new Phase ill site development concept, or another
alternative without first alteringthepioject description.Therefo~,jtis not relevant whether or not the
new concept changes the project description evaluated III the 1998 DSEIR.However, what is essential
is : that the environmental document adequately covers the action or entitlement (the "project")
u1timatelyapp~o,y'ed.
As indicated in Master Response 7.3-1, this FSEIR treats the new conceptasan alternative. This is
because it resembles aspects of the previously aFproved development ,concept for the Phase ill site
embodied 'in :the'Terrabay Specific Plan, 'aspects of the pending project embodied in the ,proposed
'SpecificPlan Ame~t!" and~p~of 1998}?SE!R,alternatives. "
.:. . .:..--......".,.,'...". "',.. ,-:-,,;';.., --.:.:--".
.. '- '. .
New Phase IIISiteAlte17JativeAftertheCloseofth~p1.1blicreview period, the CitY'S EIlf~onsultants
analyzed the project sponsor's new Phase ill site land use and development concept. The results of
that evaluation are presented in Master Response 7.3-1 (above), and the,assessmenhof the Phase III
Site Mitigation Plan Development Altemative. ,will,be:added.to 'chapter.5.0Alte17Ultives to the
Proposed Project in the Certified SEIR.
"As indicated. above, the PhaseJIISiteMitigation.Plan DeveltJpmentAlternative;assurnesa 340,000-
"..square .foot office buildin.g ,(parcel A), .7,SOO-square foot ,qu3lityrestaurant {parcel E),and ISO-room
. hotel (parcel G). This, is somewhat smaller .than theconce.pt .identified ':by.the:project sponsor (a
340,OOo-square Jootoffice,builclin,g, 10, OOO-squareJoot quality ,restaurant, and 200-roomhotel). 'The
different amounts of restaurant and hoteL development reflect trip generation-the Phase JII Site
Mitigation Plan Development Alternative development program ,assumptions were reduced in order to
avoid exceeding traffic volumes analyzed in the Draft 1998 SEIR, a stated objective of the project
sponsor.
:The 340;Ooo,gross square feet ofParceLA'offices.on thenorthem,part ofthe Phase m site is yinually
identical to.themaximumamount of development ofall,wesproposed for the, entire Phase im site by
.the.pending Spee;ific Planamendmen({343,OOOsquarefeet) -the.amount of potentiaL development
':analyzed in the 1998 DSEIR. . Thus, ,the, total ,amount. ofdevel9pmentproposed .b,y;the:pfC)ject sponsor
.or identified lly.the ElR consultantJor the p'hase111. Site Mitj,gatwniPlan, Development :Alternative
would exceed the 343,000 squarefeet analyzed in the 1998 DSEIR on the Phase m site for the proiect.
. . .'- ,.
However, the ,alternatives analyzed in ,the 1998 DSEIR assumed both .moreand less than 343,000
square feet of development on the Phase m site. The Existing Specific Plan Alternative would result
27
7.0 COMMENTS AND ,RESPONSES
ie1T8bay Phaselland III Flnsl SEIR
in construction of 669,300 square feetcievelqpment,(largerthan the pn)jecO, the Reduced Commercial
Development Alternative wouldresultiri development of293,OOO squareJeetofbuildin.g area (smaller
than theprqjec~). ,and the Environ11uiniallY Prefer;re4 Develqpmi!nt Alternative:ass~ed,.de,:elopment
of94~200sguaie ,feet or builclingare,a'CsriWIer :tb8.D .theproject):J.ndusion.,ofthemandatot:y Existing
:Specific Plan .fl.1temativemorethan adequateJy covers the proj~ct'~ponsor' snew development concept,
Vvhetherdefuledas inLiitter.13orJ(~terJl,!iji~~~?3~1~'"..;':., ,:' ~. " -,.
'..' ".:"" ......:-.'.....,..-. ;:::-'<"," ..t..... -.:"~:. ._~_:;.' -"-::'.::: '.::';~~"' :':":.:~~;~-"-':,,.;:~'j ,'- ._~. ~_~ ........ ~'_ '~.-,'~ _".~" ... ~-
, "
'Moreover, the.,1998'DS, 'EIR isa "supplemental" . en, vironmental'document. ,It is "'tiered" -off of
. previouslyp~pared]~IRs c.ertified 'bythcfCity>anifincorporates those,prior.environmental documents
':,bYF,.efere,nce,.. (.DSEIR p~g, eS,,7-,'8. ),.";Th. e. 1,998 D, SEL.,'R.,J"i OCUS,. e,s"ex.c'lusiv. ely, on. signifi".. cantcbanges from
:the Specific 'Plan development 'concept originally'apj:)f(jvedfor tbe"Terrabay Phase n and ill sites by
,the City in 1982 and amended in.1996. AmongthQse.chat;lgesanalyzed,bythe 1998 SEIR is a
substantially differentPhasemsite devel()pment concept.<pen~g:SpeciflcP1anAmendment) than the
previously approved project (~pproved Terrdbay.Bpecific Plan). ,The ,approved development concept
'for the_~hasem site is the Existing'Specific Plan Alternartveidentified,above. ,While the 1996 SEIR
analyzes the full range of impacts from implementing ,a 669~300-square foot development . program,
the 199~DSEIR41Di1yzes thesamede,velopmeni pr()granlin comparative detail to the currently
proposedproject. (ComParative detail refers to highlighting the differences in outcome, rather than at
equal detail.) .
,';;'
RecircuJationof the EJR Guidelines' Section 15088.5(a) codifies recent case law on the recirculation
of EIRs. CEQA states that, if subsequent to public review and interagency. consultation (but prior to
fimilcertification) the. Lead ;\gency adds .~"significan.t':new ,information". to'anEIR,theLead _ Agency
must recirculate theEIR for 'additional comments, and . consultation,.Ne\yinforJDation is considered
"~significane' wben,theEIR is :chariged:.in' a.wayvvhichUdepnvesthe:public 'oLa meaningful
opportunity to conui1ent,j. 'This, oc~ ,~hen~
;:;"
· A significant new environmental impact would result from the projector from new mitigation
proposed to be implemented.
· A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would reSult unless mitigation
. . . measures were adopted which wouldreduce:theimpactto aleveLofinsignificance.
. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measureconsiderably;ilifferentfromotherspreviously
analyzed clearly would lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project
sponsor,declines to adoptit.
,.A .draft .EIRwas :sofundamentallYcand.:basicallyinadequate:and conclusoryinnature that
meaningful public review,andcommend,were"precluded.
, . -
'Recirculation of an . environmental document guarantees ,that :thepublicis,notdenied an. "~opportunity
to test, -asses~, andevaluate~e.~ ,and ma1ce an infonnedjuclgmenLas,to..the validity of the
conclusions" ' .
. Guidelines ' Section 15088.5(a) also states that recirculation is not required where thenewinfonnation
added to an EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or,makes insignificant modifications inan,adequate EIR.
No utriggering event"specified under this Guidelines' section has been identified, and, therefore, it is
concluded that recirculation of this document is not required.
The analysis of the Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Deve10pmentAltemativedid not reveal any
altogether new impacts -that is, either specific new impacts or categories of impacts which were not
28
7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Terrabey PhllSB II end III FIIJIII SElR
· id~tffied lorilie:~roj&t '1:Jythe1?9~'oDSEI!fpr'*,IllCh could notb~ ~duced to a 'less.;tb~,..significant
'levelthr()ugh,ririti.gation.;9ne~~,p~o~ of ,the project, sponsor: s new~Ch?~el()pment' program is to
. \incOIporate'many DSEIRJrii&gation measures ,and either confine some "inipaeudotheseverity of those
';previoWiiyjdentmetfortofeduce'oreliIniiUtte otheriDJpacts li1~pgether.:The, anaIysisof tile Phase III
"Site Mitig{Jrion'Plan. 'DevelopmeiztAlt~~e}:,~p~!~,e.~t~at "its@ :;:w,01ilc!. TC?~,Un' s~me.:~ignificant
impacts. 'However, the evaluation''follDo'that'.the net effect of'iInPlementing 'the'Phtlse llISite
Mitigation Plan L?tn!.eloPment_Alter,native. would1:le. to reduce, .if.not . eliminate, the~,gnitude of
:impacts. " FinaJJy,tQe d~veI9P~~ ~n.~t $CD~y .would ptcolpor.ate.miti.gation measure~ identified
in the 1998DSEIR:"1ntlri.s,context,Jt,does,,n()~ ~ggestaltogether Ile~ 'means to.mitigate)mpacts of
. "site development which..havep()tbeen,t.ested:,pr scrutinized by tlie Citf s emiironmental consultants,
'. " "_', c- . _ .. :.' ..., '. _.' : .-._" . ',;- n.T"" "~. '_ '" ,......".. _~'_ ; . . :"C,'.::" . _ -. .: . ", :,' ...._ .
I.'; . .
-Project DescriptiOIJ"The1'998TJ$iR describes ~arious aspectsoLthepr6ject in the level of detail
equivalent towhichthepr9ject~ponsor'has de~edthepro,posed development concept.; The proposed
Precise Plan definesthe:PhaseTI site development concept in more detail than the proposed Specific
Plan Amendment oefinesthe,Pbase'IDsite development concept. Jnthe City of South San Francisco,
:speCific plans areintended:tobe moregerieral in namre and precise plans are intended to define and
provide moredeta.il about-projects than 'previously afforded them by ~pecific, plans. 'Thus, each step in
the 'planning process is designed expressly to refine and provide additional detail about previous
, concepts.
, .
.'- - .
'Commentors concerns aboudheadequacyofthe ,project description partly relate t()speculation about
whether more' intense;ianduses,ormore total development than currently proposed might. be built on
the Phase ill, site ,in thefu~jiliisconcern is"unfounded. Any substantial deviationJromthe approved
:"'land, .useand,',developmentcon~ept 'would require, ,additional. enVironmental ' review., ,'.' 'Presently, a
subsiantialdeViation coilldibeinteqireted at exceeding 669,300 square .feet deve1opmentor consisting
of altogether new uses not previously contemplated on thesite. '
MASTER RESPONSE 7.3-3
APPLICA TIONOFTHENATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVA TION ACT
Severalcommentors: iasserted i.that,theNationalHistoric :'PreservationAct.'(NHPA) applies to the
:proposed Phase ill project. Specifically, Comments 11.2,29.27, 30.6 and 30.7 all inquire about the
,applicability'of;theNHPA1to:theproject. .~,'"
"'. l..~.....'r':'"'
. ~'" .!
.In 1968, Congress enacted the NHPA(16 U.S.C.A.~470et."S'eq.)to'encourage :identification and
preservation of the nation's cultural resources. The NHP A declares a public interest in preservation of
,'theseresources:in that; a legacy: of "cultural; educational, aesthetic, inspirational, economic, and energy
benefits will be maintained and:enriChed"for:future-generationsofAnlericans".!I The, NHPA
authorizes the Secretary of Interior to maintain a National Register of Historic Places. The Register is
"~composedof'buildings; 7 structures-and' 'objects' 'sigriificant ;inAmerican -~history,architecture,
'archaeology ,:engineering, and' culture". 10 JA.:property can 'he listed on 'the Register in a number of
ways. II An owner of historic property may object and prevent his or her property from listing on the
9 16 U.S.C.A. op. cit., Section 470(b)(4).
10 '1bid.,Section470a(a)(1)(A)."'.': .
11 See 36 CF.R. 60. 1 (b). Properties are added to the National Register through thefollowing processes:
29
7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Terrabsy Phs.. II and III FIIJIII SElR
R~gister. 12 .:However, ,listing on ,the Register,is. required if the owner ,desires, to obtain ,certain Federal
benefits~.inclu~g:grants, zloans"and>tax.incentives. 13ADd"evendf,apropertyasmot:listed on the
Register,aIly,property.,eligibleforlisting,triggerstherequirement~ ithat;;Feder3I,agenc::ies with
. permitting, and ,licensiJJ.g 'authorityover,a:prQject.take "into ,. accoun.t,the,pr9je6fs,effects. .on'historical
'resources.14.' . .... ',..., . '~.. :~d'. ' ' '-',-'<~
Compliance~th the NRHP. on).y.is required' by Federal agencies. A Federal agency with jurisdiction
:orcoI1troLov.era,~fQject shaIl~pri?rtois~~ a,permi~-~rlicense;for,~epro~c4italceintoaccount the
effects ,of thefproJect'OnaIly,slte.listedor eligtble forlistJDg'on the~Regtster. .,'The'T:errilbayPhaseill
project ,may require. Federal permits, including a Section,404ipermit irom.the-U.,S..;Army'-Corps of
Engineers (Corps), an Amendment to the Section 10(a) permit under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) , ,a National.,PolIutant Dischar.:geEliminationSystem;(NPDES) pennit'from' the San'Francisco
Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and a permit from;the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) pursuant to the Clean Air Act. Before issuing their respective
permits, those agencies will review whether the Terrabay 'Phase ,msite potentia1lyqualifies for listing
under the NHPA.Pursuantto this review, the Federal agencies will consider the effect of the project
on any archaeological and historical resources 'potentially impacted by 'the project and provide an
opportunity for, public comment. . T:he term "federal agencies" does not include 'private parties. 16 The
term "federal;.agencies",also does.. not ,include. state 'or local "governmental . agencies unless. they are
acting as the Federal agency under a specific federal law. 17 Therefore, neither the project sponsor nor
the City has the authority to :enforce compliance with the NHPAor to ensure that the property is
eligible for listing on the National Register.
-..;..;..
- ~.. ,
Furthermore, compliance with1he NHPA only is required for 'those properties listed or eligible for
listing,ontheNational;Register~'The '1\dvisory,CouncilonHistoric'Preserva.tion"has adopted
, . .
(l)Thoseacts of Congress and~ecutive orders wliich create historic areas of the'National Park System administered
jbytheNationalRark Service..allorportions of which may be detenninedto,be of historic significance consistent
with the intent of Congress. '.
(2) Properties declared by the Secretary of Interior to be of national significance and designated as National Historic
Landmarks.
(3) Nominations prepared under approved State, Historic Preservation Programs, submitted by the State Historic
Preservation Officer.and,approv~ by.the, Nation81 Park.Ser.vice.,' " , ,
(4) Nominations from ,any person or local government only if such property is not located in a state with no approved
'State Historic PreservationJ>I'()gram and .ifthe nominationjs~pproved by:the NationalParkService.
. (5) Nominations of Federal propc:rties;;~paredtlyFederal ~encies,submitted by the FederaLPreservation Officer and
approved by theNational park Service.
;12
16 U.S.C.A.. op. dt.. Section 470a(6).
13 Ibid.. Section 4080 470b, and470d, and 26 U.S.C.A.fiI70(h)(4).
14 16 U.S,C.A, op. cU.. Section 47of.
15 ,Ibid.'
16 WATCH v. Harris (2d Gr. 1979) 603 F.2d 310,326 cert denied, 444 U.S. 995.
17 See 42 U.S.C.A. Section 5304. ,For example, the Housing and Community,Development ActdesignatesJocal agencies
receiving grants as the' "federal agency"; thus requiring that the local agency comply with procedures set forth in the
NHPA (16 U.S.C.A. fi470w(7)(d)) and 36 C.F.R. fi800.2.
30
7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES !
TerrtllMy Phase II and III Rna/ SE/R
'j, .,. "- ";-', -;
. ,regulations' 'defming"the'tenD "~~eligible~\"aS <aPP1i~'by ~f~eiaI "..~c~es,. to .:includebCSthproperties
Jonna1ly'de~rmined:as such by:the Secretary ,of the Interior (whether:'or.not':the.proPerty'actually is
". '" '.. .",.,,' , ',', ..",.~.. ,--~ .-, ", -, "."",' ",," '... ,.. ','" 18
listed, in !the'NationaltRegister) : and all', other properties which 'meet the 'National Register' criteria.
'The AdViso:ry>COuDCiHs 'an!mdependeiit'FederaJ. agencyWiih a'Ciila8I 'rCsie m:impiementmg review of
Federal agency undertakings. under the NHP A.
. . . -
,The criteria'Jor,evaluation i:for'~tbe ;Nationa1~Registei.are ':basea 'on 'the "qWilityOf sigriificance in
American {bistory ,'architecture. ,arChaeology ,:engineering~arid cUlture'that is present is districts, sites,
buildings, .!structures, 7JlDCl ~,objects';which:possess 'in~grity"of 10catioIl, ,design, "setting,materials,
'workmanship,;fee~g, andassoeiation'and: ' ,
r-'
i
L
(a) are associated Withevents:which'have'made a,significant contribution to the broad patterns of
,our: history or
. (b ) ,are .associated with,the:lives.ofp~rsonssig1iificant'inourpast or
(c)embody.the ;distinctive 'Characteristics ,of :a'type,:period, or ,method of construction, or
,represent, the work . ofaimaster.. orpossess.highartistic Nalues, ,of.representasignificant and
distinguishable, entity,whose .coIIJ,ponentsmay lack individual distinction ,or
(d) have, yielded, or may"belikely to yield, :information importantinprehistory,orhistory.
Holman & Associates conc1udethat the archaeological site, CA-SMa-40,probably is eligible for
nomination .tothe ,National ;R~ter'ofHistoricP1aces' (NRHP) · (see.,1!JSEIR ,page ,282). ,The, EIR
'archaeologist~grees,as ,the;~iteprObably.qua1ifies undercriterion;( d) because jt;.has . yielded and will
yield additionalinfonnation" relevant to answering scientific . research questions regarding Bay Area
prehistGry,,(DSEIRpage.283).and,under,criterlon,(a),because-it:is-directly associated with a
:scientificaUy. .~()gnized ,important:prehistoric . event .' (DSEIR.page,284).However,thecurrent
environmenta1review~process"for ,thePhasem,project .isnotrequiredlo:pursueNRHP eligibility
determination.
.MASTERRESPONSE7.3-4'
CEQA AND CALIFORNIA REGISTER:OFHISTORICAL 'RESOURCES
. . ~ ~ . . ..
'The J998 ,DSEIRanalyzesthearchaeological Sites under both " archaeologicwand' historic resource
standards and,tbispointis,clarified .here and"throughoUl'the :document.:UnderCEQA, the criteria for
determining the significance of archaeological resources include 'historic resources standards. 19 The
CEQA analysis of the significance of archaeological sites is intertwined with evaluation of historic
significance. ,Consistent with these CEQA standards, the'DSEIR,discusses the history of the site and
its inhabitants and determines, that the site is potentially historically ,significant Then, the. DSEIR
.analyzes the project sponsor's proposed mitigation plan (for the project) in .terms ofitsimpacton the
historic and other values of the site and identifies an 3.ltemate mitigation measure (avoidance and
preservation) to further protect the site. This evaluation of impacts and mitigation measures is
consistent with CEQA's mitigation for impacts on historic resources ,(that is, no substantial adverse
effect on historic'resources).
'18 36:C~F.R.J800.2.op. cii.,'and,Colorado River indian Tribesy.ManhJC.D. CaL1985) 605 F..s11pp. .1425, 1438).
19 PubhcResources Code Section 21083.2; CEQA Guidelines Appendix K ("Appendix K'').
31
L
7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
'TfIt7'8b8y Phase II and III Final SEJR
Under ,CEQA, . the' . standards, ,for, analyzing ,archaeolqgical;"resources:inc1ude ',historic resource
'standards. 20 'Alchaeolcigical.res~are "un~qu~~.';:O! "~oriaz.tt~o;,(tIui;J~;signfficaIltj:ifthey meet
anyoftJ:i~f?Jl,?~g.c~~r,i~~~~~;!ar~J.Y fOC~:()A :tb.e,~storic~~~~.p",~e;;~,: 21..;' '; ,
" ; _.. _ _ .;'.:: _ - ,..j., _ " .;:...,~~;,,,-:\~~:,:~' ~~~ . _. . .:....It.l.: :",<1_.:: . ;., .. P:",'~ _~:. :._'. . ':.'~ ".':~....:~"'" -,,?~~.-: _;.:;/:: ':< '~;;~:' .
· Asso~i~te~fwith'll:;S~~n.@~~Y. ~()gnized,~P9~tJ)~l1ist~c~pr ~g~:v.~Il~.orperson
,'. '. ;.Has ,a.,.,.s.pec~i. €?I,:;~~.;guali~, sucb",i8$)J:>eingth~'oJdest'~cif t:its;;1:y.pe~"il;the;best,available
.exanw1e,of.itswe,'.o' ' .. . '., '
..... ]sat1east~lEX>.:YCarsOld:aD(tpossesses'substantia1stratigraphic integrity :':';,': .
· .', OninvolvesiInportant research . questions that historic ,researcbhas ;showll"canbe.:answered only
witharchaeolqgicallDf?tl1ods, " ,
, .
, ,
"'-.:;.~.. c..-'-'. ' . . ~ '.:. .., ,;., .
These significance criteria are similar to the significant standards for historic resources under CEQA,
which include the following: 22 .
. Associated:with events that made'a sigriificantcontribution,toCalifomia'shistory
. . .Associatedwith:theJivesiofpersons'.importantinour :past'or
'.Has'yielded:ormayhe likelY:oloyield information importanfinprehistory or history .
Mitigation measures for archaeological and historical, resources also are 'similar'under'CEQA.Proper
mitigation' for archaeological resources include preserving them in place or leaving them in an
'undisturbed state. ,23;Siniilarly ,mitigation for'historicresources :are 'avoiding' a "fsubstantial adverse
change" which means avoiding demolition, destruction, reloeanon,.'or, alteration that would impair the
historic significance of the site.:24 ';,
C';''''
,~
'T"
Consistent:with'these'archaeOlogica1'mia"liistoriC81"suiiJdaras"lIrider ;CEQA,~theDSEIR includes a
detailed . discussion .,<>fthe 'ei:bnohistciIy,'prehistory,:iandarehaeci10gical;historyof,the ,she1lmounds
(DSEIRpage 276-282). The sigriificancecriteria in the DSEIR include the historic standards under
Public'Resources.!Code B~tion 21 083:2(g)'and~ppendix1{:'which are'silliilarto the standards under
, Public'Resources<Code.section"21084~l'and'5024.1(c)XDSEIRpage283). The DSEIR,., concludes that
CA-SMa-40 isapotentially:'significant :archaeologicai'resource ~because ;.it "containsiriformation
.needed'lo' answer:i~portant"Scientific 'researCh qliestions" (DSEIRpage283), is1ike~y to be the "oldest
of its ,type"and'"'best, available'.exaII1ple".{)f'shellmounds .m'the 'area ,'(DSEIR,page .2~4), 'and "is
directly., associated with 'a" sCientifica.lly 'reCQgniZed:in:iportantprehistoric' :'cvent" '(DSEIRpage 284).
The DSEIR states that CA-SMa-40 is ":an extremely important resource.under CEQA and believed to
ibe eligible for lis~g-onthe-National:Register ofHistoricP1aces" (DSEIRl'age 288). ','
, "
'The 'VSEIR'evaIuatesClthe>mitigation'riPproject:iInpactsonthearchaeologicalsiteinterms of
preservatiori'and.llvoiiiance of damage ~which';methe"preferred lmitigatiOri . measures 'Jor both
archaeological. :and'historical 'resources. :TheDSEIR concludes that the 'project and' its proposed
20Jbid..
:,~lPublil:;Reso~ Code.~ecti()n21083a(g);~ppendix K.Sectiondll. ;,'. '~ .
22 Public Resources Code Secti~ns.21 O~:l; 5024.1 (c).
23 Public Resources Code Section 21083.2; AppendixK, Section n.
24 Public Resources Code Sections 21084.1; 5020.1(q).
32
,7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
T.,.,."""yPhsseU and III Rnal SElR
. ,. , " - . -
~.., -:'.':'-: "':'J:..~-i,_"_/ ',.. "'~:~_~_.:~,':,~_':~ ,_,.'~'../;~.>,~ :!:.:.-~'.. \-.;~':._-':t..._~~,-.-..j;---.;.<'~, -'~':~:;..:.:::,:.,..:._>.:~':. _~~~.:~.,- ::':;"~;:i\.~ ,.~.(5,: -:.:.~..:~s~_:-::~.i.,.1tj.'...:..~ ..:.':-I;-':~~'f"ic_,J
'miqPf;ion(plan,1lUlY 'ai:lversel~,~~;;S~~:4<> :thro~gh ;c:~IIY'actiC>,p'.~~ ,Wthe ~:::~, DSEIR
concluaesi~1hai', the:: 'Poten~aI 'c,orQp~on 'i~':~ . concem,"because'the' '.site 'is' :",~, ~ly,' important
prehistoricCulturiil resciurees"CantHuiS .~\X>teritial foi-isCientificinqUi:iY'reganJing:1he prehiStdr)iof the
San ..Francisc;o.,penins1$JJ:J~E!IJ...;PfJge ,~~~): ,t,~~;.!?~~IR,,;sonpl~~r!h,~,..a!!!~~_t!te ;' p~ject' s
,prop' osed,'mitigation ,plaD 'WoUld,<camorin'With,thetbasic' ';~ments' cifCEQA'forarchaecilogica1
;-. .';~, ...'! .... ....... .-. ,,~'-~'_;':..:""';l;"4-T<..""'"11 -'.~'1"&f."l'..~. "'.'1,A. '.r.1\"-..:::~: '~"'-'!:.'."'..~"~'..''i''l.!"JI''!'2:';:..'.f'>.~,.t..~.:~;>;:;r.. ..
;:sites, :.:jtSpotential:for;damageto.,.the "SIte ~wo1i1d favor 'aniilternative'ID11;1~~.:'9f:"l!.ypldance and
'protection (DSEIRpage290).This.,Pr.eference for avoidance 'and;presemitioI!'"o~the site under
Mitigation Measure,,4~9-1 (b),is ;consistent;with:the"standards:f06mitigating;impacts ,to historic
,!resources'~whichlfocus,",'on ",avoiding, '(UIIlJagf: ''Or'iilteration.:25.,', Therefore,:'tbe' :'P$E.f.!R ,~dentifies ,the
. preferred / environmentally superior mitigation ,as eliminating <datimge ~:Oridistiiro8nce to the site
through avoidance and preservation which is the preferred mitigation underCEQA for impacts on
ihistoricresources. '
...-
Under CEQA, an historic resource is a resource listed in or determined, to, be eligible for listing in the
California ,Register ,of HistoricaLResources. 'The! criteria for listing on ,ithe:~CaliforniaRegisterof
Historical, Resources consist. of "provisions:in?botb;the'Public~Resources 'Code Section'5024. 1 and the
CalifomiaCodeof-Regulations.Section5024a Jprovides,that:( c)a .:resource'may:be listed as an
historical resource in the.California Register if it meets any of the following National Register of
'Historic Places ,criteria:
(I) ,Is "associated 'with events ..that have,IIIa4eas~gnificant .contribution:to,the:broad,pattems of
:,Calif.ornia.';s .history.and ,cultural heri~e~,:'
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
(3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics ofa type, period, region or method of construction, or
... ,,\representsthe,work,ofanimpottant:creative;,individual,. or"possesseslU,gh.artistic.values.
(4) . Has,yielded,!()r~y be:~!y,~:yiel~inf()11Datio~'iJIwortantin;prehistory,or:,histoIY.
.. .... .r."'~~~'~.~~ .. .. . ,
, :Hol~~n&'; .Associatesc6~cl~de;3th~'~tl;~:~~h~i~;~id:;iu;"CA~Ma-40"probably; is ,eligible for
nomination:totheNationalRegisier:,of Historic:PJaces(NRHP) .(DSEIRpa,ges 282 ,and .288). The ElR
archaeolQgist agrees,.as ,the mte,prObab1y,qualifies under,criterion (4)..becauseit:hasyielded and will
'yield8dditional ,informationrele\,'ilD-i't() . ansyv~g~s9entific. ,research questions IregardingBay Area
prehistory{J)SEIRpage283)1lI1d:un~!,:.cz;iterion,{l)"becausejti:is.'directly ,.associated with a
scientificallyrecqgnizecliInpprtant~!~~:e,veJ:lt (DSEIR;pqge.284), .. "
,.... ..,.~... ... :":'.;':' .. ... f ..... -'-.-~:..:~~..r';.}:::};~:~;,..~'~:.-.'..t;..,:,....;~:. .,-, ..".."
TheDSEIRiconcludes.:thattheprqject.,and,itsprqposed ,mitigation plan .,mayJldverse~yinylact CA-
SMa-40 through compaction 'caused by fill. "In accordance with Public Resources Code Section
21084~1,the ;,project,would likely ,cause .a:'SUbstantial.adverse ,.changeiin.the"significance of the
.California~gister.,eijgible,resource. :Inwact-analysis,in the DSEIR:(pages286-288) ,evaluates the
project's ,inwacts,.on,CA.,SMa-40. ",The:,.detailed.,.discussionon " .site.,conwaction,.and ,eventual
'destrUction of the resource leads to the conclusion that the site will lose its archaeological, cultural and
historical 'significance in the event that '. the project, is implemented.... Thus, the project would have
significant impacts on archeological, cultnral and historical resources. The DSEIRconcludes (DSEIR
page 288) that, although the project's proposed mitigation plan (Mitigation Measure 4.9-1(a))
concerning archaeological excavation would meet the basicCEQA requirements, and reduce. impacts
,to a less-than-significant level, analtemative mitigation plan : of avoidance andproteciion"(Mitigation
Measure 4;9-1(b)) would be more in keeping with CEQA emphasis on preservation (DSEIR, page
290). The Phase III Site Mitigation Plan DevelopmentAlternative also meets the'CEQA requirements
2S Ibid.
33
7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Te1T8bay Phase /I and III Final SElR
<andpromotesithe avoidance ,and 'protection ,ofiCA..:SMa-40,.'thus reducing the potential impacts on
archeological,cultura1and' historical sources to aless-than-significant 'l~veL '
,MASTER RESPONSE 7.3-5
",RELATIONSHIP'BETWEENiCA-SMA~:JJ~.'~lJ~'cA:'SMA~92
, r.o. '.._\':..:~."";; . ".-' ,.- ,. .'E
Physical proximity ,su.ggests ,a,possiblecUltural cOlmectionbetween the t\yo sites, :CA,.SMa-40 and -92
(DSEIRpo,ge 286)..;Iiohnan&Associates,,~p~ate .that CA-SMa-92 ,may l1avebeen ,.used by the
prehistoric inhabitants. of CA",Sl>4a-40durin.g"penods dofhightidal waterswhicbwould bea cultural
'connection between the tWo sites. TIlls mses theqnestion of 'whether or :Dot the sites might constitute
an archaeoIQgicaldistrict.,.However,.thenumerous.archaeological investigations which have taken
place in the ,project 'area {DSEIR pages 278..279and,182),,,includingthe Holman & .Associates
subsurface investigations and the EIR archaeologist's ,pastand project.,.relatedfieldinspections, have
resulted in no archaeological evidence that the two sites are physically connected by cultural deposits
. above or below ground.
The 1998 DSEIR, by presenting, mitigation measures Jor,potentialprojectimpacts to both sites,
. assumes that both sites meet CEQAcriteria as, ','important cultural resources" .
TheSEIR ,neednof establish the cu1tuci1relationshipbetWeen the two sites or determine .if an
archaeological district is present. Those determinations worild not change the DSEIR impact and
mitigation conclusions ' and'recommendationsin ,meetiIlg q3QAcultural resources management
requirements. The overall' Terrabay ,Phasem project area has been the subject of numerous
archeological investigations over the past several decacles.(DSEIR"page 27S). The,bounciaries of CA-
'Sma-40 have been 'defined by the ~Hci1man,&Associa:tes ,test ,excavations (DSEIR,:page,280) and the
,boundaries of archaeological' eVidence:has never been documented that ,would .suggestthe.presence of
prehistoric cultural deposits between the two sites. It is therefore concluded that development between
the two sites will ,not affect cultural resources. '
......- ..' .
The ElR archaeologist recommends that the Native AII1eIic~ response to' the DSEIR, regarding the
potential Jor,;random . off-site. Native American burials, be taken seriously as demonstrated by the
required mitigati(ln ,(seeMaster:Re~po1JSe.7.3.;6for.Jurther\discussion),,'The :presence of burials
,outside . the: boundaries .coLa site would notilDean th~~a<physicalconnectiombetween the sites exists.
However,ag, .a.c1arification to ,the:nntigation:measure ;jn~the1996.\S'EIR,requiring monitoring, to
address this concern, it is recommended thatallland-disturbing activities within the Terrabay Phase m
,:site developmentareabe;subject' to'monitoring'by;theptoject.archaeologist :andthe designated Ohlone
Most-"Likely-Descendant. '
MASTER RESPONSE 7.3-6'NA TIVE AMERICAN BURIAL CONCERNS
l' dve American responses to the 1998 DSEIR have expressed concern as to the potential disturbance
,rehistoric burials. The Holman & Associates' report (page 138) documents the presence of burials
,\;, hin the boundaries of CA-SMa-40. Patrick Orozco, tribal Chairman of the Pajaro Valley Ohlone
,lndian Council" has, e~pressedconce:rn ,on several occasions . for"protection of, on.,.site, ,burials and the
potencial for,disturbanceofoff!"site burials. ' .
'Regarding the issue of on-site, burials, mitigation of project impacts by means of Mitigation Measure
4.9-1(a) (DSEIR page 288;'or:MitigationMeasureA.9-1(b)(DSEIRpage 290) would satisfy CEQA
requirements for reducing impacts to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.9-1(b) is the
DSEIR preferred measures as it would',preserve:theshellmound:arid its Ohloneburials.The' Phase III
34
7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
TetT8btly Ph... II and III Rnal SElR
Site Mitigation ..ploii :DevelQpmerztAlternativ.e wo1ild eliminate .allproject; activity ,on and within 30
feet of the boundaries of.CA-SMa-40, resulting in,preservation,of .the ,site, including, burials, in its
.present condition. The Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Development Altemativewould be in keeping
with CEQA' s emphasis on preservation of significant cultural resources. ,.:~' _ ....
..:....,..c. .
At an October 1, 1998 City .of';S6tiili,;san'i:Fni.D.cisco::PlaDDing';;Corlniii~siriir~'~d;;';:sesSion, the
Commission accepted oral comment from Native American Will Two, Bears in which ,he expressed
,"... satisfaction with the Phase'l11 Site.Miiigatidn:'P1aiz.Development14.1teniative.,26, ~Two"Bears stated that
wbenheflI'St became involved With the 'project 'hewas'~nJy;interestedin preserving the ,two shell
" mounds.'~He stated that it 'seems'that measures 'have' beentaken.topreserve"theshell mounds.27
.: ',:, :-,_ _ :..-, :.,'>..". ..,'r::..~/-." ;':-:"._",-;.:' '...:...-/ . ',:', ':'....:.;:. ,~-':...::~..-::.'.:'. "'::'.:..', :
,.. .,", ."" ," . ..,_' .,'--. .... 'n,_ ' ,', .... "",,'
]nthe absenceofanOluone.Most.::Lilcely'::Descenmmi 'it'wo1lld appear tluitthere 'lsno consensus at
this time regarding 1he'NativeAmericancommunity's .,Position the Terrabay'Phasemproject and
'potentialimpactsto cultural resources. "
.' '. , '. . .. .~ o. , . .
r-,
I
,
-.._. I
At a July 16,1998 City of South San Francisco Historic Preservation 'Commission special meeting,
Miley Ho1man(theproject sponsor's archaeologist) stated the opinion that the presence of off-site
prehistoric burial is unlikely -while acknowledging that 'occaSiollany outlying 'burials do occm.28
However, Holman andChavez(theEIRarchaeologist) agree that the 'occurrence of such finds is
uncommon but do acknowledge the potential for such finds. ,The arChaeologists state that, in the
absence of archaeologic1llevidencefor off-site burials and without excavating the entire off-site area
in question, there 'is nopracticaI way to determine if,in fact, off.,.site burials ar~ Present. That is why
"archaeological and 'Native American monitoring'is recommended.
- .".", ',', -
'. . .:, '- .'-..,' -- ,'..-, ,'. .
>' '_, .,:.,.:'.,....:c;.'::' '_'~, :';'>':,_-~-",~.:..:::.--~, .:'_.....__'.-._<'..::'".'.:,..:-,'., -:':, .,__"": ,'_ .',r..... ,"_:':' '-. _....,:",'..:_:..::_::-_';
'The'SEIR-recoinmendS that,i:eg'aidlessof which project 'Or projectalteirnltive the City' approves, if
approved,'the'followmg, mitigati~ ~uresaddressing the potentialdissovery of off..siteprehistoric
:burialssbould beimplemented:c . .'u",' ,
.. -, - .. , - ' - . . ..
A formal reauestshall'belnaOe pronrotlvof the Native'AmericanlIeritae:eConmussion
lNAHC) in Sacramento ''1ha1an OhloneMost-Likelv':;Descendant(Ml.Dhbe assil!Ded <to the
Terrabav'DroiectThe-archaeololricahTecordestablishes~thathumanremains are 'Present at
i CA-SMa-40which would meet the reauirements for the assil!lUIlent of an MLD.
""'.""-:' ,-.-.
,....
U' . _,' . _ _ _'
Oncean:MLDis ,assil!Ded: ,a'monitorinl!nro~shall ,bedeveloned .which meets 'CEOA
requirements and is based upon consultation with and al!I'eementbetween the MLD. the
proiectsDOnsor. and sponsor's archaeololrist and with the OhIone community, The City of
South San Francisco shall have final approval of the DrOlmUIl. Recommended elements of the
Mitie:ation Monitorine: PrOl!:I'8IIl shall include but not be limited-to the followine::
. .., -' - - ..
26 Mr. Two Bears is not o~ 'tile Native Amerie8nHerita~cOmmissi()n's'list of Oh1one M()st-LikeIy~D~ce~d8nts (MLD)
and individuals to contact regarding the Terrabay Phase m SEIR. "CEQA allows the City tooacccpt, include in the record,
and ~pond to comments received after the close of the formal public review period.
27 :South San Francisco Planning Commission' Study ScsSion-MinutesOctober 1, 1998pps. 7 and 8 of 20.
1._ L.--o
28 Meeting Transcript. City of South San Francisco Historic Prcsmation Commission, July 16,1998.
35
7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
'TelTllbay Phase II and 10 Fina' SEJR
o .In, the . event that human remains arediscovered.theoroiect sponsor's archaeololrist and
: MLD ,monitor will, have the, authority to halt land alteration work in the vicinity of the
tind. .
-. "'-" -. '-'"'-' '''-...
o 'In the event thai'Nanve' Americanbuiialsor evicl.~nceof Drehistorichl1~llmremainsare
'discovered. the SanMateoCountvComer's Office. alonl! with the'NAHC.'the DToiect
-soonsor. -ani:r"the<Citv'of"'SouthSan"Francisco'shall be adVisedaJiH 'consUlted in
':'aci::ordance'with'CEOA>realiirements; lJ>ublic Resources'Code: Sections '5097.94." 5097.98.
and 5097~99and 'Health and Safety 'Code Section 7050;5.
,'0 , A nTOtocol-;shallbein nlacefor,theremovaland disoositionof..burial remains 'and burial
;associated artifacts.. '. Deoendin2 on . the :wishes iof\the ;MLD. 'ontionswould,' include but
not, be' limited -to, (1) reburial at' a location inclose ., nroximityto 1hetindwhere no
disturbance will take nlace and (2) removal from the area for reburial aLan ObIone
cemeterv .
, ,
o All archaeolomcal" work shall be conducted in accordance with CEOA Annendix K
Iroidelinesandwithinthecontext of mevailin2 nrofessional standards. All nrocedures
and findimcs' would be nresented ina detailed technical renon with conies distributed to
the -nroiect snonsor.-the City of South 'San Francisco. and the HistoricaIResources
Information Svstem's NorthwestInformation Center.
MASTER .RESPONSE 7.'3~7.CUMULATIVE.LOSS\OFARCHAEOLOGICAL.RESOURCES
The 1998 DSEIR (DSEIR ,page 284) 'summarizes the uniqueness of CA,.SMa-40 as one of a
diminishing number of existing, relatively undisturbed,prehistoric shellmounds in the San Francisco
Bay Area. The documented antiquity ofCA.;,SMa-40, based on 'the Tadiocarbon date.of5,155 years
before the present (BP), suggests that the site may be the Uoldest of its type'" on the Peninsula and
,perhaps 'within the'SaniFrancisco'Bay region; ,Because'ofitslong'prehistoric'occupation(5515 BP to
460 BP) and the fact that few such relatively undisturbed SheIlmounds stillexisLinthe,Bay Area, it
. certainly 'is one'of the '~'bestavailableexamples"ofthe sheIlmound-type site. , ' ,
As discussed in 'the DSEIR,theadverse irilpacts'oD.the shellmounds 'mayibe a potentially , Significant
"'-impact. (DSEIR page .284). ,Nea:tlyalltheapproximately4251arge' shellmoundsitesrecorded around
'the Bay Area 'early -in the 20tb"century< have rbeen destroyed or greatly \impactedbynatural 'forces and
, modern 'cultural activity .'i.By ':1973,' urbanexpansionhad..damaged 'or destroyea more -than '50 percent
: of -the' estimated 'number 'ofarehaeOlogicalsites(9.675),intberiineBay 'Area'.counties;29 ,Large Bay-
fronting ~she1lmounds;have'been impactcii 'disproportionately,as 'easily-r1lledshallow Bay' flats have
'been cmost.attractivefor development.30 ,"'Avery few'well:;'knowD'1argeshellmounds 'survived long
'enough to be part of the modern archaeological record.
CA-SMa-40 is udirectlyassociated with a scientifically reco.gnized important prehistoric event"
'because it is 'the oldest site yet recorded. on the San Francisco 'PeIiinsula {the initial arrival'ofpeople in
'.,theBayregion being an "'important-prehistoric 'event"),ibecause it 'cont8ins'eVidence 'of changes in
'subsistence-strategy,as.wellas ,.-stylistic'dlaI~ges'over itime'{probably 'relatedtothebypothesized
29 California Archaeology. Michael J. Morano. ,Academy Press. Inc. Orlando, Florida. ,1984:226.
30 Evaluative Archaeological Investigations ,at. the San Bruno Mountain Mount Site,CA-SMa-40, South San Francisco,
California. Holman & Associates. ',San Francisco. February 1998:171.
36
,7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
. ,TfllTllbay Ph... IIsnd III Flnsl SElR
:,:rep1aCe~nt:.oftbe\ciid .Hobri.s;by,thd~more ,:recent:Utians,:anotber:dn:lp6rtant Prehistoric event), and
',. because it possesses a very long cultural seqUence compared with 'other regional sites.
Shellmounds'contain impressiye,amountsof .~rehtted "t(),.theenvironment and changes in the
enVironJJleiit;::'Therefore,;'CA;SMa4Q 'containsa:~ordof:environmental' :changes as well as how
'::hUIDmf:;i11habjtantS:in ,:,the '~gion :,adapted,to ;chmJgmg :conditions:::3,cA-SMa-40 is the oldest site
, :reporte(rontlie.P.~'coDtH;nsa'reCOrd,or-San:Francisco':Bay, ,region,:Ji!ehistory, and ties the site to
'the period just prior to th~',?onta.ctpfJ:mopeans,andNativ:e;cultures.: " ,
,.~pl~mentationofthe:pf()ject wouldresultdn the .loss,of::an :exceptionalexmnple of ,the classic Bay-
,oriented:prehistoricsheUmc;nmd.,';:Such an action 'would resultin a Significant cumulative impact on the
, .ever-.diminishing.databankregarding 'regional,cilltural ,history .',as 'well.as ,an iIDportant OhIone cultural
;'resource. " ','0'; '"
,Mitigation Measure.4.9-1(a) (DSEIR pqge 288) or Mitigation Measure 4.9-1(b) (DSEIR page 290)
,.would:satisfy ,'CEQA reqtiirementsfor,reducil1g'cwmi1ative~acts to 'aless-than-significant level.
Mitigation'Measure :4.9'"1'(1:>) 'would'bethe 'DSEIRpreferredmeasure'because it would preserve the
shellmound. 'ThePhastiJIISiteMitigaiion Plan ,Development Alternative would eliminate all project
activity on and within 30 feet,ofthe;boundarlesofCA-SMa-40"resulting in the preservation of the
site. The Phase JII Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative would be in keeping with CEQA's
emphasis on preservation of significant cultural resources. The Permanent Open Space Alternative
aJJdthe'Reduced'.Commerciti1,De:vezopment~ltenzative,a1sowould result in :the preservation of CA-
SMa-40.
'The ;potential jm,pacts ,of ,development ,on wetland .resourcesappears.to.be, ,the,IDost : frequently
:expressed ,concern' in comments received "on the ,J)rt:ift .1998 ,SEIR." . ,As '.discussedinthe :Draft 1998
SEIR (DSEIR page 156),:theprojectas ,cunentJ,yproposedwould eliminate all the native freshwater
marsh and riparian vegetation on the site resulting in a significant impact. As aresult,Mitigation
Measures 4.3-1 (aY , and 43-3 ,were recommended in ,the.report.'Thesemitigationqmeasurescall for
~preservation,of ..areas 'of,native;freshw.ater "marsbC'and riparian habitat and creation ,of-replacement
habitat..where . avoidancejs, not.:possible. <ln1plementation,of.these mit,igation,measureswould result in
1he:projeCt 'ha~g ,'''3. Jess.,than-.significant;irQpact',on, wetland i resources.'specificaIly, .'Mitigation
Measure 4.3-3(Q) requires "preparationrofa wetland mitigation ,plan.jfcomplete~avoidanceof wetland
; habitat is not feasible., ,and .specifies .that,the;planmusf be:reviewed,and,approved,byjurisdictional
: agenciesbefore'.issuanceof any.grading or building permitJor. the. project., 'This ,requirement would
serve to ensure that the concerns ofjurisdictional,.agencies:havebeen ,fully . addressed "before any
disturbance to wetland habitat occurs.
Since Circulation:ofthe .DSEIR"theU .S. ,Army Corps, of Engineers,(Corps)'Yerified ,:the ,preliminary
.',wetland ,delineatioIl, ;and 1he;projecLsponsor's ,;wetlandspecialist. Vicky Reynolds~;has ; prepared a
", conceptual wetlandmitiptioncplan.,The approved delineation ;map, from the Corps' 31,.identifies a total
of 1.92 acres ,of waters of the U.S. on the site which is within about 0.1 acre of the total estimated
. acreage of jurisdictional habitat indicated on DSEIR page 153. Minor adjustments were made to the
:- '--'"
31 Mapping of AreasSubjecno Section404CleanWat~:ActJ.urisdiclion;' File J:'lumber 23533/Maps Ithrough 3, July 9,
1998. " . ,
37
,7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Terrablly Phllsellllnd III Final SElR
original nm,p preparedl?y,Reynolds followiIl,g aJ~eld,~pectio~ vyitb ,COJ;ps ,representatives on June 23,
1998. ',' ",.. ',... .' ',C, '. ,," . '", ." '.' ',,' ,
",- ......, ,','
Aconeeptwil, ,Iriitigationplan'preparedbyReynoldS 8Iso'haSbeen'sobnutted for.re. view to the Corps
and RegionalW aterQuality ControLBoar'd(RWqcB):-The iP1an.entitled~TaIzk Ravine ,Mitigation
:Planto.Ojftet,'/mpacts t{)'W aters:cif t~ 'United, 'States izUhe:TerriIbayDeVelopment Site, focuses on
"'habitat";restoratiori and';eDhancementati ':five~toseven~acre-~ilff-site ,drainage bownas Tank
.. ,RaVine.' 3~, "The 'proposed mitigatIon plan is intenaea" to stabiliZe the ,exis~g stream whlchpasses
"throllghtbe drainage and.. t()iI~provethe,overall,habitat ,value ,'., of ,.,the tsite. by ,eliminating ,invasive
,.; exotics' and~storingnative,grasSlarid coverthroqghout upland i8reas~, After,Re.ynoldsexplored the
potential foran-site replacement mitigation:1lIld was.infonne~ :bytherprQject'sponsor;'s,consulting
engineer that they' were largelyinfeasib1e'due 'to ,eXistin,g utili!:)'easementsand,otherfactors,the Tank
"RaVine 'site, 'was selected asthel'referred off-site)oc~on ~,p~ of asurveY,ofoth~rmitigation sites
. on San Bruno Mountain. ", .' " .
'The proposed Tank 'RaVine mitigation site 'is 'located approximai:ely25Q Jeetnorth of Hillside
'Botilevard,about 1,800 feetwestof the 'Temibay site. The proposed mitigation site consists of about
1,200 linear feet of stream bed associated with Tank Ravine Creek and 105 linear feet of a tributary
ephemeral stream, collectively accounting for 0.14 acre of other waters of ,the U.S. A small seep
. 'brings the existing area ofjurisdiction81 habitat to about 0.28 acre. Enhancement would serve to
, correct several in.,.stJ,"eam and out-of.,.streamerosionproblems"provide,for weed"eradication,and
re:planting I reseedingvyith na,tivespecies~Waters of,theU.S. to..beenbanced'amountloO.14 acre of
stream channel and 0.14 a.cre of:wetland seeps"withanadditi~naLO..03~cre .of willow,thicket to be
cfeat~dalon<?Jhecbann~~:- '. -" ", ,- '
'The projectsponsor's:pr6posed ~Mitig8tion 'Pian summarizes "a.Jlt:i~iPatedl()ss. ofjurisdictional:habitat. on
thesitebasea OIithe reduceddevelopmentprqposal,presented;inMaster.Response?3-1, the Phase In
"'Site Mitigation .PlimDeV(ilopmtmtAltei7uztiVe:;~The.proposed Mitigation,Planassomesthatatotal of
139 acres of waters of the u.S., on the-Terrabay site woUld beeliniinatedand 053 avoided under this
:redtlced development alternative. Jurisdictional habitat to be preserved 'includestbe upper segments of
'.the l~gely.unve,getated ,'stream channels,. the . upper portiori.' and source ,of the. ".perennial spring
nortbwestOfthe :propcisedofficetower, .about one-third .,of . the willow thickeLalongBayshore
Boulevard, and stnaller scattered' seeps.
The proposed Mitigation .PlancoJltains detailsion.implementation, maintenance, monitoring, and
contingency measures, all of which appear adeqnate,to meet identified goals: 'However, the proposed
" ,Mitigation Plan does, :notprovideJor adequate ;mitigation-~f.theminimuml.39acresofjurisdictional
.habitat,which would be eliminated with iIIlplementation,of.the,Phase 'IIISite.Mitigation Plan
,Development Altemanve. Only, 0.03 acre of riparian .or, wetland 'habitat would~actuallybe created, and
0.28acreoL.streamchannelsand . seep ',wouldbe:enhanced,collective!yrepresenting,031 acre of
jurisdictional.habitat to be- created or enhanced.:Considenibleexpense would be incurred in restoring
the remainiTlg five ,to, seven, acres .of upland,habitat-which would serve to improve, the overall, value- of
the drain~ge, 'but this would not offset. the'proposed Jossof:~ensitive freshwaterseepiand willow
thicket h~taton tl1e+e~a~ site, - -
."...." .
"
" "A representative of the Corps"ccincirrs'thatdetail~:'ofthepropos~cLMitigationPlanappeartechnicallY
feasible and that the ovei-all habitat'improvement would be desirable but that additional enhanced or
32 Tank. Ravine Mitigcuion Plan to Offset Impacts to Waters of the United States at the Terrabay Development Site. South
San FTtmCisco.Califomia;'Corps File'Number' 23533S.Vicki Reynolds. FieId Biologist, October,20. 1998.
38
,'7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
TerrUllY Phillie II .ad 10 F/n.1 SElR
. .",
. _.'.-
createdjUrlsdictional.babiUtt musibeinC'lllded 'in ;the'~I~toCpr~~d~' atie~fiori~~to~on~'(l: 1) ratio
for wetlands eliminated on the Terrabay site. 33 Additional mitigation options currently being
explored include are-evaluation of. locations on the Terrablilysite forc=reatioD,ande,nl:iancement of
duiisdictionalwet1ands,~other off-site:I<<:>Cations,and ,possiblypa.yment6f iIi:lieu.Jees. which would
..'..provide for re.placement o~restoration atJUlot1:ter ',location as,Part.ofa lar.ger ~ti.gation,effon.: :Several
"':locatlons appeartobejx)ssibJy' SuitibleIoruse as rq;lacemenflIiitigation ~ii.:t#e ":r#xib~ysite.'~These'
. ',include: the:graded 'slope belo", the ,perennial spring on the PIDisem site;theJwo~phe~ra1 streams
locatedto .the'Dortb and northwest of the :office tower development area on the PhaSe m site {identified
ag<Streams 12, arid13"'inthe'Ye,tl.~d_'Delin~on);tlie .,large_~:in" th~})~~II,1~Par.t ,of the
'/Phasellsite '(justwest:ofParcel(ionfue'Phase'm ,site); portions of the set~k:,zo~e,.around the
"perimeter of thearchaeol()gica1site on the Phase msite;and portions 'of the]arge debris' basins along
thewestenn~4ge of the office tower development area. Whileeaeh of these locations maybe partly
constrained by a variety of factors, each does present an opport1.lirity'for at least.smanareasof created
.or enhanced jurisdictional'habitat which collectively may meet the ovenill ratio desired'by the Cows
and RWQCB. . Further ,negotiations. with Ilgenc.yrepresentativesand revisions.tothe ,proposed
approa.ch to mitigation Win be 'necessary toadequate1.yaddresspotentia1i~actsoftheproject on
wetlands. ' '
The 1998 DSEIR (DSEIR page 160) discussion of,potentiaLimpacts on wetlandsac~owlecJges that
modifications to wetlands .andother waters on the site worildbe subject tojurisdictiornil review and
approvalbylhe 'CoWs,-RW~,and 'theCalifoIniaDepartmentof FiSh and .Game (CDFG). For
'example, Section 404 of the CleanW ater Act requires that all projects be redesignedto avoid
jurisdictional wetland 'habitattothe maximum extent feasible. -The permitting process. under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act is separate from the City's environmental and project reView process, and
.it _typicall,Yoccurs ,simultaneous or subsequent toinitial,projectapprovalbya local, agency . Because
, "variables :jn' the ;de~~gIl1mdpoten,tialiny>actofthe:proJect maY ,ch~ge as." the ,environmental review
'process,.proceeas~'it is notfeaSibl~'!or the project~onsorto secureapermitirom the Corps,and other
,;agenciesprior to certification of the 1999 FSEIRunderCEQAand conditional approval of .the project.
However, the provisions 'for ,"performance 'standards"monitorinj; ,requirements, ,and,contingency
measures caned'fot in "Mitigation Measure 43~3(b)wouldensure successfulestiiblislunent of any
'replacement wetlands. 'In addition, beCause ',the, project sponsors must6btain,Fedenil,J,ennits and
approvals, inCluding a Section 404 permit, compliance with Fe.dera1r~gu1ati?ns ,~assured. ,
_,. . ,'C,"; .:-.. '-. . ',"',,'; . .....:.,..., '
'MASTERRESPONSE7.'~9'CAUJPPESIL VERSPOT,BUTTERFLY
.. '
. . - - - . -. . "
'Considerable concern-ba.s:aIso'been "expresseclover'thepotentialimpacts of ,dev610pment'on ca1lippe
silversllOt 'andcother'special-statusspecieS'associated with San BrunoMountain~:The1998 DSEIR
(DSEIRpage158 ) discusses ~thepotentialeffects of the project on these:speeies of concern. An
underlyingprenlise ,of the ''San Bruno Mountain 'HabitatConservationPlanXHCl') was that allowing
; limited ,development on : the mountain 'woulderihance the survival of misSion 'blue and ca1lippe
',:silve,rspot 'butteifliesbymilingpossible'thetransferof nearly 800 acres of.privately'held lands to the
public;byproviding the funding source 'for the conservation aDd eIihancement activities described in
the BCP, and by mitigating the impacts of development through comPliance With provisions' set fourth
,in the BCP. TbeJ998 DSEIR recommends Mitigation Measure 43-2 ,to ensure .that the project
sponsor :woUid 'be'required;,to "fulfill thelantloWner I developer obligations' identified 'in '. the:HCP, as
....', ~-, "- ",' -'. . -" .... '-. -. ,... . -',:' , . ','. .....- - '.. '
33 '. Environme~tal :Collaboiative conversation With' Phillip ShamUn" Proj~t Manager, Re,gulatory Functions Branch, U.S.
Army Corps ofEngirieers,OJanuary 1999, '
39
f"-
L
,--l..
'-'
'7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Tflrrablly Phllsflllllnd III Rnlll SEIR
well as minimizing potential impacts of'the'project:'Onlarval: hosl,plaritsand adult nectar plants for the
callippe silverspot, and to control 'the effects of construction-generated dust.
;l.!" '>. .:.-,""j-:
. . ~. --.
" The 'position of San Mateo:CoUDty ,is thattheJiCP adequately addresses callippe silverspotand that no
· amendment. to ,the HCPds,,'needed.,:The Final,' Rule ,~whichresulted,in , ,the listing' of." theca11ippe
silverspot, issuedbythe,U~S. 'Fish:and~Wi1dlifeService(USFWS) on December 5;1 997"also supports
the position that this species was considered duringfonnulation of the HCP.The Final Rule states
,that
,',though the;;ca1lippe:silverspot :butterfly .,was mot, included as ; a ~~covered".species .inthe :Section
, ',; ",lO(I!},permit,;the~HCP ,included ,specific:prOvisionsi,for.:the.butterfly .cinthe,event,it;did'become
listedgy ,theService.Theseprovision~.pIOtect92,percent,Qfthespecies ;habitat.at, the site ,through
various mechanisms" (such 'as, landowner ' obli,gations ,for land 'dedications, ,'open ,space, set-asides,
mitigation measures,' and habitat enhancement), implement annual monitoring of its. populations,
and allow for adaptive management to conserve this species.
In September 1998, the CountyCoundil sent a letter to thethreelocal,participarlngagencies requesting
their support to amend the Section 10(a)(1)(b) ,permit to add theca11ippe silverspotas a listed
~pecies}4Brisbane and Daly City bave"a1ready ,submitted letters to the USFWSsupporting the
amendment, and the City of South'San Francisco,is,planning to submit.the,ca11ippeamendment letter
in th,e near future. Amending the Section lO(a) permiL~ppears tobelargelyaproceduralrequirement
and should not result in tiDy additional requirement of theJandowner I developer..An application from
the, COUDijtoamerid,' the S~ction JO( a), permit, was submitted "totheUSFWSin ,October ,1998 which
included a draft. Environmental Assessment foruseQythe USF\l{$ in making ,thciirdecision.35 The
,,,:publicMllhave:3!iopportunity toccommentsc=parately"oD.:theCounty'.s .proposal,;to.amend the Section
1 O(a) permit-to, include the , callippe silverspotunderthe National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A).
UnderNEPA,the USF\VSmustpu~lisha,notice in .the Federal Registe~ jdentify41g,th~,availability of
the environmental assessment (EA) on the,pf9Posed.<.amendment. As,part,ofthisproc~ss, the public
can 'submit comments 'to'the USFWS during a3<Hiay comment period.
,.,";,.J-:<'",
Mitig~tion ,Measure4.3.,.2.wasstructured ,to require ,thattheproject,~redesigned to avoid all larval
host,plants',iofthe,;callippe silverspot.if"an,amended .incidental "takerpennit is not obtained prior to
projectiIpplementation with,additional..measuresrecommended to minimize potential impacts on this
species~ ;pomplete ,avoidance oLall.larvalhost,plants is,not..considered,necessary .tofullymitigate
._potentialimpactson,callippe'silverspot foot is. a:technical,requirement if ,an Jl11lendment to the
'incidental"take ,permit is ,;not.possible,or. cannot, be ,obtained 'before. the ,project sponsor intends to
.proceedwith,grading and de'\l~l()pment.' , .
, '
34 Ame1admen; ofSe~rion llxa) PermitPRT-2-9819 ioAdd the Cal1ippe Silverspot Butterfly as a.listedSpecies. Letter to
John Martin, City Manager,'CitycifDlily City, Clay Holstine. City Manager; City of Brisbane. and Michael Wilson. City
Manager, City of South San Francisco. from Michael Murphy. City Deputy Counsel;' County of San Mateo. September 1,
1998.
35 Amendment of the SQnBruno MoUTllainHabitat Conservation, Plan Section lO(a)Pennit. Letter to William Lehman. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. from Paul Koenig, Director:Environmental. Services Agency, County of San Mateo. October
14.1998. ' " ,. . "
40
'7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
,r.,.,.",yp"...1I and III Final SEIR
,MASTER RESPONSE,7.3-10CUMULATlVE;/MPACTS
A number of comments on the 1998 DSEIR, relate to the completeness and comprehensiveness of the
"cumulative.jmpactian8lysis'conducted::for\the'report.'rConcems:;cprimarily~include ~the project's
;>potentia1for(:ontributing"to~ativeibiotic'cul~,traftic,,,air'quaIi~ ,uoise".andoPublic. service
.,d:mpacts~ 'as Y'.eU:ss:some, sulJjects, ~1'ocnsedput"fQf;the,DSEIR(sUch,aS;!ire). ; "/. "'./~
.' '.." .. . ,...- ..". -.
--'
~. .-- I
Cumtilative impacts include direct or indirect effects of a project;;hich;;~uld be significant when
combined with other effects of the 'proposed project or when combined with the effects of other
jprojects.These impacts. may constitnte1ess..,than.,.significant',effects;-when~,considered alone but when
,.c,ombineawouldexceeditbe~significance "thresholds,usediin Ithe;respective :topicalanalyses.(1n fact.
;the'cunnilative ~iesults';of:'prior:.actiVities'on; prevailing conditions ',8ffectinga'project can provide
'criteriaforestilbliSbing'tbresholdsand'c:an'be'Usedfor 'determiniDg'thesignificance of the project's
';impacts;)'::" ' ,'.'.', ,".. ,..,
The assessment of cumulative impacts must be grounded in what future environmental conditions
reasonablycan::bepiedicted to occmin order teprevent suchanalysesfronibecoming speculative.
,For this reasOli,anEIR must establiSh a number of parameters beforecunnilative -impact analyses can
'be conducted. Among these' are.to'define realistic: time horizons, geqgraphicareas of,potential impact.
and 'land use and, development assumptions which caIl'be supported'factuaIly. "TheseassuIDPtions may
not ,coincide, exactly or 'apply:equally forMltopicsanalyzed,'lrlthough some congruence may exist
;amoQg somestibjecis.Oneapproachis teassume.partial (),r'fullbilildout according to approved public
'land use policies (such:as.generalplans or specific plans)~'>Th1s approach cmi'identify the amount of
.,development. '}the':areaconSi~ered,andtimiIig as define(Fby "the'relevantplans,. or policies. Another
,'approaeh'is -to "prepare;and -evaIuatea ;list'of.{jther'(rion~projeCt)::developmenC";Ex3rriples ,include
.:completed.projeCtS ~inof ,yet"occuffied;;':'pending;"PrcijectS;qikely:;to/'~'be ;'appfOv~and 'reasonably
'foreseeable ":projects '{suCh as 'those ,,'for' 'which "sponsorS ",have'beenworking'With 'CitY,"staff). 'The
, DSEIR adopted a' conibination of these, 'approaches; .. -: " .. ,:'~':'.',',:'>'>; ",..
~ '. -,.- " " ; ,'::" ".,;'< '.'-'--.
The introductory DSEIR section, 2.4 CumuIativelmpacts,identifies cumulative assumptions used to
:analyze. the project. "These assumptions ,cmeflyrelateto .the trMfic-'-based 'impacts'(trirlIic; air quality ,
: and noise). Theassumpfionscovedievelopri1enfanticipated'by' adopted 'plans of the Cities of Brisbane
. '1indSouth'SanFrancisco 'by 'the year 2010 plus a Ofactor ~forbaCkground'groWth'm.the region. South
"Sari Francisco'and;Brisoane'1'epresent'geogra,phicareaS llffectingoff-'Site traffic;qperationsbut are not
'directly"related,' to"<Sucl1"ipriJjecf~ffects as ,.biological'or 'CWtunU"feSOUfce"impacts. <1Development
'assumed to'oecUreastancFweSt 'ofV.S.l 01:in'South'San:Prancisco'included'intensification of land
uses compared with that identified by the East of lOrArea':SpecglcPlanaridlJiilldoutoftheTerrabay
Phase I site. The DSEIR assumed ,buildout of the most intensive development, scenario contained in
the Brisbane General Plan (Scenario K) for its planning area.
The relevant DSEIR topical analyses presented in 4.0 Environmental Assessment address these issues
in their respectivetechnica1 sections, and.the,DSElR summarizes the conclusions in 6.1CumuJotive
.Impacts. The following topical discussions in the DSEIR examine cumulative impactsof,theproject:
'. Traffic impacts4,4-1,4.4-2, 4-4-3, 4.4-4, and 4,4-5,,(oftheTerrabay Phase IT andID project)
. ":}'Traffic.inip~iS4.~12~'{ffi'ancf4.+i4,(o{the,book~ps,proj'eCt)"',>, '., "" .
,A:_ quality 'unp., act,4'5-3 ",,~,,""',,<,; , ',,'
"... ,frU1 ",', ' . .,",..,,'.'.,,':":
-Public s~ce impacts 4.7-6 (police) and 4.7-10 (schools)
The'cumu1ative,biological and 'cultural impacts. df'the project, not 'separately described iri'individual
:,impacts. arediscussed'bfiefly'inthe6~1"CumUUztive Impacts summary. '"
41
7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
,Terrablly Phase II and HI Final SEIR
The cumulative analyses conducted ,for the 1998 DSEIRn;presentthe ,most current ,evaluation of
"project' site development in ,relation to presently,prev~gconditions together.with ..known and
reasonably predicteofuture conditioris..'Because. the DSEIR.focusescprincipaijyon'cch~ges between
,:the 1996 and 1998 developmen(conct;pts for:'.th~Phase\T(aDd:mjites.,it"a1s~~corPorates by
;reference enVironmental documents previouslyprepBred to exaIDine .development of the "three-phased
Terrabay project -the 1982 EIR and 1996 SElR - and to adopt the San Bruno' MoWltain Habitat
Conservation Plan (He!') and EndangeredSpecies, Act SectionlfJ(a) Per:mit (1.3Informalio.nUsed to
'Prepare ,the' EIR, DSElR,pages.6;;8. "..Those' documents provided "the "backdr()p' for, reassessing some
. potential ,cumulative impactsuriderCmrentcircumstances(mainly..~ulative"effects, on ..:biological
resources of San :BnmoMounta.in),and~ssed .other :cum11lativeeffects,.(such,as.other public
serviccs ',besi,des,. police and schools) n. ,0, t.remial,yzed," ,in"the 1998,DSEIR.; ',:Th, e" ;HCP,', andthe.HCP E4. /
, EIR 'inparticu1ar,provide the.. originill fnimework. aDd, 'overallmltigationprogram fordevelopriient of
San .BnmoMountain. .Those docUIDentsprovided Jor~evelopment. at .,designated locatioDs on the
mountain coupled with creation, of the San Bnmo.MoiIntainCountyParkandestablishment of the
monitoriIlg and management mechanisms' implemented bytheHCP monitor.
Thus, the DSEIR supplemented the prior assessments of cumulative impacts for the environmental
issues affected by changes in theprojectitselfand by changes in currently prevailing and reasonably
predicted conditions on and in the vicinity of the site." . .
;MASTER RESPONSE d7~3-11. PROJECT MERrrS
, ,
EIRs often present the l1rstoppoitunity" in 'the overallplRnmng process 'for deCision-makers and the
~~< public to examine and comment 'On 'projects. 'This isespecia1lytIUe when projects are complex or
controversial due to the attributes of a site, existing or anticipated environmental conditions on or in
the vicinity of asite,ihetypesandintensities ofland usesanddevelopmentproposed ~andas many
other factors, as there 'are 'individual reviewers ofreports....,.~' '.' " .' ,
~ :....:-..
Therefore,,~ 'on such projects:ine~tabiy<invi..e(andreceive)nu.~rous' comments ibout the
,environmental conclusions and about the;'~project" per se. 'Such public commentisan.integral
element of the planning and environmental review.process now underway for the Terrabay Phase, n
and ill project.
As a result, people interested in projects have high expectations of environmental documents. They
want'EIRsto discuss topics of importance tothem.- ana also lD1ly'Want'EIRs .to confirm their
.concerns about the projects studied. Public involvement throughoutthepreparationofEIRs -.such as
the initial scoping process for this 1998 DSEIR in September 1997 and subsequent public review of
the DSEIR - is designed to take public concerns into account at the outset. 'Nevertheless, expectations
about the topics to be studied and information to' be provided sometimes can fall outside the legal
requirements of ElRs and cannot reasonably be addressed by EIRs.
For people concerned about projects and projects' impacts on sites, sites' resources, and their own
neighborhoods - concerned enough to attend and speak at a public meting or to write a letter -' EIRs
and responses to comments can seem legalistic and unresponsive. While projects can have many
,effects and can.cause many changes of varying interest to concerned groups and individuals, EIRs
only examine the changes which constitute "sigriificant" effects. (Supplemental EIRsonly examine
new or substantially different "sigriificant" effects.) As a result, EIR analyses do not address always
all topics 'of interest or concern, whether environmental issues or other issues (such as social or
economic impacts) more or less closely connected to environmental issues.
42
7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Terrablly Pha.. II and III Final SEIR
. ";" '_. ",:: _ . _ _.," . ..>' ',' ":', ,_ .,": ,",", .-:..-:- ,.,,': "._.' _,. ,", '.'. .,' : _' _ ,:.1. }.", ':_.-, ,":" " }',..;:. .
Governmental'agencies, inchi~g ,the Ci~of SouthSan'Francisco,are.required topre.pare .EIRsin
accordance :with a 'number , Of specificlaws,:implementingguidelines, regulations, and an ever
increasmgarrayo(judicial deciSions~, -The 1998DSEIR andthe ~ponses in this 1999 FSEIR refer to
~ments()fthe:Galiforriia'En*o~!ltal;QuiilityAct Xc:EQA)an~ the State CEQA, Guidelines
(Guidelirlesf.':J.' '
. .."; - -:. '. .. . ~ - . ; '" . .- -' ~ ' "..-
. . .- ',-; ~ . . '.'.' ::.~-" ~ ,: '.' ", .... . ~ . .
The'G.uiiklinesrequire '.,tl1atlead aiencies respond .to SigIrificant environmental.poin,tsraised in the
'review' and consultation process 'in FmalEIRs'Theresponses.presented in the folloWing section 7.4
,Response'to<Comments'1lddressquestionsabout.theadequac.;yofthe 1998 DSEIR.as a public
'disclosuredocument.:Responses fOcUsori'commeritsabollt 'tb~ analyses themselves conducted for or
omitted from the' 1998 DSEIR - '"whether 'the'evaluations:~v~a1lth~. project's significant effects,
1identify measures'capableof .mitiga~g. ~ignificant "~acts ,to. 'less-than-significant levels, disclose
indirect or secondary effects ,of mitigation, determine the effectiveness or success of mitigation. The
keyconsideratioD'throughoutenVirorimenUi.l'review is ..significance" - as defmed byCEQA, the
Guidelines, the local General Plan,and.iinportantly,the significance criteria identified in the EIR
'itself.
, ' ,
In thiscontexi,'alarge number ofc6lnments from individuals and organizations express concerns
about the project due to the impacts its implementation would cause. Many of these comments cite
information contained in the 1998 DSEIR (such as about site's resources and impact fmdings) and
draw conclusions about the proposed project's,developmentconcepts.andI.or alternatives to the
project evaluated in the DSEIR. Many comments recommend specific City action on the Phase IT
. project, Phase 11. project, . or both." ,The, Jollowing ,pages present both''EIR . comments" and "non-EIR
comments,'.' ,including cOmments pnthe.':merits of the project"
. ',-"" <, - . .---..... .' ",'
. ~'. - >>
All oftbese co~-ontbeEIRand on theprgject -arevaluable to City officials who must make
decisions about the pending . applic8tion~ .~Therefore, whileEIRs are not intended to address all topics
of concern and FinalEIRsare not required to respond to"non~EIR comments", all are part of the
publir;recordonthe,projectand their inclusion in this document wilLmake them available to officials
when they begin ~g decisionsabouttheprojectitself.
7.4 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Written, comments .and.responses.are o,presentedfirst, ,followed by comments made orally at the public
hearing.onthe 1998 DSEIR.
43
~tattof([;alifomia
PETE WILSON
GOVERNOR
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO 95814
August 17, 1998
RECE\VED
"AI):-:' 2 1 ~~~~
I ".
.. '.
PLANN\NG
PAUL F MINER
DIRECTOR
LETTER 00
,ALLISON KNAPP
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
315 MAPLE STREET
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA94080
Subject: TERRABAY SPECIFIC PLAN, PHASE II& II:I SCH #: 97082077
Dear ALLISON KNAPP:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental
document to selected state agencies for review. The review period
is closed and none of the state agencies haVe comments. This
letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State
Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental
documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Please call Kristen Derscheidat(916) 445-0613 if you have any
questions regarding the environmental review ,process. When
contacting the Clearinghouse ift this matter, please use the eight-
digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly.
Sincerely,
:;"-:'~,.'.~' ."
'~..'
- .. : ..
- - '
ANTEROA. .RIVASP~
Chief, State Clearinghouse
LETTER 00, GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
Response 00.1 No response required. This letter indicates that the City complied with CEQA
. requirements for circulation of the 1998 DSEIR by submitting it for review by State agencies.
Letter 00-1
LETTER 1
July 3. 1998
'Theresa and James Bums
S64 Keoncrest Drive
South San Francisco. CA 94080
Mr. ChristopherBamett
VC
400 Grand Avenue
So. San fcanciscoCA. 94080
DearMr.Bamett
1.1 I We were appalled to learn that the city is considering the development of 322 acres on
San Bnmo Mountain. It is bad enough to endangerOhlone sacred sites and endanger
species but the overbuilding in the city is temble. The building ofhomcs on the
McClleJan and EI Rancho sites will add topol1uti~ sewage. school overcrowding,
traffic problems. We do not need to burden city services further.
We sbaIl follow developmcms closely and advise our friends of the proposal and
encourage them to voice their disapproval
.~~-d
LETTER 1, JAMES AND THERESA BURNS
Response 1.1 The comment addresses the "merits of the project". It does not raise questions about
,the adequacy of the 1998 DSEIR analyses but refers, to the project's significant environmental effects
analyzed in the SEIR. ,While no response is required, inclusion in the 1999 FSEIR will make the
commentors' views available toCity'decision-makers.Please see Master Response 7.3-11. The
comm.entors should note that the DSEIR analyzes the project and cumulative impacts on traffic (pages
162-209), public services (police and schools)(pages 237';'256), and cultural resources (pages 276-
297).
Letter 1-1
LETTER 2
'R E eEl VEL
JUl131998
PLANNING
Ms. Ann Smith
141 San Francisco Ave. #2
Brisbane, CA
July 7, 1998
South San Francisco Planning Commission
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Dear Planning Commission Members:
2. 1 I am writing to express my concern about the proposed T errabay
Development Project. I have been a resident of Brisbane for the past
twelve years, and have been deeply concerned about the recent
residential developments on San Bruno Mountain; specifically T errabay
and The Ridge. I feel that the unique lifestyle and spacious terrain the
mountainoffersisheing threatened by these developments. There has
been a noticeable increase in congestion on the roadways, and certainly a
deterioration of the amenities smaller communities as South San
Francisco and ,Brisbane have to offer.
As a member of the SierraClub,1 am also very concerned about the
environmental impact of further development on the mountain. I urge you
to support the Phase III Permanent Open Space Alternative as a viable
means of ,preserving the sanctity of the mountain as well as its sensitive
. archeological sites and endangered species habitat.
Thank you for hearing my concerns.
Sincerely,
C?fM. 0Avru ~
Ms. Ann Smith
LETTER 2~ ANN SMrrH
Response 2.1 The comment addresses the "merits of the project" and express'::':,; a preference for a
Phase ill site alternative assessed in the 1998 DSEIR. It does not raise quesnons about the adequacy
of the DSEIR analyses but refers to the project's significant environmentai effects analyzed in the
DSEIR.Whilenoresponse is required, inclusion in the 1999 FSEIR will make the commentor'sviews
available to City decision-makers. Please see Master Response 7.3-11. Th;:commentor should note
that the DSEIR analyzes the traffic impacts expected from project impleme11tation under both existing
,conditions and cumulative conditions (pages 162-209). The DSEIR evaluations were based on
information compiled Lspecifically for consideration in the 1998 DSEIR in order to reflect current
conditions and the most recent estimate of anticipated conditions and thereby update traffic analyses.
Letter 2-1
LETTER,3
R E eEl VE D
J U L1 41998
PLANNING
3.1
PIamIiDg ComqriHinn
City of South SaD PDIIlCisco
.P.O. Box 711
~South San Francisco. CA 94083
I atteQded the plmmi"g session on tile Tarabay'~ project, JuIy~. I was imprcsaed with the
RIpeCt, ~iDtaat aDd fJ:IaugJ:atfu1a by the c:ommiuion. I ~t the persons prcse.lIiJ1i the
enviromIImdal impIct n:pons on die area encomp-..g flIis deveIopmeDt project ,WeJe kDowledgeablc aDd
thorough. I was also iDtaested in the public ~l!IIts by people who really had deep-fceIiug C:ODCelDS
from their own, life c:xpcricoces.
:P.O. Box 641003
San Fnqci~,Ca 94164-1003
July 10, 1998
A short wbiIe ago, I bad the opportbDil,. to staDd above the .d'Gllg,f-to sbeIIlDOIIDd area and look cm:r the
open ~ ~ down totbe bay waters. I <XIUIdn'l believe that I wasJnoki"B ata sbordiDe that has
c;omc duuagb the nn'1llmnmc in ilsuear DIIIDIal state. I felt the IOmJW oltbe ~.wm of an Amcric:an
. IDdian Tribe, wbo ,spc8 at the JIItI!lIIlti~ ,My hope is that die aucial areas ,tbat n:Dect tile distant pest, can
remain QlIIIti.... to die aral ttm otbcn befmcyou hadthc fDRt1Jnas"t to~ tOr aD to 1IIC, cac:b in
bisIbcr own way.
I reeli1I= powda.1boold DOt, aDd C8DIKJt be stoppeeI. You hawthatrarc opportuDity ,to 1nIly sbIIpe Ihe araa
which you all CIbviouIIy cue Yery much ibout.Tbe JW!tHIIInI!IItIMions. you malre,if aDd when
impICUleDfal. will be irrew:nible - history willhavebeen set. I have faith that you will be ~bleaDd
IIeIISiUve to 1be1llBlly-sided.tia:ts of laDduse.Oae may hIM to lookcwer8Ddput aipsof ~ day
spread. bot still be able to see 8Dd cxpeIieoce the lP-ftIftlInhi of a life ofloag ago. a true tara -bay.
SiJK:eIdy,
.~ ,;J#ur
LETTER 3, MARJORIE COLT
Response 3.1 The comnient discusses the public review process and addresses the "merits of the
. project". It does not raise questions about the adequacy of the 1998 DSEIR analyses but refers to the
.project's significant environmental effects analyzed in the DSEIR.While no response is required,
inclusion in the 1999 FSEIR will make the commentor's views available to City decision-makers.
Please see Master Response 7.3-11.
Letter 3-1
J
.. ..
South San Francisco Planning Commission
400 Grand Ave.
South San Francisco, Ca. 94080
A TTN:William Romero
LETTER 4
Del P. Schembari
:321A1ta Mesa Dr.
South San Francisco, Ca. 94080
Dear Mr. Romero,
_.1
I This is a letter to state my support for the Phase III permanent open space alternative for
theSoutheastem slope of San Bruno Mountain. The fact that there are wild creatures and a-
~ archeologicsignificantsite so near an urban environment is amazing tome. As a legacyfo:
our decendents we shookl-doour best to prserve such things.
~.i~garding the traffic around the 101 corridor I feel it's clear this project ~houid: be scaled
way back. It's a major problem nowIThe E.I.R. didn't seem to address the traffic flows on
~ those days when 3 Com adds to the traffic congestionJ One thing is ,certain: there will not
r ,perfect traffic coordination. If there;s such a thing why hasn't it been done already?l
J 'am against moving the natural lay of the streams in the, project area. It would have to
. have-an--adverseeffectonthe flora and fauna if it were put in pipes and rerouted.) Has any
i consideration been given to the time year it ,would 'be in the best interests of.plants and
animal for the proposed contruction to take place?IThebestalternative would be to keep
development away from the spring. 4.4 '
~5
Finally, 1 South City schools are busting at the seems. What effect will the new project
I have on our school system?} I'm looking forward to seeing the financial statement.
Please make these comments part of theE.I.R. leannot attend the public hearing with the
Planning Commission.
I attended the July 9th meeting and wanted to commend the Commission for running a goo'
meeting and being fair to the different speakers.
'1~ l '?/ 'I c(
CC:ChristipherBamett, VC
Julie Caldocchi
Jucflth Honan
'Robert Masuda
Eugene Sim
Marc T eglia
"
,.'LETTER4, ,DEL:SCI:f~~B.ARI,!", ";,.":<,.",~"~"
" "
Response 4.1 ..Theco~t;tt"~press,e.s~a;"p~f~Il~e, for ,a Ph~e.nisite.altemative ,assessed in the
.1998 DSEIR.While,.itdoe.~:not:~;;<iuestio.ns.~about ,the "adeq~Yiof the;1998.DSElR ~analyses, it
.refers to the !jrojeces significantenVironmental,,:effects as, analyzed 'infheDSEIR. iNo "response is
required, butinc1usionof the commentor' sviews ,in ,the 1999,FSEIR will make them available to City
decision-makers.Pleise see Master Response 7.3-11.
Response 4.2, ,Wee~y .traffic,counts.were1conducted for.the1998,.DS~R ,:in Jate,Qctober 1997,
i,including. counts ;ofthep.S. : 1 0 1 freeway. ; :There'was: DO ,activity ,at. 3COM.,Park'on . the, days of the
counts. It is 'unlikely that the.)prqposed pr()ject wouldbe,built'before the Giants,IDove,from 3COM
"Park to the new downtown facili!y.,However,for..discussionp~oses,'weekday,baseba1lgames at
3COM, Park. whether day, oreveniIJ.g, would have had no impact-on AM .commute,peaktraffic flow
which occurs, before 9:00AM. The evening commute ,peak ,traffic.:hour' ,on the U.S. :lOl.freeway
occurs from 5':00 to 6:00 PM, With.the'heaviest...flow.northboundtowards .SanFrancisco., 'Th~ few
weekday day games at 3COM Park during the.'yearWically end: between 3:30 and 4:QO,'PM. Night
games at 3COM are much more c()lDDlonand:startabout7:30iPM. 'There would be some ,inbound
traffic to the park on U.S. 101 in South San :Francisco during the evening commute peak hour 5:00-
6:00), but the majority would be expected from 6:00 to 7:15PM. Unless a driver were already on U.S.
101 during the commute peak hour and going to the ballpark. there is no reason why the vast majority
of fans from the Peninsula attending an evening game would join the evening commute to arrive at the
ballpark one and a half to two hours before game time, particularly when there are usually few fans for
evening games and parking and access to 3COM the hour before an evening game are no issue.
Therefore, while it is true that a lengthy day game at 3COM ending near the beginning of the evening
commute could add a measurable increment of traffic to the southbound U.S. 101 traffic flow through
South San Francisco, these occasions would be infrequent and, not representative of traffic conditions
experienced the vast majority of weekday evenings. 'With the,Giants moving to their new ballpark in
the year 2000 (which has room for 25 percent fewer fans than 3COMPark) and with the greatly
reduced number of parking spaces at the new park. a much higher number of people will be
encouraged (forced) to take transit to the games. The San Francisco CALTRAlNstation (for
Peninsula residents attending games) is across the street from the new ballpark. Also, BART will be
'available for Peninsula ' residents attending '. games (via MUNIstreetcars) who,park at the Daly City,
,Colma, South San Francisco, or San Bruno stations. Thus, there should be a greatly reduced flow of
Peninsula auto traffic to I from the new ballpark compared to the volume accessing 3COM Park.
Response 4.3 'Based on, input from Caltrans, interconnected and coordinated traffic operations
between intersections at the 'Oyster Point. interchange have not been fully instituted to date. It is
agreed that, if traffic grows to levels projected in the 1998DSEIR for the year 2010, the best signal
coordination between intersections would not. provide, acceptable . levels of service, during all, time
periods, even after provision of the new fly over off":rampsefVing the East of 101 area which will
remove a significant amount of traffic from the intersections Within the interchange. This is the reason
that widening improvements are listed as eventually being needed for both Oyster Point Boulevard
intersections in the interchange. Additional approach lanes at both intersections also would be needed
'in order to provide increased storage for vehicles between the closely spaced intersections within the
interchange area (to help preclude, to the extent possible, vehicle backups extending from one
intersection back to and through adjacent intersections).
Response 4.4 The comment refers to the importance of preserving native plants and animals, the
effect of timing of construction. and the need to protect a "spring" on the site. The spring referred to
Letter 4-1
by the comment is presumably the perennial spring shown on Exhibit 4.3-1 (DSEIR page J55).
Mitigation Measures 43-1(a) and 4.3-3(a) call forpreservatioI?-,of .this ,perennials~g with a
minimum 50-foot setback for grading and other disturbancetoprotect"this';feature:.aIid' its use by
wildlife. MitjgationMeasure 4.~ 1 (b) , reco~nds revising the,proposed 'Restoration, Plan.~oprovide
;for.-salvage,cor'native:plant:materialwhich"othenvise :wotildbe 'e1imlm~teti as a resiiIi'oi,,irading and
::;development>"Thismeasure<stateslthitt, ;sah'age'shouId; be~ ;Perfo~.dUDI:tg"the;~ptimum period
~necessary 'to ,ensure ',plant . surVival, .'genenilly';in"the. 'faIl and "early'Sp~g ',months. 4.3 Biology
',recommends ',additiona1mitigationmeasures~o ,Fleet 'other',sensitive 'biological and..wetland
resources.
c-
f-
'Response 4.5 . The:} 998 DSEIR ,est:nnailis,.thaf.the project \yoUldaaaabouC'rl ~2.i Grade K- 5
.. students, '15 ,Grade 6-8 ,'students, 'and 19.Grade' 9-12 'students to' South San FraDcisco Unified District
'Schools'(ImpactA.7';'9), 'based.. on student'generation rates supplied'by the'District.'..The'}998 DSEIR
:'also.estimates.thattheproject wo1ild.increase enrollments '.by85 to '88 elementary and ,middle school
,students.. at Brisbane School 'District. schools (Impact '4.7-7) arid :byabout 21 'high school 'students at
Jefferson Union 'High SchooTDistrlct;schools (Impact 4.7~8). 'The 1998 DSEIR concluded that these
students would not cause sigDificant'impactsasdefined by the CaIifornia Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA),the State'CEQA :Guidelines(Guideline$),'aDdapplicablejudicial deeisions,as discussed in
4.7, Public Services (see Public Schools - Significance 'Criteria, DSEIR page 251).
L
,,'
:....-.-
Letter 4-2
LEITER 5
RECE1VEL
JUt 2 7 }:;'~;i$
PLANNING
July 22, 1998
5.1
As residBnts of this community, we belieTe in:
OPEN SPACE
PRESERVATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
PROTECTION OF THE NATURAL HABITA'l'
QUALITY OF LIFE
We agree that eliminating the commercial deTelopment is
a way to preserTe the sensitive .arche op logical sites
and endangered species habitat. We want to preserTe
this 8i te.
As representatives of this community, we feel we represent
the Toiceof many people.
'C,L: .~\ ~
'~'C'C\.~, ~c::.\ D~~
~,.l-.~___~' ), ,,t,. ~~;L
, ~
f\!IA..o. r- \) ~ b r: ~ \G\ "'- \-L I
O~<<, ~, .~e,
'~tlr~
~
1l ~- -,. .,. '1
1"'1 I J - I
'.Ill _
__111 J _.. _ ..
LETTER 5, THE WILLOW/ GRAND CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIA TION
,Response 5.1 The comment addresses the "merits of the project". ,It does not raise questions about
the adequacy of,the 1998 DSEIRanalyses but refers to 'the p~ject site's environmental conditions
evaluared in the DSEIR.While no response is required, inclusion of thecommentors'views in the
1999FSEIR will make them available to City decision~makers. Please see MasterResponse 7.3-11.
.
Letter 5-1
.'(IjJ",,,. "
.~
CHEROK 'CHIROPRACTIC ,OFFICE
NICOLE CHEROK. D.C.
LETTER 6
328 N. San Mateo Dr.. Ste.C
San Mateo. CA 94401
Telephone: (650) 348-4262
July 23. .1998
Planning ~ommission
Attn: Allison Knapp
P.D.Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Dear Ms. Knapp:
6.1 Jam a hiker who lo"-es haying the wonderful preserves
available herein the Ray Area. I am therefore very concerned
regarding the proposed development on San Bruno Mountain.
With JOO.OOO square feet of complex. the proposed Terra Ray
Project would thoroughly disrupt the beauty of San Bruno
Mountain. Please do not approve construction of this project.
1,C;;~
Dr. Nicole Cherok
NC:me
cc: City Council
(C.,'. ~\~
f'_ "
..~~~\~'Q~
LETTER 6, NICOLE CHEROK
Response 6.1 The comment addresses the "merits of the project" and expresses a preference for a
Phase m site alternative assessed in the 1998 DSEIR. The comment does not raise questions about the
adequacy of .the 1998 DSEIR analyses or the project's significant environmental effects. Thus, no
response is required. By inclusion in the 1999 FSEIR,the commentor's views will be made available
to City decision-makers. Please see Master Response 7.3-11.
Lencr 6-1
RECEI'/E
LETTER 7.ruly 24,1998
JUL 2 ? -;;,.:;.~
'PLANNING
'South San Francisco Planning Department
400 Grand Avenue
South SanJ'rancisco9~080-3634
Gen~lemen/Ladles:
Be.: SA!f~BtJ1i) I<<>tmTAIN - .OJ!'U)lU VILIAGI SIT!:
7.1
PleaJle do not permit aeQDllereia1development or ,8 freewayinterc:hange on
San !runoMountain, on the s1 te o~the Ohlone Indian v11lageshellmound.Asyou
know, this iBthe largest undisturbed shellmound in the '~ay Area, with its h'WIIBn
remains anda~tl~acts dating back at least 5000 years.
The Ohlonesite is also habitat t'or~he endangered Checkel"'spot and Mission!lue
butte~t'1ies and a dozen rare, plants.!+: Is one of the t.op areas 1"oryea~-,.ound Hild-
-
flowers and subspecies of.'sh'l"Ubs. . A University 01" California su'M1'eY describes 1+.8S
SbOl-ling indica+:orsof the vanishingF'rSnciscan habi""a4o; of the San P'ranciseQ ~y Peninsula,
't.rhich Is an en,,t,.Oll:l1ent tha ':harbors a moth ~aun..of 160 species ofmic!o-Lepldop""era,
^
".,ith their la~ralhost plant.s. One 'recently descr1bedmoth 1s Im~'mon1y on San ~T'Uno
Mountain .\ 7.2
Therelsalso a marsh with plants andshoreblrdsthatmust be preserved.
To fu:rther encroacl1 on tbe'l"ema.ininghome o~theseendangered and rare speeies
may easily push them over the line from survival to extinetion.
~lease!
Sineerely,
,e...t, '. ~' \ 'CY"\.
" "
<:...P~~~~ \~wut~
.,... 1l~".1
..> "() .J,S' ~ M
~~, qtq'f7~'J-2Sd7
LETTER 7, SAN FRANCISCO BA Y CHAPTER, WILDLIFE COMMIITEE, SIERRA CLUB (MICHAEL
VANDEMAN)
Response 7.1 The comment addresses the "merits" of the . both the private Terrabay 'development
and public roadway projects. It refers to the. project site's environmental conditions but does not raise
questions about the adequacy of the 1998 DSEIR analyses. Thus, no response is required. 'By
inclusion in the 1999 FSEIR, the commentor's views will be made available to City decision-makers.
Please see Master Response 7.3-11. The commentor should note that the 1998 DSEIRanalyzes
,archeological, cultural and historical resources,includingCA~Ma-40<(pages 276-305), and biology,
including special-status species (pages 147-161). Construction of the hook ramps andrea1ignment of
Bayshore Boulevard are covered by the 1998 DSEIR but are a component of regional traffic facilities
which include improvements to the Oyster Point 'Boulevard interchange (overpass, flyover, etc.).
Impacts 4.1..:7, 4.2-5, 4.3-3, 4.5-2, 4.6-4, 4.8-1, and 4.9-1 address physical impacts of the public
roadway projects, and Impacts 4.4-12 through 4.4-14 deal with traffic operations with development of
these facilities.
Response 7.2 Comment noted. The 1998 DSEIR (DSEIRpages 149-152) discusses special-status
plant and animal species known or suspected to occur in the vicinity of the site and includes a
summary of information contained in the previous 1982 EIRand 1996 SEIR. While alarge number of
invertebrate species is known on San BrunoMountain,inc1uding moths and butterflies, the 1998
DSEIR addresses those with special-status. None of themicro-Iepidoptera species referred to by the
commentorhas any legal protective status, and the project is not expected to have a significant impact
on any of these species. . As discussed on DSEIR page 154, most of the vegetation which would . be
removed as a result of development consists of ruderal and non-native grassland species. No areas of
well-developed northern coastal scrub, referred to as '~Franciscan" in the Flora of San Bruno
Mountain, would be affected by the .project, 'and no significant impacts on this 'habitat type of concern
to the comment are anticipated.
Letter 7-1
8.1
Honor Excellence
Joseph Vaca Sculpture
1201 Howard #E
SF.CA 94103
:LETTER 8
RECEIVE D
JUl3 0-
PLANNING
,
July 27. 1998
City of South San Francisco
Planning Division
315 Maple Ave. PO Box 711
South San Francisco, Ca94083
Dear Planning CommissionerS:
I have been participating in the public hearings, observing the deliberations, and have read
both SEfR-reports: Htave-observed the manipulations of Sunchase in reg~rds tD it's
development of South San Francisco and the methods it has used to confuse and take
advantage of the permit process. The proposals that they have presented are weak and so
flexible, that nobody is able to determine exactly What they intend to actually build. They
seem to be holding too many cards and obfuscating their true intentions. Please do not
permit them to build' especially. in regards ,to Phase III. The enviroAmental and heritage
site that has been so well documented is irreplaceable. No revenues from a donut store,
chain restaurant,. or cut rate hotefwill ever. be able tD replace the incredible archeological
sitethatwoutdvery well be destroyed. It is a rare opportunity that Commissioners such as
yourselves .are allowed the privilege of making such an, important decision. A decision that
willaffectdeciSionsaU-overthe country,theNative American Community, Environmental
Action Groups Nationwide, Our Children, All the Children of the Bay Area, and the tribal
members, Whose remains are . buried within' the exquisite 'peace of land now entitJed the
proposed Phase III.
The original name of this valley that supported some of the firSt residents of the San
Fr:ancisco Bay Area has been .lost. Now it is justa potential slab of concrete, a pad, tfyou ,
have ever$tOOCl atop the hillside looking over the shell mound out upon the Bay you would
become truly aware of. the imp.ortanc~ culturally for preserving this site. In this post
industrial era, it would Oe nice.ifSouth san F.rancisco~s'noted for more than the hill with
the Industrial City sign. Tt1ere is just this one opportunity to forever change the image of
South san Francisco,into one that values the cultural importance and historical
significance of it's. landscape. Letting this chance slip by, in exchange for tax dollars on a
hotel and restaurant that lie in airport flight lanes, would be forever regretable.Urge
Sunchase to accept the two million dollar offer in the mitigation exchange and let us move
on to much brighter city r:esponsibiliti'es than legal battles and development studies for a .'
valley that the public is demanding remains as it is. Please preserve Phase III this
beautiful valley as It is, block development of this precious landsc~pe.
JC;.
Sincerel J
Joseph Vaca
Sculptor, Sm II business OWner. Former Resident of Brisbane, Resident of San Francisco,
and San Bruno Mountain Watch Member.
,., 1\ '..-'\... ~
~ .~\VV'\ .
,
t.P N'~\~~~'e~
LETTER 8, JOSEPH VACA
Response 8.1 The comment addresses the planning process and "merits of the project" together with
expressing a preference foraPhasem site alternative assessed in the 1998 DSEIR. The comment
refers to the environmental resources of the project site but does not raise questions about the
adequacy of the 1998 DSEIR analyses or the project's significant effects. Thus, no response is
required. By inclusion in the 1999 FSEIR, the commentor's views will be made available to City
decision-makers. Please see Master Response 7.3-11.
Letter 8-1
Iuly 29, 1998
LETTER 9
Planning Division
:City of South San.Francisco
315 Maple AvenueIP.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA ,.94083
RECEIVED
JUl31_
"PLANNING
RE: SEIR ,- Terrab~y Phase IT, and ill
Dear Planning Commissioners:
9.1 I am vehemently opposed to the proposed, construction of three hotels, retail stores, restaurants,
parking structures, office space, . residential units and a $50 million freeway interchange upon
the site of an Ohlone Indian Village containing the largest undistrubed Indian shellmound in the
Bay ,Area. Besides its native artifacts and, religious significance to ,the descendants of the
- Sipliskin OhloneIndians,the Terrabay Phase nand ill projectarea has needed habitat for the
endangered silverspotand mission blue butterflies also.
As you well know, Califomianow has the bad reputation of being the most populous State in
the nation, and unbridled overdevelopment has destroyed our former paradise!! For decades my
, husband and I visited the Bay Area fora week or two every year. Now we are appalled and go
to Portland .instead"':'TOO MANY PEOPLE AND TOO MUCH DAMAGE TO THE
ENVIRONMENT.
The City of Portland recently bought up seven or eight residences along astrearn where
steelhead trout spawn and converted the area. into. a park. Before that, ,the City tore out . an
expressway along the WiIlarnetteRiver and built a strip park bordering the,river. In addition,
to encourage people to be lessauto-dependent, the City also provides free light-rail and bus
service Within the metropolitan area. Instead ',of building freeway, interchanges and residential
. and commercial structures on ,the southeast slopes of San Bruno Mountain, I believe the City of
South San Francisco needs to be thinking more in these terms.
Why not make the Terrabay project area into a park? The destruction. of archaelogical sites and
. more of our State's natural resources is too harmful to contemplate.
Sincerely,
rK~
Jean K. Jenks
.301 San Nicholas Court
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
cc.. '.~\ YV'\
, "l..-o X"l'" '('("\', ~ 5\0 ~
LETTER 9, JEAN JENKS
Response ,9. 1 The comment addresses the "merits of the project" and expresses preferences for both
Phase IT and ill site alternatives assessed in the 1998 DSEIR. Although the comment discusses the
,project site's environmental resources, it does not raise . questions about the adequacy of the DSEIR
'analyses. 'Thus, no response is required. By inclusion in the 1999 FSEIR, the commentor's views will
be made available to City decision-makers. Please see Master Response 7.3-11. Thecommentor
should note that the 1998 DSEIR. analyzes, archeological, cultural and historical resources, including
CA-SMa-40(pages 276-305), and biology, including special-status species (pages 147-161). As noted
in Response 7.1, the hook ramps and Bayshore Boulevard realignment covered by the 1998 DSEIR are
a component of improvements to the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange (overpass, flyover,.etc.) for
regional traffic conditions.
Letter 9-1
'LEn"ER 10, SHIRLEY AND JEFFERSON GRAVES
Response 10.1 .The 1998 DSEIR discusses the nature and significance of archaeological site CA-
SMa-40 DSEIR pages 280-285) and presents alternative Mitigation Measures 4.9-1 (a) and 4.9-1(b),
either of which wuold satisfy CEQA requirements for reducing impacts to a less-than-significant level.
The Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative would eliminate all construction activities
on or within 30 feet of the boundaries of CA-SMa-40. Impacts of development would be totally
reduced to a less-than-significant level and would beinikeeping with CEQA's emphasis on
preservation of SigIiificant cultural resources. Please see Master Response 7.3-1 for a detailed
discussion of the PhaselIISiteMitigation Plan Development Alternative.
The DSEIR includes discussion of Native American issues as well (DSEIR page 285). The Phase III
Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative would result in avoidance of the site.
Response 10.2 The 1998 DSEIR discusses the occurrence of callippe silverspot and mission blue
butterflies in the vicinity of the project site and the potential impact of the project on these and other
, special-status species in 4.3 Biology.
,Response 10.3 The comment addresses the "merits ,of the project" and expresses a preference for a
Phase ill site alternative assessed in the DSEIR. The cOIDIDentdiscusses the project site's
environmental resources but does not raise questions about the adequacy of the DSEIR analyses.
While no response is required, inclusion of the commentors' views in the .1999 FSEIR will make them
available to City decision-makers. Please see MasterResponse 7.3-11.
Letter 1 ().. I
I
LETTER 11
\
July 31,1998
" -.
~,' ,;C:lyof'SouthSan iFrancisco;:P.lanning'Division:':c
".':315SOlithfMaple,,'i,;po .~x.lIl'.
"South)San!:FtanCisco.oA~.94083"
RECEIVED
'-':f)lIG.'~~,:'~'j~:ilS ,-
,..,..::. ,:~".;-.~-_~",,~,~,"I..:'i;';';_:._'::I,',~_~:. ...;_" ,'_. .'~"
,. "" ':';;~<;"pl',^~'~'I:N;G"';::'
. _':;--"::--":i,".'<..:<~:::~~::~.;:~":"\_"'~''':~ _ .::_ .:
~jRegarding:,DraftS&q)plem.ntal ,ElR"Terrabay;.phase.'U,and:ill,;:CIty: of Souttt:San:iFranclsco, July
'),cl998 '", ~",>:; ;',.. , ' '.; , ;..i" .. ",'..;,i:
';::~:~'-t;!'};~),:.;',Jt~".~;.,::,:,~~,.,:,~_::._~i::;'~-i.::,:<;',,-.:::, :'-< ,,'~~ '!;~</\"~~- t ~-::}~~>...:7t~;i:-'_ ",' ,,-/,\''';~'',,:: ,.~.L I}'.!.~~ .;",.r ..::....,_~~..
:have~18viewedithe' DSEIRJssued,~the<C~.:Of,South;San:;Franciscoand'have:,the,following comments
?to)offer.'A,also::spoke'atthe;public:hearing.held,on.T:hu",y.~uIY'23.'1,998;and.provided,verbal
':icomments'on .the;projecrs,consistency,with;Section~of,Jbe;Federal.CleahWateriAct,'which regulates
'the placement ot dredged or fill materiaJ into waters of the United:Statesrinc1uding "wetlands and other
.special aquatic sites.. I ask that my comments at the July 23' hearingaJso be included in. the
'i'administrative;recorcUor;this'project;'both1.oqmrposes olpreparingtheFinal:EIRfor the project and for
"anyduture,judicial;proceeding ,Whichmay requireflt.
-;:1'" "'1' ""
.' <I"., .'.
..,. \""".'"."
".,~.:' -'-,"' ';":'-"',
1. <PROdECT'SFA1LURE.ANDFAILUREOFDSEJR.TO'ClEARUf SHOW ,THAT PROJECT
,CGMPlIESWrrH SEC110N4040F'mHEChEAN,WATER,ACT>AND'EPA'GUIDEUNES AT 40 CFR
'cPART:.230,REGULATlNGTHE,DISCHARGEOF;DREDGEDORFILLMATERIAL,INTOi.WATERS OF
~iTHE'LJNITEDSTATES."" ." '"
-
According to the DSEIRlntroduction, actualphysic:81 construction with the project will encompass CD 75
:;,iacresincluding .;;;::>,.}}n,:;,:r,;,),,:'t'i"., .;,,:i :', ":;', ,'L~S}:'/; ,;\-,";;,)ki'g-:::t:;;.,h\,>"",c:'ci{;,;L J,.', Y", ." t "
;;26~acres'for,348~resic:l8ntiaUots; .i~13 :acresjfor:JnteR\Bf,roadways:.and,utIlitieson'thEtPhas811 site. On the
"phase'llI,slte;cseveacommercialiJots, would,total3~icres,jntemalroadway;one;~j,adjacent parking
two ,acres,:;and, utilities ,as'weIL, { Inmarly,instances':it<am4'be:safely,presumechthat ,the:project ,can be
;.raconfigured;and.:reshaped to;avoid;sensitive;habitats,,~uch asendangered:species.habitat, wetlands,
,etc.'+'" <',;of'",.. ;":::;,,..'.\, ," ';';'3:':j,'{;;i;:" '<.'i",/'Y,':" ,ii', "
~ - ;.:t';"~" '.1 .. ..._.~.~ : .._:-:- _,~". ~ ".. .~.~~ ~,_r.~__~: -.~' ~J -<.'"';:;"':"::.':_t,~.,.~~~~;.:',':~':~:.o
~'\Regarding',theaoss'of;jurisdictionaJ;wetlandhabitat;!'P,a:gei'85,1Ofthe~DSEIR~(Summary'of Impacts &
, :~Mitigation;Measures) ,states',that '~iPl'Oposec:hprtJjectshaDbe'redesjgned'tolaVOid;jurisclictional wetland
i'.habitat~o!the maxlmum;extenlfeaslble.";11i"_~1n,~llIgwJlh!Federal.n.gulatlons under the
":CIeanWater..Act~Sectloni404,;whICh,reqLiI...:.tbatlproJecta.avold;and~mlnlmlze,:.to:th.,greatest
:;extent:practlcable,'Jhefplacemenl;offln;:malertalJntoJlquatlciresources::prolected under CI..n
,Water Act'.Sectlon':404.,"";.'i"
tHowever, p8ge,156;oUhe;,DSaR,candldIY'8CknoWledges,that~.....;removaLof:natIve
:.wetland-related ',habltat'and1the::perennlal::sprlng:on1the ,Phase,nl:.ttewouldbe:sJgnlflcant ,As
:;currentb'4JI'Oposed,tdevelopment'would~.llmlnate:all1helnatlveifreShwater:marsh<and 'riparian
vegetation, resulting In acoJectlvejloss~of,appraxlmatelyitwoacres,of,these,;sensltlve natural,
community types. . d._ ,
. ' . "
\',":'.,; ~"':'. . .:;f~.;~~.~~,:~.;::i;~j~~L<::'.:. ::< ~E:~;~~~':~~,:? ..~~~' .. ,~-~:'" : ::~
\I'be:statementon pagel560Uhe DSEIR~certainly:seems.tobe"imconflctwitMhe ,Federal Clean Water
At;t, Section 404 and the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines developed byJhe.US.,ERAandwflich are binding
. ': r . ,
,. :.~
,,<p ,
on all parties in this country. The City ofSoutlfSamFraIlcisco.'hasanBffirmative.obUgation to ensure,
prj:.'rto' certifK:ation,of this project. under CEQA,that the projeCtcolTlpcrts..Mth'the;Ji'ederal wetland
protectiorueq~rements at Section 404 of the Clean Water,ACt:8neftne:ERAguldelines af40 CFR 230.
Andcerta'inly any placement of fill material in wetlands and other aquatic resources, protection under
"Section;404 of~ the'::CleaniWateriAct'.';needs,to"bS.canituIIy;18x8minedbY:both ,the,'AI'I11Y;Corps of
Engineers, the US. EPA, and the US FISh and Wildlife SeNice,aJlthree of whichhave~specialareasof
,responsibility under the Section 404 ....lations. ,I believe that the City of South San Francisco should
'work!CIoseIyWith:these:;.ttiree1.Fecleral ~geriCies,prior,1o:lSsulng\th8EinaI:EI8 ',in'Drder:to accurately
'determine'iWh8ther~the'~:pr:ojectiisi&Ctuallyiin'cori1pnance:with1theilprovisionsof:the~J;aderal. Clean' Water
ACl"'To dotany.lesswould;be'an:abdication -ofothe,pitYslresponslbilltytto,ensureithaUhe project is legal in
:,allire$P8ClS'iand ,foons. 'ii, /.., '>(' , <",'~:;'J6:.",:",;,>,:'\r'.,,~,{1"': -},0
..1
,l
,,~
j
11.1
'.~'_ ,-_~,,_r."'. '..,:, ' '''-'-~'~~;-;'_':'':'),':~;:'_.~'i.-:~';:~~fC'~:: '.;':'~_'t.~
:,2.'lndiarifCulturaf'Artifacts:"iConsiderable 'oppositionto\the'project,:as:itirelates:toilndian burial sites was
voiced at the July 23 session before1he:SSF'PJanning1Commlssioners~;{Many'speakers voiced their
,belief that the site should be respected for its cultural and historic value and that not enough attention has
,'}~be8n'paid:,to)the :area's;8duc:ational;resources;~partiCularty~for'chndren:and:fof.'ViSitorstothe 'Mountain. I
.'.,. ,amiin;agreemem,Wlth 'tbe:,ne.-vs',express8don;this:matter..,andwould'recommendithattheCity ofSSF
11.2 take lt7tOiits')~ kl.gicarstClP~ .;,~WhiCh 'is~f:dOesLthaSite,~quaJify;asa iSite'thaHs)potenti8l}yeligible for Isting
on the National 'Register of Historic Places? The City should address:this:,issueUnthe.;Final EIR and also
intheCEaAce,rtifJC8tionprocess.j . " . ",', ,,' ,"'. .' ' "
":::~ _~:. -;.::_' .-~:;;:i:i~';~ ;~~>;/'/.fl~~~:;-,~~,,-)t.',"{:>~_:~~,;'}~~.;:<_;~~,(r.~: ~.:.~/;;<~-:j.~ ;,': ,': .,: _,,c' _ - _~~~:t~\ <:(:,.~f~~'~i~~;::;.~:;_;":~-'~:~': ..-:i.:-::\<::':-_:;)~~:~'-~"~,~;: ;.-:j.-~:~i,_,;{::;:./ :~",,' _ ";'
,11.3.:. 3. Transit and the Pmiect:'Unfortunateiy many deVelopmentprojects.tbat!havelbeemcoristructedinnorth
" .,',.,..,'.,:,...l.:.,.~, =,..' ~i:~:-,.:::..~".~,ra:1ho, .~, ro. =."::". ,iac:",.~."~. "_.,1=.':' ~"'~"" ...,.egra,'jj1,-,n !ha.le, l~, i1lo
,";it;;crosswdcs.reidewlandRr_tween;a101speedjbumpsareproYidechso~tI1at\'JHIdUtriansmayhave greater
,{! '~security..;_.,.,...'i:xampIes:m-recall.are:.soUth;CIy's;1T'8rrabayl~(does~thlsnave<8l1Yftransit featuresataD
'???/I do.not,.beIieveso);the,recent DalyClly-developmentson GeDert'Boulevard:near Serramonte '
, Boulevard..(thisentirecomplex:ls,anightmare ,for pedestrians. 'and.alsocontains no .tranSit); and the' entire
"?, iHome:o.potI280.:MetI'o'Center''COrnJ)lextin'CoIrna;"Whichl(rmy;knowledge:thas,nopubrlC:translt .
'!::,accoITllllOdatiGnSWltinto;ft.:<1Each,of__,atIract;severaJ,thousanchcars!-each:,wee~y.,andprobably
',c10_m.201Ihousand:;C8rs,on~the}weekendS:''Yet'7.m.;transit:fis'.:available~..;: iTterrabayillalidJlIshould not
"1'1.'4:make:~'~~m~5l~1be;GIty;Dft~~1=.tanCisco:!~;aniaffirmativeDbli~~to.integrate
. "" '.,.:0transjNnto;projects~whk::t:nit\1q]proves;.1n'!OrdEir.\1D;reduc8M1hicular .traveli'~reduce::8Ir1'8mlSSlOns (carbon
monoxide, oxides of J1itrQgen,particulates), and to improve the.:quality,tOMheiBir weJ8llJt?r8athinto our
lungs. , ' ,
\1be:recent'redesignBtion;of,>tne'San!FranciscOiBay;ArU'by,.th8U:JSEPAas aniozone'nonattainment area
;:atso::points':Up1heneed'to ,reduce;8missions'ofiOXides:Of'nitrogen,~NOx"'-!Which!is~a~precursor to ozone
:fonnation...o.1Whk:h'iwOUld'COlrietfrom;not.'onJy,1he'projecrs"construction:phaseiemissions but also from
:sUbsequentWhicUlari:tndflc"goinotto:and;fromi-A'lases~1-111.'I :, '
,11.5 4. State Clearinghouse LO. Number: Every EIR I have ever seen In the past decade .contains a .State
',' "~"G~assigned~umberon',the.cover~ge;'mlis'EIR does nol"The:finSJ :EIR should. contain the
.i; ,.StateClearinghouse number."i';'i, ,:,,):':fC:.'i,,<.., ' ' ,
, 'Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EIR.I would like to be notified by mall
when the Final EIR Is released, but there Is no need to actually send me a copy of
:the document. Asnotecl, please incorporaIB my verbalcom",-nts deliveredJuiy 23rd into the
=.: SJ;:~-1Y ~e~- .~~../
~=.:o,4~"/JI .. ~. " O~\Q--:Y\\"€ /
r-
1 -
;
!
.l...-_
LEITER 11,DAVID TOMSOVIC
;Response 11.1 The comment refers to the MitjgationMeasure 4.3-3 recommendation that the
project be redesigned to avoid jurisdictional wetland habitat to the maximum extent ieasibleand points
out that the project would have a significant effect on wetlands as currently proposed. The commentor
contends that the project and DSEIR must show compliance with. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
and other regulations pertaining to wetlands prior to certification of the FSEIR which is not accurate.
Refer to Master Response 7.3-8 regarding potential impacts on wetlands, the need for adequate
mitigation, and compliance with relevant State and Federal regulations.
Response 11.2 Plans for the Terrabayproject do not incorporate transit features (bus turnouts,
stops, or shelters) as part of the proposed internal roadway system on-site. To use transit, residents
would be expected to carpool or walk to the nearest bus stop. The nearest stop currently is located
near the Hillside Boulevard / Jefferson Street intersection served by SamTrans' Route 26H).The 1998
DSEIR discusses existing transit service (DSEIR pages 175-176). No speed bumps are proposed for
internal streets on the Terrabay Phase IT or ill sites. However, crosswalks would be provided at major
intersections. The relatively narrow residential streets proposed for the Phase IT site would result in
'less distance for pedestrians to traverse when crossing residential streets on-site.
Response11.3 CEQAdoes not require that the Lead Agency pursue a determination of eligibility
for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).This register is governed by the
'National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Please seeMasterResponse:7.3-3 for a detailed
,;discussion of the application of the NHPA to the archaeological site. 'The 1998 DSEIR (DSEIRpages
'2:83-286) discusses the cultural / historical importance of the archaeological site in detail.
.Sesponse11AThe 1998 DSEIR analyzed ,air quality impacts expected from implementing the
proposed project. The redesignation of the Bay Area. as anon-attainment area for ozone under the
Feder3l Clean Air Act did not change the standards of significance used in the1998DSEIR. These
significance standards were developed to address the more stringent California ,Clean Air Act. .Air
quality'impacts resulting from construction and cumulative buildout (including the project and other
area development identified in 2.4 CumuUztive Development) were found to be significant (Impacts
4.5-1 and 4.5-3, respectively). Mitigation measures to reduce these impacts were identified and
evaluated. Implementation of these measures would reduce construction ,impacts to aless-than-
significant level. However,cumulative long-term air quality impacts would remain significant and
unavoidable. Measures to reduce dust emissions from ' construction and operational emissions ,from
reduced automobile traffic were identified. These measures would require the applicant to provide
transit and promote public transit.
Response 11.5 . The State Clearinghouse (SCH) number assigned to theEIR is 97082077. Please
see Letter 00 from the Governor's Office of Planning and Research.
Letter 11 ~ 1
LETTER' 12
'United StatesD~partment of the Interior
'l'OJSH ANDWUDLlFESERVlCE" ,
-SaCI'UIaItIDr_ud"WiidJlfeOBlca ", ,,"
3310 II c...... A......StIlta 130
Sacn...te,Calfonda 'SII1l~
, ,". .........y .....'1'0:.
"'.,,:;: '] .ltil9l4TA:J 882"'"
:Subject: .
CommentsontheTtlrribay,~ n anirmProject.SDUth'SanFranci&co,
'San :MateaCounty,C"..aJiforiiia.' ,'.
12.lx'This;letter;prc;vidc:rt.beU;S,JF.aah.,and.Wi1aIife. SerVi~~~~CScrVic;:eJ.~:onthe'sU6jeCt , '
, ~evelQpmcat1Gject.1:ma.'.City'ofSoUth,SIln*,ranc:isCnlGitY)ant:a'c:oPY'of'th8,dRft"'"
,SuppJcmcmal'EnviroDmemal~lmpactjAepon:t5EDt)ffot'1he:projectlo'the 'SerVice 'on.
',JUly 29 ,;J9.9B,'.Nle;reeeivedr:thei~;SBIR:'on;Ju1y31tl998>!~' ",,:L
," ');;L'\,::,['(,:,'):~~':,;:_'~'..\<':.'i.':' .' ~ ~ ,\' ~ > - "' ~;.:' ~"'...~ '" ~.. _7;1...~.;. ~'; ~~.... ..... ~ :.~" 'I _
2) Has the project applicant CUlTent1y met all relevant obligaticms'IS set forth in pages
V~...:~~to'Y:D-::!67~[.tbfI;~H~ .
" ..:~,HCP~-r~-~~~a~:~=b;~=,,~~wid1~
, :PJant species. lDd;a9ja~_dcWdQPcd<~'~~,~ ~;nati~iP1ams.or;llOll-invasive
'speaes..' 'ThC'Uty-~"~~~;~,~~:~'J~.~J~,~,:providtt,meuures.<lO
emure, they are met.
"
i
! ,
Tun Hami~ "ChiefPlaM#r';\<~~';?!,~~'\~~>I::.}.'~~~:~di;::fi?~f~E~:'
2
'I
~.
E-,-d...redSpecin
. . .' _' '.- '. . .-~,~.~~' ':~'",'';'.v-~.,~.;,' .
12.2 'The 5a'Vice DOteSa~ CODCemI'IIion ofjolmny jump-iJp plants (YinlaperAmi:ilQi#)~iSiocated
:at the,extreme northerutip ofthepropoacdPhuCW "Coll'~~-ciIl~" and moderate
cO~rali= oClhe,plamlll'C located ill the ceatnl DDltbemIlld western"pomons of the
,proposedPbase nClCnmmons"rcsidential ana. :Jolumyjl.llDJ""UP isthesoletooci,plaDt for larvae
(cau:rpiDIn) oftbc caDippe &ilwn,potbuttert1y(Spqma azllippe!~).,;'~~~ywas
fedtnJlyJisteduu erwfll~ered$peCies on ~ S,1997:{F:Cd.a1~Cr;Q;64J06--
64320) IDd is fWlyplotcctcd \IIK1crtbeEndanpredSpeciesAct of19~.;;:as"aJ:ncncic(t~aethrcc
coDceotrations oflood plants for the buttcdly mapped iD the draIlSEm. weRuot,eoDSidered in
theHCP,becausethc BCPmappecl adult calIippe, silYer$pot"buttctQy:clistributionsbut;not
locatiolD oflarvae or f'oodplants.CaDippe IJln.opot buttcd1ics typiWly fly upslope to' biJttops
and ridgcs: to find mateS, and mated fP-nUtle$then fly downslope to lay their egs on or Dell'
jolmn,y.jUIIP~~p1ants,':'RIe.HCP~~ueat;monitC)riq8'nportI fow1d.aad'iCODtiDue to Dud
sUbstuatiilnumber ofaduhc:aJlippc ail~bunedJies;direcdy,Qp slope ofthejolmny jump;Jp
locations mapp~ in the,draftSEIR. The Service recommends the project be adjusted tolVOid
and prottet these three food plant locations,and buffer them from adverse;eI'ects.
12.3 ~ 'Oftlte,deve1~,demativ~pt)posed,the;'ScM:e;ax1QI1'S,thatA&:=mbination;CJf:the~::n
lledu~,.~ti4l~'&IJd"phase.m~"commCrcial;D~pmeatWtenlatives
would -"faver,~cnt8liD;gJac:ts:1hmithe~pmpOsecipDjllCl,(;lJID.hlO!es'~~:'Dftpacts
em be&rtbcrmiuced, To fbrther'reduce;jmpadiillnderJ'-hUe~~,r.er.on ;nW'!ftCJ,poItioDsoftho
~.area ~ popuJatimlJ ofcaDippeJilwnpot buttedlyfood plams.pJusa11
portioDJupslope and a lOOJool buiFcr do~be dedicated aspennanent!pretected"'"'
ecosystem in the San BronoMountainPark .~}_~pedlDd developed with park facilities as
suggestectiD;tiMJdescljpdon;of,t1Je.altemative). :~:phue';m ReduccdrCo11imerC:W?',":.' ':
.~pIIIfJIi~i.""'tto.voidcU<:b~buttries"l.;'fDda'p1ant,popwatiOn'2t.'the
".DOttbera1ip'<<6e--?'W.ncommeaii1filtther,sm.n~aaj\A4.&ac:ab';iD;tbe"C!eWlo~ '
,bouDdaIy,.'.thc..,1thcm;,1ipJto~avoid6isi__ti<<i'.bibitat .Comptetely:';>Wrtb.'1heSe'rec.orl~'eMed
adjustments. the,reiha!deveJqpmem,~WiI'WOUlaaYoia,aoutj91%'o!.JarftI:fOOdp1ams
for the endangered caIIippe ,&iIvcrpt'1mttafly .W1Ih the acfjustmellts descl'i~:tJ!e 'Service
;woUld'~i:therimple.meut1li0D'1:7f.~'~.~"deVelol!"P.ftt1lJtematives.
",':~/~-; ':::~,.\. ).: ,', >
':
i.
--'
,
Wetlaad .Ecosystau
12.4
-""f
Und.. pro~ODI oCthoFJSh and Wi1dlifeCoOr~'Act~~ setYi~iIavia=a the u.s. Army
Corps of&,;~ (Corps) onprojeclS iDvo1vin.JldrrAlp l.Dd,iiD activiticsin,~.oftbe "
5=zauf~'E~~~.~~=
:;".,':-- -;:r-'~".:::_;~r..'~~~~f~;,y:;,{:.>_~{;: .~~~r{":::' :::,,-<. :(:.,;~"'~:-:
I
~
,-
. ....",...._ n. ...,_..a. w
'Il!,/UU"
nm Hamish. ChietPlanncr
3
We appreciate the opponunity to c:omment on this project. If you have qucstWm-about this letter
or if W\} can be or fUrtheto assi~",cc. please contKtDavid Wright regardins endangercdspe.cies,
or Janice Gan regarding werlaDds. at the lettcri1caci IIddrcssor at (916) 979-2110.
Sincerely,
I~l }4~
David L. Harlow
Acting Field Supervisor
cc:: AES, PonlaDd. OR.
Michael Vasey, San Fnncisco Stare University. San Francisco, CA
Sam Her-Lber&, San Mateo County PLtnnir1; DiviaioD, Redwood City. CA
VictOria Harris, Thomas Reid As.qociates. Palo Alto. CA '
Brim Ga1fney. Bay Area Land Watch, Oakland. CA
JalceSig, CaJifomia NativePhmt Society. San Fl"BIWisco. CA
'LETTER 12, DAVID HARLOW,'U.S.'FISI"lAN~:WIUJU'7ESERVICE1
';- "." , - ,~..,.,. .': '.' -'". . --, ,:. '. . ....=-.t.l.;~,. ,':':_,:.,..:._-.,;.::.:_\;' '~,..;.;.;:~ ",' :" _'.'."
'Response 1Z1, The 'commerit ':proVides'~iIlfonDation:on ~the '6bligations~of:.'theprojectsponsor
"'Tegarding permit 'conditions, 'ne, ',fin, ed.bY".the&,', an,,!B, runo,,' " Mo. untam,.,',"j".'.,'. '-Hiib,." itat,.' "C, onserv", atl..on,.',P. lan, "(HCP).
Further review by the City. and 'HCP monitormg .consWtirigIPlaIl.~Operator will~ensurethat the project
sponsor~sobligations and development restrictions . defined in the HCPare adhered to as part of
project approval. Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 states that the: project sponsor shall be 'required to fulfill
the landowner'l developer obligations'identifieo in 'the HCP.Withrespecttothe site. 'The 1998 DSEIR
(DSEIR page 156) ,reviews the adequacy of the, proposed "Restoration Plan for the '.project which
provides forthe revegetation of graded slopes with native plant species.
The HCP Agreement requires that the local land agency make a finding at a public hearing that the
project complies with the RCP. The HCP compliance can be made in conjunction with any other
local public hearing scheduled to consider the development proposal, or it can be made at a separate
public hearing. Before the compliance, hearing, specific compliance information must be sent to the
responsible agencies (San Mateo County, California Department of Fish and Game, and the D.S.Fish
and Wildlife Service) for a 3D-day review period. The public can obtain copies 'of the compliance
information from the local agency and can comment on HCP compliance at the required compliance
hearing. Compliance information should show:
· Conserved habitat boundaries are consistent with those described in the HCP
· A reclamation plan for reclaimed habitat has been prepared, and it provides for runoff controls,
habitat restoration, and adequate bonding to secure properperfonnance
· The project has adequate fire buffers
· Restrictions on large-scale use of pesticides is assured
· The. project is participating in the long-term funding program. and the funding is consistent wit
that described in the H CP
Response 12.2 The 1998 DSEIR (DSEIR pages 151-152) discusses the status and life history of
callippe silverspot butterfly. Exhibit 4.3-1 shows the locations of populations of the larval host plant
for the callippe silverspot, including the large population of more than 1,000 plants located at the
northern edge' of the Phase ill site. Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 includes recommendations to minimize
potential impacts of the project on callippe silverspot, stating that project plans shall be redesigned to
avoid disturbance to and development of areas supporting populations of the larval hostplantto the
greatest extent possible. The Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative assessed in
Master Response 7.3-1 includes complete preservation of the large population of host plants at the
'northern edge of the Phase ill site, demonstrating the feasibility of meeting the intent of this measure.
No additional mitigation is considered necessary.
On July 29,1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) asked the City for a copy of the 1998DSEIR and for an
,extension to the public review period in order to submit comments. The Assistant City Attorney replied on August 5,
1998, described the City's efforts to provide the USFWS with a copy of the report for review and comment, and indicated
that a seeondcopy of the 1998 DSEIRhad been sent to the writer. The City's letter also responded to the request to
extend the public revi~w period but did not extend the 45-day public review period. Both letters are part of the record
and are on file with the City. The City did not receive comments on the 1998 DSEIR from the writer or any other'
, representative of the USFWS until after the close of the public review period. The City is allowed (but not obliged) to
respond to comments reeei ved after the close of the public review period.
~tter 12-1
,.
;Response12.3The position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding the
Environmentally Preferred Development Alternative is noted. The description of the Phase 1]
,Reduced Residential D(!l1elop"'!!nt,1Nternative.on. [)SE11{pqge30!;8ta1es'thatr.~y;neighb()rhood .park
:facilities in the Commons "development area" would be.restricted lei previously graded partS of the
site, ,so no .direct.1oss..ofrhost, plants_for,;.the,ca1lippe.. silvel'$pot.~butterfly' is: anticipated.~.~~tigation
Measure. 4.3~2would .require:iha,f.~,:tlost/pl8!l~\V()uld beavo~~.~~,e~~.JIIl:~n~incitiental take
permit is obtained, inCluding those in .th~.coIDDlons neighborhood.: .,:,.,., "", ,v "
!
.r-
'C-
<=-
. '"..,' '.<. ~':.~:"" ..;;.,;~. -:"-::.'.~' '", .', . ','" . ,,-,,..~,!,,.',""""
Res;ponse,12.4 Informationprovidedbythecommentor is noted. ' ,The DSE]R(DSEIR,page 153)
: mentions . theFishand,'Wildlife. .CooI'dinatiOQ,A~t.inthe ..d.escr:iptiOIl :ofjurisdiction over wetland
;resources.:NoadditiO~al~~p()nseisnecess~. -, ,'., '. , " ," , "
Letter 12-2
LETTER'13a
BA 1nr.R & M:9KENZIE
.....
....,.,
....
,,-
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
:,...... "
, .....--.
-.,., -
,_.~. -
-...---
,- '-
.......... --
-, -
c_ ....._
"-,-
,- .,-..-
'.:- ...... .....-
~,-
~ -
-
-
,-
_.0. -. CIWT
'--
.......u
~ ... M):I ~
-
,.-
...-
''NatO
TWO ENBARCADERO CENTER_a ......1'In'
TWENTY-YOURTHF'LOOA,,,;,,::-:r _~~_.
SAN FRANCISCO, CAUFORNAIWIII-3.oei":::j'=."::t
TELEPHONE 14U') 1578.3000 ':::;'';.. , "',::'~
FACSlfo4~ 104111I S7e-:.oee ~
....n.._
--
--
-
'-
-
-,. ....
Mr. Jim Hamish
P1Amii11gDirectOr ,
'"G1yofSouth ~Fnmcisco
400, South GrimdAvenue
South SIIIlFrandsco. CA94083
''.'Re:, " :,ApPllcaat!. q,~CDts.oll,Dnft,.sllPPJem~b1i~_t.Ump.et
" ,.~Report forTcrrabaY,I'roJect.,PzhuaU aJld,l1J, ,Dated,Jqr,199l-
"J\pPB.cat!I~;Ml~;)f........,for,,,ject bDpiell
.. .- -
'On behalf ofSunCbue GA Califomia I. Inc.. the appIicmt far1be ~lImd m
project,c.atitl~~cr~~&.,,~:s,ubmit~:ionowilJl.:~Il.dtt!l an the Draft ,
Supp~ EnVircmmczdalI~RqJort.datcd July, 1998 ('1)SEJRj.1bis commt"Qt kucr
dcscDbcs tbcA.ppliamta;pmposed"mitiption,meamcs,for:CIIVinmmaalJmpecta described in
theiDSEllt_1bescmitigJl6nn,~U&~Juwe ~BorpomtedciDto~pojJOSCd l?hascm
'mitigation plan ("1ditipticmPbmj.1beMitiptionPlanwill resu1t in die avoiclanceor
)-..nil\! of impacts jdentmM in the DSElR..OvcraII,'b'cnvimDmcmal i~ ,UDder the
MitigaticmPIan willbc less tban those idP.lltifil'.d!n the DSEIllThe lvrdiptiOllPIan will not
",:",1'eSOIt'iD"my'aew'.pificlDt~pBCt,Dot'~1Iflhc:~CJl,mlwhmtial inaease intbe
"severl1.y'or-a Sigrdfi~nH~p.cf~fiedilrthe'DSEIIl'-'i~.,~;;w:,: :",~,.,: ' ',,' '
-'., ~;,;;.. "'.~~;~- "..: :- '':" ,".., :\.~-,;":"," ;~>~-: ;~ :..3,{,~:::"-:,~\'f: ':.. : )~:":l~f~I,)'~'-;;.:,:;i;~~:'.:1:~;f{~:.--:~~:;)."t2;; r/:~~!:,:~,-,.t~~~;~~:';"(:"sr, ""-;'~{~--' <,.;::, ~.:.,~
',iTbc DSBlRCODCIudes\1bat8ll,i~<OfthCTcnibay'Pmjcd'coUIdbc'mifigale.d to .
~lCYd'oCillliw"ncancc,c:xccptfor1iir'~'aDd trU6c."(1f:tbc~prOposcdsipif;CIIlt,Pmject.
:"dcDSity'rccluctioDDiitiptiODSII'C.illhibIC).:~forc,'tbe~P1aa'will'rcsUlt infurtbcr
,.""teductioDSof'Pmjcct~impecIs.tbattb:,'DSEIR.,'81n:ady'iacDtifies .:i.aSiPificaat,VIi1h the
,'implemcatation of proposccl mitigations.
'AUIclIed1aeto'isc_'~-iDgtiWiDg^Sho\riagthe:bUiIdi....m ,md 1catioas,
:'iIccess~'4imits'or'~'~~i,WiDs.;'dCbrislwaCi",1aia,C1cVatioas!for:1b=
,.,Mitipticmftm.':'lhcifiDilplmis ,WiJI'bc coaiistalhVitb."5-.ttaaaea'pbrh.it wib8l ~iptiOll
ooC1beNitiption;P.}aQ:in1his 1eUer. '
...191.4
B.&p~~&'~ ;',
r-
~
I
Bc1owisadescription of: (l)tbe environmental impactstbat will be reduced by the
Mitigation Plan; (2) the effect of:thc l.4'i.'iptinn Plan on other impact areas identified in the
DSEIR; (3) the specific ~OD~under the MitiptionPIan; and (4) an overall
'mmmuy ofthc Mitigation Plan.
'Ihc Mitigation Plan has been formulated in c:oojunction witha'~;~gl~jm)Pctive buyer
for an oflicebuilding on the northemportion of the Pbase m site.:A1lothm]30teDtial office
buyers for the site have sought a low-rise, campus deve1opmt'!nt"Ihebu.yet hasentcrlood into a
contract8nd is in its due diligence pc:rioclat this timc.UndcrtbccoDtl'8ct;the"btJycthas a riglttto
cancel iftbe Project entitlements IJ'C not approved byibe City on or'before'~ 30, 1998.
Therefme,the Mitigation Plan is subject to and conditional upon timely approval. Iftbc
'approvalsarellot.gralttcenn'l :timely 'm~ mUif1le'bwercance1s;itspurchasc contJ'actp 1bc
AppliQUlL mJCrV~'the'iigbt-1o;\Vitharaw'illc').fmgsiiODPlan. ''lithe''Plan is withdrawn, then the
AppliailitWill,'proposc1i&iitiollil paa'm:asm1bC;mrlhemporticin:ofPb&tse m in aIder to
accommodatcthc low~rise,"'aunpus:clevc1opmcnt.Additional1y, a delay in the Applicant's
requitedpayrocnttowards the cost ofthc hoolaampslBaysborcBoWeWrd prdjeetWiJI,be
req,.""uested.....""".., , , .. "". .:,' _":' '
. ;:-'~'-::,:,~:~ .:::<~.):'_:._:j;:ht/::'l.~~:c:::.'<(~ -~r.~,:t~-:':::l".::....::,,}:c .,;'._' _,' '.- _.,'~ ::.:", 'l,/.~
)A.'.,i,;,i,"~~~~~-~~~~!~~::'e:~~:.~~y~~~,':,;";~,"
, ,.,..' ..;.;[beMitiptionPblniDcoJpm1m:s1be;foUowing"mcUures:~tn.;avOiaof'1'!iduce
'enVimmnental;impacts~on-=beOIo&y~"biology;i8Dd/geology,identified;in,tbe'DSE1R.
- ; v>. . :'~~"':.'~:~< ;.~:,: ......~ ..~:--::~.. .~ .\--:, ..:, ,. ~:.>> .::;~'-'-,'::-,:H-'~"';
:'-',< ,!,.~,1.~t;~1" i".;An:keelq:y.,>~..;" ,"f", 0;"
.', ,. < 1
;' "'~ ':'::~"~\i" '.' : '
'~ ". 'F, .
. '. .. ..,. -..' ' - '.
.. !'.;~_:;\_;,::''>'':,:' :'t::;":':,;;~~;~:~~::,~::r--~,:,::k.~--,._~~,-~-;~">~~'_~-'{~'i::!\--':~:,.:.;~~.~.:~'.;;~;,~, ~";I "",.._'.h .. I"'" .' '.. "'..
,.,'" :.,,;'~,:.:...~~fvt'~~~~~4.t.be.~Hl1C.~~~'~,IIliU;.;onmeasme
4.9-1(b), all fill, encroPdDDem;o;baiJd~;pacb,.agradingDll,theCt\-SMa-40.site are
eliminei and the gradiDg limits -will.be at icast: 30feetDom the edge of1heSite.As a result of
_the;mitigatiol1o~C~~4():;wiJl.be;COIIIPlctcly;avoided!an.hmtouched. ,:,The site will be left in its
"existiDg,natura1,coDdi1:i~8Dd'Will DOt bei'distmbed:l'.here,wUlbeno,fiflon'thesite, no utilities
:,:;1ocated,ODm'aaoss~:sitI:,;and.mi~ve)park.,Thc:sitc\will;bc.left~as;is"..,;SiDcc,thc
.archeolqgica1!SitC,will:not;bemI1c:d.,and~ped,'thc-,wetlands:locatcd'within ,the,bcnmdarics of the
site will not be filled or disturbed. '
" "... ""';;;~';:'~i,::"Alberil;.:Jimi,ts.,fin;'ebaseJJI,,develqpmenl:'wi1U)e"least30. f=t from the
.northcm8IMfsouthem,qcs:'flf,1I=~IQgical~..<tbe.area>iwest,ofthc.sitc,will be
,undistiu:bcdsince:tbe ~A1:roedwaY~betweelJ:t1icnorthem'and'soutbemends.,ofPbBse m is
elnninatM. 1hercfore, from'Bayshole Boulevard,thc8lCbcol()gicalsite~wiltbe 'viewed against
the backdropoftbe natul'Jtl moootain The building pads north and south oftbe ucheologicBl
6IlU14n.
B"'K"ml&'~
Mr. Jim Harnish
August S, 1998
Page 3
-., ,- . . - -'-" .. - '. - -, - -. '. .
'13. i a' :sitc WiJlbe at a Slightly higherelev8tioll thanthesi~~ypJl~l:~slqpc,withDoretaining
wall or wppurtWg alnduR.- Tile eie-vation ofBaysbore BOulevard east of CA-SMa-40 wil1bc
'~YiJ.q~,!qirecitK.;e.,,1ilt'Kijac.enttl>.the;Sitc.. ,., '.
-: _.-' '- '. "-. . . . .
. " . . , .
13.2
2.
BiolOl:Y
Thc;f~-forgellCial'biOlogiCal inpIctsis,an:ductioninthe am~ of land
cIisturbanct:, the lowering of 1he elevation ofthegradillg limit line; aDd'elli'ainating the cut. slopes
OIl the northcm cd.geufPhasc m.:,Thc,areatofdistUlbaoce:in Phase DI for. the Mitigation Plan
(appru~l acres) is 1essthm the area of distmbance analyzcdin the DSEIR (38 acres) _ a
"reduc:tionof4S,%.;JhgradiDgJimit Jincfor:the;Mitigation~Rlanis within the grading limit line
8DBlyzed in the DSElR. Overall,tbc northwestern grading area is at a lower elevation tbanthe
gnuiing'&rea'in,thcDSEIR/AlDddocs: Doh,xlcmcas far north. Impacts on biological resources
n:sult from disturbance ofland area.TheICforc, since 1hc area ofland distnrbanceis less than the
'.; 'areaan8lyzech.lllc1c::f'the D~ibeoVcrilFbioloJic8l~Will be less. The Mitiption Plan
also includes rW!esignand JClocation of the buildbJgpads aod grading aml to specifically lIVoid
the identified viola plant locatiODS on Phase m ana ',..CCrtain'oftbe wetland areas as described
below.
~.,- :.', _ ".:' . ,-- . -. ,"
'':.~:-: .-:.',~ ';<~;-~{;..: ~" :.'):';:,.~',;';. .;
",.,."',.,:.:...,"\;..',;.,;;l.;i.:;~,;,f~~~~!f~!r.:~:~~~~:. ~.""':..,....'
';, , ,,";,"Thcgr8amgljiihealea~f1heViom'plantS'JuIS;'beenelimi~ ',-All identified
'-" !;"arcas,-o( vio1B.plaats onithePh8se;m..sne:willbe,&vOidecl'aodnot-distutbca.beca1R they will be
outside1hc'limitS>O:f'>gmdiDg1lDder'the'Midgation "Plan. "'TheJJOrthcmlinUtofgnding win be
':SOfeeffroDrthc~o1a dustcrotlJlOlC lhmfl,OOOpbmts'located'in'1hCnortheast.comer of Phaac:
"IIL; The westcID'lliniih)f gmdiDi viiJl;ile'belowthe small'vmla,p1ants;idcati1ied ,above southern
parcel F. Therefore, undcr1heMitigatiOlfPlan.; thereWin'~bc DO 'impacts'on >Violap1ants, resulting
from..Phasem devclo~l, ." '" _"'"
;:"'~1~'~:';;_~'-':"~ ':": .: -,:". ,~,'\,~h>:~':'~":~;~;~-~':t'~- t";-f"?;-:' :,i:-it.,.:....;.,;~~:..~ ?"\l~~-'.: ~~'~1:."
b. W~IId.~.
:'.T'hc~Mitigatimi~lan SigriificantJy reduCcstheamount'ofwetlands impacted by
"Phasc'mdevelopmcnt;~lbctMitigation';PlanWill:reduceimpacts.on;wedands 22% from
..1.__"" '-;,a--.:c._;,t'~ "1.~'D~"~":'(I,,;.I'':'':....t; "Plan' ...;O':'l-..l..----..:_.._.wI ,....._..1_ by
'~.unpacts1~~'m"UJQ" ~ '~&'1s;'.LYllUpwOB WY.lI'Ia&~' a&.UfHMo'~ WQUALIW:II
.~ly;D37~acrcs.aTeducc~,streams by~Ximately'O~04,acres.
's 'ific II .' 4._ "n:mWil- ..1..__'''-:' "Pad'C ..o.:nbe' "'d~ "d' .' .;1:_....1.._03 'T"L:_
_:: .peel :a Y;;~peI...~auuVgr&mmcr~" ., "'Wwawl gu"aD DOt"w~nUJ:lJQ,l. UWi
" '.' ]JcremJialstteam'uldclUifieCl-1n\the'DSElR'as:the,mostimportant-wtlaDd:rcsource in Phase 01.
','Thclimits OfgraHiDg will bC atlc:ast'SO;feet outside 1be streamaS'recOmmenOed in the DSEIR.
6OI11tJ..oC
:;BAKER & )(QKJ:NZ1&
.r;
i
i '
, 'l
r-
Mr. Jim Hamish
August 5,1998
Pqe4
:t !
l
i
l-
I n
[
~1.3.2.,::=c::,:~;~~~~~~~~.~~,mi~::A~~tbc"DS~ ~It
..-:.::-',,; :':-:: .~~. .~, -:'~'..'
F
.,JtIam,L'~l oa:thc: ~:enaof:PliUCm,&ajliCCrlrwthc viola
cluster.
,. mrthemhalf oftht: stream. dUlnnt!t1ocatednortbeast ofthc cdgeofthe'
"'nortbenllnosfbuildinj':psli." """,.",;.;'",,~,: ' '", , """"""""':,;;,"'"," ,', '
,;.wetlandsitcloCated:c:.ntbClywithinthcboundaries,ofCA':SMa-40.
~':.';~' ",;-"'~j+:,~~.'-:., ':.,,:....... .';
". ." ',- .'. . -~
....!porDon9fthc :waIaad;JIIC&1M:StofD~ BouIcvmL',
; ,.:n .'~' ,~.:.- ~. "'. .' i;,..::: ~
,,~,seep~'~fJIe;~~'nodbaD.a:-dad,~~IheMola cluster.
. ,_ ":. '~ . : , ':.~i:~. '."
,,',' '~,H'":~~,"
13.3 The mitipticm is to ,Rducc tbclllDOUDt of graded.ea' so tJJat'1be"Cxtcut of
,mitigations rcquRdfol~~~ca1~~itioDsc:Yll Phase m'b re;t,~'1begradiDglimit liaeis
.alowcrclevltioii 0I15'JiordK:lu:C1c:ri1oplDCDt Site and'pa4iDg bas beCD complc:tcly
,~Hwnm~,~.Ihe,~_1Iae"to1hc'1'CIDOva1oftheiiDtaDa1lO8dway.0verall, the
,amount,of,JlfldiDgareais reducecli1h1m3B.acrcs.to2I,1IcresLlDder thc;MitigatiOll;Plan. The
;,lowaiDgof,~;clevaDonof;,~~1iDccteeJ.m.thomnOuntOfcut,slo.pcs.i11 Pbascln and &he
~.. _~.a:...:__ '.,' ih...&.: ''1''1....-_1 'ftbe 10.",:, . . ftl_ '. ,1_. --_\.
:gco~~..._......,~ "','--OIl.'I'IIIliii',--.o" "ma'*ptioD.r....~:;to~\lCU IIUA;iU
,j ,s1qpe,jnitsJlll1Un1 ~lScJlOSli.lJJe. :,In,paticu.1a:l.,tJJe,gnMliDgliDc 1I8S moved aouih to
.... ;,avoidmlt.sIqpeI on1be1lOl1llem ~of,PbasO]n., '
'.~ -' .." .... _,:,,:' . ,': '. C, . ".'. _,' -:~..... .." ; ....,.... " .. .~ >,-. '_' '.. c-": ,"." -:.. ".J.:i,-"~'. - - ': ' .... - ..
Il. .Mltlptiola ..... DoaNet Ilaalt IllJuty ,.mcr.ue III OttaeilDlpadl'ldcatitiedla
The DSEIR
.,
j
.' ,,',' '. .,'. ,Theuasun:sin"tbc.MitiptiDnPIaD arcdcsignedtodcssen and avoidimplcts on
;\archeol~gy.;;bioJqgy<ml..gcology.~,dIc CCII1IIl;'EIS of'concem.identitiecliBthe;DSEJR.1bc
. .:.,~pacts"ofJhese~1IIC8I1IICS'..ODo1bcriimpectareas~in.iDSEIRhavcbeeD
_':_.-A del .':~.&..v'.;.._"tt . 4._ '. f'_'-A, :.a-4~".-;,a. " '.&L_
,RYRi''''gu"lO, , ~;U.~.1"'IA'IIICR:ISt;ua;;'ICWlI'ig',o "I~Y '....IIIII~.I~ m UMiiIIIiii
hDther!....:;[bo!Mi1jpriOD,PlmdiJlOuClu1t.iDJlDincreuejn;an.yrorlhe.otbef~ --
.. ." .." -.. -.. .
.' :~y7.ediD;Jbc.DSBIR:.lt"pfti~'lqdmlQsy,IIDd~AJriQulli~y;Noisc;,!ub6c ScrYices
,.,(poUce,acrviccs.pablic~);aad,Hazaftts(aeria1ltad,..-ier~).'n.e .".....8 ofthc
;
~..u
'~ L.......J
.-1f3.4
BA.KKR& 14Q]Uc]rzm
iMr.Jim Hamish
August 5, 1991
PageS
"'~ip,~!1VillJaDain'~'sameoriDQt^CX~,t.hr;,~lU.f impact}idc::ntificd,and analymi
,inthc;D~'~"C8dl-ef:the8e:atca5. " ' """,..','", ',.;~;, .
13.4 ,'Tmf'fic. The Mitiptionp~;:witti"~'i:;i~~i~iTDWrsMiid];~OI1
'!trI~:~~BJpj~~~t,ilaf:Bgy.QdditioDil:~J1e8k,trips,cJlD.d. raIucc PM'peak
'iI.Jiom'~;~~:iJa'~J)S>EIR.\0Yual1,..,1ditipUOIl,PlIll'WO~.JCDCr*'31% rewt:r
;:trjps,,~tbe ~~;hour,"1Ct3t%fcoM:r,trj.ps,d..;tbc~;pcat,hour,1bantbelPhase m
. ..Plan'cvaluateclin.,~:l996;~ .,..~ iIlcascdal1ocatiOD'Orpbasemisqua!c,f~eto ,ot1ke
,..;~;trafIic,ancLallCJWS.TI>~'measures.to.be,usc:deffectiveJy,!to,.l:~otlu~ucc1raftic
aad-mitipte"trafrro ;II~ '
,:,"',.".,.";;...'.~~,.~.~,~ia',fro.mlbe:~uiti~JY~tsM.~g~,,r~MA'D.fQr.~or
;eDg)IQy~~~;~~.~~.,'lDM;m~8SUresjn.ofiice.uscsbav~J'eSUlted in a 3:ze1e
~;incomm~:~~;!!~D&?~::uDder,~l9?6 ~IDMll'SM1Iii~gatiODmeasures
.~.~~,tp~~:~'.~~~;!~~~y~~~,~;~~[~;~~:,~resultiDa
'ift.a,l2%,recIuCtion.in~,geoendioL, " .' ,,",
, ,,;,"i' "0 ,_' :\;:.~~,:,>;::..:~:.::'.. i">: ":'-"',"."Y: :-'''''_.:' - :'_'..~:.'.:~' :''''.. '_"; _ _..:-...._7.. ~.r,.."..<.----. ""," .~..: ".~: _",-.,.:,,~:.,..; . ",' ....';'.;...,. . ,. . .
",": L:,ThtMitiiitiOD~~diri:j:~!i.,;,~i6n.'~ff.SMiTDM~.1'O the
,.m.yim1llD~l,~~Jo~ratka1t&"lJ~,reductionj~~j~yehidc trips..~Siacc tile
'}~~~~:~fjlS!',~~,~~~,'~.~:o.re~;~~d,~;~J.~,,\ot'traftic
;'~'is."consc=mati~:atbDatc1fm1Pt,.ofthe~~Jiho~~2%ofemp1oyees
,iI9:~'.~~.~~).;iftJdi~~l~~~.~~~;tO~~,,,:.~,~~ PlaD
, woWd.resa4t,~JI:'no~;net:addi~,~,I'!.~1bcAM'peak{lJI,~,.~r.thc~.ombouDd IDd
..1JI;~t1'ipsio,r.thi,AM.~'~~,2.'Zf;~;.~dae;~~;.CE?jc:sS-~ip& for the PM
inbound aI,six less1lips for tbc>;py.;~ ,as:C(',n.j6edJoJhe41Dfiic~m the DSBIR.
The,~&g~ tMMitipdon Plan .llfiiOt'iesUitiD' aDy~b-affic iIDP8Cti'.. those
..'~iMntifiecl.jJ1;~cJ)$EOl~J,:>"f, , .t\~&~~?,f.;:;:,:;;:::f:,;:,;!\cA.Ai; :"~2'.,,, '.,.",::.:s., ";i:.:e;~~',;,.:,. '.'
,'" [,."::"..:,;::'~'...~~~:i.d;~~.:~~:,~t~:~'fiirp~~;~been slightly
13.5, ',momftorho~tbC,Icvi8rd,.~,CWiiAnO;ldditioDat~Wi11~AUthree pads in the
~~~~~:~.~~~~JnaiDaae
: development \Villbe~.to\Wiasthc;ud;lc:OlQjic81.,'iite:' '1lte'teYiSed,'~.phms for the
",.,~.,;~ggati~,~i,~'~~~;~~,,~;;~I~1e:9~~:'~i,',."'., ",.,
13.6 'AirOnAlity. TbeDS'EIR.s-.Iysis oftbe locaIlDd qi0Dal1ooc-tam air quality
;~ is based on' lhetrip puemtioa 6J1RS aDd iDtcrscctiOll impact analyses. ill the tmftic
Jedion..As discussed abcm:.1bc }.r~ Plan Will nOt8enende Bdditicma1vebiclc trlpstbaD
,diose aualyzed in tbeDSEIR. The MitigatiOllPlan also win not mate IIIIY acwiatcaectioD or
:Y~~.
:'!u,
_lfJA
BAnR ,k M9K:2NZ1&
. Mr. Tun Hamish
August S, '199&
Page 6
i
l-
i
. _ .' _.' ,_ . . . c . .
13:6 ';;~~;==~~f~====exoeed
tbeiDlplcts~fiM and analy/JlldJDtbcDS~" .',' ,'.',,,,..,'/.J, '
.13.;ti:r~a~F~aa~:~=~
':incOiripatitiiJityissUcs 'an:;tbe;Same,_rthoJe~yzea"iIl:rtbc~DSEIR.'"'11te'salnemitigaboD
;me8surecwoUld app1Y~a,de1ai1lil~arJ.1ysiS"~"mlti.,mon :plmi'pursuaDt to state law
},submitteat01hcjCity;forreView:ana'1Ipp~fpnOf' tothe~~ofthc;bUilaiDg permit.
~':_ _-~;.~ ~;,_~:~,,:~':.; ; ;- .~:-~,,>'~;' :;;":;-:: -"':-.; /'-. ~;~.'.t'~)_~'~'.~ .:
-j'3.8Public Servicc:s lPolice and Scbools). The DSEIR idcD1ifiedno apificaot impact on the
"proVisionofjJC)liCc'scrYiccS for; Phase'ms,(eXcept fOrftne"eolDlll1JliiCitimiluldow which was
. DiitigaDlc:).".11IC :Po1ice])c~p"6bent;;~eabota'BDa"JCstaUDllfuseSas;1he':1JSestb8t ,would
]~~&.'p&.TcqueSts'fci:Po1ice=csc:Fri=~;0ftiCC'1.ISes~;}smce;'tbeMitljiticm Plan bas
"'Rducc:d1lotCI..ai~1lSes~aoa':~'OmCC'~'1hcH~'OfthC~ptioD Plan
woDIdbclcssthan1hoseidenli8eclin1he Dsm;WDiC1f'Wi\foUDa~jlificaDf.-'1berefore, ~
.'..,..Ofcmm.tPlt'jObsrofP1Wem;~~ru:~,tiC.liUIDber...drMW:fi..a.Mti'rrom1hC:commcrcial
.' ,,:.,~~::~=~~:~:~:~:=~,=~=~:~~:'~;;:':;:~J;:~i;i~;~~:~'~,';:~~::'~;~:~:S;;::~:=':"..,.',.,.,
. _', , _' - '_' " - ..._ ,-- _-.-. ,,", _,'. __ . - '~":':;'';;'':'' _'.;:.' _.d.,":'--' .:. '.,:. ': "",..':) _":_ .:_. .,. ," ~
13.10 'l1-7Ards (Aerial lad and U.~FP1s)' ~Nei1bei;OftbeSe::-.wp&idSlC1atetD the ....
. :, ~~
."
. ID.ThcldDlc;the'MitlptiOll'PlaDCIoc:sDOt.atTcCtOr Ch8nse.'the,' ,.., ,." 'iJi'tJJ.e'DSEIR.
_193.4
B.l R1r.'R Ai l!q('RNZrz
Mr. Jim Haniish
.August S. 1998
Pase7
'C :,.'~jtIol'I~rM-~ti;;D:M~~UDd;'MitiPtioa Pia.
"'f::"'.',,~;~~~~";';_.:~:'~~~~~~"~~~~<~::"~,<:'.;.;,.,.",:.........,'..'.," "
..,':>~.1he')MitiPtiOD ]>li.u;"thc ~hedlQgic8l Si~.1iillrallainill'1~ ',riaturaI
13.1b, "~'ccmClitiOn Withno':611'arid'mutilities crosSil1g.the R.'ThCfolloWiugClevclopllK2lt
pwurWhich .1ffected,theSite1lave been eliminated::1itJ overthC Sitc;"iDtenIctivepadc QD.the site;
intcmaJ ro&awr!y'lbove;wcstcmportiOlnif'8l'Cheo1OjiCal Site; 1IIIdpaddng'lot)Jllds Which
~ on a portion ofDOltbcmand so~boundariesof archeological,sit=. . The limits of
gmding under tbCMitigatiol1 Plan will beaflcaSf30'f=:t fmmthe edge of the arclIeologicaJ site.
Sincethe~o(1hc8l1:hcolQgical~.incluciecl~30 f~~tRJffer~cmd the survcycdedge
of.theSitC,'tbC:~:jiac:Wilj'~ ;Il1east:60'fCCt.fiOIn"kDOWnco1turatJalOUl1:CS,0Il the site.1'be
cleviiarlofB&yibmcliowmmeastoftbe meWw bCsliSJrtlyJoWerectaoJabiCc fill .adjaceot tp
."tbc~.~o~~;dev~tJJlds,~;IJc,1o~.~yshf?le.:Bou1evmd, DOt 1be
.an:bcol~:~,,;:~~~:pads.OD"1hc;D9Jthaod.south,!liQ~bc sIigbdy above the
archeological site 'ana natrri1 2:1 slope with DO ietAiningwalls or Structureson1be slope.
'> <: ,'-, -..~; ;~',{.,.:,f;i:;:;,.-;',~.< ,-:,,-:.,,_.: r::::<_ ,-;,_~'t,;~_~. ~:' ~;~;Z.i;~"::::;_'::'~. ~;-,,-;_ -~: ;:.,':.:i"~,/; ,; }-,::.:~.;:":":-~:.':'. .. .. f>' _, _ ~:,...' ....": . . _ . J', ~ 1
.".,'..:,.',:1.c~;:~.Reducedc:;~~dS..."SIllder:~ililiIlP.dO' Nortllena
P;.~fP...nr'<"""....""'.:.)~".~" "'r~~;L "', '",;':'..'ii,~':;, r:
'~13.11.~.~.~'=.t4~;;;~ds~~~:,:,.,~~=~ODCcc::~
" one.. aDd bo1h 1bc Jcng1h aDd Width orthCprioU.i'8rea.'~,~l~lIced.. In other words,
theWl:Stcm, DOrtbcmand southernboundarieshavc beeD JIKmd inward. , The totallCleaF oftbe
DCI1bem buiId"'&.,padshasbeell1edlDdm.aS9~Il8Cft:UDi4~C),acres~,a 50% ~The
wcstcm edge of1he building p&d in theMitiptiOD Plan is at a lower elevation, 10 1he,pading
limit liDe is lower ODIhe:B1opc.ofti:,lJlODftIIiin,'iCut'Slopes;IDdJlllding,OD.'tbc iIordMmunost
sJopes'bave been elimin~.lh: bai1ding~ itselt will have a maximum slope of S%.
'..t.
. The ICCCSS roadwayUDdcr the Mitiption Plan isa sipt17t"-d main Single e:atraDcc 0Jl the
13.1~,.: i,northemead,;'p1us8llmisirJ;~ 'Dpt4n:aDCl'DIht-out8CCCSSto'lDcUiumsouthbcnmd
~Bayshore'~BoWcvardiOD,1be soulbem]XJltionc:iftbe"lJld.1bcroadway 011 the ~u cad will
,l:baVe"two;kft4iama 'turDllaues~fmm11OdbbOan(rBayShorc'Bo1ilQvmfiDto the site.'lhe zO.tway
Wl11be66 feet wide with a two~1ane't::Ub..~:mtotbc'litc;;a m:foot'medianisJancl, mclibn:c exit
lm:s (two right band tDm1anes.8IId oneleft haDd tom laDe). Tbe uusignalizcd IIOUIbbowad
access will be 24 feetwidc WithaoeC:atraacC.1ane aJ'Id one eiiflanC,'1ocItcd about SSG feet south
. of the main sipli'n!d ~..ctioa..
_.,3.4
r-'
,
MT. Jim Hamish
AugustS. 1998
Paael
l~_ r
I
'B.AKRR &. ~ZD:
.i---
1
!
i
:.. I
1- .
j
13.11
.1 :~ocI~~~.~~t;ftt,~,~,~~..!!a,~1Arebeotopal'Site.
, .: .; ..:.'->::.. . :;';""~:"~ ,'_:' '. ",: :: .:,'_ -. ",:> .c' '..c: ;.~,-_,'; .-.' '~"'.. _ :,,' :: :".: - _.. ._" ..' - .... ._ -..- n;: '-'_' '. , .. ' : .'.. '.' "'_.' _" c. ....-:. ," c. '. .
, '.Ovcrall..tbc~~_~.CI1tbe~iiUd5.utl0acres. 1bc
Mitigation Plan will stiI1 havclwoPMiJ";I~; Pad '0. is rcdtm from 3.21C1CS 10 2.9 acn:s
aDd PadFis nducedfnJm,2.7'8CftlSto,1.8&21:L~~limitliDe tor the JOUdku.wostu
ismoved.at.lea$t30 f'eet~:fmm the.aft:beolQgicaI mte,JIther tbaa~,~iqgODtbe
site. ''The ,c:orifi,pndionof1iJc1lCC !8S.rOadwayis 54. feet wide wi1h~~_,~a six foot
median is1aDa,~Jl.t\VOooolaneexit.,(onejjght,tum,Jaac,8Dd.oaeJen.tumJID:.)
"D.
, 'iS~~~~~Of_~iJ;'
: ':. '.: ;'..,.' ",,' '". ,'::.. ",::... .':.". ::' -.;:..... -' ,", : ,,-,..:, ~
. ",-"..-. -... ":-:;-.:'"
BeloW.'js a;~nWYM~'~of~:'Miti~.~'~hnodhemamd
:sOuthemaeva4JpJDCDt Sitcs."Thc,',DOdbem~entliteWill'MfLc:i.Df1heifc)n~
'.:.':,:'~',~,'-./- . :::_'.',:::<:r\::~,\~~-~->:~.~ .,' ,';.::': -:.':, '7.:" '_.._-:<,~~ '_ .'-':~'~~: __':"":..':';'::::';-~--_,J'- -',\';'~~,.:",-:.t,:'_ ';:':',<'->,:-,?'t:':'.:-':'\'::';'.,,: ,.,,'~-,~:,' -.;:\':",,> ::., -' :'" :-,~r..- .
.....,~f~1~:t~1~~'r
An abovc-pouDdor~hin.';OD ~bclow-pde ~I ~ for
~l:360'Can:;'~.GI-p8Iiin8:.effiCienCj';"the ,str1ICtUUJ, Y4ill be about
500,000 square feet and 5 -7 stories. ':"",f,,;('~ '
~'SigJ1i1;7M.tiCCl:ss'm8dOll;ftOrtheil\eDa;of:piaa'~ lcft-baDdturn ).,off
, Dorth1JouDd\BayshoIC'~evIid."UnSipi7P.a'8cCesi .tOaadJrom:JC)utbbound
,"'.'."~'~.:,..-:'::i.;':h"';::'.c ,>"""c~"",,;,\,":"'. .
. .,.;:':::':?~' .-!.~;._: ::.. '::~S"":'."~,::r-;;1t::'c.~',,:~~'i'~~~:- : ~~.;.,,<;?~:~: :-_'~"~';~_'; ,\ :~' ":';<'- .,':-'"" -; ',r--.
13.1'c
',,' ...,:':,._,:~~~,~,isrca~of.~t9acres.wi1h,a'~t~'of:S%:""'"",:\"...,,'
,
01
Pad G:
';t~_...~. ~:;.c...~;.. .- 0:~.:-
. ". "ihotel.'rcstauraDt.ot af.6cc....},J'he 8IIJOU1lt,of:squ&IC:foota.&c willbe,dfa.kkinod
, ,;b,ythe,trip.~dtion,af1bc;;pnpsed!JJSe,suchrthat:-thc:.(Jvcnl11lip;~ of
,;Pbasem;does,DOt'CB:~cd,thc.-amomatanaJyzed,in .bDSFJR.;PrclcQdy, up to a
,\~200,rocmthotc1js,~~;GIl~s.ped.
,.,.:~...isi9;~'~:S~maUnmn.s.~..',..;
. At""" paddng.
6011193.4
RAXE:R&. MQ:K:EzqzlIc
Mr. jun Hamish
August S, 1998
Page 9
'13.1c '
.
Maximmn building height of7S feet.
Pad F:
· hotel, restaurant, or ,office use. The amount of square footage will bedetennined
by the trip gcbCiation of the proposed use such that the overall trip generation of
Phase m docsoot exceed 1hc amount. malyzedin the DSEJR. Presently, up to
10,000 square foot higb-quality. sit-down restaurant is anticipated on this pad.
. 1.8 acre pad area with maximum 5% slope.
. At-gradcparting.
E. CondluioD
The Mitigation Plan reduces the signifiamt impacts of the Tcrrabay Project identified in
the DSEIR. It does not lCSUlt m any iDcrcue in identified i"'P""'"' We urge the City to adopt
1b.esc proposed mitigation measures aDd approve tbcProjcct in an expeditious manner so that lhe
Applicant can close its time-sensitive CODtrad: with the single buyer UDder the Mitigation Plan.
Sinc:crcly,
~/~
TDDOthy D. Cremin
.fDCJlb
Enclosures
cc: SteVeMauas,City AUOmey
Adam LiDdgren, Assistant City Attorney
MiebacI W'dson, City Manager
Allison KDapp
all9.U
-E..... 'i
'....EMr, ;
'Aat
,,,-
LETTER13b
BA'R"'mR&M9KENZIE'
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
_,..,. i_ '.__
4IIaTCMIAM : ~ .........,
,~:-- ....-
'-.. '- ___ClTT
....... IIIANa MONG IIOND
,_AKS' ,;NtAGUE ".......
'CAllto ,..,_ ICI.__
;:"-",,".:1'- .yy,.',,:',",,','-,
',_w. "IP.'~ '...-.r'
~-l===-=o
I.OMI_ :_
f
,
TWO EMBARCADERO CENTER.ooor.. ClUII:O Cln
"TWENTY -FOURTH FLO-OR -':::-:AIIIU -~T
SAN FRANCISCO. CAUFORNIA941l1-39Q9 '=: ,.,:::'0':':0
, ,!ELEPf4c:>Nr;14I!5';.!57;>6~3~,,:,.;,;,::$ ", ;;'..:;~-:-O
~:FACSIMILEI4IS!S76;3099' ':'.,':.,; ,;
. ::,~: :-.':; -,::. .~. '.;:'.,c."~;,;':::::~'i-:;\'::",'-;:-;':':-,,:, .:;:,:-~,i- :o~,:~~_;: :..:>.:.;:j.J}.;J-;L'~' ~,~: .....1,...... "
,.AN "'_co
.___.0
,_"""'-0
-
~-
,'V_
:W~ClOI.D.l:.
',' ,AgustJ2.,1998
'" ~ -., .. .- - --....1 -- -. '" - _ ., '..~;.-;: -; '.,' " ,,:, - '-,~:,~': <~'''''';~:~'' '-':
Mr.tamHarmsh
I '
PlamiinDirector
,g
.,City-~fSouthSan.FranciSco
400 South Grand Avenue, '. .,
Soutf? San Flanclsco~CA '94083'
Re: ." ,:~plicant's COmm~~Le~~r:~~:Terrablly,;])raft~uppl~eJlta1
:EnViroDDleDtaIIJgpac:t.RePoI1,Dated,JuJy~"1998. ,
.,..' _' :';: ~:-,:.' ~' , .::.-~: :'~', '::. :".'__ :..:,' ." ,': '-'_ ", . - ,'. .-,...:;.... '. ,.~ .~~-, ..::, :':,'.: - , :_ " ;" " ',.-' ;-- .- ,'<',"'_ ", - '..; .-- ._", ,-; '.'" '-', ;" : ,c' : ',:, ~ :.' -', :'-~' __~, '_, _: :','0, :;_" ~ ~'.::,;, ' . ','. ; ,
Dear!Mr. flami!;h:
i
::'b~'~h;lf~fSUD~&X~&;~f~I,Inc.,~appli~ for Phases nand m of the
Terr$ayProject~APPlicant4,:~,submit;thc.fonowiDg.'commcn1s on1hc Tembay Draf\ .
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report,. dated July, 1998 ("DSEIRj. These comments are
divi~ into:three;sections: i(l)mitigationmeasmes(jntheDSEIR. which have already been -
incoI]xntcd into Project plans; (2) proposed a1temativemitigation measures fm impacts
'identificdin the DSEIR; mtt(3):iDipacts;idcntificdaslignificant in the'DSEIR. which areDQ!
,signp~environmental iTT\I'A~under ,CEQA.
'. .. -- ., ;'_"" __ ~..''- ..,'r', ' c... .-'_", -"0, '"",,
! This letter is a supplement to our comment letter. dated August 5, 1998, outlining the
Appncant's proposed mitigation measures fodmpads df"PrOjeCt aeYclOpment'("Mitigation
Plani).1besecomments IlpjJly to thc:. DS~ i9 general, andllpplyequally to the January Plan
. (on WhiCh the~DSEIRan81ySis:is'baSed) 8.nd thc.Mitigation'PImi.'However, as n9ted in ourptior
letter. the proposed Mitigation Plan will further reduce thcfmpaCts' cifthe PrOject 'on archeology,
;,geolQ8Y.andbiolq8Y, .~c:h. are ~y~d~edas insignificant with mitigation in the DSEIR.
.. ',,', '. '- ." .' ',' -'_:'-,:....-- i.-, .,:,; .':,." ,..",..-,.-~_',..:. . ,_, c,, '.' ~ ":"':~. :.: ".0':' ',.,0::-,:,,"_ ';'-":" ~~::~ _..' ~_"":,~:-!,; V". .':;";': ...-:.'.:':'__,-'...."., ':' ~ ''''" ", .,,;.'.~ ' _,:..:_:\",.:_ _', . _:. _.
j
I.DSEIR Mitigation Measures Already Incorpora~lDto Projeet PIaDL
'-?~..,;~-:.:--;:_~f.:.::=?'.::/.~:;::.t~.<~.,}.:,..;:-;\; . j,,'<:. ~."'-",'~ ..,'~,,! ~ ,-
,TheAppIicant hasa1ready incolpOrated many of the mitigation measures identified in the
DSEiR. as revisions to the January P.lan.These mitigation measures also will be part of the
601900,5.1
!
, I
. 'BAEE\R&MQ}{ENZIIl:>
Mr. Jim HamiSh
"I . ,- -
,',. A~ 12,'1998
'Pag~,~.',' . ',."".,
":. ';,:??:~; .. "..- ". <:;,_><_':,....t.(~ .::.,:~_~.:,...-_...:> "~"7" .:::~:.::~..!.;-~:~, .~..;::::v:,...;:~;~':::~'..:.'::-.;t. -.~:'~ ".:,: ': i
. 'Mitf~r";on Plft~'jf ~;b.u1he-~~c~B~cWi.1s a list ofmiti ,"'~6ii~~:Wbi~.ahCad
'have~- . '~l'ud' ed~-,Ap'~:~~~l:m~t~'" , gati,>.",;>j,.~;;:,; .' ,.'. ~, y
, ~umc ,m~ sp..-." '~/'.,.. ,",;',
,r-
j
_ L. 'I
'.i--
I
"
13.13a
1. Geology,SoiJs, andSeismiclty
. : The geology miti~~:~;fin~~tbe DSEIR,fortbc ~stpart, are a menu of
rem.tion options to address specific geologic conditions. In general tenDS, the City's
geoteFhnical consultant (Mr. McHuron) and the Applicant's geotechnical consultant (Gary
Parilql, Parikh Consultants, Inc.) have worked closely together to develop a mitigation plan for
all geplogic conditions that affect Project development. The Applicant concurs with and bas
J ~.1~ almost all of the DS~, ~tigatiODS in the, ,grading plaDs and~eotec""" hniad, 1eFQ, " ~ The
o ~es to the DSElR mltigationmeasures requested by the Applicant are the addition of
~ options or techniques for Diitigating impacts to supplement those'listed inllie'DSEIR
which are discussed in Section IT below. These further options wiI! give1heA,pplicantfiexibility
to~se the C)p1imum mitigation technique to match thepartictl1arget510gic condition to be
rem~ed. ,'..,. ., "
.: JSutiject':tCJ1hei.l~a'mitigatiOn.:~1~~ifi~till;SeCtionnbelow, the
fol1~ mitigationri:1easures'have 'beenincorporatecHnto tbe'propoSec1grading plans and
geo~bnical xeport:
,
13.13b"'
. Mitigation 4.1-2 -slope stability/erosionmitigationmcasures.
\ \, .
, ,'?Mitigation'42}'~3-;1andslic1iDgiandacbris,s1ldCiDitigation.
.-,.';.,,"....;......
.-' '. . -
. ",.',
. - - - - -', - .
c. -~ ';:-,:- ~; -.-~":' ;~"!;~:' :",' - '. -.
'. . . ."'.' .,~ -j. ,.-~".
. ;."..:': ~";i'
. ".',,' ',i "Mitigation 4.1-5 ...,artificiaLfillmitigation..
'n'. '.........."...,.. ......,
.... c . ._ -,",' ,
~ - .: . - . '.. ....- - '..- .,'
'.Mitigation 4.1-6 - secondary effects of seismic shaking mitigation.
. -, . ~,.:,', ",;
. ,.2.'IIYclrOl9IY8Dd,:()~i~Slge
. ,,"~ iol1~ DSEI1pmtigatio.nsfor.h.ydrolqg};',and ~1ulve been
'. 'i,:incor.porated'intol.he,~~PJ.ans: . " .
. '
. , . '.""Mili~~tlJi4.i~3~stOrm.~drainage~~Da 'eroSion mo sediment
"',~gation.
~<'~\;~ :L,.:- "W'_~:'~_~.._'7:.:;...:1!;S;~';.:,: ._ _ _ L. .
13.14
,"
I
. Mitigation 4.2-4 - flooding mitigation.
- - '." '_',d'
.... '.;:.--...."::,; ,....::.1::.:.-\: ,;..-:~'
.,";\,:.,
i
i
6OI9OOf.l
,
BABER' & M<::KENZIE
,
Mr.JJm Hamish
1
Au~,12,'1998
Page ~
'13.14
.
Mitigation 4.5-5 ...,stmm water drainage and tlooamg mitigation.
,". ;'Mitigafion42.;ft,42-7and '4.2~1~-::~ionandSedimentati()Ilmitigation.
3. 'Biology
. The Applicant is incorporating ,into its plans some, but not all, 'of the
:1'eCO$nendedmitigatioDS;identitied:in:,the;DSElR,.paiticti1ady~:intbe.proposed Mitigation Plan.
,However,:since,thc Applicant's mitigati9J1mcasuresdonot.cxactly 'matcn'lheDSEIR:proposal,
tbe,AppIicant' sproposed 'mitigatioos&re discussed'as,analtemativcmitigation in Section n
,:below.
i4.Traffic aDd Circulation, '
lbe.DSEIR.only~identified:sigriificantn:ductiODS.in,theiPmject density (60010
.",:through,85%) itomitigate'.thePmj.ecr-:sdmpactsontthe US '101 freeway mainlane,';lwoiOyster
. '.:Poiniin'tercJ1qe;intersectio~,and.oneiiee.way,on-ramp. :1Dese:.reductioDS;are,clearly
inf~ble. ,lhehoject:deosityJJas2heady:bec:Ju'educed 2~,to.for.Phase;n'andS.0%,for.phasem
;from.;the.:1982SpecificPlan.,.~:tbe;applicant,has;proposed,;an;altemative,feasible
.,'mitigation~planfor7traf1ic.impacts,whichis,discussedbelowm Section 'n., .~ImsummaIy,'tbe
.a1teniative;mitigation plan, requiIes1bedn1.p1ementatioDo,of;aTDMIISM"programto,reduce
Prqj~ traffic generation. The~mMffSMprogram will be particularly effectiveifagreatcr
majoptyofPbase muses ate office as proposed under the Miti~~~lan.
.:~;:.~:.~::~~;~~._;;.-~_.:~::~~.~ --:~;.;_:\.-:'-:'I -:~,;.: . :~ ''-: -__1;':{~-.- .~;'.
,': ,:Below:are,:thectrafficmitigationmeasures;identifieddJiJthe:DSElRtbathavebeen
;mcorporated intothe,Project:"., ,
"
. ; - . ",..' - - . '--':'~,' - .' .. ,.' ,
i,;Mit.iP1i~,4.+-JO',__jX)tential,coJIlID~a1,pmYing,supply,~~'bave
'been mitigated. ,1be'Phase'mplan,wiUprovidesufJicieDt~ to meet
Ci~~~~tii, ca~." ' ;~Orj~ProPO~, .~:ai~,~or~:~.
~_ ",..," 'c. .,' ;..' '. : . . . . ,
13.15
, '5.
13. 16
.', ' " ,
: ""llie mitigatiOn uieasureSidCntified'inthe'DSEIR wiU'be'incog;oratedintotbe
Projep plans with two minor modifications. ,The Project will "promote"ptibIic transit use within
the ~oject area, rather than "provide" as required in the DSEIR.TheProject cannot provide
trans~t services ,because there isnO!~<WhiCh:coilld 1)per8te'sueh'.'semce.'lnaddition, the
. propOsed TDM/I'SM program for traffic impacts also will rcduceProjectair emissions.
Th~fore,'tbisaddition8lmitigationmeasure 'showdbereferencedinthe'air'qua1i~ section of
'the,~SEIR
6019005.1
,
. !
I
i
~~pZlE
A~ 12~ 1998
Page\4
I
I
i
., "Co: ",,:~,~>,",.:r~~~~'>i{,>;"i~"'':: ,,'i;,:-;.:y'
I ....., ...-
I
ri~(~'Mit~:~ '7~:~ 4~~~Oi~mi,9gation measures identified in the
"F
13."17'
,
;
; '7. ArcheolDIY
.' .... .',", '.~.:::'--'~. ; ",:, :: ."....!':..~.,;
,"': ~:~; ';'. .,'!':~'- :'- ":., . ';:/''- .~ :: " \
13.1B,~
13. 19 , .' .'" ..,,:~~o.n:;P1an'wi1hconlplywit~r:~:basic:~seof alter:oative ~tigation
. . '", .Meas~ 49-.1(1)) ldentifiedm tbeDSEIR.,'ff'hc'Mitigation Plan will: lcompletely;'avOldthe CA-
SMa~.,site;"not9laceany'ii11",oD.:the~Site;\8Dd.,move~,the;grading~1imit'linei-attle8st,30feet from
.;tbe~e'ofthc.site::(exceptaIongBayshore;BoUlevarii;duc~torthei1oo1cramps project)..',..1The
,DSE$:mitigationmeasure:states;1bat'~ODSiofMitijation"MeasurC'4.~1(b}1IIe'possible as
1 ...l_ 4.1.._ basi" '. 'f"" ' .. ,'." "--~ and' L_ :""__::1 ~ ' " ;.t~,' 'fill
; ong(~"UU:;~ cprcmlSC:O 'Sltc1JIeSCrV8tion''1$1tnA1nhll'''''''''j ,',UU:;'mNU~or;Sitc~Y.ymg
" ,"com~onrand,'cOi:npn:SSionjs':elimmm<<t~":'1Jhe'~gationP1an is:'C011$ideUt.withttiis
'I; ,directioll."i>,c";'b:titt"> ~h,:,<,,':",.::,f . r;';f' "",'.:;,<:., '.
,
!
13.20a' ;,Inregmd to'CA.;SMa-92~ the Applicant disagrccs with DSElR.'s conclusion
. ,..~tbatthe'ProjCct\\Wl,;bave.a:Sigriificantimpact'on;the~,arCheOlogica1'Sitct'sinceitis located 'outside
the de1.relopment and grading area for Phascill and will notbe'distutbed.Thcreforc~1:bc Project
will'~DOimpactonCA..SMa';'92 aDd no mi1igation isDcccsSBO' . The Applicant also disagrees
,With~:DSBR~:sTCcom"!~oea~gJilioiimeasmclO l:ap.mH,'fill CA,;,S~92.Such CIglping
ana'fiil'mcely:Wi11aamage'tl1e'SitcdUe101t5,steep~h.Y8nd isinfeasible.CA..SMa-92 is
OD'a;~steep:stope'wtiiCll:isdifficiilfto:acCess:ne~' needed to acceSs and fill and
cap ~ site would potC[lrially rlamagethe site. FurIhermore,fill and~ing material will likely
erode ~ may potentially adversely affect the site. Therefore, the Applicant proposes avoiding
..the si* and lea~,itUDto~'whi~ isthe,prcf~,.treatID.entofsigriificant arcbeology
", resoui.#s,;nJjdti~9~ ',.' '. ,,' ,.. ',.. . .' .. .
l ~., _~.~.'___'...~ " ... ~ ! ;:{.. :v"" . ~ :;,'}., .-,
, :.~.; ~~,,:,~,~';';'~->i~<'
.E.1.,;_\_.~-:>":;:,_>,:,_...~;,...:_-:: .,_."._~..,' _ _:~".,.:'_.--.-,~~" ,,;- '.-",' - "..- -.:,-'
.n. . ".':';Propas~Alt~tive~.d~SqppiemeJIta1~tioD Meal1U"eS." ,
""\"T :i,,! L.., ',' (5;,~,~,::~,'.;;:"':"~ /{jJ<'ii"';' '.\, '."~:;": ,.,,~.~::::..";/~h>,,1":'~:c';f' ,.:.,,' ;:';:'".,.,""{, :".'; ;\' ~,\::/,: 'C.; ',,;; ",;:",':"' .
''''.'~ The :4PPlic:antpmposes the,foUowiQg.a1temativeorSllJPlemenDi1 mitigation measures to
those i~ed in the DSEIR. These a1temative or supplemental mitigationmcasurcswill result
in the .leduction of identified significant impacts to alcvel of insignificant. The a1temativc
mitiga~on measmes may be adopted by the City in lieu of the .mitigatiOD D1C8Smcs intheDSEIR.
;
I
6OI9OOS.~
I
!
;
i
B~~&~NZIE
Mr.JIDlHamish
Augu it 12, ']998
Page 5
i
I , " '". , ,,',' ,'.' .,'. ,. " ',...'
. ::=~~~:~~e:~.:~,~aOO~~as iGditi~~~~c~~~~:~~~~.:
! '-,
1. Geology, Soils udSeUmidty
13.21,:
,-. . '-'-"..;
""..,: ",JAscCtisCussed8.bovc.,"1beApp1icant prOposes :BdditioD8l1l:amiqUcS'or'methridsas
.\'Opti~to.'address:igeologic:amditiODS."~These;supplement8l1'nUtigati.oDS 'Will '8llowtlexibility in
desiMtthe.,optimum'gcotl!l!hnica1 :solution.;Below'isa description.ofeac:h supplemental
measte.
I
::Mitigation'i'U-sore:~'l-2(a):l1 :'.::Modify 1hcseconQ' btilletinthe.mitigation measures to
read}~;fonows: .~JdetI;.'benChes'8DdacCompanying'drainageSb8ll'bedesignea at vertical
'~'of8bouf30 ~'w"ar Tecommended'b)' the City:Geotechnical,Consriltimr.''''The reason
for tl$ modification is because the30fb'standanHioes'notmiifonnly:apply'in .8Jl'instanccs, but
depcqdson geologic conditions. Therefore. ~City Geotechnical Consul1antshould have the
di~onto 'approve8lteiIlativespacing'c)f'iutermediate'beDr:hestoad~s:pecificgeolo.gic
..;..JI:l.:.!" .'.. ,,'., ' - ' .'., ..' '.' ."., '.
'COIWlJlODS. .. " ,
I
...':::.:,_'/:j)":;;. ;~'0.j -i.
.. , ." ." - .
':,: -' ";'!'fMiti2ation;,Measure~:1~2(a).i12-l'l!}bW1et~ ",':rhismitigation.opti.onShoUld :,bc',aniended to
1,,3.22 read as follows: "Plans for ~in;ng wall design for 'walls. higber than"lO.ft.<Sha1l}be.subject to
revieW and approval by 1be Citr OeotcchnicalConsultant.Tothe extcntfcasible, retaini"l walls
'mgJKttban~ 0 ibSh8ll.Dofbe'dcSigriea'uixlUred'jD'placc'stmCturea;'bUi-sball 'provide, step backs
, or'crit.s planteilWith~OD 'aDctibUilfWitbroughstoneoreartlroolorelhriate:ri8ls;":This' ,
moailiCaDon~a1loWs'flexibilitym 1heiaeSigiiof-retaini"g Willstriu1CetgeolQgic conditions. The
DS~ proposed mitigation measure requires an walls greater than ,10 ,ft. to bavc-step backs or
cribs~ The language is too restrictive for structural ~~gn qptions,~use the reqUired wall types
may ~ not he structmal1y orgeoteclnlically'fetlSiblC.IIl'aaditi~ step backs or cribs increase the
area fpbeJ~ ~~ do~~~S8Iib'~~,s1o.~~ty"
. .._.~_." "-',c",",;_", '''_,','''',' ,~.' ..:..'.......-:. ,.:~.-. 'c'; '_,'~..:-,..'~:-c.__. '_"'i,..;,~~:,.',:l ;;,7:;:~' -,,,,,-'-. ,,;,-,'-' - ",-_' '~", -":""'_':_"'0:-"'-: '(,.}- _,' ,'Y' _.',._..',.,.<.... _
". "I ,Mitigation Measure 4.1-2. 'l2..3nfbullet:This mitigation~~.sh()u1d be revised to
13.23' ,','CliIriibatethe~erCnCc tom~.tbe"Ccm3mons'and'Wo~East desigilandtoJimit1he
i:',lnitig~on~tl>iD:IPlern~~. where fetlSible:..~tho~ focusing develQpmentwithin
'\ .1o~~~.d~onsto):ed~:~~tal~ ~ d~vel9.pm~tarea.is ~:~~~tprQjectgoa1,
this gail. orily may be accomp1ishedto tbeextcnt feasIble. The HCP8Jrea4yJimited ,the approved
develpPment area to lower site elevations to reduce grading andbabitat distUrbance. Therefore.
tbis#tigation measure should be stated as a goal limited by feasibiliJ.y. Specific actions to
impl~ent this goalsbould not be dictated. 'ThelefoIe, the,rcferences to changes to CommoDS
.~~~l!ast in~:~'?Il~:.~dl?c,de!~ted.::
~.l
I
I
I
.,
"
.1
BA~ &,M~NZIE
Mr. -+n Hamish .
August 12, 1998
Page 16
r-
-,
, I
.L
I
i
13.23:~~~t~~~,%~:~~~~:=;=~
wi~ development areas and reduce the total.grading in development area. . '
.: ':~;':':_>, r;:>:;~;i:: :.r ":<~\' - :,;f: <'~\'>. _'~\::' :'j '~: :'_::, "
!Mitintion Measure 4.1-2tb ): Thetrml "average winter season~inthismitigation
13.24:4,m~:is~and.~ccUO~.pt~ODS.';.~, the term "average"
, . sbaaldbedelet.ed .and,,:the mitigatioameasurc::should,require.cut,sle>>pes:to have experienced at
, .lcast'Pnewinter,season,prior,tQ,isswmccofbuildin.g:pamits:fonievelopment
.
"",;),,',,:?~,,:,;
; Mitintion Measure 4.1-3(b): This mitigadon should be amended to add the following
13.25"pro.on: ~~or,Pbasem,;the,requiD:ments for,~Sl()pC~snntP-nJln~-Plan:may be mefby an
, a1~ve"documenttoCC&Rs.su"jcct,to revieW;8ndapproVBt~"the Cit:)' Attomey."Tbis
.modiJication.will allO\\':,theApplicantutpropose,tbe most effective ,enfmcementmechanimn in
Ught~(~e,d~ ,antiJm1d.oWJ:lCl'Sbip,()!~has,e ~IL '.' . .
,'.,:.:,:':-:" ),'..';.'u: ','.", :,'".,.,;.:;",.;',;;.,."',,',,.:...,..'. Id''''' '''",:'j,,:,'''<'';, . ..>',':'l',"../\':,:" "'," "" '.: '. ..: ,;,."
13.'2' . 6' ' , .,.,,':."'Miti2ationMeasure 4.1-Sfa).3.,bU1kt;.[be:pnlposectmiti,gation should~amended to
'lead ~ follows: "Fill shall besurebarged with excess ioaterialsto accelerate ,sett1ement,orby an
altenlativc method approved by the ,City. Geoteclmical Consultant" ,This revision will allow
;flexi~lli1:Y\to use~,variousoptiODSa~l,stl)le,"~l'~IUI()!i~~\p.u,~Since smcbargeis
'11Ot"al" UISIVa. ;the. mosteffectiv. . ., ., e measure. ....,.,',',',.. '. ,,' '. ,,""",. ' " . , "",. "
".-":" ", ~1"'.~~--:" '.. -",'" -..... - " -. '.- ~'-~;j,~?-~':>;__-';:,.:.(:',,,,1.~'-_:
.,.::'-:~\_~:a'-= ;>~:.~~&_:.:~:{-.:::f/:,~~i.:r~;':'~.:\~.;(~ .rr'-Y - '. -.: ,~.:i</:~~"';_:~ :~(~:J{-'.:":"~' ,\,':- :i:/:.':~\.y,>j"::~~.~-?;:'\t~-:.:'/{.~,:._"..:.::. i:",. _", _ _.' _". .,',' >:::' _~~ ::~ ',"=::~:' - '.: .". _ ".:',' ", :>c:.
13 27i;,,'~/!tditimionMeasure 4.1-5(b):.;,~~pQSrAi,~tigafi()n measure:showd,be.amended to
. ..',; .addtPe ,follo~a1tcmativ.e:,;Jf~pro,posed,sanital)'se\VeI'line ,js,notrelocatec!..installation of
a:sle#ve:ar9.~:'the,~~"stJWeJ:or~iI1sta.lI~on9{.~~J\,.C9Of)"~1JIepipe are
~~ns '
I
_2.,~;.,;';:,:"ijy~~1~~~~'~~~.~~~~'...';,2J.c,';,,:;,:.".'".".::'",",:
The foll()~'Iil~~~'ililiig~6Ii'~~-.;t~~tc'
,'~ . :".~Mitigiffiori'M~'4:2-il:;-T(),2ilio~flcXibllityincl,~lririlFb~.Ptimum solu1ion,(or
13.28;thi~QoDaition;then1itigation meas\lieShoilld'be reVisea to read 1S"fOUows:' '''111Cproposed''
debriS sWalealidretaining wall systeIn'Sh8Ilbe redeSigned t(rthesatiSfaction of the City
GeOtechnical 'ConsliltantaDd'City'RngJneer.}'OnC,reciesign'option 'isaddiJ1galhinldebris basin at
"~I ".' " '" ,..","
'thcniiddle.ofthechRnnel" -. " '
:,~. i . ',:.; ;,;:.:,,;..: ;;', ';i:-," ',' :;.,. ;'~~:.~"': ._~_';,;. ~-:'.:.-. - . > ';. .
'.D"'I .' ,
,. 10 ogy~ ,
'.~\3. '
.:t
iThe SERidelttIDes 1hree;meas"Of:bi01oiiC~iJDP8CtS::{l)..ti.oliicmova1,
wildlJfe habitat loss. and landscape compatibility (Impact 4.3-1); (2) speci8I status specieS
(cliPl-e butterfly and viola plant) (Impact 4.3-2); and (3) loss of]urisdictional wetland habitat
~.I
,
'I
!
BAKER&MQ}{ENZIE
I
:Mr. ~Hamish
AU~ 12, 1998
Page ,7
'I
", i " ,,' ' , ,,' ': ',' .,',"", ' , ," ,", ,< ,,' ",:"", " , , .
,;;(In.Jpfct4;S-:3).(~The;Applicantproposes'81teinativc1DitiptioDmeasures;to 'reduce these; iJJnlacts '
to aliwel of less than significant. The altemativc mitigationmeasures~indudCcertainaspectSof
the qSEIR mitigation measures, but-not-all of them.-Therefore,th~are,presented as altematives
. for Baoption by the City. . ' "
'I.. " . . ,,-
. " ../. : . . . . " . ".' . ~ .' . _ _ .". . . .", ~.. -' . _ _ , .' .' '- . .',.- , .::".'
i Mitiption Measure 4.3-1':~!Ibismitiglltion'Sboulifbe de1etc;clbecaJR'1he"Proiect bas no
I , " ~
signijicantimpactonnativc andspecialstatusplant.~es, except for the viola plant (a host
"planijforiIKnilippac buttcd1Y)~ :~e DSElRstates1hat1hcreare no special status spccieslocated
in~ aevcIopment,8re8. (excepUbeviola.) BDdlossof riativegrasSlaDd wotlld,nofbesjgnificant
: "Sin~ tbcgcncndin:lpact of dcvclopmentonnativeand specialstatllsplant,speCies is not
Siguijicam,~tigatieJH;houlcf~. ~Furtheanore,any 'loss ofnativcpJant materials
withiP the Project deve10pmentarea is mitigated by the HCP. which requirestbc dedication of
over'32acrcs ofland(4O%0f the Tem.ba.ysitc) in order to mitigate the loss of native plants in
the ~veloplDcrit area. Thaefore, the'Hep.8lrea4y nii1igates1liis impact. The HCP also Iequircs
. the ~OD of,graded areas vmiCh willbeaeaicateCltothcfCounty. The combination of these
'HCP'reqUiremet1ts WillJriitigate 'IDY'loss of native plantsreSillting from the development projcct
No ~onal mitigation is required.. ' '. ' '.'.'" ,
I
i
13.29
.". . - ' . -'
.,'1 ':'MffimltioriMeaStire4.~~2'(_~:Sii'V~tNiblaplant): In light of the lTtinimAl'impact
13.30 ()J1l1#clippae'si1verpjfiaentified:inlhc01)~ CoI11JJlj~~with the HCPand any other
, Ieq~:9fthe'U;S.FiSh8m1.:~lf1l~fe~etjice':~ to;,preventp02Scning, and dust control
, "'..,' . "arfsUfiiCieDt mitigatioIl.."'Tlur~ontI:fCc:1ipp8e silverspot are min;mal due to the
~tRrtMlflies' on the' Site, the suwlamoUnt ofvi01a:;aDa the existingprotectiODS fortbe
cU~underthe HCP. .,As ~intheletter!rom.Mr.Amo~~tJ,Jmo~qgical Consulting
'Servbs,' dated Aprll6~ 1998 (AppcndDC7.4,to,JJSEIR),..Cljppae,."silverspotadults ,have been
rarely observed wi1hinPhases nand ill during the annual monitorillg of the HCP by Thomas '
" Rei(t'&Associates. "l11e,DSEIRdieldstudiesdetemrlned that,~vio~p.antis located ouly on
,~ tDeiy~smau'poiti~,ofPha"es~n.~mQ.~~tban.1~,Df.~land,aleIl,fori;both Phases).
The.lffupc~erspotis~d~ecl~;& :~~~f~con~UQdcr,!bcHCP.BD4,~onoftheir
,~,is"part,of!he~~:.req~eJit,fordedi~onof,over13~,~as:~tat.preservation
" ,andJ u~ijc~n,fiJ8CCJ~ortb.e,';J1~I1J'lojec1.~SQ,nUtigation,to,reducethe,~.on'the
i,cli~(toJ~thaU signiA~.haS,a1rea4y,~;inco~,into,theProject1JJ1der;theHCP.
ThC;tPDsitionofU.S.:Eish&\l(lldlife~Serviceis that;existing ,IJliijgation measmesunderthe HCP
"au:e~,to:compeusate,for,theloss ,of.habitat.and food. p1ants.;,ofthe ,clippae from
.dey~J~ofP~P:,,~:rg:\.., " '- ,.,.'.',. '
"! ," '. " , .. ,', " ,.... ' ,.' ' ,.',,' .', ,"'" " ' .:
! Please note 'tba.4 undertheHCP ~:tbCU~S.Flsh/&WiltiService, the
Comity ~ and the City are prohibited from'~, any further requirements on the Tenabay
Proj~. in order to protect identified Species of Concern'in the HCP, which includes the clippae
silvefsPot (HCP Agreement, Section V.B., p. 13-14.) Therefore, the City is legally constrained
I
I
I
I
i
I
toI9OCIs.l
:B.AXli2R .&M<'KENzm
I
Mr..Jim }lami_
, I
Aug1$t12,1998
,Page ~
,
.,-
":"',,;fromPnPosin.gad~t.io~~~D11,theTc:rrab@y:~jectto.mitjgateJJO~~ loss of the
13.30,.': ,cij~si1~t.,"", 'of.,.;,.' ". ",\'."";"t~.~',,;;:~;,,,,',~i,,:<:;'::;i" '~,~,:.r>
~-
,
. ,', .:..." -i
!" ',BaSed on th~foregoiisg, theclippae Sil~erspot rrmiSati~~:(4:3-2)'~dbe.;nencled to
read$s foUows. Please note 1bat this ",iti~OD is cssennallytbe same 'IS the one proposed in the
DSEJ\R \Vith:thedeletionof:the,Drst1Wo,b1iIletj)Oin1s:,..",." ;:. '::.' ' , .
. . ,".. .,.;... ~-" ... !..:,,:: ;~-~';'
, . .....~ .; :.'<-.1' .' ;:'''''.'..'~'~'''-:.~.'.
,. ';Jhe,project ~Sb.an~tbe:1ailCioWnerJdeveloPer obli.gations,in\theSan Bnmo
MoUD,.taiD Habitat Conservation Planand.anyn:quirements'ofthe,Section 10(a) Permitissued by
U.S. .fish and 'W"lldlifeServices,mcludiDgamcndmentsto .the,permit,ifany. ,!'be following
~ alsosballbeimplemented to..further m;n;mi~:potential,in1pactsof~pIC?ject on the
c1ipp~:Silv~t-' " ' , " . "
: ; I . ...... ',' ':. .'
.
. ,SignsSballbePt~~incOOjJel8tion ,withtheSaIl~6,unty Parks
'Dqwtment ana ,the RCP cooIdinator.,'and.inst81led ,alongtrWs and other
II,PpQPiiate., locati, '... ODS~" .,park.""useIS.. RgIri,n~il1e.Pl~vities,(such as
'poaChing).,'" '.".. ','
,'l.'\PprQpriate.~, c:onf.rt)l.measmes sluill.beUn..pl~cnted as a component
""_:Ofthe:PlQj~'s:~i~O#Bn(fef9Sioi1CQnt.tOlpiaDsin.ortlcrto",,..,., '" ' ,
,'. .',;.:",;n~~constEUCti~ duSt(as:,:reqUirea':b.Y~gation Measures
, ~~~1 ~c;)!8Dd'45;1).,~Sb31l,inCluacfrcqUCDt wateiin,g ofgraded
. ". .,'. ,.,'~,~~~~~~;~,~~:to.?~;~hedust:~~,fO~l,~4ispersal."
; ,.1Please'notetbatjf1bep~Miijg1ltion;P~:~'~ved,aUofthevio1a])1ants located
on~pwe'mdevel9PritCnt'sitC~rbeavoiacd." ' '.." '..,'..,."" " '.
. --',~:! ,:..;:~.;> <:.:':, ~., ./._:,~::--:,::.,:-!.t~:\:_~ ~:L}' --",'- ~::~:':'i','~!?rt\. ~~r~:'.~;i,::;~:~-~:.:, ::',,'.-.:'," . '.'-'--c:~;'" , . _ \'{:..' :-:..~: -' _' _
. . - - - -. -
. - .' . " -' - .
',' ",.' ", ,/lditigatifu1'M~4~:rrweti.ma~):<Thei~~y"COzp~of'EI1JineetsIeqUiiCsa wetlands
.u1iti~on'plaU'as plrtofits:permi1;tin&~fof'th&fPrOjeCt'siJnp8ctSonWetlanas. The
'Rppqc8nt'basaJre84y :siibJDi~lhxmCCptUa1mitiP1ioJiplml;~:tbc Army'C(Jri1s:,"Inorder to
:avoid '~obIiptionS',bctwcCtl;thc City"aDdthC'AImY"Cm:ps,tbc'DSEIRSbould not
i:d~'aspeCific nUtig~onl'lan~;~:iDStead,;ShoUldreqUirelmplementatioD.ofthemitigation
:'plan'~rovea'by .the?A1my'Corps1miHmpo5ed'as ~a'coDdition,on the'COtpspemiit..'Futthermore,
.':the QSEIR'steqUireiDentf,f6fiIilkindrepl&a:ment~o# 'the,phasem'Site'1s,'onns';facc; infeasible
due 't9 'the::fuDitedaevelopmcntarea;iliiJlhase m 'outSide the'HCP:fenCC ana,'the'top<Jgnlpb.y of the
p~ msite. Under CEQA, only feaSible mitigation'mCasureS'ShoUld bCcoDSidereCi :Since the
.m~~~~~.,.~~~~ it~t ~,~p.te,d.
.\.1 .....'..
-..i';..'
!
6OI9OOS.l
'.
I
!
,B~&.M9KENZIE
Mr. f~Hamish
A~ 12, 1998
Page p
I
13.31';8ased:Qnj~tbe;foregoing, 'Mitigati0JlS43-1{a) arid 43;3<,) lI'Ii(i:~t.~dbCfq)laced,with
the foPoWing mitigation: ":'<"!'1':~~\:+i:t;,:.}:~;;~{:i:<E;,t:.;c.,. ,,' '
. '~hior,to'tbc'issuanceof8llY"graffing'orbUilitingpemmfor '.
'.,..:.'.~activities ~~Wil!i~~"as'Sho~on'thC:wet1aDd"
.<';;ijeliDeation,map:certified(by~~U~.~yjCorpS,ofF~n~;the
project sponsor shall obtain apennit :&omtbc U.S.' Anny;<2orps,t)f .'"
'Engineers and be in compliance with all requirements forwet1and .
, \mitiption:undcr'thetemJs'oftbe:penziiC" ,',..' ,,", "
.... ",', .-" ,': _ .' ..... _ _; ",' :. ::, 'C-," _' : .. ,.:_. -' . ,_ _' _ . - "" ~ .:
, .I'Pleasellote1bat.iftheMiti;noIlPWi:~,~~ud.':mgJiificimtportions:of1hewetlauds
:Iocatcjd OD'Pmmeim will 'be avoided,'mparticUlar,'tbepelWal stream identifiedintheDSEIR.
: (see;qiscussiOJLofMitigation'Plan;in,letterifor{Mr. .jIarriiRh,'fromB8ker ,&!MCKeniietdated
A~:5,j;I99.~).,: ' .
'.
~ 4. Tnffic and CirCuJafioD
:.I.. ",'::, ,(.:::,:, ':.,.,..'":".,.".."7:.:,, ',:" : ',.",,'..'
,'.,:: "",.:: ,', ',>,"x: : Thereat'e:SeVeral,pob1ems.with;tbetraftic;8DJilysisjn,the:DSBIR..,:First, it
,^o~~~UD~traflic\levds;andl1be,Broject!s:tripjgeneiation.8Ddjilnpacts.;.SecoDd, it
.',~;mitigation';measures;~ch:,aremreasiblemd does;notiDClude~feasiblemMITSM
"pro_ as mitigaticms./lbird.,~1t::fiWs~.;lCCOgnize;1hat"evenWith,themq,lemeptatiori of an
feasi~emitigation ineasures, the trafficDnpact of the Project, like tbehookram~maybe
.:si~cantaIKLunavoidable,an(ta stalement"of\ovmtidiIlg;,ccmsidcratioDS:should be adoptal
"'.'!..Two.~~;~'~:r;S~;'~:~~~~)~~a.~;ificant~~~ofthe
'13~32' Proj~' s ~:;;(i)totatbuild-out.1JJ1der~the.Br.isJmte'Gener8lP1an~y,the,y~.2o.10;aud (ii) a
300.10 ~ 400.10 'lnclease in. ~trip gc:neJ:ltioD fm the remdential units in Point and 'COIDJDoas, and
. :w~,~~~y.;J.Bris1?anc~~~,buildout;js~~to.~ UD1il2020"orlatet.
lbc:D1aeae..in_bcrofbedrooms:in;aod,of,itseJfidOesnot,wmantmiinc:ease:iin:standaId 1rlp
;,g~onAtes,~~ilm~st,one~'~js11O~,evidence:in.e;DSE]Rto support a
~ couelatio~:bc:tw=n numbers;ofbedrooms;&nd'increased.~,()f<yehiclcs....I'hese
, assur4aptioDSsho1iId,be\revised.anctthe:trafiican8lysis revisedaccon:IingJy. '
. , :;'~ " ... .
. :':~! : :,,:;<..::i:~'d ,,~;,''--, ~ '....-- .:-". "'." ;).,' .",/~~j;:: . _,_ ...!~
;c. ,.iiFUJ:tlJcnr.!o~,.'!l1e:,DSEIR:;~ ncn.,~1ain:~.Y!I~asi@1ificantn:duction in trip
13.3~,;gencipmon~eJ;:.~~~~j)O~,d_plan-:;JS'conpm,dto ~,198~~S~~;Phu1"it:ld=1tifics',ptter
" "PrOjept.traf6c]D1~,tbanthel996:SEIll/m.eJ996 SBIR.cOnCluded:,tbatAe~ject would Dot
;:;~ye,~y~~~~~~~~~~:int~o~'~:~~'~~~(tD9t},e,:~gated with
"'-~'~~~j~or;7:I1)~M~.)I~;p~:~~tQj~thc, pr;g~.PlaD will
, IeSuh in a reduction'jn vehicle 1rips of32%:f~:,tI1e.AMpe8k~ur'8Il,d~% .for,the:PMpeak hour
from ~ 1982 Specific Plan. Despite this Ieduct10n in Project velUClc'trlpS,tIJe. DSEIRidentifies
grca~ traffic impacts on two intersections and one on-ramp and proposes further signifiCllllt
6019005.1
!
I
I
BAKli2a & M9RENZIE
Mr. JimHllrniJlh
A~12.1998
'pqeilO
"
! . ," .,". ...'"11- '" .. ...,,,.. .. ........ -...
13.33,: ~~j~~ODS~ ~on.,'Theconfli~~~I>SBIIt~andthel~ ,~~,~,!~
, anal'~. sbouldbeexplaiDed. .' ','.'-i','", ','0,' ,; ,'):";;",;...\'j",,",,;,
~ ' , ,',..,.'.,..."..'.",..'"""...'.,.".""'-.'.'..'.>..,,.,..,
,....,.--- ,',_. - .....,-,'....' ::.,.'-'- :'" '-',
". ,-' .,' -'
'. ...' - ." . -
r'
"
. .i
'1 :
'.
i i
r'
"';'1
I
'r--,
I ' '
! The amount,of~l(gr(>>lmdtrafiic:,~.is.ovc:rstatedbecauseDO.TSMIIDM n:duction is
13.34 appli~ ~:~;.Eas:t9(lOJ,,~ 1raftic.iIn:.the,.t996 SElR,:a,'l~%"trlp:reductiondue to TSMfIDM
mitiptioD~~,M'Plied.to.,the;]~~of;J:Ol.:uea:trafIic~~Howevcr,\the;DSEIR. did not apply this
'_;.1...-: ',',., .. ',.. .'
sam.e1~Llon.", ,;,
1.:". ...'.,..., '" '..".. . ',' .',' ,',' .. ',",.' '" ,>.'
13.35a 11'he DSEIR 'proPosed mitigatioDSfOr.tbeiD:plctlonthc:~mainline, two Oyster
Point! iDtercbange intersections, andtbe DOrthboUDd freeway on-rampatDubuque are infeasible.
'The.I rltigationJor;{reeWlO';;impacts;(MitigaDon4.~l) mJuires .atleasta;64%reductionin Project
,:.~p~()D.)Ibis.is,infeasible:oD.,iU.face.;, TheJ'mject denSity 'alreaQybas beentaiuccd 20%
'fori:p,hase,U:and 5~.&,for}Phase,mfrom,thec19B2;SpecificP1an.:.Further;rcductioDS,iri..Project
densi'~ will result in aprojecttbat does not meet the City's goals and objectives and is
econc,mica1ly infeasible.
1
13.3t$,.~===..;:~~::~.,:..:m
, '::',oe~WI,; dc:nc:id,. . ,\because'1he3lppOrttowa-s, , ,'''fa., ~:,tbe~e:t:8re!iOeated., '..' .,." ;imntMimly:,iajaCenttotbe
" '.. ",;I "~uorthe1'n- SOutbcmendsiOfthe!OVelp8SSTOadway.'~~~~ofthe
,,;~,~~'=~;:~'::~'i";D<;";;! ..
13. 35bi"..,;{be,DSElRmitigaUon,measure,for-the.USlOl'freeway,on-amp:at Dubuque.11lso IS
infcuible.An8S%n::ductionin'Ter:rabay trip ~atiOD is,oidtsfa~ infeasible. The
,', a1tcrl ativemitigation to Wiaen1hC\tn:ewaY'on:riIIDP:;a1SO is,~iDf'c8Siblehto'1and constraints and
13.37:;,~;~~1~~~~W~~~~.
, ',' ""~rres"for trafficjmpacts.~hnpOSItiOllofmMJTSM measures on PhaSe m,to,the
,maXibiumCtcnt'feam(1)le to,wevc.at rlcastoa13%mluCtiOJi:in'iingJc,ocCupancY.:Vehicle trips. "
'~;t::;;:'~~~~~:~:==:~=:;::::=:~~~:
empl)yee5 cmpoolor use transit ,For the 1996 SBlR,Il.1~ reduction due tDmwrsM
-; . m~ :w:applietHo'81l'futu1e:developDienfmlbcfPi"Qjecf'8nd:E8stoflOl arca.'Iberefon;,a
"tDiti,l. onmc8sure~ ~~of:1J>~M'mcasmcstO;'lIChieve1lt)leasta'13%
,tcduroh;m:'~~le'~ y.ebicle'~;foi'lhtPlrijeCfiSrfei~sib1e'alid ~llri:sWtin.tbe
.~i'lr~~a~~~.~;:::~
! ,"
r',,'
I
L
i
I
,I
~
1
'-
,!
~.1
.
B~,&.M9KENZIE
Mr. rtmHamish
i
A~l2, 1998
I
Page ~ 1
I.:"
13.38
,,':.~BD~tioDa};miti.gation measure, 1he'BSEIR:shOilld,still'include1hePrtiject Sponsor's
fairslwe comribution towards,restripiDg,;thesouthbouzKi'Baysbore\BoWevaril iritersection
approach to provide an exclusive right, a ~tbrough/ri~ a tbrou.gh, ~d two lefttumlanes
;'to~fw1h- .rriiti~ointiwestcln' iDt=sectiOi1.';,;, '''~;,'''.''''>,',:,'".,,',,'H.''.,'
'.' ''''>':''_~_' :'.'1"..[,
'::';,c:'-.. _"'.~,"~i~~>~:_:'::~:<: ;':',':'.;, -t-"':' .'~:~.,. ';;::-',;"; \.: ;;~ ,;:",:: ;~~\ '~~7';S:~:: -:{:.' ~~: ,;.
~:,
13'39-,,;./>.i~!E~,with;~~ti~(ofitbese;feasible'W~~"J,Di~:~o.n meaSun:s,itjisunlikely
· . ..;}1ibaU~hoJect~ssigDificantiDlp8Ctofthc~mmn1mP.,,'-a'Sinjle-freeWay'on-ramp, and two
';;mtersectioDScould,bc;teduced'lo,a:levelOfinSigllifiC8Dt'based'onthel % SigIiliicance:1hreshold
I ' ,
1lpp~indbc'DSEIR. "Jbe:t996SE1R,'Wliich:analyzcd buildout unCierthc1982"Specific Plan,
'conc1jJded1hat impactson.theD:ee\\'aymAin1iM 'woUld be s!griificant andunavoidBblc:dcspite thc
.implqmentslfinnofalbfeaSiblelriitigation'me8sures, includingIDMfI'SM. " Thc'proposed Project
.bas"nidlPN<l,ttipa~;by'32-Aforthe .iA1dpcak"hour:and 23Wfortbe'.PMpe8k'bour from
develQpment in the 1982 Specific P1an.Dcspi1e.,tbescreduction;;in'Project1ripgeneration and the
impl~on of maximum feasible roM measures, the impact on. the freeway, two
;m~~~and on-ramp will:'likely"tenWn"~l"ifiC8J]hlDa':unavoid8ble.:;'For the 1996 SEIR.,
:the :Clty'adoptedta:statcmentofoverrldiDgc::oliSiderationfor,the'sigriifieaoi,UDavtiidable Project
.;traffie;jmpads.Jhe'DSElR.n:commends,tbatthe'City:adopt'a'statement ofovertiding
'coDS~qus,for1he,impact;oftbchoOkraritps'OIl'the'freeWaYlJ'lairiliMandBayShoreBoulevard
cOff-mmp.Tbe'AppliCantrequeststbafiheaty~8dopt..,'St8teineat'of'overiiding'CODSiderations for
::'the!pjUject traffic~impacts.to 'tbe'C:xteDtthey~ammtniitigateC!:to ':inSigDificant .
'.~ ,_,,: '.... ~-.J
--'.;_,_0;._
ii- :~~_~.<x
. ......' "-,"
_~<;rr;\~~:::.,:,::;-.: :g;_i:~ ~',: 'll~~?;;;~<.-?,"'~ ',~}
.:.:~
."',~'...,;.:r~~.~.,~~~~~~,,~;~et~~.~!:!L:.>.f.>,,.:;,.~'r>,..';"..:.;
:';';;~'>'B&~bI~~&i'ofiI&~1~~:i4~"~f~~J~.tb~'~J)still{ ~y identified
.'~sijliificanfb8sed oD'iDacCumte faCtS:'IbCt:onOWiD,gdisCUSsionexpIains whythCCity should
JincitjJattheseidenti1iec:lsigDificant~c~:il1~.\~caDtand,~f~ no .DJitigation is
~",~,,,"':"'~;'''''''' ,'.' ,.. "~',":':';"" "",' '...'e".. .....". ,",.....".. ,;,""., ..""
13.4d:';:"E~~~;'~t~lia~~DOl~'~'n..tgn'~'~~Wavs)' An off-
!set'~'ch~streetdeSign ~~C)t~PRsetit81Jy~"~:clqggmg'()rrunoff
", "COnaltiODS'than1he staDOardcunraDaguttCtdeSign recommenaeaas"a~gationmeasure.
.' 'Therefori:;1he~Chy"Sb.odla:find'1batfheo1f-SetCb8miel'stR:etiieSjgll,,~ts no ,Sjgni:ficant
'eri\rir9rimerlt.Bl impacrBnd DO mitigation is reqUired.'Avemclep8Ikc:d adjacent to a curb and
gu~,~,~ <4VCfr~ ~ount of\V8ter,~ the~ha1t~~,smface just asitwould
With_Aiffsetvangr Juttef'resUltiqg iD.tbc'~lamouIlt()fpotc:nti81~,deterioIation. 'The
'asplUUt~r.i:~~~i(ij&cmit1D a!;~ller';~~:~'~c:al'~~Crthatg\ttteris connected
.to acufb orfoDDsa van.,gutter.;A, tWo;;.foot-Wiaev8l1 .,' '~lW;,o>>third:more. .ty
~~~~~=~~~i~~~~i:=or
abse#cc rifaCDrb,causedebris depositionano Cl~~"Thcreisno.b8sisinfact to conc1udc
6OI9OOS.1
!
I
I
.BAKElR &.M9KENZIE
Mr. Jim Hamish
A~ 12, 1998
'Page~2
! .
I
. '
13.40:tbat,~}prQJ)(~secboadv.:v ~~onwi!h'ian.~ff.setcdraiJ:lage,~hRlmf!land1or ~ cross-
13 41 . ',InipaCt4.2~2~nimmnRearimdSide YardTlninAee Slonesl-,nu:,potcntialtlooding of
. .' rear or side yards due to the proposed t%s1ope is based on inaccurate..&ctsand a .
i,! "mim,~~~on;Of,thelJBC'standards. 'iUBCSection";;~3~4~r.eqmies~a',m;mmum slc:lpe of.two
,;:percetncaway'fromhpi'di~g;pads.to'8Il;gmveddraiDage~faCilitY.:::Svla1es:1Ire:,recogDized " .' .
. ,~"fcatorcswbich,1eadjto,iDIetsi8DdJhe~pipeddniiDage::systcm.c,neUBC'does not
rec[11iR?,two,percent overlaDd:flow:to,jl,pq,ed ~.f;Onepcn:entrearthen<or.')SQld~ swales
,\are~tanUl1usual:featmc,oUI.J)8IticWarJ,yJtifiicultconstructiOD;feat. ('CC&R'controJs are
suffi~ent to.ensure,thatdraiDage features"are.notadverseJy:altered. The .yaMs;as.dcsigncd do not
,.preseht.a,potentialfJ.oodu.gimpact.Therefo~,;,theCitySho1ild,find :1hat.theiimptctis.not
signijcantand.no,mi~onisrequired.< '
. ."'.' . .
,,,,,,..'.,,c;:,,.. '."',.." '..', :,;:...':, ,;.'.,;.<:..'.'.
.'.'. ~,Ifthe,.city.d.~~i~.tbaUhepgposed l%:slope presents .;potentially \sjgDificant
,~the,mitigation,measmesbould..be.revised:to.readas:fonows: .~JvfmimmDrearyard aDd
.sidejaal ~e::~ :CO!D.PlycwithUBC.standards..:In.addition,\tbe,conditioDs'ofProject
"~vals.:,~,~111de.,a.ppro~.oyersi,ght.andlor'controls'1ont~;~jbyJCSidems.
',~'C()IJ1tOIs.~~c,'.~Judedm,tbe:~ect~s,:CoVP.l'l~..'..Cona\tiODS;JUid~ctions
. (C~Rs)'~~,'~~~~"Jbe;~Ye~\\'De1'~S.Associations1for'each)JKighborhood."
~ thisDdtigatiOluneaspre,City staff would detmmint! compliance with UBC standard.
. I Inmacts 4.2-8 and 4.2-9'~iiA~ii,{d"F~:RDaas)':.;~'~Uripaved access
and fire ~.mc.,~! Jrip;~~o(~}lrqject~~l'equiredn:moval would ,
cont1lctWit1i'ot}l~'riiitigalion~ anacal1se'furtbCf~:'lbCteforc,tbe impact should
~jdCntified8s,'~~I"1fi~,~atl,1e.n1itjgati()Jl~dCIetc(l.,'I11e&a?CSScana firetraiis
'a1fea4y eXist'Bhalri"DOt;;~Ctea'bYtbePrOject,:~Witb1rithe.ProjeCt limitsofgradiDg
~ they are elimmAted.' The County Fire Departmem,.not the deve1oper,.pUtin the roads and
~.;r.~~~T4~~~=-
p~pC)~i~Sati~:~~,.13:t(c.rWJUcll,l~~'~11SCOf~~~ for pedestrian
park!rBi~:":~y,'~onof.~.fuetr8i1s:shoulcl:Do~be~ because the restoration
itse1(rwill:cre8te,,Sjgiiifi~im~.~to thepiIag reqUired to.~and,restorethe roads.
. :'_:,. c,_,_ ",::.:. -;.~1::; -J, ~:::-~~.i-~':',( ~.."_'- ., ,;;'.,C',-:. '~",>,'-l .".' ~:- -,!" -,,'':J:' :,' ,-,- --:~.'" ~ . .. - .','- :::. '. '-'~"':: ',,""" .:.,'-'.', ,', ':'.' .,-. " - '-' -' . -' _ -. '..
t3.~;~~====~r~~~=~~~1k
, .... ......;.......,'.:..._ '. ",\,--""",> . ""-~:'. - ..>'.~..7;l~._:..~ -t: _J~," ~.' J.,;:< . "," ~.,.~~:"!.:-. .. ...,'- . ,. .' " -": ::",',"': :""'~..l .,;.:\",;, ',""._,",.:.",-_ ,-.;--,; .~ .".-~,:. ","", ',"." -_'"_',;' ,! -"
sUc:tY.'.J\Sthc'pSF;IR" 'c~!fl~~'~J'ootfoad"Wav-~~unCiCr.~existing
~Joi~~.~~~~',,~'piStrict.(~,20~~~~:i2Q((JJ(2))~~ThetF9POscdPbase n
ro8d~ys'Wilrha"#.~'~a~:foottravel~.::nus ~.tbeCh.y:Code staJldaid for a
, ',' pub1ipn:Si~~'ininO~:~'!ffiCh~~~y;a 29,~.~cte~v~;~i,(3~footroadway
,q' With~ghtfootpaiking on bOth Sides.) " ".",' ".' ., '" ,. ., ,
J____
I
6019005.1
1
BA'R"ll';tl & .M9KENzlE
Mr.J..m-Hamish
A_ 12, 1998
Page 13
13,43....:.t1l:g22..trl,~~~~~~~~~T~;~..sr:~
. ..'~~:~~;~~~~~~~~1Odncing
and c:b .trav~lirigoD lhestleet:'m1ese'Sfr&tSOnlY'~"1OCalh()~gJ1intSandhay~:e:::;
'.'(Jow'tiamcvolumes.'>Theie'8reDlnTierous'OtherreS1aeDiilr'areas:m~sOuth-Sm{F~ which .
"bavebfoobravelWays'ornarfOwetin1iSht o1"tbe'cny'20foOtstRno~ni.~;a'.8J:iove.The
Cityjoould"findthat1h&f22~foottiavel Way"Piesentil'noSiglJificanfimp8Ctmi'oo'uUugatiOD is
~.. .
...."... . .. ...... '.. . .... . '. ..' '. '. .' ,.... ...... .... . . ..... .. ..... . ....,< .:
"'!]nmact4;~rReSiaen1iarparlcinfDUDcDSionS) -TheDSEIR.idMtifi~'the"substandard"
J3.44 '~1iiI.-.J'araII~patiiDg ~'sIn&e~iiDddli""""')'apmnsfor thetCsideotial
area' .. a.stg@icant enVironmentaFiinjB:lFirst, eVeii~the(fimeJwoDS. are.substandard,
DO .:. ..... ca#tenVimnmeDtal'impactresUl~'from.~congmoDs.~t iSan.:issue.ofeoD1pliancc
wi1h'City"COcle reqUimnmtS,notan enVir01Uftimtsij issue. "~'1beleSideDtia1p&ikingdimensions
~~~~~~~~~~~=~~~~the~ue
.=t~~~~~~i~~7~~~~~~=~~~be
!iadop1ledbYtbeGty undertbeT~t~pcCificPlanDistrict()rdinm1ce~ 'Thc.Paraue1parlcing
~ sizC:iJ,1iJSO'in'cODfnrmance Withthe'TaIabay DistDcfOrffinaneemt'CittCoaeingeneral.
Tbc.~~g-r.~~ct. Qrd;~.~setsci,ght~U;et ~:~,,~~',width for private mad
~4~@~vt2~~~~~~~for.
co+Ce~ththe 'City~.. :Jbefeijgth of.@elrparkll.1g~;~~~,discUssed at
'length\VithStaff. .~P~rallel,pai'king ~p3ces are.20feetlon.g':~!\Vhereone .end,oftbe;space is
"f .34iiU: mt to,adriy~:.p.on~~~desm8neuver#1groom ;~,'C?,Ilter,or:cxit~~d,atkiDg
, ~~ :'sucli.~.:witli'One.constrained,eml:are ,l~,JeetJoqg..~Base(ton the,ioresoing, all
n:fcRmCesto:sub~drive\VaY'~9I,~,~eDsioDsin;the,D~,.~u1~be.
'.' '. "I.. ..,....., ..' ....."...... . ........ .... '.,. " .....,.v. .,. ". "- ..,... ....,......~ ", .'
.~ei#....,~(S~foi<~pl~:Bxhibits.2:3~:an4.2.3T12~).,... i:....:.:.,.. .
13.45 ..... ....'I"(~'~:~9'(~~~~)';"hiDS~'s:'id~tffi~~JiofPC;~.~clem
pIlti 19for ViSitors':'forparties'or~evems,' ~~pite t.O~1iaD~ :With'tJie. citY,parkiBg
'~meuts, is DOt a~gJii~~ ~WomDeDta1iJnPact.'J'he ChY.resi~tia1par~standards
I
I
I
i
I
I
6OI9ClOf.1
i
~,.i"
.:c......_
,~~
-;~>
!
"
.
'B~.&..M9KENZIE
I
Mr.JF H,",,"~n
A~12,1998
~e~4
13~g5':;).~~~~1~~~:i;~;i':='
. .-:pam,g:mtesiaeutW~~8Dd..~!~'coDaition'~,D4)t~~ in~.ot..otberresidential.
'..~~~~f~.~~~~~~=m
mitjga.non:inil1e~DSEIR.1n a&liti()Q,~latge~ aDd ~evems,in:tbc~n:sidL"Jnti81 area
me'I~~~~',~~~,~~ ~~.~~d2~:i2;~()nal.c;>>~~par.Idng. .
"r.-" , ...," " <......... . ,..,
f--'
13.46 ; ~pact 4.9-1 (CA~SMa-4o) - TheDSEIR. should identifythepJan for 1i1lliig1md capping
CA-$Ma-4<)asa mitjgation.in compliancewith,CEQAand noJurthcr,measures:are Deeded to
....~ thCSit#~'Fil1~'~.c:app~'1ul:~eolQlic81mels'~accePtedmitjgatiOl\uodcr'CEQA
and ~e~pl~~lnotSilJ!lificantlY ~~~'thes.ite."':TbeDSR~;s concluSion,that the
.prtl~'fi11.o.vCr'thc'Site~~,~}D.~';total:~911~~of~.~~ise#oneous. .
'The'DSEIR.CIoes nOt have~ColreCt'iriformation on the amount of fill oD. .the,~lo'. calSite
'proMs#1IIY1ertl1e"~~;''I'be~~~0I1.Pages:'z8&:~andE1dn"bi!~~t ate
'.~;:::Tbeamourl1 of~1s .lIb.cAvJi~9Il"~,~p~'..,.'~Mr.,McHuton.statedatthe
':~1ic ~y'se#i()~:'~~1'!t:,~ft~,:~~ ~ifOludill,.~ver'~:~6reSitC"with;a.20-
foot jiPNiiriin . W81lon:the~c:age-:Of:tbc.Site.JufMr.~'McHuroD, .. . iliI~:tbe amount offill
.:~;thc,Sii#~c:"~D1,~~~~~:'~.~~.~:~~.~!~'~..~~"i~..'tOa.lnaximum
of23iteetattbe edgeof1be';s&"::Ibt~mm '.W8I1'oiL1he'southeallt~~c:oD:1er~ti1e Site is on!
.~~r~~~far~~~;;nsi
.amoU11t.of1heUl1";Sincetl1e~unt ~,fill,~~i"ciln~:~~,ov~ .~)ite"the.~gree of
CO~HOD aIso~ltyary.,'~thepo~tial"qo~ori'is.DDjy.I()Ohari(fm'V~;()n1,y limited
"'IJ1C)~~Dttb,e.~$~,,,i~'~~"~.'~;~~.~~js"~l<~t~i1'i~~t,,',"., ' ..
13;47i"~~Sr~eC~~~mma
'sci~~fic.stuaY'incl.;aocument8iionof1be.Site'(Pubnc'R.esOur=;COde)J'21083:2(d);''Appendix K
. ''VII'''q'andiD).':lNeithetOf1hese"CODditioos'are''met.'\Thi:re!isno Wb~Al:factwilcvidence to
. ,;~ the'coDcluSion'th3tttheSiti'wilrbC'~cIeStroyeam~1leSCtibC(hibOVc,ithC'extent of
';co : '. On''duc:-to1be 'fill'Wi1,l~'bC a ...mmmumtijf"lJOA. &veToD1y a poIiioiiofthCshe: 'Also, as
'Qe~=rm;theiDSEIR;"1Iieie~'~Ybcin;Sig,nfi'car1i'8ila'5i'iffiQellfsCi~tific:~ and
. d~on of the site UDder1he~1'989eXCavanODl;'bY'Ii(jITriii,r&';AssOciateS;'8Iia'the recording
ofttaesite... Pleascnotc thatthc. ~.~~.ptiollinthc.,DSF.JR,.tbaUhcdata~program,' .
\ . ~~~ iri'~.~'~~l~~ ~Js"piiidfSU#Cl~u'~;#'~1ication is '
A,.incOrteCt. ThcfHOlmati,~ Cleadywas not,psrt ofthe~lication.'~ff .. 1 ftmded
. .... .....'.....".. '. ..,......,...,............,..".......,.. .. . ,.......n,D.Py
..tbis"~eJ1tstuaytObcusedaS parfofthe enVironmental review piocess~'.AsWe have
I
6OIl9OOi5.1
i
I
I
I ,
'.B~ ..MQKENzIE
Mr. ~im Hamish
,.A~ 14 1998
Pag91S
13.47
,
p~us1y informed the City, SunChase objcctsto any excavation on the site due.to the potential
advetseimpacts from excavation and objections to excavations from the Native American
co~unity . Therefore, the DSEIR. should be modified to eliminate any reference tocxcavation
and tpe, data recovery program as part of the application.
13.48
.
; The requirement that the relationship between CA-SMa-92 and CA-SMa-40 be studied if
CM-~Ma-40is capped and filled should be deleted. There is simply no connection between this
issud and the proposed project. If this additional mitigation was included,because of the
excayuionplan included in theDSEIR, it should be deleted in conjunction with the deletion of
the e~cavation plan described above. Furthermore, at various public meetings, Mr. Chavez and
Mr.~olman have both testified that, based on study of the two sites and land in between, there
appears to be no physical connection between the two sides. Both sites have clearly'defined
outside boundaries and no additional resources have,been located between the two sites.
13.20b : With regard to CA-SMa~92, as described above, the site is located outside the
development and grading area and will not be disturbed. Therefore, the Project has 1m significant
;... impabt on CA-SMa~92 and no mitigation is required (see p. 4 above).
Sincerely,
~;2~.
Timothy D. Cremin
morw
I
I
cc: Steve Manas, City Attorney
Adam Lindgren, Assistant City Attorney
Michael W1lson, City Manager
Allison Knapp
,
6O~.1
,,''LETTERS 13'B Bndb
''': ~ .~', ", i;.~ ~. .. ."
. "Response ,13.1,:,'I'hiscomment;andthe'.remainderofthe 'writeI'~sA~gust '$::}etterpresent, the . project
sponsor~!s '.'Miti,gationP1an"iiand,reach <concluSioIls'abouf;its';effectiveness':in feducing or' avoiding
impacts : attributable to'!thetproject, , as 1Jroposed which the \} 998 DSEIR 'identified.' "5Master Response
. :7.3-.1" presents,;the;evaluationofthesponsor~s.~planas"the Phase IlISite;Mitigation 'PlanDevelopment
Alternative. .
Response 13.2 The comment refers to the project sponsor' s new :'Phase ;111 Site 'Mitigation Plan
Development Alternative which would serve to partly protect some of the sensitive biological and
wetIandresources,on',the site. '.As pointed out by the comment,>thePhase III Site 'Mitigation Plan
:Development;Alter:native::wouldserve to 1 protect the large 'stand .ofcallippesilverspoflarval'host plant
(Viola ,pedunculata) .1ocated;at;,the,northem edge:of'the Phase m site, 'consistent with the
'recommendation in ',Mitigation:Measure A.3';'2.,Potential,impacts . onwetlandresources'still', would be
significant with. implementation .of the.Phase III -Site Mitigation 'Plan Development Alternative,
although .some 'existing' wetlandswould;be ~preserved'on ,the'Phasem site.' Mitigation measures
,recommended ,in thed99&DSEIR'stillwouldapply to this altemative, even though 'the total acreage
for replacement wetland ,habitat jost asa result of development may be reduced as a result of the
partial preservation. A detailed assessment of the potential impacts ofthePhasel1lSiteMitigation
Plan Development Alternative is provided in Master Response 7.3-.1.
Response ,13.3 :.:The" Phase c'lIISite.Miti,gationPlanDevelopment . Alte.mative 'would -significantly
reduce,cutsdnt() the 'southemJPart;,of 'San Bruno,Mountain.'This'reduction :wouldcontribute to a
;similardecrease:in other potentiaLadversedmpacts {such as erosion Isiltation and 'slope 'stability). The
fPhase ,>Ill, Site', Mitigation'Blan.Deve1qpment . Alternative .' talso. ,would reduce ,the area .',needed 'for
winterization, revegetation, and rock slide potential, compared with the ,project as proposed.
'ReSponse .13.4 Reduction of total two-way,AM;andPM'peakhourtraffic by . the project sponsor' s
Phase .IlI, Site. Mitigation Plan Development Alternative",compared 'With Nolumes 'the ,1998, DSEIR
estimated for the Phase.illproject is;noLtheonly -issue. The Phase ill ,development analyzed in the
1998 DSEIR would result ,in a 'relatively:even ; directional ,distribution ,of traffic during the PM
commute peak hour (49 percent inbound / 51 percent outbound) and a somewhat more directional split
. during the AM peak. hour (60 percent inbound.! 40Lpercent,outbound).However, 'primarily office
developmentproposed,\by ..the;.J?~e.11LSite MitigationPlanDeve[opment.Alternative'would' have a
much;more distinct directional ,flow 'during ,commute;periodsl:88 "percent "inbound 1 12 percent
outbound during the AM peak ,and .17 :.percentinboundl,83 ,percent;outboundduring,the'PM peak).
Therefore, while total two-way generation from the Phase ,Ill Site Mitigation Plan Development
,Alternative. would:be-the same.oreven,somewhat less than the project analyzed in 'the '1998 DSEIR,the
extreme ,directional ,splits.oflower,;'overall Jtwo-way~trafficleve1s -could' have resultea 'in~the 'same or
greater:in;apacts ,.atone . or,moreoJ.ocanons. , ,:However/obased upoD'analysis, 'greater:impacts \h~ve been
. mitigated through ,.traffic):n:rluctionswhich,would:restilt!from a 'potential .~ttansportationdemand
,management4,.transportation systemsmanagement:(TDM tTSM) plan:'beingdeveloped by' the project
sponsor, as part.oflthe officeodevelopment. <ltshould, be'1loted, ,though, that a' specificTDM '/TSM ,plan
Project sponsor's anomey. The sponsor's comments are contained in two letters. Responses are numbered consecutively
for both letters.
Letter 13-1
,
;
, 1
Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative. A specific TDM I TSMplan would need .tobe
provided by'the sponsofas .:part"of ,the:Phase,JIl<Site,Miti,gation,PlanDevelopment'Altemative.
Alternatively, TDM / TSM can constiOlte one item in a list of mitigation measures the, City ultimately
requires of the. project as part of the environmental and projectre~ew:'process: '~>' '.
.' ,A13percentreductionin commute!peak=hoUrtrips"seems:reaIisti~.foJ,"'officedeve19pmenfif ,there was
.anongoing dedicated; progriun. and.transportation.demaIid.manage1DeIiE(TDM).maIuigePtopromote
.. .' carpooling "and . transit >use :and<if .this:program .:is',enforcedbYfthe:,local jurisdiction. ."This .goal also
.would:be,.easierto, achieve if only ,one,company"oriaJewlarge:tenants.occupied ',the ~office ,building.
Please note that the Multi-City Transportation Systems Management Agency (MTSMA) survey results
quoted for reduced single driver commuters were for major employers in northern San Mateo County,
"not smaller employers. ','.
-r'-
o ~
i
, 1
j:~
t
,
, -t
..-
,Response .13.5.. ,Thegrading;:plan for .Phasem,;site faCilities" :represented"by ,the:Phase, ,III ,Site
Mitigation Plan Development Alternative ,does not appear to impose'anyadditional'hydrologicimpacts
comparedwith,the:projectas proposed. iItappears"toaddressthe:radical,diversionofdebris from the
.middledrainageway ,south tothe:southernmostidebris ,basin., '.'Themew !basin = design incorporates a
revised location that would .facilitate., capture of such, debris ',without'the'on-contour ,diversion swale.
The impact identified . for ,the ,project'.s ' proposed ,grading plan 'regardingseeped!soilsstill woUld occur
'with. ,the ,Phase' ,III,Site.,,,,Mitigation'Plan ,,;[)evelopmenf)'Alternative ,:and<'still'wouldrequire
=~implementation ,oLMitigationMeasure4.2,;,5.Also,atypographicaL,error' .is,corrected ,in the 1998
.;DSEIRtext as ,noted. '
Response 13.6 Comment noted. It.is agreed that implementation of the project sponsor's Phase III
"iSiteMitigation,Plan.,Dev.elopment,A.ltemative -would mot, increase ',air',qwW.ty,eniissions. >It,.a1so would
.' .,mot:causelocalviolations .ofrtheair,quality ,:standardsfolicarbon,monoxide.'Therefore"the.resulting air
,quality impacts ',would"be 'the : same as ,0rJessthan,;those;expected from implementing'the;project as
.r-proposed., " 'The:same:mitigation>measures identifiediIilthe :1998'DSEIR. would.apply '(Mitigation
Measures4.5-Ltbrough 4.5~3). '
:iResponse13.7 ,'.Comment noted. "Implementation ;of,thel'roject'sponsor' sPhaselIlSite:Mitigation
"Plan Development Alternative .>would ,restiltin.noiseimpactssimilar (totbose .expected from the
pr()ject. .,..Whe;same,measures, identified ,futhe DSEIRto mitigate.;noiseimpactsoftheproject would
apply"to ,thisalternative,(MitigationMeasures4.6,;Lthrougb 4;6-4).
"{..'-; :':::..::. -~.
.,' '. ". -,,: .', - .~. ";"~'
,ro"
,Re$pons~13.8.The;SouthSanFrancisco;PoliceDepartment(SSFPD):estimates impacts of new
"development in:, two ,ways. One is to; estimatethe.average :,annua1:numberofca11s'for:service (CFS)
attributable ,to ,the project. . The otheris .to estimate ,the additional police personnel 'required to serve the
>,project.,Both.estimates rely 'on land usetype.ansizeofbuildings. ' . ,
"The ,SSFPD,.uses<the,sameCFS and ',.personneL;ratios :.for.reffice' 'aridiIriixed:.use'development and
different rates .for;other,types :of,commercial1and :uses,' :;inc1UdingJlOtels, 're8taurants;and retail
,devel()pment..!Therate ,used to ,estimate ,:CFS!from;office ;andJIriixed:use',development" (4.00 .annual
CFS,per.l,OOO square feet) iSc'higherthanthe!rates,for otber:commercialuses',(see below.~1IlldExhibit
.-7.3-13jn,Master.Re~ponse .7.3-1). 'This. conceptisisummarizedas'follows,':assuming '340,000 square
feet each of.restaurant, retaiI;-and,mixed'useIoffice developmentfor:eomparative pUrposes: ' ' .
r
~_L
Letter 13-2
-:'?:';
:~~-
Land Use ,
.;., .......;. . . -,~:... :"~':;"":"". .. - " ;..'
;Comparison.of,Calls,forServiceby Commercial Land Use
SIze Calls for Service
',CFS 11.000 ~ uare eet
,1.'10
'1:50
'4.00
Wumber.o CFS
:374
510
1;360
, ,
, .
'CFSgeneratedby~hotelareestimatedonthebasis rifnuniberof roomsratherthansquare feet of
btiilditlg area (032:qs I room).' ,
., ." - . . .
.'. ........ . '-. - --,
In contrast'to CFS:'mixe(Luse / officedevelopmentfequire'g -the addition of fewerofficerpositions
than the typesof commercial land uses shown above.:}I'his;'concept similarly ,is summaiized below,
also assuming 340,000 square feet of restaurant, .retail,.and'rriixeduse Foffice development:
'Comparison ,of Increased Sfaffing Requirements. by ,CommerciafLand Use
'.,', "
,Land Use .-,. ~Size Swom.OHicer " ~Street.PatrDl Total
souareieet rale number 'rate number
Restaurant ' 340,000 396,360 0.86 582,727 '0.58 1.44
Retail 340,000 290,852 1.17 436,628 0.78 1.95
Mixed Use I Office 340,000 1,759,286 0.19 2,592,631 0.13 0.32
These cOlllparisonssho",thauhesame size building can' be e;pecte(Lto generate different numbers of
calls for service, due to the :!:Jpe of land uses ,while buildil;lgse~pected to generate a lar~enumbers of
calls for,servic:e still,maynotrequireJheaddition orca full, officer position. '. '
The 19981)SEll?e~timatesboth CFSJlIld';personneLrequirements,ofthe Terrabay,project (and
alternatives) usingSSFPDrates.The1998.DSElR_assessed the, effects of the,project.and . alternatives
using the threshold ,presented on DSEIR page 238 to determine the significance of increased CFS and
increased police staffing .requirements, This criterionois:theadditionof one full, officer.position or
patrol vehicle. Usingthiscriterion,the.1998 DSEIR concluded that the ,project and alternatives would
not have a sjgnificant impact on the SSFPD. NeithertheprQjectnor this alternative would result in a
significant impact . , ' , ' .
Altl10ughtbePhaseJIi Site Mitigaii~n 'piQi,,' De;,elopmeniAitel-naiivewould .generate more calls for
service than the project, implementation of the altemativewould,require .fewer additional police
;personnel,compared with ,the .number,expected with implementation .' of the, project as proposed. This
alternative would .require .the combined effort-. of about.o.52 additional officer, compared with 0.91
additional' officer. esfumlted for. ,the ,.prQject . (see ,Comparison .of Esti11Ulted Phase ,Ill Site Police
Se",iceNeeds on the f()llo~gpage). .. ," , ,
." '..... '-"'. -'..,. .
This' conc1usionis . baSedon.tlie:following Phase, III. Site, Mitigation Plan Development ,Alternative
assumptions of 340,.000 square feet of offices (Parcel A), a 7,5m-square foot quali~ restaurant (parcel
F), and 150 hotel rooms (parcel G) and the police personnel staff ratios shown above and in 1998
DSEIR Exhibit 4.7-1 (oneswom officer per1,759,OOO square feet of mixed. use development, the same
Letter 13-3
rate the SSFPD .uses throughout the East of 101 Area and the same rate the 1998 DSEIR used for
,.,':'.\pr~po~~h~~;:m ~et:l"u,.s~j~y'~!o'p~~~'~aofor~c:Wm.ua!ive develCJ.PIIJel1t)~2,
"" .,.. - .'" _._e,' ..,' ,''- ',' ." Po '" " _"'_:'-', _,' _' :-. - - ,_ -"'_.' ". . "._... ..-,,_h.'. .... "n," .- .;... . -- ,_ ..... _.,,',' -c".., _. _ .., ,_''''''''', .... '.., '. " ~ - .._. _.< __,'_ ' -i ~
""J'.",
...~ . '-';:..
. ',-','- ; - ;.' . . ,",,~, : ,.',' '". .::: -.' ".
· . JComparison .ofEstimatedPhase ,II/. Site ,Police SeiviceNeeds
(-
: " " , " '.. ... b .,.. "d ,,<., "'"
+and.,J.- , .!,,:',-~~ ---'-:, ':: ,.:.,Calls.far. Service , .'. 'SWom'OIficer C .." Street PIItro/; ',";':';;Tota/ NeedB
':.~" . '",",.. ".:':....,,'.'.':
',ProDOSed Phase,/II SiteProiect Develooment Proem !Tn ..',. ..",." '. ,,. :..:, , . .:,'
:..
, Size Rate .. Number :.Rate . ,Number Rate ; Number
Hotel 600 032 192 , 1,356 .0.44 1.950 0.31 0.75
Mixeci'Use 1 ,35 '4.00 : 140 1 ;759;286 . 0.02 , 2;592.631 '. :0.01 0.03
Restaurants 18 1.10 20 396,360 '0:05 " '582.727 Oi{)3 0.08
Retail 10 1.50 15 290.852 0.03 436.628 0.02 0.05
. TotiJ/. ". ., "". ,,: . : ~ i 367 .- , '0.54 '0.37 0.91
Phase i/ll Site Mitiaation"PlanDeveloDmentAltsmative
, " ,Size ' .,Rate .', iNumber ,Rate ',' Number ,',,' "Rate .Number
Hotel 150 0.32 48 1.356 0.11 1.950 0.08 0.19
Mixed Use 1 347.5 4.00 1.390 ,( 1,759.286 ,:0.20 2.592,631 0.13 0.33
Total .. '1;438 - .... '031 '0.21 0.52
"
r
!
a Size indicates: the :amount of space by usegivcnmnumber of rooms for hotels and in thousands (1 ;000) ofsquare feet
'b . 'Annual calls for service (CFS).~'Rate shows CFS, per hotel room and perl,ooo sQuare feet of other commercial use,
. c 'Rateshows'oeed' to emplqy'one'( I)'additional swom,officerperthe number of square feet given. ',..
d Rate Shows neecho assjgnoneadditional'swom officer to street patrol1lCtivit}' per the number ofsquarefeetgiven.
,e Number ofswomofficers.and street patrol personne1poSitions.(Fewer than '1.0 would bealess-than_significant impact)
f . Flex-space and mixed-use commerciaHthe category used by theSSFPD for offices).
"''Tliisconclusion "is:based'C(jn;:the,folloWingc,Phastl1TSite'::Mitlgation.Plait DeiielopmentAlternative
,~. i:assumptions of340,OOO 'squarerreet,ofoffices(parcel iA),'a 7;SOO-square!foot.<qu8lity;.restaurant (parcel
'F), and 150 'hotel:tooIDS:(parcel'G) andthe;policeopersonneLstaffratios.shown above and in 1998 ;-
DSEIRExhibit 4.7-1 (one swomofficer per 1,759,000 square feet ofmixe(j use development, the same
ratetbe"SSppD uses throughout the {East 'of '101 Area 'and the 'same 'rate "the 1998 DSEIRused for
proposedPhaseffi mixed:usedevel<?pme~taI1d fOiCuniUJ.ative'dev~lopment).3 ' ,
'--".~ ";'::':~ 'f~;;:/:': i. .:_:~, ."~ -: ~ -, ". . -. '.'.; ':~<1 ;':. ~. .~\ . ',_
,- . . " '-. . "," - ',--',-.
'Response '13.9 "The :Ph~e "~m-site'is:'1ocatedin'the' ':Brisbane' 'S~b6or'.District'(BSD),as ,is the
proposed 'Point, neighborhood on .the'Phase n site. Thesponsor's~Phase IIISiteMitigation Plan
DevelopmentAlternative would not alter the estimated number ofschool-'age residents of the Point (82
students)(seeImpact 4.7-7). However, the .Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Deve1opmei1t Alternative
would chaIlge the estimated number of stu~nts attributable to Phase, ill site. develqpment.
;::':'.~".';'.'-"".',,\.~-',_:' ....,~;_:' ,"-":;:'_-;'__"-; :::;""',_::'::'" ,.:_':,:'~' ',__' :-'.,1....
, The;BSD usesasnlderi( generatioiinlteofl;O stuaentper:130to240newjobs. ',"The Phase III Site
'Miiigatiol1Plan"DevelopmeiitAlterluitive 'cowdereaieapproximately 1~851jobson' the Phase ill site,
as discussedfuiMaster''1lespimse 7.3-1. 'These 1,8S1"'employees, "m:turn, '.coUldgenerate eight to 14
BSD ,studenrs;'compared"with'apprOxllnately .720-780 employees and an estimated 'three, to six new
students attributable to the project' sPhase ill development concept. This conclusion .isbased on the
same development assumptions discussed in the ~elypreceding response (340,000 square feet
"ofoffices,a7,500-square .loot restaurant,' anda:150-roomhotel)andalsaonthe applicant's
emplo~eIltfact~~;(qsed'f?r consisieJlC)' wi~*e1998 .DSEIRanalysis oftbe;project .and other
: '.~->
',' .~-::..-.
2
Nichols. Bennan conversation with Sargent Mike Massoni. Crime Prevention / Planning / Traffic. City of South San
Francisco Police Department, August 28. 1998.
3 Nichols. Bennan conversation with Sargent Mike Massoni. Crime Prevention / Planning / Traffic. City of South San
Francisco Police Department, August 28. 1998.
Letter 13-4
'. alternatives) of 1..0 empl<>,yee,per 200 squareJeet obetail, ,restaurant,an~;office development and '0.75
employeeperhotelroom(seeMaster~!p'onse 7~?1).. ' '-, '
.'." .. <.' '. - .
Land Use
Pro osed Pro 'eet
Hotel 36()';600 rooms'
'Mixed Use- " J5;600 arefect. .
Restaurants; '18;OOOs are'feet
Retail .10;OOO,s areJect
Total
PhaseJ//Site :Miti 'Stion BlanDevela mentAltemative
Hotel 150 rooms 0.75. 10 eesIroom :0.5-0.9
Mixed Use 347,500 s uareJect l.oo.em 10 /200 5 areJeet ,7.2-13.4
Total 1.851 7.7-14.3
a The project sponsor identified all the employee generation rates ShOWD above and also indicated that the Phase m project
'would employ atotalofapproximately72()':780 people, as described below in the main text of this response.
b The sponsor assumed development of an average.of 180 rooms per hotel (for a total of 540 rooms), compared with the
360 to 600 potential rooms.requested bythe.sponsor in the:pending Specific Pltm Amendment for the site.
,."c The sponsor estimated 405 employees (0.75,employee per room and assuming'540 rooms) whereas 360,.600 rooms would
generate 270-450 emplo.yees. ..'... ..,. ".',
dThe 1998 DSEIR used the range of 720,.780 eti1ployees identified by the project sponsor. 720 employees represent the
sum of 405 hotel employees plus 315 other employees (for 720 toOO employees), as discussed infootnotes b and c, above.
, ,780 -employeesrepresenttheprojectsponsor~ s'!worstcasc",or ','conservative:" estimate.
'e 720,.780 employees:would~ult in three to six new students. , .
, ,
.' "Compafl'sDn' oiEsti;:nBted':Employme;;ti~~d,St~dent:Generation
Job Rate. Jobs Student Rate Students
Size
"1.1-3.5
. '0.7-1.4
0.4-0.7
"0.2-0.4
2.4-6.0 .
During preparation of, the 1998 DSEIR,the project sponsor, providedtwo:estimates .ofcommercial
employees for the project using one set of employment density ratios and two sets of hotel sizes. The
resulting estimate was a range of 720-780 total employees:which~accounted for thotel "plus other
commercial land uses (mixed use, restaurant, and retail uses) proposed for the Phase ill site. This
. difference ;in'total:iemployment partly ;reflectsthe::proposed"railge' 'of 36Q...600hotehroomsand partly
.reflectsca '!worst. case"estimate,:for.tthe ',purpose of. analyzing.:'the "project .' conservatively. The
"conservative",estimateassumestotal:of.780 'employees,(butdoes,not account for employees by land
use) (DSEIR page 41). The 72O-employee:estimate :assumes 405hotelrooms ,(plus :315 employees - a
"constant" number -for the other commercial land uses proposed on the Phase ill site by the project).
'The .ElR:consultant,tested,the . project . ,.sponsor' s'employment .~estimates ",ming, ,;the' "sponsor's
employment density ratios and.the.. amounLof.commercialdevelopment,proposedc;(360-600 hotel
rooms plus the other mixed use, restaurant, and retail uses). The range in hotel size would generate
270450 employees for 360-600.hotel rooms,-respectively.'These 270-450 hotel employees, combined
with ,the 315;, other employees, ('tconstant" jfor:the'others commercia11and':uses ),',wollld 'result in 585-
765 total employees. on the Pbase llIsite.Basedonthese'ranges, -720~ 780 total employees estimated
,by.the project.sponsor,and,585-765 totalemployees'estimated,by the'EIR'consultant :-Jand'in keeping
withitheapproach \ofrevea1ing. ~'conservarive'~,estimates,'.thed 998 ,DSEIR ,uses 72Q.;.780,employees
.althoughthedensity".ratiosresult in 58S.:.765 employees. "
:. .; ~ --'
. .,. .
',The,DSEIR, and FSEIR,.analyses :,ofP.hase:ID.site development;altematives,used::theiproject. sponsor' s
employment density ratios. For the Phase III Site Mitigation.Plan.DevelopmentAlternanve's land
uses, the employment density ratios result in 1,851 employees. They, in turn, would generate an
estimatedeighLt014 :students to ;BSD . schools. ",The Phase; III ,:Site Mitigation9Plan "Development
Alternative ~seight itO 14 new · students from' the Phasem site, combined,with:82. students .from the
Phasen,point(a total of 90-96 new students ) would : equal or exceed the estimated numbers ofBSD
students attributable to both the 1998 project as proposed (85-88 total new students) and .the 1996
Letter 13-5
r-
( .{
. . . ... .'
'Project :'(90new"stUdents).::Nevertb~less, "base(r'ori)fue'~~can~':'Criteria':availabl~,'to .lnakea
determination ,of impact. additional studentsattrlbutable:to . the "PliaSe 1I/'Site.MitigationPlan
DeveloPment, Alte~e_woul~ .,not .const.!tutea significant,impact under CEQA; the State EIR
:\0~:;:~:G~lines,';aD,~.rele, van, :,:,.'S~U~9~~ons;:~;~?("~~:,,~~a::+~~:1~::'2?:.~:,:-.~:-: ,;;'.",':,:;:.;::,:"...
. . .~ .~.
:".:):;:,;~..".:~.:P' ; .,/,;.~~~;:\'~:ff~:~;~:,,~~::",.~j:~.,.:,..';.'.::'_ ," ,~:-. '~;:;'~,"";"-".;,::',:. _ ':"'::,.::'~~- . '_",.; _
"'Response,13.10ThecommenHs'conect"-Hazaids:'and'associated'regulatory~ments iesul.ting
from aeria1!ydepositedoleaddoiI(5f'reliite-fo~ilevelopinenfof the TeiTabayPhaSem site,. olll.y to. the site
c.of theproposed;',hookrantpsCODstru~c!Ji:~;j':;Baysp~'Bo1ilevardre~gnment.:1iaz8rds attributable
:to exposure toelectmmagnetic:fields}riniilady.:QO ;noti't~1ate:~ Aev~lopillent"of:.th~:TerrabflY Phase ill
",site, orily..t().the"f>>hase'fi COmmons neighborhoOd,cro.ssoo1:JyelectIic81:tranSiDission lines. .{::. .
. . ,_ . "" _. . - ... ", 0" . " .:,.;.;.....:.,. ~. _ . .
~'=
, ' ,
'Response '13:11 Co~ent ackno;lec:iged.:~ThiS;;t~~;tient'iiescri~~.ih~;d~~ei~p~Ilt'coricept of the
;project fjpoDsor'sPhase II/Site Mitigation 'Plan Development Alternative.' "'The.altemative is analyzed
. . in Master, Response ,7.3-1. ',' ;The .commenfis~'coirecfin:stating that 'the amount and location of grading
,w'ouldbereduced,and,wouldnotextend.aS farnortbangwest with inwlementation ofthealtemative,
comPared with where and h~wmucbJand ,wouldbe"distuIbedJ:>yimplementingthe.project.
Response;13.12..The'signalized entrance to thenorth,part ofthePhasem site proposed' by the project
sponsor'snewPhaseIIISiteMitigation PlanDeviilopmentAltemativeworild :be'located. farther from
the hook ,ramp, intersection ,', than the, signalized access. to, the Phase ill project analyzed in the 1998
DSEIR.The altemative location. would be better from aNehicle: sto~e,.stan4point. Thealtemative' s
unsign3llzedright turn in Lr:i.ght.,turn,.,outrdriveway ,connectingthe';parking '.garageshouldoperate
,acceptably ,during most periods, although ;'by.20 lOritcould'experience:a\fewperiods ,during the
evening commute :when, outbound movements would be blocked by .trafficbacked IIp from the hook
';'ramps intersection:signal."'" ' ";,,;'
7JResponse'13.13:As',the1998 DSEIR,indicates,'inq:Hementation, of Mitigation 'Measures 4~1-2 through
04.1-6 'would ,reduce the "severityioLimpact,todess-than-"significani levels.';Responses .13.21 through
13.26.:presentspecificresponses 'to;modificationsto.these,measures requested bythecommentor and
,discussthe'effectivenessofmeasuresasproposedto.be modified by the:projectsponsor.
Response 13.14 Comment noted. In the absence of substantiating technicalinfonnation, theEIR
, "hydrologist:cannot.confirm,whetherdn '<fact . the measures ,cited '(Mitigation'Measmes 4.2~3 through
04.2-7 and 4.2-10) have.beenincorporatecheVisedprojectplans;" ' .
~
,Response 13.15 The .1998 ~DSEIRev.a1uationof:,parking'supply<proposed:forcommercial
(develQpment onthe.Phasemsiterecognizesthatfma1: decisions"havenot been made about the mix of
.".\office ",and 'other; commercial land ',uses;m iPhasem." . iFori this , 'reason; ' the '1998.DSEIRrecommencls
reviewof;patking.demands oncetheland;usemix::is ;defined and recognizes that there likely would be
"opportunities' for shared parking iwith:land ,uses which 'generate cdemand'forparking at different times
of the day. It also may be appropriate:to'ConsiderTDMITSMprograms,"referericed'inthe writer's
,.preceding paragraph, in assessments of overall parking requirements.A.snotedin Response 13.4,
,~suchprograms .maybe:effective:withasingletenimt' orseveiallargetenants"but'arenot'aS effective for
.projects,:withmanY,'different, tenants. '
,Response,13.16 The' project should prOmote;;ptibIic.transit.(Such asproViding,tran'SitShelters and bus
:stops,ortllmarounds.,etc;).The;project could,;provide ,'Shuttle'serviceto'thepribIic . 'to transport
passengeruomajorJransit centers (such as to accommodate;officeworkers oihotelguests). '
Letter 13-6
iRespo~se.13..17'oC<?mment,no~... ,',
.'. .. '. . -,
.. :'; - --~;
,', -~. ". ,.:....:"'-.. -.
'.;.:..:, i
" '- .,' . ..
." -..,. ~ .,';C. ..~..'.-'-
,.'Re.trp~~se;1~~183ndisagreeing,With.the~1998.;DSElRrsconCluSic:)Dthatthefill-and cap would have an
adverse impact on(;thesite,duetoccimpaction,~.the . project 'sponsor ''must .alsobe in disagreement with
the sponsor's archaeological consultant (HolIIJanand Associates),'ElI{ geologist, 'and the Native
,American 'commumty':on ;this 'issue;':''See. 'Re$jlo1lSe':~3.~6'for 'aCiititio.Iliil discussibn ','r~~g ,fill,
'compaction;:and 'adverSe :impacts;"'..Tbe excaWtiOit pian' as 'mftigation .was,' presented by the sponsor' s
archaeological consultant in the Febmary 1998 report as a means of Iilitigating'impacts of the project
as proposed in January 1998. Therefore, it was pres~ted in the. 1998 D~EIR .as Mi4ga,tion Measure
:4.9-1 (a) 'since itcoinpIies With :;CEQA requiremell~' (as does 'the:preferreailternative "Mitigation
'Measure4.9.:t(b )). .', 'Based on the arguiIren~ ,pJ:l::~f?n~.the'L.ea4,:J\gen~y mustdecidejf filling and
'cappingwotildresilltinsigriificaIit'inIpacts due to site compression and determine' the 'lippropriate
'niitigation'measur( '. .
Response 13.19 The new 4'MitigationPlan" (Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Development
Alternative) would be consistent With.Mitigation Measure 4.9-1(b}. See Master Response 7.3-1 which
discusses the impact 'of this alternative. ' .
Response13.201tis'itrue.that.theproject'wouldhave no direct inIpacts onCA':'SMa":92,since it is
located 'outside 'the'proposedPhaseIDsitedevelopment and grading area. However, development of
"both the 'Phase n'andID sites worildincreasepubIic presence of San Bruno Mountainin.general and
the archaeological' site ~in particular'(DSEIR page 296, Impact 4.9-2). For darity, the following
revision will be made in'the Certified'EIR(DSElR page.296 third pizrqgraph): '
,..;p.:~'
:).....
.,~,":",
""',
:.:t"
:Development of-the ',TerrabayPhase in and 'illsiteSwotild illcreasethe'recre8tionaJ. uSeofpriblie
parldands and open space onSan'~B.runoMountain,inehidingioottraffie'onexisting and improved
trails, one of which traverses this small site. While no direct, construction-related impacts would
result . from .' the':project, le&g ,lefm,' ~indirect'cumulative :.impacts :areapossibility .';Even<the most
benignof"curjous' .'visitors can be yeJ!;pected ,to trample, ',pick~up :andpoke 'around.on..aknown
'.archaeolo,gicaLsite..:: :,' '.'. .','" .
The ,project.sponsor',s,statementthatplacillg'"iill ,Jc1lpping)on,.CA-SMa-92 ,maybe .infeasible due to
steep topography' and difficult access hasmerit.,AlsQ,commentsonth,e 1998 DSEIR from the Native
American community include strong opposition to capping either of the Terrabayproject site
archaeological..,resources_.,.The ",'~ ,a.rchaeo1Qgist,.would "becomfortable'with,;a .,revision in
recommended.MiqgationMeasure 4.9.,,2.(DSEII(page 296) as JOllows: .', '
. '-.. _, ,,~ ..1.' ~...: .. ',_ . _.,' . ~_ ,0",' _' " '.
~Mitigatioil' 'Measure4.9-2CA-SMa~92shouldbeprotectedfr~mdamageresultingfrom
increaseauseinandaround the archaeological site area. The following measures would mitigate
'potentially significantimpacts on thiJi.,archaeological site: ." ,
.". ,~)'..~ ..c_, ";., "
..'.ThepFejesispeB5ef Hi te1:HiiJ;'sk8t:i1~~ee9~ {~e~ Iss~9ft, anEl the CSlm~Y slu3H1E1
'lleRReenhe ~eaeteether.tRIilsiBthe13ark via a rSYte'.~;hieB -..,eHlEl w/eiEl C.^.SMa 92.
'This;messYfe may iR~lyde elesatiagaR)'eJiistiftg tfails erFElUblS whish iH$iftge eft tke
8f'8Baeelegisal site.
. '.
· The..~jest!ij3eBSer ,s8eHlEl ..sElfl"C.....$Ma92 "Nitha shitllsw cla-yeref fill' t131'eRa the
~efesi...enatHfe af RYIB8B "/4sitatieB &Ba kelf! maiRt&iRthe, iRleg:ri~' sftAe, site asaJlsteBl:ially
imJlsitant aREI BRiElye 8fshaeelegisal resswse. 'This sasl:lla Be eSlBpletea eefere CSYBty
asseJlts aeaisatieR ef the parsel whish C}.SMa 92 is leslHea.
· The Droiect monsor and the County should develoD a monitorinl! DrOlrram in which the site
is inspected re1!Ularlyfor damage or distUrbance resulting from increased Dubhe use of the
. Lea=- 13-7
area. In the event that Dublic visitation is haVinl!"8n ':adverse'imDact' on":CA~SMa:92. 'then
additional measures should be imolemented.Native American consultation should be
:;included. . MitiriQonmeasures 'mav"consist;()f ,JencinE...sismal!e.'sluillowCaDDml!. and
" ,.",.' ,:^~..::,I;~af~~;~:~;:;:.nt trails"~~~:~:jh,t~::~~~~:.~:~~s"~:'~:.t~:i~.:,..;,:~,:,,, ."".,i.'" ...,' ,.
.:The .P~j~!,.~P~~pJ,"~5s:!yoiFtgJh..;;~~..~~ Jfa~g it;Ftouc~~"(fAcconli,J1g,t~ th~ State
'CEQA GuUkll1les.pmt" ~J;e,achieyed },1y;avolCiillg ,unpacts"djr~t"or,mdirect, J~y~conS1dering the
Permanent Qp~n;$pace)llie.T.rzt1.tiye., ',' . . '.
.,; ...:-. '"...: ''-;_'.'".:.:.- ......,..; "',~;,_..:.~~:.. #...._._.....''-.:,:.....>..,..~.l.,~_,
..: -.:: : [,':: -:>....,>::..:~c:, ',.' ,~'.::.~ .:":" ';.~.:~ "-:'"',: ':"_ .~:-..:.y : . -_~.:._~.~;.::-:-.,~.. ..: :;;-,'y.:.':-.::::~;.~:<:;.r.",: ~_' ." .,:.~',-:\'-;~'.:'" _:'.~'." ,', . .: -".:; i;-:{-: ;.:. '_~' , _: ;': . .:..~~ :';-', ":--/: ':";;.'
, ,Respo,.#!~13.2.1 )L~.,~q:~tOO(t ~,::~<?P.~i,~q ,feet"<means, . that:~yiew of .localized conditions
'duringiliefinal.grai:liJ'!gmay indicate more close1.y'~paced benches. The projectsponsor~sandJ or the
"'City's, constiltants.woUldp~ent sUch.,potential inOdifiCatl()DS ,lothe City ,Engineer for reView and. final
approval.' 'This reView'precess'is' standard for grading projects of ' this type.and.~asusedsuccessfully
on Phase I. Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 remains as originally identified in the 1998 DSEIR.
Response 13.22 'This referenced part oCMitigationMeasure 4.1-2 ,is ,not related simply to
geotechnical issues "for retaining' walls. 'It is up to the City'sconsultanLto evaluate ,the project
sponsor's proposal from a geotechnical standpoint, but retaining walls higher than ten feet have Visual,
aesthetic, and ,other factors which need to be approved by ,theCity.,Engineer,,131lildiI1g..Imipection, and
Planning Department., Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 remains as ,.originaUy ,,identified .in:the .1998 DSEIR
with respect to the retaining walls on the proposedPhasell and ,illsites.,J'here are specific exceptions
Within theCaltrans right-of-way,:whichw.ould, requirean,unsteppe<Lretaining, wall.upto ,18 ,feet high.
This wall would be located .aloIlgthe .southbound.;U~S.,lOL,on':ramp (hoolcraIllp)...The"flyover"
would partly ,block views" of this wall, but the ~sualiIDPact of an I8-foot high exposed wall could be
softened some.whatthro~gh '~aceireatments.,(suchasJUSe.iof.texturesandJ)ormosaics), similar, to
. ,what Caltrans hasdone()n ,soundwalb ;elsewhere on .V:S.10l.
t-
~
:". ,:.-; .'T '.... .;~',._ . . ~.."''': '_' .;; .'.- ~.:,:>:,' :~' ::r.;-'{i, ,....'.,.',;
Response 1323. As,currently;elesignec:l,: nu:!pencut.slopes .,proposed'for ;theiCommons neighborhood
,would,be15:1incover'sediments'and existingqandSlide materiaL These 'slopes 'would not be feasible
as proposed and need to be modified (flattened, retaining structures, etc.)> 'Because the upperparts of
the existing slopes are near the HCPfence,potential modifications need to be done on the lower parts
cifthe slopes. ;Such modifications may.affect the layout oftheroaw(and bUildings. 'The 1998 DSEIR
,text-has not been changed in response to thiS comment: "
.' .:-~\.:; . ..:.
'-. ,~, - \; , ~ ,~.,
",:.....'.....,
. . .".... .;",".
. Response .1324 ,It is'importanttoreview:itheconditions'of the cut ,slopes'~r',th~y'.h.aveexperienced
elevated moisture conditions. ':Grading for'Phase'Iwas completedduring:thedrOugh~>and the slopes
were not, rea1l"y t,esteduntil the 1991, ""Marc,., ," b. Mirac", Ie". Ideall,' "_"y,, slop, e, s".woul"", d""" ex:,...,.,;pe"""", .,ri,ence anE! Nino
type'season.after'revegetarionhasbeeri.establishedand befo~ homes'are 'uric;ler .Eons~ction at their
'base. It is not ambiguous to Withhold lots :below theseslopesuntilth~yhav.eexperiencedan average
winter rainfall of about 20 inches. According to 'the project sponsor's geotechnical consultant, slope
monitoring instruments (inclinometers~.pi~zo~te~}wouldbe ,p1aced.on.thesl()pesto monitor their
response togradiIig andwinter,rains.4.,SiInila!instniments,were,usedsuccessfully during Phase Land
some. are still beiIlg monitored, ,.14itjgation ,Measure4.1-2.1remains;,as.originally:identifiedin the 1998
DSEIR.' .
===
The .1998..DSEIR,identified ,Mitigation Measure .4.1-2(b }'to:mitigate',significant psi ope stability and
. "erosion ,impacts'ofsite:development ':asproposed.. 'This"'l'DeaStire~ is · different-from Mitigation Measure
4 :EricMcHuron(EIR geOlogist) conversationS VnthGary Parikh (project sponsor' S geOtechnical consultant), Parikh
'Consultants.,Ine. .' .'
Letter 13-8
4.1,.5(a) to mitigate significant impac~ from,pIat:ementof artiqcial,r:illforsi~deveIopment, despite
,the reference to ,postporiingdevel()ptrient'fora 'cc:)Jlstructton season,agone of several, ~OaChes from
'which the pr()j~t. s.pon~or ~~s~J~!.~:~~sM1~in:Jpac~~~~ri~~~,''Ii.is''i~'?~~'tC;tnotethat it is
'the responsibility' of the project sponsor's geote'chriicalconSUltant to .propose a' system offill control
and settlement monitoring which would minimi7.e the:adverse impacts of differential settlement offill
~eas."", ,.:rf,:f.lll,i~;i.P:r~c~~.~;!1D.~rg().JI.~T:,!!~u~..sc;!tlero~~~~p.,,~,~,,;~,~;::#~ted in' Mitigation
Me~ 4.1 -~(l;l)..need ,: to:,b~AmpleIllented~:;If.additionaLsettlement.is Epredicted;when the fill has
'e",p~rienced.saturation,,~ue.;to, ab~ve..average.,rainfaU.andd:or,landscape ;irrigation, then 'additional
,mitigation;measures .wouldbe, required~,,~Such~mitigationmeasures',maydnc1ude;:deeper foundations,
'pre-we~gth~.'c()Q;lplete(t'fill,.:monito~g;the:moistl1re;andiSettlementof;;the ; fill, ,',etc. All of these
.,,:mitigation;measures.,:need 'to. be:PrQposed"by:the;project!..sponsor~s}geotechnical,,:consultant for review
'andapproval:by,theCitYJsEngineeraIid';City~.s :Geologist:'~:';';t' . ,
'-;';"'~; ;,~.,.' .:-'.':;",
'11',...
Response 13.25 'CoIDineIitacknowleqgecf"The' suggestea modification 'to Mitigition Measure 4.1-3
has been made as follows:"" ",'... """'.,"
Mitigation ,Measure i4.1-3(b) The , project's Covenants, ,Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
shall establish and ,provide . for "implementation, of. a~SlopeMaintenanceP.lan ,l::Jythe'project's
:Property Owners Associations(OwnersAssociations).... The projectsponsorshalLprovide initial
.fundingforthe Slope ManagemenLPIan,and . the Property Owners Associations, shall fund Jong-
term implementation.after.receiving. title to . their ,respective 'private open ~ace.lands. (At a
minimum, ,the SI()peMaintenancePlan ishallprovide ' for. monitoriijgang, maintenance of
eijgineered .slopes, perimeter..drainage,pebris, slide 'retention; ,:and,deflection ',' structures. " ... For
Phaseill.thereauirements ,for. .the .Slone ,Maintenance Plan mav,bemet bv ,an ,alternative
,.'document to CC&Rs.,suchas.,the formation 'of,a,'Geolol!ic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD).
,subiect to review and aDoroval bv the City Attornev .Ielli,pse~referto f.ootnotes retainedin~the text
'bufnot~producedhereJ. . ". , ' ,
Response132~'1:'h~)n()dmc~on suggeste~hy'thisL:oimnent is silisfact()ry'an~Lhas'been made in
the CertifiedSEjR,.'.'~foll()ws:
Mitigation Measure 4.1-5(a) The Precise Plan shall be revised to indicate the measures
prqpose(Lto mitigate.differentiaLsettlement impacts ,'expected from 'developmentdn.Terrabay Point
,onareasofdeepor,;varied fills...~, ',One oracombinationof.the following: approaches shall be
'incoIporatedintoj>rQject plans:
,'.
'.
'.
.Response ,13.27'The' presence 'of a "Sanitary "sewer line ,on the OhIone" shellmound, whether or not it
; has. a sleeve 'around it oran'AWWAC '900 -pfessurepipeisrequired, probably would be unacceptable
to the 'Native Americancorimmnity. . Objections' to'fill, utilities, etc. onthe site inre~onse to the 1998
DSEIR have been very clear. '
"EIRpreparersconcurtbat. the sewer 'lirie" shoUld be constIUcted. to . preclude the' chance of ,leakage
through the archaeologicaIsite~.'TeCbn(jl()gyiS available ,to relocate the. proposed .sanitary sewer
around 'the archaeological site without haVing . to cross ,over it in " aipennarient, easement. Therefore,
.Mitigation'Measuie 4.1-5(b) remains as 'origimiijy',identified in ,the 1998 DSEIR.
,Letter 13-9
~
'j
i
r
:J
i
..
1
:Response:13:.29;As .:the.1998/DSEIR'indicatesin 'the''s1lII1IIlary'''statement'.onDSEIR page 154,
impacts on nativefreshwater'marsh,and ;riparian";habitatand'Iemnant'stancls'ofnativegrasslands would
,be significant. . Without. a: salvage, component ,.to ;the,'proposed 'resteration,,'plan, "anticipated impacts
would icontinueto 'besignificant:.,While lanclsto:be"dedicated 'as open space under the Habitat
'Conservation Plan (HOP) would:protectnative vegetation on this 'part'of'the site, additional native
'Cover would 'be dost 'within the 'development 'area for 'whichno replacement'mitigation has been
proposed 1aspart'of.:the'project.MitigationMeasures 43-1 (a) and (b) were recommended to minimize
:thelossfof-the .,remaining Isensitive;mtt\mll,.commuIiities"oiFth.e'site~'andi,to;proVide';'for. the salvage of
, ~:native :lplant 'material 'which :',woUld"otheIWise'be;ellmln~ted.:;"These 'measmes "are required to fully
mitigate ; potential 'impacts 'of the projec{cOD'sensitive natural-communities::-and<important wildlife
habitat. The intent of Mitigation . Measure 4.3-1(b) was to proVide forthe'salvageof native plant
material\yhich wOuld:belost~~~sul!. ()f,develqpIllent throught1'a,I1sp~ant lUld :Seed.c~llection efforts
now practlcedas part of therestoration~profession~'Theinteni of the measUre is not to require the
project sponsor to save every single native plant within the limits of grading but ,to use them where
possible and feasible as, part of restoration. 'In response to the comment, Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 (b)
has been revised as follows to clarify the intent of the recommendation:
.<Mltigation'Messure4.3-1(bJThe'proposc:dRestorationPlarifor:theprojectshall be revised to
,:,-include;;anadditionalcomponenFwhichprovides for the 'selective: use salvagedf native plant
materialasa seeethat otherwise would be eliminlltf'..das' a reSUlt of grading ana development. The
scope of the salvae:e, effort shall be determined bv the proiect 'SDOnsor's vel!etation specialist
. resDonsible, for implementinl! : the ':Restoration;Plan,and'shalbconsider'nroven success rates and
availability from other sources~in tanretinl!,specific,species.'.MethodsofDlant material salva2e
.mav ,inc1udetransolantine:. .seed,collection, and'flTopal!ation.anduseof,cuttinl! from on-site
vel!etation. Transplantinl! shalJ..,be;performedwith~salval!e;materialid~gtheoptimumperiod
necessary to ensure plant survival, generally in the fall and early spring months, with material
storedin~a .teJD,porary.grow,ing ,area jf, necessary "and eventually"tral1$.Plantedonto,slqpeswhere
,restoration is ,to occur, fOllowing,final..grad4J.g,andsoitpreparatioD. .' Any, plant, saJ.v~e : and seed
'collection operation shaI1 be restricted . toth~ li~its, offinal.gradingtQ :;~v.ent. the Jurtherloss of
'Dative species in permanent open space areas."" ',' .,. ... ,., .,..' " ". '.,., .
lL-.
Response 13.3,0 .Asdiscussed on DSEIRpage 158, the;potential direct and 'indirect in;1pacts of the
project on 'the carnppeSi1v~f:would becon'Siaered.sigriificant under CEQA. In . his letter report
" contained 'in 'DSEIR Appendix '7.4 BiiJlogy,' Dr ; Amold States that adult caIlippe silverspot .were rarely
observed within:thePhases'n 'and Jllareas compared with other parts of themountain,but qualified
,this by assuming that less time probably was spent on monitoring' the projeCt sitesince'it previously
had been approved for development and was partly graded. 1998 DSEIR recommendations related to
;
, ,
Letter 13-10
~~
..;'~.
biolQgywerebased ionthe.sixmitigation,measures.:'developed :by,Dr. '1\rnold. (page S'Of.1his letter
,~port).Thesemeasures .were .conso1idated~into;Mitigation,MeasureA.3.;.2,.;which requires ',fulfillment
,of the'1ando~erldeveloper.Db1igationidenti:fiedin~the!HCp,completeavoidanceof ,.an of the larval
::host;;l,1antJViola; pedunculata) if.,;theproject ..~nsor;;does"not,:obtain ,an.'mnended'incidental take
..pem:rit, ~ and.;additi~na1 ,provisiolW4:0~~ini~i7~;potentiaLin1pacts oLthe,,project lon ..callippe ,Silverspot.
Theseadditional,tproVisions iinClude:av;oic;IiIJg~'hostlp1ants :to;.thexgreatest 'extent,posSible.'-revising
the proposed :RestorationPlan'torrequire~salvage .andtransplanLof:Iarval ;hostplants'andaduIt nectar
plants, . installing signs to warn park users against illegal activities (such as poaching), and using
;appr()prlate;dust,control ,measures.:Additiomil.measures '~toniitigatepotential': iInpactsi"On-1cal1ippe
silveI'$Pot,beyond,the-JandownerI,developenobligations oLthe;HCP, ,are consistent 'with "CEQA and
,the determination;that"potentiatiInpacts;would'~be ~'8ignUicant.'.The, ,HCP, ' and:.its ,;associated land
dedication ..andhabitat'restoration:provisions;;were'prepared~to uaddressthe. pemiit''I'equirements of
Section 1O( a) of the Endangered Species Act, not necessarilythe.enYironmental protectioD'afforded by
CEQA.Contrary to the contention made by the commentor, additional mitigation measures can be
,required. of the project 'sponsor pursuant.to.the:findings 'of significance ,under'CEQA.Refer to Letter
12fof'comments .and responses ",to;concemsexpressed:by.the U ;S. Fish. and Wildlife :Serviceand to
. MasterRe~ponse .7.3-9. regarding ,the 'statns,ofthe Hep ,amendment which 'would, allow for incidental
,take ofcallippe'~silvellpotand.larvalhostp1ants Within :the proposed development area.
~.
Response 13.31 In instances where preparation of detailedmitigationplansiisnot'possibleduring the
CEQA review process, recommendetlmitigation must be of sufficient detail. and specificity to ensure
feasibility.and:successful. implementation,',~Refer 1to .theMasterResponse7.-3.;.-a on 'wetlaIids .for a
sunn:nary ,addressing,the,adequacy\ofthe!conceptwllmitigationplanproposed by the 'project sponsor' s
. wetland consultant and~optionsavailable 10 meet apparent deticiencies;~Mitigation 'Measures ~4.3-3(a)
:and(b) . were JeCommendedto 'provide'ior,protection!Of sensitive .wetlandresources; withrep1acement
,habitat:'requiredwhere.complete.avoidance~'WasfDot 'feasible"'~gardless.of-W'hether;replacemenfhabitat
.isprovided,on-'or'off...site~,'rDetailsregarding;theirecommended wetland mitigation plan are consistent
;with.themitigation~delines:developed~by theCorps:and 'wouldbe'reqWredof'the,project''SpOIlsor
tanyw~y. :Therefore,' nO!1nconsistencies;are'.antieipatedbetween 'mitigation'reqtiirements'of1:heCorps
and:1998. :SEIR.:/Umd.area':exists,oD thePhase'm'site;to ,provide ,for additional 'replacement of
;:wetlands Jost,asa:result.of the.prriject,:and,the 'Jiniits:of development'shoUld'be restrictedas'.necessary
to provide for at least,partial,on-site.rep1acementDr?enhancement:'Thefact that'preservingtheexisting
wetlands or providing at leastpartial on-site replacement habitat may impinge on the proposed
',' ,approach to ',development does not,'mean ,that:recommended. ,'wetland mitigation 'is "~,rinfeaSible If, only
~ thatrevisions,tothe,project are:necessary,:;as.reflectedin :the ~changes"proposedby"the"projectsponsor
,,,andassessed,in Master Response ,7..3-1.:Jn xesponse:tothe :conunent,MitigationMeasure 43';'3(b) has
;been,revised asindicated,below to jsimply:indicatesthat on..site'mitigation>forwetlands lost: as',a result
~ofdevelopment;wou1dbe .' preferable;hut.to :allowflexibility.dn<meeting'thec'reqriirements ,of
jurisdictio:qaLllgenciesand constraints of'.the, site. This may include creation,'Testoration,'and / or
,enhancement ,atoff...site Jocations,(such.as.,the ~Tank'Ravine'.llite) ,or..payment.~ofin-lieu fees, as
. discussedinMaster.Re~ponse 7.3-8 ,on ,wetlands. AlLplantingsi to:beused:.as. part of any replacement
,:miq.gation~sha1l,,~.restricted. to,native:wetland,'riparian,andadjacentiuplandspecies.
Response 13.32 City of South San Francisco Planning Division;:gtaffgavethe.EIR.:traffic'consultant
direction about Brisbanebuildout assumptions to use for the 2010 traffic .analysis to which Brisbane
,City staffhad.,noj.objections.Jtis~agreed,;thattbisjsa'.conservative assumption 'which may not occur
". 1?y..20 10. ",Assumptions ,fo(,T.errabay'Phase' n,residential.trip'generation'rateswere : discussed with and
'approvedbyCity,ofSouth,San'Francisco :PtiblicWotks, Department:staff. ',City 'Department of Public
Works staff fIrst noted the combination of proposed four- and tive..,beclroom units ,(many with dens
which could be converted to an additional bedroom) and the possibility of extended families moving
into the new units (based upon observed sales of units in Terrabay Phase!) which could result in
.~
_i:. .
Letter 13-11
. ,.,;.;. ." ~. .' '. t..: ,,"~"'.'... ..... .___,", <
; higher than :aVerage!trip,generationJromithe' PhaseU'umts:;Previousreseart:h;( data ~c6IleCtion) by the
; ",Institute of Transportation1Engmeers JTrip 'GeneratioIh-Fi:fth;Edition). shows "thar:;smgle';;fanllIY units
, . ,with .more thanfthreeresidents do notneccssarily"have\hi,gliet<thanaverage' trip'gerieratimi~'However,
,;researcha1so;~ows:that'~ni~whe~'~~~~,~~o:!.~~~I~; ,~~~!'D~~~e'~,~~!'~9.~~~I!!. higher
,.,."thana,vera.gectnp :;generanon. ,."Therefore;.:to,,:proVIiie: acoDServabve;worst .case'analYSlS,.toensure that
""!"~~f;all!neede(Lmitigation",measures~1IIe:identified;;.reSideritial 'trip~T8tes:were:;prol~:,to'be ~30., percent
;,above,average for four.,bedroomlinits:and 4Opercent-above~iveragefor'~Y7~~~.~~,.units.,.,.,
S' .' r: /r:.:~J' ,~~~1"'~ :;...(
":',Response43.33 ,.The 1998iPrecise,.p,lan~prcJj'~~would produce "greater 'si~cariCimpactS'than the
~1996.specific ,Elan project 'because . theiPrecisej:PlailjJroject.'waS evmuate(HIithecontextofhigher
.'. ':projectedambient':(background).;,traffic :,volumes ,forboth'o/e8r :2000 ;and201Oconditioils,- The J 998
DSEIR ,:updatedanibientivolume'projection ,:evaluatiens!based'on" more intense development plans for
,the Eastof,101 area,than:consideredin:l996. '
~-"
. Response 13.34.East oLI01 '.buildouttrafficprojectioDS1usedin ..the1998 :DSEIR circulation analysis
were,," obtained,:from,.theCity's Department'fofPublic 'Works 'trafficconsultantwho:had developed
;,these., projections\recently ,for,Caltransand,the c-City.forthe "proposed 'south 'to 'eastbound off-ramp
flyover project.. ,Both Caltrans and,the City approved fthese projections :which'conservatively assumed
no TDMtrip generation reductions. However,as indicated,abeve (see Response 13.4), peak hour trip
'reductions,are;no~longer,:mandated' bylaw..
.. ~< .. ~
. Besponse, , 13.35 Reducing de.v.elopment ,from ,:the 'amount _:proposed 'was identifiedas:a ;mitigation
;,meas~.in,-Drder,to,:presentcGity.decisiQ&,makers.1:with'One'oapproach;to 'reducing,;projectiimpacts below
Cinr-~pproved;si,gnificance;'criteria,}eve1s.::"The,1998!/J)SEIRa1sosIists ,.other :.potential mitigation
".. "measures,.:(such ;.as,!Mdening :freeway'ramps\or\'the ~.:regional:freew.ay:network) ~,towaids ~:which the
< 'i. projectwouldbe',required,to;pro.VidetaJair 'share'.'contribution.;;Howev.er,:aS'stat:ed.,dt is mot known if
,~Caltrans,iWOu1d;.l'lpprove ,these limprovements ~.or'iwhether'the,Temaining'~ <fnnding,could be
".",,;:acquired .,Altogether"considerationsregarding.,the'.amount,of-OIbsite :deve1opment'and::the\availability
'of,off-sitemitigation-measures applicable, :iniPart,~J:()rthe.projecfultimately must:be weighed ,in relation
itothe,:,project\sponsor' s.,objectives,identified ,in, ~thed998,J)SEIRi(DSEIR page .26)-which would
',.modify :the,goalsandobjectives-of,the TeTTabay ,:5pecific;PlanpreViouslyadoptedin1982and 1996
,andin ,yiew,of.{)ther policies of>theCitycontainedinothe'General Plan.
". .:....~:.,_:.. "1-'", ..
~':;.\.."-
. 'Response 13.36 ,The'.comment"js .correct~.The iCWTentl1yoverdesign:provides'columnsupports for
':the.flyover;adjacenttoAloth the: north :andsouth:sides, of:theiOysterPoint'BoulevardoveI'passf5 ,Based
,;,onreanalysis'iof:,possiblernitigation :measures~at:theffiaysboreI"OyStCr':Pointq 'Sister 'Cities '/ Airport
~Boulevard:' intersection >with!'Overpass-:wideJiing 'yestrictioris;',Withoutwidening the 'overpass, . it is
,'.unlikelythat .sufficient:storage; 8rea 'would :beprovided 'between. the intersections at either end of the
. ;overpassto.accommodate'Nolumes'projectedfonthe' year 20 10. '-Evenadditionabwideningon the
BayshoreBoulevard,AiqlorCBoulevard,:'8Ild Sister;Cities Bowev8rd approaChes to" their intersection
,with '. Oyster Point ,Boulevard }to:nelpicleartraffic ;through';the 'intersectionmore;,'qUicldy coUld not
completely mitigate,the~storage.deficiencieslWhichwould:be1ikely withprojectei:l'Year'201 0 volumes
(including those from the proposed project). Revised maximum potential mitigation measures are
..;,presented;in:.theFSEIR,:;as'foIlows: ,(' ;.. ;',: ,', .... .
. ~ '.~.-"" ~.' ,-;:' ' '..., '.-. ,".
<,MltlgBtJQn;Measul8 4.~2,(seeBxhibits. ,4~440'8iid4.4-'15) "The'project'spoDsOr 'sball:proVidea
.Jair .:share; cODtribution..,towards,restrip~g, ~thewestbound '(Ovster;,Point,Bowevard) mtersection
',aDoroach(to orovide a sin21e left ttnnlane: two exclusivethroUllhlanes.~and a Sharedthrowrh I
, .;, ",
5 'Crane Transponation Group (EIR ttamc COnsUitBDt}eoDVcrs8tiOD with ROD Berland, CH2M HILL (flyover consultant).
'Lettl!:r 13-12
'ril?ht turn Jan'e). A contribution also would be needed, towards ,a .third ,westboimddepartuJ'e lane
(on Sister Cities 'Boulevard) Which then would menze into the two existing departure lanesiust
west of'the'intersection. <In additiol1:'althouiih notstrictlv needeafor capaCitvreaSonS. restrioing
also is recommended for the southbound (BaysboreBotilevard)' interSection approaeh (to provide
an exclusive right, a shared through I right, atbrough, and two left turn lane~)8B~eaBSlRietiaB af
,'exeI1l5h.'e:fight bIfR l_eBeRtAe eest89HBEliSister'Chies':8ewe'iafS) anEl':JestBeaBif'(~PeiRt
',,',:8 eale'.we) iBlel'seegeR8IlJlfe&eBes. "Thislalter.:me&6&8' '!.realEl 'F8li1iiFe'W\<iEliIlHBg "ef!lle" Oyster
';PeiBt Raale,.-fHe'1J8Je'18lp8Ss. . iYtBSHgB -iRsivisH8l iBt8F5eegeB ,'analyses "\'\'eBlEl Ret
'Reeessarny iRElieae a ReeEl te wiSeR tBe QyserPsiBts';er:p86S,JlFeHBHBllry ,evahHtliaR ef
eaeFsiRates aJle~eR Bet,vf:eeB BatBtBe :8aYSBBFe .' Gyser PaiRt &REI DuBHliHe .' OYSllH' Pamt
,iBtefSeekeBS jREliea~s~eBeeElJBr~ ~~~,9Bal stemge. aRthe aVSfP86S. ,B~eci'~on;,total,;ttaffic
" growth .' to 201.0~, th~p~ject'.s ~,s~j,:()ntri?uti()n ;wotild .be, 21rpercent,0f.~e improvement
costs.' , . .
~':/!t!IM.
~
ImDsct 4;;$.;3s Yesr20108sse CssePlus"Phssesll + "'ISti,rs~e Im"scts A/~rio
'8svshore8oulevsrd " , , ' ,
Praisct Phases.1I +" /IIiraffic.would restilt'jn'vehidlestorsaedemsnd' exceedino or'beinaon the
borderlineofaxceadinastorsae.distancesdurina 2010 PM Desk hour conditions stthreelocstions
alona Bavshore BouJavard"adiscantto, the Phase, /II 'site ' (the .Iaft tum/ane on 'the southbound
Bavshore Boulevard aODraachto thehookrsmos would lack :adeauate :storaae; ,lanes, on the
northbound Bavshore Boulavimi aooroachto the hook ramos would lack adeauate storaoe
between the Tanabav Phase III south access and the ,hook rsmDs; thrauah lanes on the
southbound Bavshore Boulevard aDoraach to the T errabav Phase 111 south access would be at
borderline conditions of Dravidina adeauate'storsae between.the'hook ramol; and the Phase III
southaccessJ. 'Also. durina 'the same, timeoeriod maxirl1lim Off-ramo ,aueues' for left tum
movements to Bavshore'Bot.ilevard would I.Jseuo91 oercent of oraoosed storaae /enath on the
'sol.lthbound"off..;rsmo.~TheSe'Wof1ld:be'sianificant or ooter/tiallv sianificantimoaets:-"", '
.:;-'~.",," ," - ,-~ ~ '~. '-_...;....~_ ~':;. _.~.-_: ~~_ ;:.:.....~~~~.~ "'.\'~\~-~'.,~,:,.-:,:..:;_.,'..;:._;.. ' "';;.::"':)-.::,;;..;:i;:_.:>'~~;
", - - ,-.,' ; ",,:,", '. '.:, > '," - '":::", ":" ,"(', '"-" ,,',;, ....;. . :...~.:~,- :' d'; ':"_:.' : _;: "'~'_,< :.<,,'.'_: ':~, :~.":'., ,," ',".'-' " , ,_' .... ./". :. '.::.:; :'",,, <.~_~_
'Mffiastion'Messure'4.44s ~nie'or6iectsnonsor . shari moVideCa]'aii 'shan; 'contrlbiition towards (or
shall adiust the DroDosed hook ramn desi211 to provide) restripinl? of the southbound hook off-
ramp tOPfovide an exclusive left turn lane and a shared left / rillhtturn lane. This measure would
'.restiltinacceptable stora2'eon aIlinterseCfiori approaches havin!!, storage, deficiencies. It would
".als?,r.ed~~e DO~?ti~_o'rr-,~p_~ueues ~~'morethan50.D~rcent.:,;,;..
Slanfficiil1ce. After 'Mltic,stion ;<'FUiIiii1lile~entati6h 'ofM:iti2~tio~'M~asure"4.4- 3awould reduce
vehicle,storal?einloacts alonl? Bavshoi'e Botilevard adiacent to the Phase ill site to a less-than-
, sil!Ilificant level:" ...... .....,,>..., co' .,..."... ,.' . '..>",.', ,;_" ""~_'..... ','
ReSDonslbllltv snd Monltorino The Droiectsnonsors of Terrabav Phase nand, Phase ill would
'be responsible forimplementinl? MitilZlltion Measure 4.4_3aand the Citv of South San Francisco
wouldmo~itor ,imolementatio~._..c..'_,c,,"c' .;;
-_,'. . ~""._.' C._,'';
'However, it sliouldbenoted that ,available, sto~geshould be. borderline acceptable ,to the intersections
at either encL of the Qyster POint,BoulevardJreewayoverpasswithreducedvolumes:generated by the
Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative (compared with project..,generated volumes),
,withno;overpass widening but '''.'ith;a..l1 other,'~~g ,in the'interchange,asprevio1iSly recommended
',intheJ998DSElRand'with;the,intersection~approach ..striping.recommended-:forthe Alternative in
/MasterResponse,:7.3-1-~ ':~'-"-"'->. :..._~-_.-.:,~..>-:..' . .....
Response 13.37 Please see Responses 13.4 and 13.34. ,Also,theseconds7ntence. of the comment
'indicates thatuthe imposition' of TDM lTSM'meaSures on'Phase m to the: rDaximum extent feasible"
would aChieve at least a 13 percent reduction in single OCCUPaIlCY vehicle trips while the third sentence
states that U[t] his mitigation is feasible". It is not knownif maximum extent feasible IDM measures
wouldaccoDJPlish .thedesiredresults: ,Again,-it also should be noted thatthe ,carpool results in the
Letter 13-13
l
, ,. '. .
,referimced.~'M:UltiCitY';TSM;Agency?~;t996" Strr\r~y~{t)l~Jiorthefn.:San~Materi'Gounty Employers"
~ reflectcoDdition~:.Just :3fter :a~tinle'~vJ~eI{largebUsiJie,sses ,werelegW,lYJnana8tedto reduce commute
::;~~~~:~~~o.n:~~fP.,~~,:?:l~~~f;~::'~:;~~.'~~:":"".:~;.~::.~""".,".,:"~.;:;X;F.':~~"P,;".";.',',..,':.' ':,..,.,.,',",
,'R..sponse;1~~.3~'~,',:.iJri~.~ti-;ip~g ,;h8S ,J,een',iDcludedili1,1:he ",.1998,DSEIR.--8S ,:part of Mitigation
",.;Measure4.4.2",required.at,ithe ,Bayshore':./:i,Oyster'.Point't:iAirport'J~Sister',Cities ,:intersection. . The
.commentds,.noted ,:that ,the ',project"sponsorWishes to:provide "8':fair'share, contribution towards the
';restriping'ofthesoutbboundinter'section'approach.' ,;, ",'
:
[,j
I
t-
I
,
L,'
i
['
l
~ , :'.. ';";~:';;j"':.:~./~~z,,~?-\~:,x ~-(:v>; .~' ~ ~{.,~ ~.y~:'.',,' "'1\ ~,.:.i:,;;>:~): -,.;:'....A.'<-.t ,,_:~,;~:,_:"<.:t:', ~~.::~::.:.:
.~'Response; 13.39"..' The 'comment is,torfeciregardirigtraffic'conditions:}Reecniaiscussions, between
'the,City Engineer;'Public'~Works 'Departlllentstaff, and the project sponsor's engineers resulted in a
consensus on the acceptability of the proposed valley gutter concept, as long as the gutters are located
along the edge of the nonnally traveled roadway, Thus, where the valley gutters would be'installed
alongtheinsidee4ge" of.,Parking b~ys"yet.outside of the ,roadway width, ,the, City finds them
acceptable. 'ProVision for noIma1 roadside gutters on an roadwayson,thePhase'ILsite would result in
:significantgrading,inJpacts,.which ,;would.,ounveigh 'J11lY.advanumes ~()t.gutter 'installation. The 1999
FSEIR,texthaS\beenamendedtochange"the:detenriination,'ofthe::significance1ofproposed gutter
,coDfiguration,impacts,from'significant.t01ess-than-significant ..and .,.to"delete '.the accompanying
mitigation 'measure,,:asfollows.{ ellipses ( ;:Jrefertofootnotes:aeletedfronithe DSEIR text):
. .' . '.;, .;; :,... .-.:"':' -~. ,- -.
"".."; '.';
. ".-' -" .~~:
',:lmpact4:2-1StormwaterDiii",gePsttems "i.d Roodit;Jg ',' ," .'..,',"...',.. '... ,> ". .',"
.. ,,' 5om.e'OHhes~etsprop,,secl:for.:construction,017ihePh8Se '1lsfte .'NouJdbedrained.pyconcreteV-
':;";";chann~Js'lf#!gnecJbStween,-streettravellanesan(j.par1ci1]g'bays,7his.design.woulcJ...promote, the
';' ":'~-occasiontJl:c:J9JigilJg 'QUhe''(;JlEglneJ'Witp ,debrisand,ootentiallv couldcreate"minorfJoodino
"conditions:..wllere''1he'tiersof'Dsi'ked cSiS obstroct'the'l1utterllow section SlId iR91:J" miRer fleerisfi
S9RrJili9R&alsng IRs SBRtRiI!P.~FliJ.R.~~!~..r:e!JEA~I~!\n ~is..woulcJbe,s, less-than B~tisl!j'
;:~~~2i{lf:~~~i[,!ff,~:t~~;ff,',::/0,.',:,;;;,'.j1:"i.;;';;'~;;:',:.:'A';~L"j~~,,;::'<:;.:".'~,,~:,.~,:',;"~.,:.,.'....~,.;<.;,','.',:_<."..:....,.
':':,. .c, -.... '.-_"'_.. '-.n' ,','.",<,-_ ,'......:,__.,.,,_: ,,_:_. ,_::_"___.:,_,:,__,_.,,_...-:..__.:,,..,::<,-.;:~..,:~,:._:>,_~;""",,''':'''':"~''';;:':''
.CeBeeB~eB 'ef !'eaeWaj draiBage.&itEl'~:..esh~'.vatBr~geiB'wmmer'i::~81~'1EsB~te ,ll6seleriHe
"!'eM 'eetefieflltieB ''''eeBase.e \vetsaHaee:weiHle''''eiBiFeEjaeBt eeBHlet .]iitR'me\'!lig '/ehieles. .".Ii
8esitisBlH am'.\''''aek af YHseesigil waals meaifest eBf..agfamre fesarfaSing aet:ivities, aeeaase
raa8wilijs are 1'&':e8 ..viUiasphalt. :Sither the eeBk'ale8&fHiels ',va1:Hs Bes\'erlaHi as.eegiB te lese
.. ,their SeHmaaB, ertftehemeewB8fS weals Be feEj89ats'speBamgher sam-fita IeeeBsnetthe
:seater eeftSfeteeRiiRageehllBBels'dielleeess&fy wheB BraiBage ineateate ems. .
... -'.,_.. ' ,,'A,\." '....'
. {Mitigation iMeasure4.2-1. iNo'mitifnltion'w01iId~be<"reOtiired. r~\y sBieet eeRBgaflitisRs' shell
iBeefJJ8f8te,dHsS~8aN,eYFB.an8g&aeFsesigB wiIB6l'8...meEl fea8W~" 'Thus, el:lHeBtly pl'spesea
PBase Usfl:eet eeBBgmatieB5 1, :;, 1, 6, 7, as 9 sBall ee fesesigaeEl teeiHBiaate.d1e ef{ set
8F&iBage eh&BBeIeeBeept. ".', ,
S~;" eIIer 1II1U;'tiEHI lmpleie~eB ~fMiti~s~t 2 lwealSfesl:1eetl1e'i~1'aet eB
'tH:&inage~EI.a~a~~g te~l~~,s_~~si~e8:8t.]~?~l. .. '. '.
ResPeRe!lHnty "IRElMSAiiiHmsThepFaje~t speBser'seh'il . eBgiReer' weals ae respeRsiele fer
reElesigBiBg rea8'''~' _Rage 'iR IRe 'Wasas ':Best eEl West aelgeeerheaes far re\'iev: and
Letter 13-14
apJlFe'1aI sy ,the 'Ci~', ~&r.ftiag &BEl ,PHsBe,,' WsdE5D~panmeRf5, sefsre filing 'eftaePiaIH
,SasElhisisaMap MEI ,gHIl~g, ef, gmQiag 'P8ffBi~ . fer , Plta5e ,ll ~sveleJlBleat., Thea~eSl"VfieFS
,assesialisas ',(HO:\!;) te ae 'eStaBHsBeEl fer ,lhes~Jl8jpaerBs9S5 ,.'lsBis se l8Sfleasiale fer
", .,',"- .- ....'.... , ': ..-' - . :..: ,', - -:-'.-". .. .:- -,-' . '," " . '--"",' .' '-.' .,' .'-.-....,-....,.-.
. Hleliiteriag aRslsag tePBi maiatea&Bse , efJJi1-,'ate,leas\"l8.Ys, lUlsEkai,alilge fa~Hiaes. ," . ,"
. .
-, - - - . ---""', '-, : ,,':. . ", " -'. - . -'. . -:::' ',: - -' -:,": . - :'-""'-', ' -,>'-'
',' "i'Responsei13~40 "Additional review by the City'BDgmeer, of thebacIgTard ~agesysteIi1hldicates
, "~that the'impacts would'be'less-thari-sigriifiCallt., 'The 1999.FSEIR text 'haS'been '.amended to 'change the
determination oftheSigri.ifi.cance.. nfpmpnJ;:p.Q ',gutter corifiguratioD impactsfromcsignificant " to less-
than-significant and to delete the accompanying mitigation measure, as follows (ellipses (...) refer to
footnotes deleted from theDSEIR text):,
" ,Jlmpacf'4.2..2Stormwater:Drslnsge.and Flooding
:Nuisancefloodina couldoccurinbackvardareas ifinsufficientarades'arenotorovidedin the
,'vicinitv of reSidentialbuildinaoads. The Uniform 'Buildina 'Code 1UBC) soecifieda-minimum,slooe
o of two. oercent for. surface aradesin such ,areas to oromote efficientstormwaterdrainaaeandto
deterstructura/.damaae due to excessive aroundwater s8Boaae.:rheoroiectaradinaanddrainaae
. o/aris indicate one oercent arades for drainaae.swales which wauld be constructed to drain
residential lots. In addition. yard arades leadina away from the buildina oadstowards ,the swales
would be a minimum ()ftwooercent. Since the drainaae swales would be excavated into the
adiacent terrain. efficient drainaaestilFwould.be achieved. Accordinaly.' ORB pf1FB9Flt S.IB/i19B
/i1~9&s"f9r F.9BiQsFltia!~'an:isSFIQ F9Q.~}'ar6Qr.i!iWlgB swalss !nPRasB .~I RS!g/:/SSrJ:rssE/6 wsw.lrJ
,,' s!!ew SSQ.ln:IBFlt SBf19Si1i9FI iFl tRs ewa.'9€, th~s srsst.;Flge/i1f3sm:R!tiBs fer R~!saRSB fJssEiingsf.~ssr
, J 'a,~ri sre!lie ) 'a1fSs.':~..I!his would bea.less-than-:pst9FItiallj' ,significant impacLL TSi2S
~
.' ~ '- ..
.~t.
, CSBStfliet:iaB af eae peFeeat slsfles prspsses fer Fesiseat:ial )'ares &BS Fellf' yare! sFfHaage s'..:ales is
PRase II aeigltSerassssv:euls aeSiffieHlueaemeve.1lH:s is aeeatlsltgf68.e.esa1:feI t.esaeaa aget
, ,llGeny is a siftieHlt eSllSmtst:isB feal' ~\s a Feswt, lhe UnifsPBi BYilsHig Ceee (U8C) Sfleeifies a
-...c':....._--. '-: .-,-, _:-~,..._:l{,;._ "-<._"i ,.:, "::":,i.":..",-. '_'" ,-."<;."'."..'..-;,..', _""<'. '__:~"~'_:""_" _-.'- , ' .,',
,,' "'minimHmsl9Jle sf nvepefGlmtfer ~aeB fe&a!Fes.~ MeFBS'lei',Syea fiatsJl:Ipes ':lsHlelaetpeuBIt
'flushi~gef sesHBeHteameS Hi slH'faee v:atef, .....sals FBSHlt iB.gmaaal. ileeHIBYlaliessf seElimeBts
",V\iiisall'/eablfHly "/aBle lilesk e'laS_sa, Elf smilee fiews., &Belee\Hs leaa 1e IseaHMs "8Bsi~g ar
llee8iBg.Puslie WerlEsDepaRHleat sd melMefs'Bll-'/e seeHHleates!!ievef&linStaBees YAleFe
fBsiBea~ sf dtePBase Isitel:HP:e pWles e"ler large psHis&sef dteireas.kyaMs. This' aas lests IlB
'. ealitefalisa ef iateaseEl 1st Ek:&inage pattems ans EkaiaagepFeal~Bl5.: ... '
.ii\
. . , .. ~. ~ .~~'
Mitigation 4.2.:.2 ,No ,mitilration 'wouIdbe 'reauired.fVSSiItgTlHfta#:ls'}.fsP SNlPrsli19tiriiu'J'
..GFaQ~ PJaltSBeet 3sBaILseIHB8Bses~pFe...ise miBimlHBFear yarS8BS siEieyilf6 sFaiaag~
s.....&1e ,sh~pes sf t:\.lsJJereefttiB dte .Phase R.sevelepBlllfttlH'lla iB eeBfeaBsee.....ithUBC smaEiilfss.
IB aeeiasB, HIe esasiaeas efprajeet BfJi3revIH seIHl iBeluse apprepaate sversigllt ana -'er esatrels
Sft aae~?,IIf8,paviagh.Y FesiEieJHs.These eea1:fels saaD ae iaelaeeEl ,Hi ,1hel*'sjeet',s CS'/ea&B~,
CeaEiitisas, &Be Res1:fiet:isas (CC&Rs) &Bel eaierees ey HIe Fespeetive HsBlee.....fiel's:~seeiati8as
for eaeB aeigaeera8s8. ...
,',.., ,..,'. . - ... ',.'. .;.-. "'.>',', -'-,', ,'." ., ,
'~'SigRlliNR8e atler'MilisatlsR 1mPlemsRtatieRef.Mit:ig&asB :MeBs1:lf8 122~llealB r-ssuee tHe
jBipaetsa SraiBege 88sFleesiBg tsa less .1haBsigBiBe&Btle'lel. ','
- .. '-' . . ".' '. ." --.
~ ".
,,~8R6iwiliy MsAfsA/tlN;$' The, pF~eet SJleBS~f5,ei-lil .eagme8f ~:l~Hlaae reSflsBsisle fer
Fesespag FearaBssiseYIlf8,gF&6ieg aasassseiates8miBageteeemply "Mdt UBC fBilYKeHleats.
Tae Cit)' Pl&BRiftg&BEI RuelieWsBe DSPm=aBeBts ':;eals Fe'lie.,.. &BelapJlFS"/e Fe',isisas sefsfe
filiag of the FiaIH SabEii'lisisaMap MS gfIUltiBg sf gfilSiag peRBi~ fer Paase n ae'.-elspmsat.
Response13.41 'ThecommentorcitestheUniforinBuildingCode,(UBC),minimum drainage slope
of two percent and then indicates that a ,one percent drainage 'slope is sufficient according to the
, standard. This -seems to bea contradiction. .,However,..upon further :discussion 'with the City Engineer,
the EIR 'l1ydrologistagreeswiththe :provisionfor:theminimum.twopercent ,land slope in the vicinity
Letter 13-15
,.
I
'ofthebuilding'pads '1eadingto''}OCaldnUnage' swales" 'The:aramage swalescotildbe graded to slopes
"'ofone:percent,'Since theywotil~be;excavat~ ,to':SJjgh.tly lo",er elevations relative to the adjacent land
'. suifaces." ";Therefore, " the".swa1es<wou1d~comprisejlu~"'~pproved.;dr.1inllge 'faeilil)r";referred to ,in ,the
UBC, and 'the adjaCeIlt'tWopereent slopes:w01l1d satlsfytheyard icadingcriterion. This design
...approachvvouldsatisfy .~e lJBC>~g~~pro~sions. The ,199,9, FSE,'!R ~,has beeuaIJlellded to
,: ~"'~haiige:~:'eietepninatio~ ()fthe':~igDificaDc~;of~sed,.gutter'~oDqguration,iIQpactS from significant
to less-than-significant and tode!etethe_,accOIllpaP.ying mitigation measure, ,as ; Shown in the
irmnecii~l~p~efIing'resp,o#s~..~" . ;,>< . ",'/, " ,"'.",',~(' .' "., . .
. Response 13.42 The EIR hydrologist observed thats~~r'rea.ch~s of the existingfue access roads
were in a highly unstable and eroding condition during site inspections conducted for the 1998 DSEIR.
If left in this unstable condition, significan~:volumes,of,sediment,wouldcontinue,to;:move downslope
,'and ,enter,the;PIl?jeces.stormdrain.systeID"and.eventua1ly,,'~y,betransported ;downstream into the
· Oyster.Pointestwu:y .,T1,1is could~resenta .significantimpact 'onidownstreaID hydraulic facilities and
sensitive':habitats;,depending 'on;project.,.reiated.",changesindrainage :aIld'interceptor,detention basins.
l:Careful,design,andmaintenance;>Df..:these,'aCcessroadscould,accommoaateboth'fueequipment and
pedestrian "access',where,desiied. 'cIf'the',road:improvementwork'isperformed"l;>yan . experienced
'contractor'basedon design and ,.~g;plans, prepared. by'., either ,a. .hydrologist ,ora geotechnical
engineer I erosion contrril~pe~ialist, secondary,~actsoferosion,and,sedimentation could be avoided
easUy~ ,The ,reference to .the.useoLthe"existing 1ire,'foads.for "dual pedestrian trails in Mitigation
Measurec4.3-.1:(c) ,was recommendedto;3voidfurther:disturbanceto ,native 'vegetation to accommodate
newtraiLconstruction:a.nd 'should'not'be;mterpretedas arequirement"that roads remain open for
pedestrian as conte~de~l>)' ~~.~~mmentor. .
",' .. ',", ..
" ',.. ',' - -. ..: .' . .
',~: - ," '.-- _' .- .:.~" ,":"'. . . ,;: -. ': -:-";-". "...-. ". _.;; - , :.:",: . ", : . ..' , .1:.. '.: '.:' ":, _ .. .' ,.... -..:. :
"Regardil1g'theresponsibilitY'f~rst3bilizatioi1c5f er~g1ireroads,remediaI erosion. control work on
portions of 'these roaClS'within the project boundaries 'without similaip work on adjoining upslope
'reaehes'of 1heroads'::m:1heHCP11rea ,coUld'leaLFto~ailureofthe'rellledial.stabiIization work. . To
'remedy.this;;theprojec~'s,poDsor sboUldbe responSible for'implementing 'an stabiliziIlg work within the
projeciboundaries'which \Vouldbe .reguiredt()j'rotecttheroadways from "excessive .erosion (such as
ri1iD~'aIlgguIlying),.Adjoinin.gupsl()pe ,roadwllY,reaches, ,within ,the BCP.lands which are eroding
actively should be stabilized ,pytheCountyinconsultation.withtheBCP coordinator I Plan Operator.
This would require issuance of a Site Activity Permit by the County. Such apennit would specify the
limits,and.methods ,of,the.stabilization ,work.and,wouldinclude,protections for;adjacent sensitive . lands
.J, ;habitats.. ;.,The ,1999..,.ESEIRtext,.has,.been .3mended"to,~reflect:.:this)process '.and . the allocated
',.,responsibilities,ofthe,projectsponsor .a.nd".County,'in:nliti~g,this:potentia1'erosion"in1pact:
.. . -. .. " . .
'h-':"':\"~ ,>.,."
'. ;;;',,<, ", ~MltlgBtJon!AfessClre4;'2.;9 Two Options are'available:to mitigate this erosion impact.
· 'In coordination with Witfi appFe':al &BEl meaitaftag B)'theSan'BrullO'Mountain HCP
manal!'er (Thomas Reid & Associates) and the HCPcoordinator(Roman Gankin),the
"'applicant shall slibmitan aDrilicationto.the'Countv of:SanMateofor a Site Activitv Permit to
undertake removal" ohhcentire'lengthofany Toadwaywhichwould daylight within the
proposed limits, of project grading. , This, option, would include. restoring original hiUslope
.,',"...topography "revegetating" restoredslopcs' uSingnative:~eCies, . aild'implementing erosion
<control 'methods. This 'is "the ':prCfcrmi'Optioll~aIth()u2h;this 'option alsowowa need to be
,Jannroved bv the"Countvand HCP mana2Cr Icooroinator.~',. :':>
.. . -' .~ 0 ~, . '.,' '. ~:::_ '''.: ~, ".. .,;....-, ,~::..,:: ::.~..':.~ -,"'~"_~' ;.:> -:," ~'<: ;_..~;I..-';':~:~,-::,'", i:"' _ ~ ..~:' '.:: ":-:- :.'~.,f. ,., '. " ,..-::':, '. ,"
.
The applicant , shall regrade, and maintain the existing, unpaved I:oadways to protect them
:againsterosion: using, fortified shotilder'drliinage ditches and frequent water bar construction.
,This ',is the inferior:option;'~Ifthisoption is selected, '.the 'City 'shall require long-term
. monitoring by 'the entity overseeing debrisbasin:performance. . 'The proiect sponsor also
. ,would wOTkin concert with theHCP manal!'erand HCP coordinator to obtain aShe Activitv
Letter 13-16
;:,Pennit ,for an . extension of similar erosion'control"work,;onto,the unslone roadwav reaches
within the HCPlands. to the extent .reauiredtosafesruard the stabilization ,work ,undertaken
:within the site's develonmentarea.. ,;...". ,', ", "",..
~- .,.'::'- -', ':"~~' ,... :.- .',- _:"" _:__ '~--"-"':7.,'.-: ~';'",__,'."'-."-"~-':i,-~.->-_...,-i\.\"~/"'__,,:,:~:_'>C'-""\~".,";i':>,. ",'_ " "_.-- : .r,::',', .
' " ',"The]irSt option' would reqttire'an 'extension'oftheSiorm~aierPollution:PreventlonPlan (SWPPP)
'..'>.for';theprojectwhichthe.1996"~~~ .P~~o.uSlyregiilied.aS;~ ;iintigaiii>n,~~iu-e'. ,~Ex.panslon of
,'the "SWPPP would comist"of'the"'dCsignatioD cjf Best ManagemenfPractices(BMPs)'foi erosion
>control in the restored hiIlslopeareas.Thiscowd includebro8dcaSt straw.or other surface erosion
protection, seeding orplanting-ofnativegrasseS'''and forbs. and stockpiling of amendments to
applied topsoil.
..-:_";.l,
SignlficsnceJAftertMitigstJon, ..Implementation of Mitigation Measure"4.2-9'.would 'reClucethis
'. erosion .andsedimentation impact,to ,'a less..than"significantlevel.
''rl'
,. . .. '.
' , .
Responsibility. and MonitorlngThe Jipplicant's tcivilengineer,shallrevise"the Vesting;Tentative
Map and Preliminary Grading 1!zan, ,to reflecttheoption.reguired i:lythe City, as,acondition of
project approval. The City PlanningandPublicWorks~P8TW1ents ,would be ,responsible for
re'liewing the Final Subdivision Map..-fm:.i:ompliance before filing and granting ofa grading
permit. The City shall considerrequiring logg-termmonitoriIlg (suchas,by the entity overseeing
debrisbas'in'perfomumce) as a-mitigation measure shIm it require the.second niitigation option.
'Underthe,first~ontion.the nroiectSlionsor would be Tesnonsible for cooroiDlitine:with.theCountv
and .:theHCPmanal!erl coordinatot:>,to.develop 'restoration measures . which 'could:be matched
within', theR CP 'lands (:thatis."outsidMhe.DToiect sitedevelonment' area 2boundaries); The'nroiect
, ,snonsor . :then ,,would . imnlement",these,restoration omeasures"'on' the 'site. ' '.The}H CP manal!er /
coordinator would submit an annlication to the County in order to obtain a Site Activitv Pennitfor
slope reconstruction within HCP iurisdiction. The County would issue the nermit after consultine:
with theHCP.manae:er!coordinator ',andassilmine:,cenain '.conditions,to . ensure 'UTotection of
adlacent sensitive ,habitat. ' ,.Under" the.~second ,ontion;..sinillar " coordination would ~be reauired
,between the :nrolect snonsbr.,Countv. :and ,HCP.manae:er!f''Coordinator. '. The"Countv would be
,resoonsible for'ensurine: that the restoration I.stabilizatioDiwork,occurrinl! . within :HCP lands met
;thenennit conditions. 'TlrisJikelv .wouldinvolve;oversi2ht'bv;theHCP,mana2er.. Thomas Reid &
,Associates. 'The Citv.worild'be'resnonsiblefor,oversie:hNmd annrovalofrestoration/ stabilization
work conducted bvtheorolect snonsor.within nrolect site 'boundaries. .\<,
Response 13.43 It is the opiriion ,oLthe:EIR,traffic, engineer, andiis"Stated,'in"the 1998 DSEIR
(DSEIR pages 196-197), that the 22-foot wide roadway width would be sufficient for through traffic
;butraisesconcemsJorparking:maneuvers 'in.Jront ~of...residences. TAs:stated,inthe ,1998 1JSEIR, 'the
concemis.that:narrower'streets, combined 'With 'parking 'on ,one side ..only, 'can ,result in.a 'greater
potential for cars backing out of driveways directly into the travelway (that is, from a driveway on the
side of the street where there ;is no,'on,.streetparking)'toback'mtocars',parked on-streefopposite the
.:driveway. . ,Tbe City's :standardJor.public.residentialminorstreets (other than the Terrabaysite which
.:has<its,ownstandards):, isa 36-foot'wide,'roadway which allow 'for 'eight..;foot'wideparking' ~paces on
',both.sides.oLthe;,roadwayand :a.2~foot ',wide;travelway j.:The :street,width"proVides ,for on-street
parking along both sides, ,allowing for;a parking lane 'width and street-Width (eight feeq:llus''20feet), or
.".28.feet ofmaneuvering;space:'in.and/outof .all ,driveways;.'compared,with.theTerriibay'standard of 22
feet total (thewidth.of thetravelway only)-fopresidenceson'thesideof the 'street where there would be
no on-street parking.
: ',~":, "
-~\;'.:~: ";..:".
Response 13.44EIR traffic engineer considers the 18-footlong driveway apron'lengtbitobethe
minimum acc~ptable driveway apron length - long enough for standard leIlgth vehicles to park in the
,driveway ,comfortably close to the 'front: face of the 'garage ;while 'Dot protruding 'into the sidewalk or
;travelway. ..Response 14.2 discusses :ol8-foot ::long;driveway'apronsinmoredetail. 'The 'response
.recognizesthatboth;the Precise PlanaridV esting lJ'entativeMap confonnto 'the apron length standard
previously,adopted'by'theT errdbay Specific?Plan.
Letter 13-17
,!
i
'-I
:R".ponse,i13.45'~c.: ::This,istatemeitti-of:'qpinion :is -i8ckDowledgea. ,;*TheV19981>SEIR raised concerns
:'abont'gatherings:;'811d,'2speCial'ievent'Paiking:becausecm.:stre~~:;padciD.g'wo1ild"~cfless abundant in this
development than in neighborhoods whereon-st:reetp8fkUlg;is' proVided'on"bothsides of the street. In
addition, ,there is no nearby street where overflowon-streetl'~g 'c011lP be..absorbed because aU
. ~'streets'Within 'iVaJkiIig distaDc~'6tPlil1se'n:Terr.ih~fne1ghboihood(either, .\VoUld..prohibiton-street
.-paiiC!Qg::(So~t1i~San'~ci~cg~pI:i~~fotwQul((~ye,p8i-1angat inosi1)ioI)gone'~ide:,~nly (applies to all
,'residentia1stree,tSpiopose~,'fo<the~aseIJsi~).. :Forihis,reason',provision for overflow.parking areas
is.~~~. ',,::~:" ' -' ,
Response13.46 As the 1998 DSEIR discnsses(DSEIRpages 290-291), filling and capping is an
,,'\acc:~ptableCEQAnritigation.measnre, if. the fSoils .,to,be'covered:w:ould "notsuffersenons compaction.
It is the opinion of the EIR.archaeologistand:geologi~'8S'wellas:the!project:sponsor's archeologist
and geotechnical consultant, that at least ten percent compression would occur on the site which
'would:,resnltin 'distortiontanddestruction of the. integrity of 'thefCA::SMa4()cUlturiU deposits. Also,
'members ,'of the Native American'commnIlity,in' response to the. 1998 DSEIR" have voiced strong
objectionS'toplacing fill'oIl 'the 'glilone s~~lpn9nnd. '
I
,I
I
-.,-
i--
,
.i j
-,
,
L_._
AccordingtotbeEIRge6ldgtst, the am~im(of compressio~of the:archaeological, site is difficult to
estimate,an~basYaried fromten;pel"cent by:theProjectsponsor'sgeotechnicaLconsultant to 30, percent
'by the 8.ponsofsarcheolqgist.'Thc,glvenraJ}ge_ohento,30.percentis:agreeci'besignificant by both the
sponsor' s'and.,E~,tlI"cb~~lqgists~~::':I'he,l ~98;DSElJ? :(DSEIRp{Jges ..286':287;and'Exhibit 4.9-1) has
'beenmodifiecLto de~cJi1J,~,.Pr!''pos~c~g'm(the wicinity,oHhearchaeological,.site:more clearly, as
follows;.,.,;,:;'",>,.:.:' ":,,:',;:,,".t,,,,:;, :..,.."':',.1,.>:' --:"'. .. ., :':::,;,'c, ,./"., , ~;,.: ::'"' .:" ,'i. ",...'
""".'.'-..:""'-"',"
....', 'c'. ....._~,.
\:;'.;..:;:i'-':',::";
". ,-~:; ".
'<;;"..f-,-:~';-,::,;,~:. -
'.-.~' :~.-_:,:..~~.)~X_:.~ ':~'}'~-L.-"':.:';. ::;..~ . ,::j;:~,,-~'-, .,-.
..:. :'..~' :' V"_
, ',',,', :!,'}'i,;;,:.),The~project:,proposes<the~plaCement'of~eDgineere(F~Jifill ,(placed;ud.coJnpacted-inlayers) over
, 'L'2, .<',the;C;A,,:SMa~Oculturahdeposits;;,.;.:..~.l},Generally...:filLwould;be'iQeeper~on;'the':eastern than on the
,.,.z,,"'westem'side ofthe;siteucldeeper on lhe:northoaJid,south:sides thaD'in :theiDiiddlevihich would be
'.contourediinto,.a,'Swaie:convergingiinto>a:,draimi.ge.basin 1(Exhibit 4~9..'1t:PadHofparking lots....
"...',.:;Fillover~the..southernjparking;pad:would;iange.'froms;approximatf:ly: 23 'feetitoabout eight "feet.
: ,'c:<:/Fhe !Southeastern ed2e:.of\the' 'narkin2 'Da.ds iw01i1d '}SIODe idown.'to;the 'rea1hmed Bavshore
. Boulevard. The toe' of:this,fillwouldbe SUDDortedbva.three~to 'cfour-foofhi2hretairiim! wall. All
'utilities, drainage"landscapmg, paving, curbs, etc. would be placed in the fill'covering the site, and
'iDO ,penetration.ofthe prehistoric cultural deposit ,is proposed. ; , ..
~.;~~'7.-:;~~'\>~ I-,';);:{' :,:'~ '-:;':.>.':'~:' ",... /~: >,,;; '. :;':::
,;,However,this ,modification doesnpt..cbangetheiSEIRconclusion;thatplacing ,more..than ,two feet, of
, ;[illon,the,site-would,resultin:compression,:and;deStruction 'of prehistoric cultural deposits.
~it"'" ~
..: - --':-:':~~-~:";:'~.\;:"~' -'; ,~
,ReSponse.13.47 ,The 1998 [)SEIR does. not propose excavation ofCA-SMa-40'as mitigation. 'It does
..present ~datarecoveIY.,by,archaeolqgica1'Jexcavation'~asJa ',CEQA..;approved,mitigation ..alternative
,.,(DSEIRpage288 J:project...related,impact. ,'.The: 1998,DSEIR identified Mitigation'Measure'.;4.9-1 (b)
,fDSEIR...page: 29Q).as ,the "preferred ,alternative which ,wouldnot'require:extensive'archaeological
.excavations~, ,Tbe,;EermanentOpen,Space.Altemative ,also iSipresentedin:the1998 .DSEIR. All are
.',acceptable;meansunder,CEQAiof ,mitigating :andJ .or ;avoiding'significant.impacts'andshould remain
..inthe 'SEIR''Sothat.infonned.decisions,canbe made~by the Lead Agency andthepnblic:'
Regarding the issue of whether or not the site would be destroyed by project fill, see Responses 13.18
and 13.46. ;,. ::<::;. ,~..._.-.. ,._~-:.....' "!-Ji"
'...'.......
, -
.In its description ,of ,the. Holman~dAssociates' archaeologica1investigations .ofCA-SMa-40, (DSEIR
,pages 278-281" 283-285,;and ,288,,:29~);:'the ..1998 ,DSEIR ,:does .not .state':that'there already.bas been
",sufficientscientific stucly.;ofthe.site.TheHolman and :Associates' ,investigations (as described in the
'firm' sFebmary 1998 report) consisted of wbat is.termedasa,Phasell subsmfacetesting program for
cl.lltter 13-18
-c:
GO
.==
~I
-:;
:S-
oe::I
~-
'au:!
......
'.,..Q.
.;S
o
.
..
,.c::
'f!
-'~
i
'~
'5
iB"i
! f ,r:-.
"i,':,'S" ',,',:,'-,c ~,",~' ·
-l.:,/' '.=~.
.,.~\;':.,";l"'.'.F:
,?J ;i~
I
I
11
JI
" >..~il
, ,r'
~1
,
.>.1
:J
:1
;1
;,1
.1
u: '1
:i
d;1 :
'i-h
!~.
;2l.
~":I.
&1.
.~ ..
"
i;
li-'
.' -
'}" , ,Ii:
'E
'11
,>
CD
'5
o
.ED
'CD
....:0
,,~
'.:~
'I!
. '~'i ",.
.J
1
~$" I/)
'ii c
.~ III
fa ~
:.ga. cD at
C
'0 ~ '0 '6
:;!. III . ai~ I!!
.t..!! ,Q. =c c:l
iil ~'E.-GI '0
':18 :~'o'1Il5 fa
fjt u ;B, , :.~ .~ Q.
\' 'it III
E <i;; '. .2
I' ,. ,'2 Gl
. ' i, "~: CD .....' '>
i .' ]"'~ .,II):i .~
'. :~, " .~. III
'1\10 i
t '15 to 'S ii
-0 CD ~
Gl .~ "..-i..;
;r '~ CI III
'C !!
E ' ... .;:
~. ! CD ''0 6 i .m
CD
c € > .... > 8
''0 ,~ 'i
1\1 CD 0 .r: III
0 U C to .= ..;!
a: ,~ C 'E ! 0 .e
'fa 0 ~ II..
I/) i = '0 II N
~- i Gl fa Gl
,U lID lID '5 CI 1;
< w w iB .!! fa .:::.
'ii en en 'ii ':ll: 0
E ::: :: t!! 'il ,c':52
.!! ,g U III >
Z Z ~ 8' "C 1\1
oS I ED C
-c . III i a;
ED
C I a; III U
.G) . ~ !5
Cl 0
G) I 0
...I . Z III C/)
~-. ->?:;*~"1-,.
purposes of determining whether or not .the prehistoric cultural ,deposit meets CEQAcriteria asSan\'
.important archaeological resource. 'The:projecti~p()nsor'$archae()logica1 consultant presented a Phase',
ill mitigation plan of excavation in response to:#h~..possibility of-damage and / or destruction oUhe"
site. A CEQA-required Pbase IT archaeologic~Y""~g program should not be confused with a Phase.
0,4_ ' .. "'"
ill mitigationplan.; 'JO' ';~1:.: .
. .Ji:::
~-
;
i-
Holman and Associates' prepared the FebmarY~998report for the project sponsor for submittal to,the
City in order .to provide adequate :backgro-u#~I)#nateriaLfor the City to consider' PhaseIDsite
application materials. From the outset ofthe,;g.~~~'1)SEIR'spreparation, the applicant promised!the
completion and availability of Holman and~~s' 'finalreport to enable the BIR's independent
peer review required by .the City .Becaus~~~'1man and Associates reconimended the activities
identified as Mitigation Measure 4.9-1(a) in:;tl1~'f.~998 DSEIR to address impacts from the project
sponsor's proposed plans for thePhaselIl.~i~}:~the BIRpreparers' interpreted the Holman
recommendation to be part of the sponsor's';plaJf:,tforithe site. Otherwise, the project would have
proposed no measure to mitigate the impac~;~f:~1acing fill on CA-SMa-40 as part of grading
operations to create building pads,parking 10ts~~1lD,gi~;,.sitecirculation. However, the issue is moot
because Mitigation Measure 4.9-1(a) shouldrerrial~~the 1998SEIR as an alternative as long as.the
SEIRexamines the January 15, 1998 project{opsiml1~iproject) which would involve placement offill
on CA-SMa-40. '-.
"
I
Response 13.48 The recommendation thattbet. ..orishipbetweenCA-SMa-40 and -92 be studied,
ifCA-SMa-40 is capped, is justified. In theeve~t@atitheLe~AgenC(Y4etermines that cappingof:the
site is part of the approved project, the 1998.~J;V'~j€Q#c1udes ~that site compression will occur and will
result in distortion and destruction of theprei!i.'St~[j#fi~cu1turaI deposits. Jnthat event, Mitigation
Measure 4.9-1 (a) likely' would be the action a,PP.I"?Y:ed. t,:"1the 9ity.
Such a course of .action would precludeany'"spi, dy ofCA..;SMa-40 and its relationship to
nearby CA-SMa-92.Becauseboth sites cou1d~~~~tUect,to significant impacts as a result of the
project (direct impacts toCA-SMa-40andin~J,t!1JPactsto CA-SMa-92),then it wouJd be an
appropriate research consideration to explore in~er,;~!~lfe~onship. .
'~;'<":'~
Mr~ Holman has reiterated publiclythefindings'~J:eseJl'in thenolman and Associates' report
regarding the lack of evidence of any physical conn##~:~tweenthe two sites. In reviewing the
'Holman and Associates"report and conducting 1998:'~SE1R;~eld inspections, theEIR archaeologist
(Chavez & Associates }CODCurs with the Holman andlA:i~Odi~tes',coric1usions. However, Holman and
Associates raised the cGnsideration.of a prehistoric cu1~i1;9W1ection between the two sites, and the
EIRarchaeologist concurs that there is agoodpossibilibt:;i,~!.;la::;cUlturalconnection between the sites
and that archaeological,investigation of that possibility::W~ul~tbe :an~;important and justified research
addition to the 'Mitigation Measure 4.9-1(a) program,dffit}iS'1in;1plemented.However, if Mitigation
Measure4.9.d(b) or the 'Phase 111 Site MitigationPlan':Dey.~lgpmentAlternative are implemented,
research considerations regarding the cultural connectionneedmQt;be,pursued.
,; ,.' ',,:f~fl"~~1;":'
Please see Master Response 7.3-5 for further discussion.':' . '
-.;- -:::-'>~~>:.'.- "
Letter 13-20
L._~
LETTER 14
<,;C~,.OF~7S0IJni,SAlN,FlMNCISCO
<~; i~-;:.", 'i " ':.,.
AlliSori'KDapp, '~TerrilbaY'ContraCt 'Pla.nnei
;.-,.;-
':~
FROM:
'Richard Harmon, Development ReviewSpeciaJist
'SUBJECT:
l'ERRABAYPHASE'n '&IDDRAFT EJ;R '.'
'In accordance withyourrequest'of:A.ugust~3,'l998;'lhave reviewed the ProjectiDescription,
Summary of Findings and Alternatives sections of the subject document dated July 1998. I have
the followingcomments,'regardingtheProjectDescription"'sectiODoftheslibject E.ER.::
"'-~""'" -;,:~ ..:"
'":~.
~U.:"
:# 4.1 Detached Units paragraph, page 34: The word "bedrooms" is.missing after the word "four"on
' '~: tneSixtlflineofthisparagraph. '
'.. '.. ,', " ',", " ' " , ' ' ,",',' ',', ", ',,' ,,'
14.2a: Exhibit 2:3-4, "page 36: Note "f":forthis'exHibif'aescribes1he]Jroposed 'gSiageset;;.f)acksas
measuring between 15 and 17 feet from the'lot's'frontproJJerty'Jine,'Althoughtbisis,stated in the
note and the faCt that portions of the vehicles parked on the garage aprons vvould extend beyond
the lot's property is mentioned, it should also be em.pha~iredthat the parkedcarswoUldaIso
extend into, the street' gutter or block the sidewalk,Ae,p~.tl(iing"on the ,street'ci~gJlin front of the
lot. In addition to narrowing the street travel-way by creating ag..eater jShv:a-way" dist8nce
from the curbside of the street (due to the vehicle's projecting bumper) there is also the potential
for the flow of water in the street gutter to be blocked or diverted, if the vehicle's wheel should 14.3
extend into the street gutter, resulting in 10cali'7edflooding.' If the vehicle extended into the
proposed narrow sidewalk, pedestrians could be forced into the street travel-way and wheel chair
access could be blocked, violating ADA-standards.
;,~~ .-
14.4" Residential Street, page 44: The second paragraphof.this section describes a proposal for the
Point and Commons neighborhoods to be designed as ligated commnnities". These gated entry
areas would require substantial improvements which do not appear on the Precise Plan. In
particular, the gated entry would require a tum-a-roundarea so that. the public, confronted with
the gate could return to the public street. Also, there woUldneecf to be a. substantial queuing lane
for vehicles waiting to operate the gate, to say nothing of delivery vehicles, visiting guests and
city oflicia1strying to determine how,to open the gate so they could enter the subdivision. Also, a
. sliding gate would require a level area to operate that may not be available.
. , . ' . ~. ,,1'\;~;i~',":';:;~::.Z~<.'
14.2b ,Exhibit 1.3-12, R.eside~tijrp~g:Di~~~'io~:SIl~lIla~~page 48: Note '1l" for this .exhibit
discusses the problem of vehicles extending into the street right-of-way when parked in front of
the residential garages.>:dn.ordel\to.d~tthejmpoitanceofthiscomment, it should discuss how
far the vehicle's bumper would encroach into the adjacent street travel lane or public. sidewalk
, (which has more cif an impact thanjust extending beyond an imjlginary line).
14.5 Utilities section, page 54: The second and .thirdparagrap~;under this section ~escribe
improvements that would be constructedwitbin P.G.&E.and S.F.W.D. easements or rights-of-
way.Have these agencies,Zlpproyeq,the proposed iDyJre>Yements?lfthey will not approve the use
of-their rights-of-way as proposed by the developer, there coUld be an impact that Will need to be
mitigate().~;"(.>i '
I
i
i ,
I
14.6 Phasing section, page 56: The constructionmnesofJuneandOctober 1998 mentioned in the
paragraphs of this section are no longer valid.
14.7 3.2 Significant Impacts, page 72 and 73: In addition to the list of Significant Impacts described
in ,this .section"lwould.add~tility.infrastructure,maintenanceaccess".
3.3 Less-lban..Significant .Impacts, page.73 and 74:.1n, addition to.theitemslisted, I would
include "aircraft noise", "street grades","'public works services impacts" and "park and recreation
services impacts".
>t:,. ;:.:',~; ;"~' . "'~;<_' . .~~~;:._':\:_... ~::;oJ';"'-_"-:'~'_:'-'~~'~:_";~'_;'~, . : --" ',' .... '. ,'. '. ---~:.,,";:';';-\' ;~\.\,":;-. ";."~ '.' --.",' ,
Whether or not these coinments should be incorporated into ,the DraftE.I.Roshould be decided by
the pjjlnning Division or, if appropriate, the E.IRpreparer. However, I think that they should at
least,be,considered ~for.inclusion.inthejdocument"jfthey:are ,not already.discussed.inanother.
~,.se~on:oftheE.I,Rt1latfLhayenotyeti-evievled.'" " ""..
.~. ,.. "-:'- '".,,-'-~" ,','.
0"' "-,."',-.'..-,'.,
.A:.\terrabay#4\EIRCO}4RCH
'",...--. ''"',,,..-'.-',,-,';" '.'.,
cc:
. . ..-
.wrrER,:~4~prrrPIi~()}!TH~AN.FRAN.q,/~~OIJ,~F!~~rME':irCjF!3lJ~HcwOIiKS":'
. '. . J,...' ,- "
Re$ponSi/14.1'Comrnent noted.'Th~1998DSElR PT,)j~ctDes~riptili~ne~hasbbe~;cOrrected in
responseto this comment to read as follows:" ' " ,', ',',. ..' ,'..
',..' :::;( "~::-:;'~::-;1:';~~~~/":~':~~-::;~::';"'::::-~ .;,.<>::;.~ ,'':::('':i;;'_;-'.~_ ';.;"::'-~-.-;'--,r~~' ;..::~. '.. " . :.~ '" ";:") '....' t "':',i;.>.>:,';~.~~':~~:'~:!"'~:";!'.;,-:.~1:;.;':,::,.~",,~;
. ;.AbOut.:luilfofshig1e..family.detached,:unitstwoJlld~provid~ ;four ,bedrooms and,two..and-
"one:"balt,to;three"'and-one"ha1LblltQrooms~(66;2units)"aJld. '. 6~.unitsw()uld~;provide;five
,bedr()()ms., and:~::-and-one-half bathrooms"dependiQgon,floor:plan', (four,plans .are
'-,., . . ", .~'. .- '," -, .,-" "'... '.- ..' - '- -" " . - -. -- \ ..~"" .. -: ''- ....... ,-," .. - ,'-.- .' ."', . '" ': ,-; '.' " -,' ,., .;,,' '-... ,::.:.' ,--"
ideiitified). '.' .','. '."",'.",' " ' .",
- ":":~'"
ReSlponse14.2 ",'The.drivew~y apron .let}gths{garage, setbacks) shO\VIlin Exhibit2..3-4 (DSEIR page
, 36)areaccuiate ,measmementSfrom the' front fareaf the.gara,ge tothepropeny' tiTLe. However, the
'Terrabay ModifiedSpeeificPlan'ImplementingGriidelines(October '1997) specify IS-foot long
residential drivewaY,1!-prons measured from the back (residence side)"of the sidewalk or back face
(residence side) of the ,curb. This .gtiideline does not.refer tothe.prqperty line,. 'Both the Precise Plan
maps and the Vesting' Tentative Map provide JS-foot long ~prons if measured as specified in the
Terrabay Modified SpeeificPlanImplementing Guidelines. The EIR trafficeIlgineer considers the IS-
foot garage setback to be the minimuni.acc~pt3.ble driveway~pronlength,long enollgh for standard
length vehicles to park in the driveway, near the front face ofthe garage while notprotruding into the
sidewalk or travel way . The comment is correct in observing that pennitting shorter driveway aprons
raises concerns about,parked cars extending into the gutter or'bloc:king the sidewalk, depending on the
street d,esign in front .ofthe unit.
,.,... ,
Response14.3.Jftth~Cityanows . outside .,parkingj)~ dri~~waY'~prrihs,.the ~'spy-away" distance
would appear tobetheresul~gsignificaJ1~"problem.:If icarwas,pm;kedfarenollgbstreetward to
.cause;a,:partial or.fi.ill obstructioIi~f tb,e s~t1Tiitter:then.1hebumper~of.:the.'yehiclle:.would stretch
, beyond .the impaCt area of any 1?caIi.:Zed floodit}g' pr~ce~ by ~e obstruction. 'Thus~ this would not
'incUr an additional flood hazard. . ' .. , '". ' "
. ;_._ '. . C=-~. '-. '.~:- '. .:-C.>" - - ,,-;,__~,"":,'_: ..';,:,.
. ' ," ,.' .,' '.--, ..
RespoJ,i;e14.4Jt:is'Dot ' c1e~~hetberthe'prOjeCf.$ponsor.iri~rias't6'a~slgh ODe or more
neighborhoods (that is,' the Pointandlor Commons) as .gatedcommunities.HoweveI,the EIR traffic
engineer . agrees~that, . if the"'Point 'andComm~nsneighbothooaS 'are ,to. be gated communities,
,improvements ,to the 'gated entry 'areas wo\l1d' be required,' as : rec:ommended1?ythe ,comment. This
, would.result in c:haI1ges to.thetext of the 199BDSEIR asJollows: ',.' '
.- ';-','-.'. :-,..:" '..',~.f :_',.' .:--,;.,-~ f " :" '.-,-,.- ?:.~:.,,!,;... :..~.:_:. _~_.',< ...,...'..~:,'..:..>.- .~ ;:.~:_2 ,::;.:. -';:",,:',: ;,._":;:~:.., :~. :~: -.: . '.-:"".:~-:'~'>>:''':'::~,~< -,:.\~': .
,lmDaCt,4.4-.6a ,"Gated Entrances to Point 8nd~mmonsNelcihborhoods
,~.,:,:; ,;>....,.Dimensionsof.aated entrv areas .could have insufficient'sDace for aueuina and
. 'turnarounds. S. ' .,.' , '. '
,:Thcnzated entrv>areacould have insufficient mace ,forthe:nublic.:,when comrontedwith the 2ate.
,.,to turnaroundandreturn-to thenublic, street and insufficientaueuin28,paceforvehicles;;to stack
while waitin2 to enter the neie-hborhood. Drivers .unuse(Ltoooeratin2the 2ate.personsmaking
,deliveries. arid other new or infrequent visitors would increase the time for entrv., thus increasing
the need for vehicle aueuin2 soace.
Mlt/aatlon Measure 4.4-.6a ' Gated entrances would reauire orovision of a turnaround area and
sufficient aueuin2 mace for vehicles to stack while waiting to enter the nei2hborhood.
H these neighborhoods were not ',to be gated, as subsequently indicated ,1:>Y th~, project, sponsor after
receipt of this comment, but if a trailhead were to be located within the Point neighborhood, publis:.
access to the . trailhead would be ,possible, and ,parking should be provided near the trailhead. In this
. situation, it is recommended that four to six parking spaCes be provided and signed for daytime use by
park visitors.
Letter 14-1
Response. 14~5BeginninginMarch 1997, Brian Kangas Foulk (BKF, the project sponsor's
engineer) ,contacted "representatives ,of,bothPG&Eand ,the "San", Francisco, "Water ", Department
>(SFWri)';~l '<AccofdingiocBKF~':nej'tbe;~'utiliUhhas~'giveii ":finaI'iipprov'al'for. prbjeCt " ~rovements
proposed' wi,ththeir re~pective.rights-;of-:\yay ~B~Jurther indi~s ,the Jollowing; ,2 '::' 'c ..; ,_'
'-. '?:' ',.--'; .,:, ,':-~~'::'.:. ~..;.;~;;" . < '- '.,--:.~: .~. - '-'- ~ - "": ::...; ,'~ ;~-". -. . :-::--_\,-:- '.:. ",: :~:::.:;-:" ~-;.'.. :::-~.-:~:' _:')::,:,._::,: ,.": .' ,~<-,-;:, -_?'-<:~-'._'<<'::-r~ ' -:.
. ;-.._ '-'~..~~: ..~. ~~_ ,:': ':'J,<'r. ,..,.; - ;1 _':'. ,.. ,,~' / '..: ~'." ',':' ,-'_> -..~- {.<:: -:: ':. f -' ~._ . .....,: .'~ :-~,'i'_' ".".... '
· PG&EEssements Jorpower transmission'liIies ana towers ana' im'abandonea, gas OImecrossthe
,proposed Commons ,neighborhoOd'oD 'the'PhaSe!H 'site. "lBased :on discussions withPG&E staff,
'cBKF widerstandstbat' grading,'roadway:;constIUctian:{the' :segiDeni orBan ''Francisco Drive .and
Commons' "'K"arid~'N' StteetS,':whicbwolild cross'the ~easeriient),' aria utility installation within
the PG&E rights-of-way would be acceptable to PG&E. ' " ,
~ - ~i;: : .,.: -:":"; ;:'0 '\~:'" _', --', >:~:.:'"_':~i:~',,_ '~'~;~':;'__' '~;_-_~-..:""';~' " ~:' ":':. i: '.; :,:l:;;:"':I'_.,:~ :.~':..;.~- ...:,": ',.:', <.:- .:. ,.; ,"__' :,'0-:. ",_ :.', :}.,.;., > .";' .-i. '-':"::':"'" '.-::;>.,"_ :-:;'_:}'-.
'. . SFWD Easements for two wateiiransIliissionlines ,are located ~n the 'PhaSe'msite.The Phase
ill developmentconceptprqposes.gra.cfuig, ,.r()adconstruction"and utility installation (but no
:buildings)in the SFWD qgbt-of-waywhichewrently is developed witi! 60- and 44-inch SFWD
water,1ines. 'Th~44-inch]ine is no 'lon,gerinservice;.mid the SFWD :is redesigning a 48-inch
. replacement 'forii .,...'.The ,new. 48~inch 'lin~, woUld ',berelocated ,'to the nght.,()f-w~yof Bayshore
,Boulev~d, as,reaijgned..Baysh~.Boulevard realignment also would relocate:the.existing 60-
inch 'line to the rerouted B~ysbore Bouleyard right-of-way. 'Final al!gnmeDts and connections for
. tp~ two'pnesare stillbei1lg discuss,~ witl1'SFWDstaff. ., '. ' , .
,Response14~6 ',''c:Oir:u:neIlt:D<:>ted.
. - -
iResponse,14.7 "This document, as.a '!supplemental"EIR, "'foCUsed" on specific ,Issues of concern in
,relation to, the currently ,pr()posed . project 'coIDparedwith the previouslY , approved development
conceptS examine~'in, the'1982 E1R:and.',199~,:~EIR~.'The t()pip.ssele<;ted for ,~ysisin this 1998
DSEIRinc1ulie4 "issues,of,sjgriificant'and 'p()tenti,anys~griificanfiIw'act <as a 'resUlt' of substantial
',' differencesbetW~I.1~(oisubstanti.anyitifferen!, cirCUIIlStancesfrom)tp~proposedana.approved plans.
"The City focused 'the issues 'ofutilityiI:iftastrucmre 'maintenaiiceaccess;'.ptitilic:wodcsservices
impacts, and park and recreation services impacts identified in this comment"out"c;'{the 1998 DSEIR.
1..1EIRRequire1lle~ describes thisprocess,ofidentifyilJg the, sc()pe. ,6.4Qffects ,0/1)/0 Significance
&so indicates, that. these issues .' aid not . represent~ignificantor potenti~y. significant'unpacts. 1998
'.DSEIR Impact 4.~2assessed the issue{)f ~ortnoise and focused on ,the compatibility of the project
sitefor.deyel()p:p1eI,lt.with the'1and.1lS~s l'rapoSet1partly }n.recognitionof .e~osure to aircraft
generated, noise. "']t conCluded .that noise Jevelsfrom.aircraftwoq1d not exceed City ,and State noise
'and land use compatibility ,guidefuies,';'indudiilgthoSe for sensitlVe uses' (Primarui residential and
,hotetuses). The:DESBIR'mcluded~whol~new'evAluation;oboadway~'noise,l:and:mitigation measures
were,ideritified 'to'retmee .:any"sigriificiantnoise 'iinpactsto:ii'less"than-significant level. Road grades
were not identified as constituting a significant or 'potentially significant impact and were' not
,.evaluated,inltheDSEIR.,'The,'Summary J9/ :Findings,only : highlights .:.the ,conclusions of this 1998
",:DSEIR,and,theimpactslisted.in Jsections '3;1, :3 .2,'and .33:ionly:include~topicsanalyzed in the main
,,;text '.{Cluipter :~:4.0),"not~issuesjdisii:iissed,from'anaIySis :'as ?less:lthan-'significant when initiating
'''enVironmental,reView. ,.' :"';', "". ,: " , " ,
'~ . . ,'" . ~; .. - "'\".. . .;'. .~.:;; .
, ",-," '. :, :.... ,',." -..... ... -- ",'" -'. . - "" ," c", . ..,"'-':",','1
q 'FAX to Nichols -Berman fromJan O'Flllh~,Brian'KangasFoWk(l'fOjectsponsor' s .engineer); September 2, 1998.
2 Ibid.
Letter 14-2
LETTER 15
(
-PI a.h I'\l rlJ 1>. Ii . S I ;, 1'\
}/eCM.. ~of' Ie. '.
r
\
~ O-M.. ~~' ,-te~CuVl..'
151 ' ' " .
· it\. ,0.. ]'",btL'" ;le-~J . c.h.c~ ;"" rz-
Jyj I ~ 5 , ""'-' .dM tu..c..(- 00 ~""" p........ c., S cD .
(he. 1J .~_~ f'~~ ;.J~ -h :~
h.isk'd- Yl\e.......' "-~ ~ ft>r .&WV ~ is
>~. to br~'~'~ s~~~ 10 -hu.. veYj
..' ..1' \"-w *'~ IU(.$ .j....ri1. ":1 ' If fz,L. $"---
's-r........o r~'\o~"'+Cl.L~O~loV\e., \",-Jl~~ ~
YI'\' ,,,,,,J.... 'is cte 5\-.-0 ';Y" t:l) lI.l \" er e. _ "".1 ( '8<<-\, f~ r"'oj
'~ tv k'l.r r\ ~b c'-V\ ~,':J~ ~ .,~ UJt~
rto r!Con S 1tl..t'X - flea.se.k\j> -\t> frere-rve
~ J&Ut:L~ Y"esoL(.VC~ fn o-t-V\ cw.~.
\~~ d~
3...e......t'+--- E I e.....~~
'2-" 4: 1c25 4 "- S,r
C .t:. q Y l \ b
LETTER 15, LILIANA VALLE
Response 15.1 The comment addresses the' "merits of the project" in view of the site's
:environmental resources. . However, because it does not raise questions about the adequacy of the
1998 DSEIR analyses, no response is required. Inclusion in the 1999 FSEIR will make the
commentor'sviewsavailable to City decision-makers. Please see Master Response 7.3-11. In
addition, as noted in Response 21.11 (below), to the extent that environmental documents address the
effects of development.projects on schools, those analyses relate to physical environmental impacts
(such as impacts from building programs initiated to ,alleviate capacity constraints of educational
facilities), not to the subjects taught in schools.
Letter 15-1
..
......t~P5];:~~::.02:;::~
.~~~tWf~~.ve<t zitr-
16.1a -,~ ..wL. ',~ -' ..... ~""'v~. . I. ,
Q)~~\d. "'\\'X4-~";'e..~~.s;' ......... . r~. el..~.i.~~
~t.~~ll~~~~~i~:~.~~AG~+~
~c......... So "0 ,,,:0, , " , ',,' j , ,
,/.! .:~ .'. '"}::.' .wc> ,-,-ckt\k. .~... .~ && f-~~
, /:1 ,o..;:~'d:~ ,sk\'l ',', 4 'o-v<...oS ,,,., .
( ~\~ ~~~l1St..
"'-v- c.J.,,, 0.. -=-l6~:: cL\ -" "- "<-'i ~''''~ ~. 'i So
t::- ~~~:i~~~t1L~~~
\.. ~"-' <;. of T\...e.~. 1 ~ Q..v ',1:.. .~- .. r ~ f
.~o-ls,. :L.~\.\.v-<. "~~~.s
~~~ ~~~:~'~b~~ ~~~~~~I
~b '~~S o-~ '--'-cn-~
k.o, "~ ~~ .,' .~.~"~.~, '~', '\:x.., ....... ..
~ ~ ..... .\-.e.~ ffi .~"'L ~...-....~~
~ e--~O-~o~l~.s ~~ fL...~.
"'Tk ~oss, \,. ,~' ~ ck, '~~~", .
~'--s ~ ~'-'- ~ "c...5~<"+.h..v'
\~ ~~)c.:rt1;::-~~ .~
&-~~~~~e....t ,~~ ~
I
,
~
, ..., ..,,'.. .",." . .,., .f-
,.o"~"'..,....,:..'" ,.,,' ","{
" ,~"".". . ,..' , 'J
.:' ,'~~' .';~';'~': \~ ~::c. .l-h-~~I,
....... .)< ~ -rV. .......:.~ .~\'~...."~\'''""4! I
',~'z-,,"~,\'~, ,"',',.,',., ,:,."',"',','.,.,"",.,"..,.,~." "',:," '::......,~' .'.~.". "<',.,",;".,,", ,~, ',', , ",.'," " .,' '--,",
. . '-, -- ..". . -.-.-' .', -' . :..,' . '- " ,. \
.' '. _ '-" ,.... ~-......\..~ ,.,"
~ ' " .." . . ~ . ':. ." . ' ~, " ,",", ',' ~'uv...;) '!
'," ",",-_..rY .." '",.,. . ,,' ',., '.' "" , ','.
~ "'V " " ",' ',"- ~' ".,~ ' " "11
· ~' '"t:iJ.-;., .. "~"'-'~" '"... ' .\~:. '. " ~ ~."' ~, .' ~~
< .' ", "", '>~f'..""!,.~.\ '..""'.,, ''-''1'' , ......' .,':::..;'.:-,> .:,.' , "~"" i
d,;. """,. ,.,.,.",." . '~.c.,'~,..".,~ ,',.',.. ".,'~'~.,v,',.
. ',.". ,~".." "",',,',.,',., ",',. ',.'", ',", "..'''~ '(JJ'
'. "'16 1b "','", ' ,......'.". ", ' ":' ,'. '"
. ", . '." ' ., , ' " ,"v..e...-c;," ,,', .,,', _
".'",.","".,....." ' "",e.",,, "'i, ", ':'" .,,'~,\.,"..,~,""~,."".,~,.,' ", ',', ',".'
':L " ',"', ,..', "" ,'" ,', "," , ,." ,..,,' '. "~J ", .'.. ,.' ! '
,.... Q... .~ .. .'V"E. .
. ~"" dL~' ,~..p ~, "'\)J~, kv<- l
\.~ ,,~ lU- .u-J3: ~ ~ .
~ ~ .~ '::(.je"\- ~~ Yr^f
~~ ~ ~\\ . 7'y.\.b :~L _>{ ..
~~I . 0& ~~1-\-~\(t\t~\Ao\o;~
. ..~ '{CNc>l- T'.~ '~H~'clerQ.'t-t~
":'
.
, '
... .~ -. : .; ..'
. . .,)-
\.
,
J .
, ' '
L
.'
r -,
,
L
..1
,
, ,
i :
I
.~,.
~;~ ., 4) .'
LETTER 16. ROBERT CARRILLO
Response ,.16. 1 The comment addresses the "merits of the project" and expresses a preference for an
alternative to the project analyzed in the ,1998 DSEIR. Although it discusses the project site's
environmental resources, it does not raise ,questions about the adequacy of the 1998 DSEIR.
Therefore, no response is ,required. 'By inclusion in the 1999 FSEIR, ,the commentor's views will be
made available to City decision-makers. Please see Master Response 7.3-11.
Response 16.2 A thorough archaeological investigation has been accomplished. the results of which
are reported'in Holman and Associates' February 1998 report. The results are summarized in the 1998
DSEIR (DSEIR pages 276-282, 284-285, and 286-295). CEQA indeed requires that important cultural
resources be properly managed, particularly those with Native American burials present. The 1998
DSEIR not only presents alternatives for managing the resources as mandated by CEQA but also
provides options for preserving the site. See Response 30.5 for further discussion.
Letter 16-1
"l'o:'~Planning'Commission"
> :South San 'Francisco
'From:.Betsy Burr
, 9 Canterbury Way
iMomstown,NJ07960
! '.',,' ." t" ;.:~' ..; ."
'.:LE" '~E;~ ,,1.7
:.;'" . ;'. ~;i~ ni.... '.;
~,.. ~
17. 1 I am writing as a member of the public in response to the SEIR on Phase m of the
Terrabay Development project,':having attended the meeting of July 9 where the report
was outlined. I,urge youto'preserve the shell mound as it is and to consider making the
native American\wotld it 'represents accessible to the public in some form. .
Althou,ghI ama fourth-:generation:SanFranciscan, I have:lived forth~past30 years in
New Jersey, returriinghere several times.ayear. lused to'wonder,flyinginto:the San
Francisco Airport, 'about the amazing phenomenon of a ,mountain preserved in scrub and
grasslands habitat.right in. the, middle of the crowded peninsula "Eventually, I met people
· knowledgeable about San 13runo Mountain, and l:havesince enjoyed many :hikes over its
varied 'terrain. '
',".. ',',..-, .-...., ,,',',,',--- , ", '
It. seems to me'thauhe shell mound is the crowning glory of.the,mouritam, because it
.speaks of 5000,years ofhumancommunity!llved,Jnhannony-With'tbe'natunilwoild.
This is an important lesson for uslatecomers, as forourchildren;;and :for generations to
come, if weare to avoid the destruction of our planet and, ultimately,ourselves.
Preserving this shell mound as it is, perhaps with a nearby reconstruction ofa Native
American village with interpretive signage, could be an exciting step for South Sari
Francisco. We have such an interpretive site near my home: the Leni Lenape Indian
Village at Waterloo Village, in the wooded hills of northwestern New Jersey. I have
taken many groups of children from a summer camp I founded to visit this reconstruction
ofa Native American settlement. They react with curiosity, wonder.and delight at
discovering' the ancient self-sustaining society preceding the wotld they know.
Think of it: there has been a human community in South San Francisco since the
pharaohs built the pyramids! I don't know any other place that can boast of such a Jarge
and long-term settlement in the Bay Area I believe people would be fascinated to
discover this site. Would we permit its. destruction if these were "our" ancestors?
*This information comes from the Holman & Associates report.
.~
i
i
,You 'have before you an oPportUni~J9P~servea precious piece of the past.
Development of a nearby interpretiv,e.sitejvouldn'thave to be done now, or even in our
lifetimes,. but future generations may better understand the shell mound as "our" heritage,
not "theirs," and valueit more highly.. Once 20 or thirty.:feet,offill-and:pavement have
been added to it, the shell mound and the world that it so;pojgnantlyrepresents will be
lost to human awareness.
1
!
South San Francisco has a chance .to do better. I urge'you'to'give~yourself this chance.
With every good wish for your future-
;.rBetsy.Burr
>::9kCanterbury Way'
,:.Morristown'NJ07960
17.2
~(~~,~~+Pil~S'T:R-OM2J.' ,J-s
\~~:1~~~.~~.'~..~
~*",-';~~i~~~~
'~.~""'~~':'~'~~"'.J'1!~.....~,.~ft,~l~'...~'.'.'..~+o, ..'~'.".""',',"bf-'",W-, '
" , ' ,'" , .,.., '.. ,',' ""..3kat.\.,~" "uJ~"'l .", ,',' "
.<, . _ '. ~. :-... ", . :. ':.., ,.... - :':'. - '.. ,.':':'\,;.A..,J __.co.; '- - . , " . -' -'. -'"
, , ., '. . - ~
.\'~:-ff ',' -', ~'..,'." ' .' . -.'.5/" . --:..~_~.~,>,: "::;,:: '.>? ,'-.-,",~~ .':::: _:. ::. -. :_:..-i_>',:X," ,'-. '-.~-,. .,....
.~,
L_
t..
LEITER 17, BETSY BURR
Response 17.1 The comment addresses the "merits of the project" and the environmental resources
of the Phase ill site. It expresses a preference for (and suggests other variations on) an alternative
assessed by the 1998 DSEIR but does not raise questions about the adequacy of the DSEIR. While no
response is required, inc1usionin the 1999FSEIR will make thecommentor's views available to City
decision-makers. Please see Master Response 7.3-11.
Response 17.2 Comment acknowledged.
Letter 17-1
1;8. 1
1,8.2
LEITER 18
Testimony on the Terrabay Phas. II and III EIR
My name is Patrick Orozco. I was given the ' Indian name of YanaHea, One Who
Yawns. I live at 644 Pear Tree Drive,Watsonville, CA. 95076.
I am tribal chairman of the Pajaro VaIleyOhlone IndianCoundl representing 320
people. Our tnbalaffmation according to records kept at Mission Santa Gara is
Ohlone-Ritocsi, also-:known-to the-early padres as the Santa-Teresa Hills people. I am
also registered as a MostLike1y Descendant with the Native American Heritage
Commissionin'Sacramento. Although'mostof ourpeCJPle died during the Mission
er~"yet some of us ,have survived to maintain and revive our culture. It was
dangerous to be Indians for many years, but at long last we can speak out for our
identity and ways. Our organization was formed in 1975 in order to protect and
preserve all sacred sites of our ancestors. We realized that they were being destroyed
at a very alarming rate.
My people and I have served as Indian monitors with archaeologists when there is a
possibility of graves being disturbed. When we, served as'monitors, we made sure
that all measures were, taken.forpreservation even though most of these sites were
very much disturbed. The San Bruno shell mound is'intact, which means very little
disturbance has occurred there~As I walked the land, I could feel the presence of the
ancestors that are buried there and the hundreds of graves there. In particular the
area between the large and small shell mound is likely to have isolated burials. In
my experience as a monitor, many isolated graves are found outside the main
impact areas.
Also as I walked . the ,land, I oould See plants that were used by my people, such as
hiyatay (soap root), plantain, ta shu ta ya (buckeye),willow, curly dock andrushes,I
would like to see aU this,property'preserved and protected and even returned to its
natural state. Weare not comfurtablewhen we hear that they want to put top soll
or parking lots over the shell mound or surround it with buildings. In the Indian's
eyes, this is disturbance. The entire area should be left intact.
Recently, I read where a state congressman was asked, "'If they want to dig up our
16th President's coffin to see what relics he was buried wi~,what would be his
answer. He said he would say, '"'No, Let him rest in peace."
The San Bruno Moutain is sacred and"we ask,that you support us in protecting it
To disturb it would be a violation of our religious rights as American Indians. And
we ask that our rights be respected.. Many prayers were said over these graves by my
, ancestors and myself.
Respectfully,
~'~
Patrick Orozco
LE7TER1B, PA TRICK OROZCO
Response1B.1 The commentor's leadership in the OhIone community and experience of many years
as a Native American monitor are acknowledged. Mr. ,Orozco's statement regarding the potential for
off-site burials, is carefully, noted. A mitigation plan. for .such possibilities is discussed in. Master
Response 7.3-6. As also noted in response to this comment are Response 30.5) (response to Exhibit
Two) and Master Responses 7.3-5 and 7.3-6 for additional discussion. ' .
There is, no archaeological evidence to.. prove or disprove the commentor's statement about the
presence of off-site burials. There is no, practical way to substantiate ,or refute the claim. short of
digging up the entire area. However, as an Oblone spiritua1 leader, the commentor's statements must
be given serious consideration in detennining what is the preferred project alternative.
Response1B.2The comment addresses the "merits of the project" in view of the site's
environmental resources but does not raise questions about the adequacy of the 1998 DSEIR analyses.
Inclusion in the 1999 FSEIR will make the commentor's views available to City decision-makers.
Please see Master Response 7.3-11.
Letter 18-1
"p . Weston
,214 Roosevelt Avenue
Redwood City, CA 94061
, - '" -,,",. - '-:'-.- ,-:.
Cit}/'6f Sou~~,S~Q.Eranc:j~co
Planning Depa'rtment . ... "
400.Grand,Avenue ., .'" .
South ,~~n'F?r,~"c:!s,c.Q,'r;,f:. 94080
. .... -. . . -
JRE CE,fVtE;'O
,.- .... -,"
::':',:'-':" ,..:""',,,, : ..;...,... - -',...-..,',.,',': "
. From: Foster CityRod.~np,~unC, ,Iub,.
, ,
.., II! ",12 .~, 311.
.'v ,.. ';,~' !.I<OI~\I
. -:-",:; i,,,-' ,'"".;
'PLANNING ..
~. '.- ,,,,,;~,',':. '''-'', ,. ',.-
He:9oncerns .R~gardin.g} errat:>~Y SEI R
- . ..... -
1,9.1 aiAs avidsportsmen~ weare,veryconcernedabout.thesignificant,impacts that
; such a la~geresideritial and commercial develo,pment wilL.have on,the Oyster
., Po.intEstuary, 'the Bair.,lsland .WHdHfeArea,and the ,waters ,of :FosterCity as a
result of heavyrun.off, erosion, pollution and siltation~,::Our:ing,the winter
months the water clarity in the Oyster Point Estuary becomes so bad that
th"e water"jsCi", .milky,-,mur~y.coJor., andtakessever:al,mc>nthsJntospring'oto
'clear-:up...Theselri1pactsar~.,not discu?sedJnthe"SEIR.,'-,,;... ',.
..: ,,;',,' ..'-:.'. '-~:,' ",,-;. ,..-..... .. - ,. " _" c.".. . _ " :. ,,',. _.'.. ..' ,. _'Co ;,.' '," '. ,.." ,"_, :-.';' ':.....' ,'_ '," - _: ',.... _'._.,: __' ..... _.' . '.. :........:;,..:~ - .... _c'
.. . ,-. -',.'. -'.. . " . "'., .
TMe"S~n'.' B.run<?',M'o,ui1~ai'l 'SUPP;~i,e~'I~rg~~~~'ILJ~e{pi'~~n'::g~':~~f~~:.~th~ San
.Francisco ,Bay..>:With.:the,~level,of.jgradillg,".:soi I. ,.distyrbance.and,.losses of
wetlands, due,tothi$ .'development, ,sigriificant;erosi()rl, pollution,al1dsiltation
.", . if will.re,achtBe'. ,,$an ',Fra.,c:iscoBay. JNater"1Si Itatioci';\,i,s '.a,~ery;,~'$ignificant
ci ''',pollution source..'to. .tbe..waters;of,the,'Sa.n..FraJ1c1sco's'ay..:A.healthy "bay
ecosystemreg'uires,.:cool, clean,;oxYger,ated [Water ented~g .the;~a.y.." All fish,
" fowl..and .sea. crE!atures 'depend:,on.a. ,tlean:SaY..The rQyster..,eoint ,'Estuary
19.2a' supports a-significantherringfishe,y, .thatattiaCts 'halibut,'strippedbass,
salmon,sturgeonJ.13ay fisn ,:andis ;am~Jor -stclgi ng."af,e~.,for.the .canvas 'back
. duck and other bay diving ducks (as a result ofhabltaLI()sse~Anotherparts
of the Bay). A ,public fishing pier, the Oyster Point ,Marina' and .the Bair
Island Wildlife ,area are nearby. These all provide important commercial and
recreational fishing opportunities, as .well as view areas for Bay birds and
migrating waterfowl. Clean unpolluted water is essential for healthy habitats
for the fish, fowl:a.nd,s~a.;rnammals thatuseth!s.~r~a,and,.the nearQY wildlife
'.refuge.... ...,',.., .', '..... "",' "'. ..." ",.
This project calls for significantgrad'i~g'ih~t..~ilf}~~~y~...existing wetlands,
springs and disrupt stream channels that help purify and filter siltation from
, the run-off water that flows into the San Francisco Bay. <Much of this project
wHlhave all of the topsoil and existing vegetation removed down to, bedrock.
19.1 b 111 this occurs there will be no filtration of the run-off water and a greater
Ct..'. ~'Y'V"'\
~\~~\e~
. ~ ,La. .-:- -: \ 'A
19.1b '
19.2b
poll Lition potential from therun.off water will result. ,With all the topsoil and
vegetation gone there.w~u~d;,~be,~e~sentially norainfaIL,:ab~Qrpti~n. With
development the ,run~off'ro'm~theseareas willgreatly'~increaseand will
require,precise engineered drainage systems thatsometirnes do,notalways
work as planned. . Mother Nature has providecj the~e, ~etlands and stream
fchannels for:this purpose. They mustfbe:~preservedJ <,.,:" , ,.
. . .:,,:,,;: ':Y:{:Tr:;r'-'.,~'_\~_~.<<;h,:.":~:'?~
'. . - . . - ..
. . :", ." . , ~ ".,..": ,', "," . .' ":. . ;- - , :..;.', ",:', .
San Bruno ~Mountainhas always""',$.to,, od, out'as;:a!;,~,Je, wel,.,.,O{op, '"e,'" n.spaceand a
'sourc::~...,ot.freshwater run~off int6:.the'SanFrancisco 'Bay.'Since development
has\begunon this project therehas;bee~ aJ1()ticeable decline,. of the Bay
fishery andfall waterfowl populationslnthis afecC"""'u, ". . ,. ,
. ", ~. .. ,.,.:'... '.1., . ~ ',' . ,",_ . -..'- -:.. . - .,- :.
The proposed developments 'in"Phase}lland"phase'liIOf'Terrabaywill surely
cause more degradation of Bay water quality and water clarity. The fish and
wildlife that. depend. .on a clean, Bay and provide many ,recreational
'opporturiities,as welf:asacommercialfishery(herringjwill ;'be'signlficantly
effested 'byfurtherdegradation 'of 'water quality 'in the Oyster Point Estuary.
These'.impacts.'have noebeen'addressesin;th~SEIR. 'We ar(;!requesting that
.'theybe'lncluded. . -' '.. '
:-',':'- ;..-, -.:-, " .' ~
19..300'ndf'overlodR-'1:hevalue'ofthe"remai r'ling'wetlands ':on 'this !project.
Unfortunately'signlficant"'amOUrits 'of'wetlands-:and'springs 'were iilledand
gradedaYiay during theiiniti,al ,gradir-,gonthis,prqjectin Phase,l.Voumust
be'muc:h;'Tnor~'careftfl;with':~the 'wetlands "and'.$pfings<that 'ref11ain., and .you
"shotild:atso"ask'~hj~';dev~lqperto:'restore:1he' :wetlands:in 'the'dev~lopment
wherever"possible~" "~Some'of:1the ;~irriportarit'functions':'of:-fhe,,:wetl.andsare:
'sedimenf.retel'ltiori:'~water',dariti', ,'floodwater .:storage" ,'rectuce(j.'.property
dama~~Trom ',Jflo'odih~'and,'mud "sJides,'wildl.ife:habitat, ,.grounc:twaterre.
.chaJ"ge,~~eplenishdr1nki 'l'g':watersupplies,'fHteringpo'llutants, 'maintenance
of water' ql,Ja,l}ty! 'sLJPeortf~r.aquCitic ] ife'.~.r~~mairt.~rla. r'lce()f Ji~H~~i,es\,>.
;';'i::'c',';:~,t:;~,; / . ' -.:";, ., '..:';. >:T:j:':.'::~" :: ""c" ,.: ,:'..;',~ :~" <-, :'<'"~"", . ,:' ,.i':,ii, ,".>" ";":", -:'" .:,,'~'" ..~;"",> ',: ' :.~::,~,~-:'!}
" -"For th~se'reasol'l~we:asrthat the 'remain.if'lg~Wetlar'lds'andspfingson this
'sitebe;saVed! " ,
",C
;:, -.
.
''Ca'lifOmia:tRegionafWa1:er Quality'Contr.()I'Board
San Francisco Bay Region
21 0 lWebs~erStreet, Suite 500
<"OaktanctCA;94612:~~O,"'
1.
-PR eS10c/t.:)T
2..JAIALT ,(?/lkJGUF~ X/;:-cN~~LlG;(
3.lY\iJ~e L.lYlcD 0'1',( 4
4. ~~~~
5. ~ lliLL
6. ~Q
-
"
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
A'"
16. \/.
Lk)~ (). ~'
-~J'~..~.,
LETTER 79, FOSTER CITY ROD AND GUN CLUB
Response 19.1 The 1998 DSEIR did not analyze water quaIitybecause the City detennined that
project'spotentiaUmpacts would not changesu.bstantiaIly from those identified in the 1982 EIRand
1996 SEIR.Tbe mitigation measures contained in those reports would be required of any project site
development. These include complying with the City's "Storm Water Management and Discharge
Control" program and five-year management plan, obtaining a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit, and preparing and implementing a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP).Regarding site runoff, erosion, and downstream sediment yields from the
project site, itmust be kept in mind that existing site conditions are extremely degraded and highly
erodible. In view of existing site conditions, project implementation as proposed generally would
decrease site erosion and sediment yields. This outcome would be enhanced further by Mitigation
Measures 4.2-8 and 4.2-9 to remove fire access roads and restore original site topography outside of
development areas. ,Also see Response 13.42.
Response 19.2 The comment refers to the impact of the project on wetlands' and the effect of
grading on erosion and sedimentation in downgradient areas, including the sensitive habitat of the
Oyster Point estuary. The 1998 DSEIR (DSEIRpage 160) discusses potential impacts of the project
on wetland habitat and acknowledges the potential for degradation of waters located downstream from
the site. 'Soils exposed during grading and construction would contribute to increased sediment loads
'if adequate erosion control measures are not implemented. Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(c) would require
preparation of detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan, and Mitigation Measures 4.3-3(a), 4.3-
3(b), and 4.3-1(a) address the potential loss of wetlands. As noted by the commentor, grading and
construction would contribute to degradation of the aquatic ' habitat of the Oyster Point estuary unless
appropriate measures are taken 10 prevent sedimentation (seethe immediately preceding response).
With implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the'1998 DSEIRand 1996 SEIR. erosion
and sedimentation from the project site would not significantly affect the aquatic habitat of the Oyster
Point estuary.
Response 19.3 The commentor's concerns about the potential loss of wetland habitat are noted. As
the 1998 DSEIRdiscusses (DSEIR pages 156 and 160), this loss is considered significant. As
indicated in the immediately preceding response, several mitigation measures have been recommended
to minimi7.e the loss of wetland and riparian habitat, provide for the creation of adequate replacement
habitat, and prevent the degradation of downstream areas as a result of erosion and sedimentation.
Grading performed as, part of Phase land the construction of Sister Cities Boulevard was authorized
under Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit No. 26, issued on April 20, 1990 (File No. 180525),
together with the intended grading on the Phasell and ill parts of the site. Restoration of any wetland
habitat already eliminated during previous grading activities is not warranted and should not be
required of the project sponsor as a condition of approval for development of the Phase n and ill sites.
Letter 19-1
20.1.
RE CE , VE 0
.A \ ..;1 .~ '"::tl$
LETTER 20
PLANNING
San Franciso::::>, CA. 94107
Fred Rinne 1029 Carolina St.
Towhan it may ,concern:
I am writing about the proposed TerraBaydevelofllleIltat the foot of
San Bruno~tain.
With the passing of time, San Brunolobtmtain is increasingly
celebrated as an environmental and aesthetic treasure in the
overbuilt Northern Peninsula.
I feel that the South San Franciso::::> planners should retain the
shelJ..DDund ,area as part of San BrunoM:JuntainStateParkand scale
backTerraBay fran the fringes of the M:>untain. South San Franciso::::>
has an opportunity to plandevelopoent and parks in the area of San
Bruno lobuntain in an attractive and profitable m:mner and there is no
excuse beyond greed and stupidity for more ugly ticky-tacky sprawl.
South San Francisc:o could learn fran ccmmmities that abut major open
space areas ,like Ross ,Marin county, or Kensington in the Fast Bay,
not to trash up their vistas with ugly sprawl.
Thank you for your time ,
~','~
~oj"OJ ~.
1'\'" ~,
,~\ ,~\VV""..
, .\
~{Y\l~~\ev,
~ ~ c- --c=".\-
,LETTER 20, FRED RINNE
. Response 20.1 The comment addresses the "merits of the project" and expresses a preference for an
. alternative to the project studied in the 1998 DSEIR. 'However, because it does not raise questions
about the adequacy of the DSEIR analyses, no response is required. Nevertheless, inclusion in the
1999 FSEIR will make the commentor's views available to City decision-makers. Please see Master
Response 7.3-11.
Letter 20-1
LETTEFf21a
San Bruno Mounrain Watch · PO Box AO Brisbane,CA 94005
. AUguSf13, "1998
-
Mr . 'Jim. Harnish .
;Plaririing<"Division
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
"~'
'"C
'~lA ',,:f'Yi( .
", :/:',,'1,' ,~ "t),"
..U' ".. . , "
A'...-.",L" .. '.
.:~' 7~.)'Cr:
~4'G'
Dear Mr. Harnish,
21.1s'-FollowiI1g are comments andquestionsabouttheJti~y, 1998 S.E.I.R. for Phases nand
'IDofthe Terra.b~yproject on 'SariBrurio Mountain. We are stroI1gly opposed to the
project because as proposed utterly disregards the site's broad range of
env,i"r,orunerital" ~historical and cultura] values. "...
, ,
:"",""'."
The 'CitY ofSoti~ San Francisco sh9uidnotiill~w~evel()pine~t oIlth~b~an
'0 burial sitesont1te "South Slqpes,ofSanBruno :Mounta~g'hase]n).lt}s morally and
ethic:a1~Y'WI'ongtoen1Ploydi!feren~ :stapdards for Native American '~urialremains
then woUld be used for other cemeteries. ... "
. ,~- ,;', .' ;
Further;theprojectwi1l~rc;de'the'biologicalinte,grity. of San BrunoMountain.W e
are 'incalculably 'fortunate to have in,ourbackyar,!,oite of the world'sbiolq,gical
treasures -its survival is tenuous and our stewardship responsibility is great. The
, bold measureswe,take"no,;" toprotect.and'expandthe ecosystem's viability will do
J far more forpeo~leone h1l1}(iredyears froII1'no,~than. onehund~eahotels.
..- " ". .' -'".-
The Phase IDEermanent Open Space Altemative,accordingfo the S.E.I.R., "would
be contrary tothe development assumptions adopted by th7City.(p. 301)" in 1982.
We ask the City for the arCheolqgical :information'us~Ci 'in thed.evelopmentof
assumptions aridagreementsbetWeentheCity and,pro.jectsponsorbe reexamined.,
and that theC~~!ake'~e wtiative in;preservingthe'P~ase ill_site for all tUite.
'~.'W ea.lso iiigefhe City tOI,1()tdevelo,p the . Phase n~ite.'The'S.E].R.'conduaes, '''it
theoretically would be ,possible to d~velop the types and. amounts of residential and
commerdalland usespro,posed...at other.1ocationS (p.304)." "Hthese land uses are
415467..6631
\page 1
'San Bruno MoumainWarCh · PO Box AO Brisbanei;~CA94005'+~:"l""::
""~,,#~~i1~~~11~~r,i;~!,, '
21.1 a, , indeed needed, they should occur elsewhere, than on San Br1.1IUJ MO~ta;iI}(and
. probably could at far lesse"Pense). " .",' ',,','
<...'
.21~2
21.3
21.4
This said, the foIlowingc9mments nonetheless address a varietr"of !s,s1.les,in the
S.E.LR. We,appreciate:'theirinclusion for the record and for cOIlSideraJi9n ."~y the
document preparersand C:;ityofficials. ' ,
r-
1. BIOLOGY
Mere site specific surveys are inadequate measures of the pr()ject's ~pactson the
Mountain's biodiversity, including but not limited to its "special status" species.
The mountain 'ecosystem, surrounded and significantly permeated by development,
Is in particularly dire need of buffer zones to preserve the int~grif;y of its. corehcibitat
reserves. <'Oegradationof buffers such a~the'Phase ill site, deemed "marginal"
habitat because it has beendisturb~dand II1~y, not support~pecialstatus.species, will
significantly impact the ecosystem as Cl'whole.'Eventhe . highly disturbed Phase IT
site serves a buffering role. For e~deI\ce! :'()ne can look tothetheoryof~lCU\d
"bi~geo.graphYJestablish~d,~~,'years,~go~y ,1r\'orl,!-reno~ed ,entomolq~t.anCi:expert
" .in ,conservation biologyJ'E:9:}Wilsq~:"St~!e4..Y:~D" sirru'ly "theth~ory:hp1dstllatan
ecosystem;'s, number'of speclesis' prop6rti6~~!..to ,i~size.:The : Phase IJ;:and ID:sites
are still very much apart of San Bruno Mountain's highly compromiSed and
endangered ecosystem. ..Pr':l~:,\NilsonJill The Diversity, of Life, highlights the
mountain, as one of, eighteeri~ global ?iodiver~i!y'hot~pots" deserviIlg 'ip:unediate
a:ttentiondue.to'theirprec~ous state~:': ' " "
'-...-.,:-.....->>. . "'<:': .~,: 'n Y' , .: '::.' >~':"."" ",< ~',:: . ", . :.~",'.;,;::' . ":.;~" ,:'--:,;', '~~',;~. < -: c'.;':",.;, .
....'. ". ".' , .
~ ',,:.-c~ ~'" . :"'.~:'~.. ';"",,:: .;'.'. ".:;,.,,".,......,..~~,"',. "::;:r::S ,,:~,~-"<_ ,L.,:'..>: '..:": .;..'....~ :-:,:',', ;'.:." :'i::L":.","::,:->':' ; c,"':"':;.':',__,";:',;;,":.'" .<..> (....'.':.:.:':.f,.i" ':
:'. ;:=~~~~e(~:~~;~lI~~:ed:t~:~~:=h;ili;'~;~f~~t8r:~:~g~pacts
destroyed:pere~CJ}~F'riIlg forits.~4life v.alue~(p.84,~.3,~ la).j .
; 'F'urther, ,,';bOth,"J6hnny-jump-~~c.(~(JilZ';p~d~~c~1~t~), surveys,ciescribed.in., the 'S.E.I.R.
" missed specim~I\S 'locClted.~etWeenthe twos1\ellmoundson"thePhase ill site. The
; Jo1UmY~J~p-1.lp'ls_~e:,hos(pl~tf~,tJ:1erare".;anqeIldaI}gered San Fran.-cisco. .
Silverspot (Callophrys-Mossif'Bayensls):' 'These were unmistakably sighted in
sPrlIlgand .summer"of'97:,~~.'98, ~~Cl!eindica~d<>,nthe endosedmap.,;:~u.pine
,( LZi;pinus ' :bic~lor) ,,~ith,. ra!~ClIlCl ~aa1lg::ed ,,~s~on,Blue,(Icll1"iCiaicarjoi4es
missionensis) ". e.ggs' on"the.l~Cl\Tes, ).,.av~ been founcI.this sUmmer,above~e .large
shellmound and along the dirt road 'between the two mounds. The presence of
.L..
r
.415-467-6631
~page 2
,J()h11l}y~jtii#i>~4p,;~lupi1l~~;.S~'F~ailci~d6'~sil~~~~pgt arid' M~sf~n,jUue,.must, be
verified, and T errab~Y:s'inJpacts./~pqgl:1$r~d~g, ',trailes.t:ablisllInent~iand
otherwise, should beancilyzed" ,. - .,.., , , ' ", .' '
Also, the status under C.E.Q.A. oEspecies listed in Appendix 7.4, "Potential Special
Status Species for Terra,bay, SaIl BnmoMountain,"should not ,beJeftund~termined
(Le:, thosemarkeci"State: 'C.E.Q.A.?"). . ,
21.s'Gi\renthe sharply dIffering views of thejntenfofthe'San Bruno Mountain Habitat
CoriservationPlan and its effectiveness' inprofecting ,the San ,Bruno ecosystem,
precise mitigations should be developed and submitted' for review for all instances
of grading in HCPopen space beyondproject boundaries (Exhibits 4.1 - Ib, Ic).
21.4~
21.5
'-';:
;:SanBrunoMounrain WarCh,.PO,Box AO';BrisbanerCA 94005
Further, despitetheS~E.I.R,pre,parers'~pp~ent sensi,~yi.tyJnmaI1y~!e~pects, the .
HCP 15 not, as' claimed, "fully described .aridanalyzed(p. 52)"in the document. It is
the stated, yiew.ofn1.U1lero~.Jegal,aI1cl environmentaladyocates,thatHCP~s,
indtldin,gthe one"Jor Sari'BIimoN1oi1n!&zland,hupdredsof othe'rs.now iI,'l effect
n, a" "tion,wl,. d, e, -h, aY""e,', 'Ie, s,ill,'."., ted" in" nethab, it~,!, ".losse",? in, ,,'rie, ar,~y, eve, ry cas, e, and that despite
.. . .' . .... .' ". . . . :-. "'-" . .... ... '. -' ",. ....- ",.-. ,." '-. .' :;}. .- .'-' " .,~. . '.' -:.
ilie policy's title arid any good initialintentioiiS' on the part of its framers, HCP's
represent more than anything a destructive le,galJoqpholethatwhPllybetrays the
spirit and intent of the Endangered Species Act. ," .
. ."--
.,' - - .
While,.".,fh,.. eS"":,E",J.R,,.,isnot th" e" appr,.,op,.n,.a,te, .,forum,' , "',','"t() "disc:uss th,eI,d,e)me,ritso, fthe San
Bruno'M"., o,un"" tam,: HCP, I ',a"b, a,l,an" ce,~ 'assess, m,' ent""Ofth,e,p,olic:)risinitigati,.v""e effect on
,proposed developments should ackno~ledge.this controver~y. " ."",.
. "' . ." "\- ", ,-.". .'. . . ., . . ., , .~. .... .
21.'7'-If 1slmoreovJi;'~a.ppr~pfiate Jorlli~;"fiAn.eJjj~y,irig's~b~tantial HCP-related
contracts tobe given powers of review arid approval of the, project's HCP-related
provisions. This conflict of interest involving Thomas Reid and Associates
originated with the HCP itself (p. 7) and apparently is slated to .coI,ltinue (pp. 28, 55,
70,83).
21.8
:n.
JO~S
: , . ! ":'--::':.'; ....
While the project sponsor's employment predic:tioIlS"(p.42) are explained, they do
not appear to be independently validated as the document guidelines mandate(p. 6).
,,415-467-6631
page 3
S, an. B!,UDO ,MounwnN.Vatch".P,OBox,AOBrisbane,CA94005
, .'-
;
Ii
r-
.;
, !
.r
. I.t
21.8
Moreove:~ ~~..i~~~~, oft;,IlJ:pl?)'D}~nt ~,irt~ppr~priate,~~~,a.,q~~s~C)!l,.ot~, ,\,<.",. r"
environmerlt~impacts,;tintiLth,e'City:qecides,t6adopt " ii' Statement that. economic'" !
cOnSidelitions' outweigh the' sigrifficarit. adverse'iDip~ctsca,~cl'by'thep~()j~. . i
... ;"...
'f
o!""-'''' ,-',_, .
21 ~9'-W e :askthe'City to demonst!atelliat'theprdj~ctjs ~dequat~lyco~~din~ted with other
. projects in South San Francisco and state thatthis is essentia:lif the Jreeway system
isgoingto work. We are restating this question for the record and are concerned
because,' if this 'is anyindkatiori of the answer, the S.E.I.R.descrlbes(p.4Q-50)
parkingwithirl'the pr()je<:!itself' as quite 'inadequate. '
IV. AIR QUALITY
\<.,
21.10 "Thestate~eht,""TheB~f'~e-a'reiI1airis.~".'~.ozone mainteIl~ce.Area.:(p. 214)/"
needs to 'becorrectedsince'~lUll~"98.the 'B~yArea-wasl'eaes!gnatedas "nol1-
attainment"~Iorozone. ",ThiS "is, 6!,patticular 'concerILsince':;TerrabaY's impacts on
'longteI1Il"regioI\cll'ai!fquaIity,are'p~edi~edt()b.,e' Si~.cai1t:and'1.Ulavoidable.How
, does'the:BayArea' sreCIesignation ,at,feCtc~cluSioIl&/predictiorisin, .the, report?
.:-.'....:.',':..'::,'.,,",7~:..;.,;.',-: ._":-<'"'"',;"'':_-:'~~,.. ':-"",-,i'_'.::'~'-:_ -,i''''-.;.l:i.-.:-.;t.''.....::.- -.."_-::-':-:._i,:" ..:',- ' -- "',_"" _.~~-. ..: :-,-_-:"'_:"; "
r'--.
21.1,1 GiventhehighpriorityofNa~veAmericanStud.iesin schooLcurricu1a, .~dthe
scarcity of locales 'for "'},.anc:is~oI\",e":f>erience..like.the Ohlone'Sl1e1LMound~,the
impactS 'olTeriabay .on,:arecl.scl\()olS.strike~us as,verytll}ders~ated inthe report.
Having taken stUdents 'there: for years/we know nrsthand itseducationaJ value.
Even witha landsc~pedpar~andinterpretives.~~, d~~el~pment asproposed.for
Terrabay"Phase mwotild, essentially eliIriinate one of the area's most potent
educational resources.
'VI. EASEMENTS
21.12
All easements and theirpotential effects on grading plans and develqpment sites
should be determined so that development, accommodations to the easements can
be examined for, potential impacts (p., .5?):
..'~'.; .:>::.~..::, _: .~.':':-::.'::;':'- ',.... ...'..~:-,"
t--
. t ~..
.' .415-467-6631
.:pa.ge 4
, ~San Bruno'Mounrain'Watch'.'PO'Box<AO 'Bdsbane/CA. 94005
VII. GEOLOGY
21,. ,13,. 'Beca,~e:the"projedproposest~,rf!placea~l.a'st~tialna~~,env~o~~t with an
. 'engineered,one, clearly altering thett?Po,gr.ciphyand(suQ)surface,drainage,patterns
and processes, and because the project site is naturally geologically unstable,'with
several D'}'es of "failure" processes currently at work, we seriously question ,the
project developers' and report author's optimism (pp. 121, 123, 125,126) Jor
mi~gativ~success. AlsQ,developmentol TerrabayPhase I demonstrated that there
will alrnostassuredly be unanticipated problems, including the potentialior slope
failures. .
21.14
,~
We submit that "scaling'; of or placing met~' netting on ,rock outcrops or slopes
outside the project area are ecologically unacceptable "mitigations" and should be
deleted from the 1istof.Qptio~(p. 79). .
~<.- .'.'.,._.._", ':"-'_:.:,-:" ';':'~".+ : 'i."' "~-'-.~"_:, :~':<-- ~~-'>_/.-::,\::~_'" -:~,:,::,,_ -+...~..;._+. -',.~.i :_". --
21,.15; The: discussiOIl qfpo~sible}~pacts,.. em the ..,gec>logic,en~o~ent,' sUJ:r9unding the
'., ". project is inadequate. For.example, ,there is ,some discussion of the po~sible need for
- modifications to prevent nUnordebrisflowsand failures just up-slope of the project
area in isolated:spots, but thereis no discussion. of thep?te:[\tialpf the project as a
whole (namely, the disturbance 'of a lar.ge area 'at the base of large, steep .slo,pes) to
cause alarger, more de~p-se.atedlandslide orrO<:kiallinthe Clbove'slqp~s? .
". --: ~ . ::..:. -.. '.: .- , ._, ..,. - ," -.. ...-.,.... .' ,...
21.16
21.17
21.18,
. .
If:~ouldalsc>behe~pfultohav~ anestiInate~6fth~,~~unt~{ debristh~t could pile
up in the 'debris basins and deflectionstructures,proposed;lThe' project sponsor
should at least submit for review the precise number of, and deta.iled plans for,
Phase II and ffidebris basins(p.S4, footnotes 61 and~6~ ';;"
'. . . --
SeismichazardsaI"e addressed rather briefly ,in the report. ,The project developers
~nd ,rep9rt'luthor~gainexpress qptimis~ thaJengu,eeringcan ,dec4 with,rockfall
danger from earthquakes along major faults even tho1.l:gh ,the roq<fall;pot~ntial is
still, under study! They also seem to. think that building' to'UBC seiSmic code
standards, will be. adequate. What, howey~r,about.thE!. perior;.nanc:e; of ~~gineered,
and differential fills irithis situation? 'Would shaking during winter; when :the
,ground is saturated, also contribute topotential f9r laJ;ger scale slope failure up-slope
from the project area? The S.E.I.R.should address ,these issues. ' .
. .415-467-6631
,. page 5
',San BrUI,1o,Mountain Watch!.J~O,.Box,AO.!BrisbanetCA94005
VIII. ARCHAEOLOGY
By and large, the report preparers displayed appropriate~d ,~e1coI1le sensitivitrto
"thepresence'of'tlt.mlanr.~tirialsa}.thePhase.m site~,' ':1?~r~are '.a''!e\\<points,however,
of great 'concem'whith needtobe'addressed. '," .' ,
''1'
21.19 'w edisagreewiththe condtiSioI}fuat"setflement'remainsare'co:rillned to only 2.2
acres out of the broad expanse of 40 or more acres at.the eastembaseofthe
Mountain:' AS "the site was occupied for nearly 5000 .years.The 'broader area has not
been well.;;researched, and until' it 'has (though ' many, especially 1n;the Native
American Community abhor disturbance of such sites by archeologists), His grossly
inappropriate t~ plan large,scale development-related disturbances,on most of the
site, momtors or not. ", ,,',.,,'.!"
At the S.E.I.R study session in July, Mr. Holman'titeddno 'conc1~ive evidence
whatsoever that the Mound's boundaries are indeed those that have thus Jar been
delineated.')Heorilyofferea:his()Wn~uthoritY and"eXperience and~promiseofa"':
small buffer arid m~:mitoiing:(p.;288):":.'l}riS'ls'~uffl.cient. . .'"
,':";,--"_:~:_,~'~.,L',>~~",,,,,~_>~'" . -.' .:,. :,~''--:':; - "i:.'\~'5:,:':.;::'.;_..:...
, '.,'-,.- ." .: '- " ,.: ,- .... - .
21.20" isiirlilafly, \Ve'dlSagree'tha1:'CA;sMa~92'is.unrel~ted' to "tA~SMa-40andfeel strongly
'that priortoany'approv~ls, the connection. between 'them. shotildbe ..thoroughly
studied forpossibled designationascln'''import:ant arCheological district" and
"important cu1tural r.esourcen under CEQA(pp.282, 286). A.t the very le~t,any , .
i "'approyedmitigation plan must substantivelyaddress'the rela.tio~hip. between the
'two sites(p: '282, 'footriote268).;>j>~; ::"H : '. "
; :-":i..~::t:I_". .:-,::~ L:',i ,;"-'.'; ';:.r;,_:;-~-.~-:,';.:~f.'::';.;
Caping of Indian burlcl1 'gr()undsis unacceptable atWs1ocatlon.This'appalling
measure has led to the decimation of numerous iI:r}portant sacred sites in the Bay
Area alone: ',~:We a~o bppose..the't'deveI9pmento(~.park,withlaWl1S; 'landscaping;"
pe, destrian, , , " P, aths,and inteEP, relive' elements '[ as] .,~.acc~p,t, e, ~i.practice [anci] , a.ppropriate
'[andlaestheticlp.;'28~~:n : ' ',,' '- ' ,
21.21
21.22: 'Siriillarly,' wed.ifferWlthcol1f:lt.lsions"18a \&19a iri:"6:0 ;h:npact OverV1ew,".p.340.
:,."..j ._,::,:'.,'f(.._-....:....:~< ":".i~.~ '..;:',~:..,..,':.\': ',. .....- - .:;-,:,::".'_-."', .:[ - _,'__ : ',-~',',;.: ,"
21.23
Miifunally ,theprojectsponsor"sh&uldsttbztiit'forenfuonhlehtal'reviewa_precise
design for the "cap;"inc1udingsurface, subsurface, and .perimeter drainage plans., At
415-467-6631
page 6
,_.-, . :-'-" ~',';-. .\.-.
::'-;.,;~J!:._~~C_;.-:~:'::::'.;, ~.;.. ~
San' Bruno MountainWarch · PO BoxAO Brisbane, CA 94005
,.,,-.
21.23 . theS.EJ.R.study'session,areport preparer described the potential that acidic
groundwater would likely damage lower 'portions' of the ,capped area. This should
be addressed as well. '
Also, the project.sponsor~~ouldsubmit specific guidelines for proposed "park"
maintenance by the Building Owners Association (p. 61). Reference to legal
provision_is insufficient to gauge if maintenance will be appropriate (p. 62). If the
park is to be managed by suchan association, it would bea minimal courtesy to the
Native American Communities, whose forebears are buried there, to publish
proposed Articles of Incorporation before development commences.
IX. SUMMARY
21.1b ' In summary, vv,ebelieve strongly that the Phase ill Permanent Open Space
Alternative isiIi:"~elong...termbest interest of the residents, of South San Francisco.
With theincreasiri.~:}~ommercial developm~nt, on the east side of Highway 101, and
the increasingdenSiuro( housir\g along Sister Cities Blvd., the'question of "who
needs the Phaseillcommercialdev.elopment?" 'becomes ,more pressing.
, ,
Perhaps the out-of-state developer benefits by this project.:.Butfor the resid~nts of
South San Francisco, it seems that the added traffic, congestion, pollution, and loss
of important open space, 'which is home to both enaanger~d~pecies and prehistoric
archeological treasures, is too high a 'cost to pay.
Sincerely yours,
Philip Batchelder
~:\\~;~~\~
David Schooley
C 1:J,.J .~
L. ..' <, .~.~'
Lewis Buchner
'415-467-6631
page 7
'" "I .'I.. Exhibit 4.3-1
,'Siti.mv. SloIotlaJ ~.w,...
... '" 4
.....:...: -.
':'.::~~-~"_ 7..
"
I
"
.,
.' ,
.....
.'
.. ..,
.- .:1..,
"
..;
... . .
"
i
!
'--
-_. -. '-
..t~ ....__
,;;
. ...". ....
-! .-. _. '." '-."
J '. _ ....._...>
. ,. '. .""~:;~:;':~:Z;~t~;~~~:L.::~ '.1
~.,.. . ' ';''''. =' :~'\~:.::..: ~~':. .
.. ,... . '.~~~...-:,:"",..'...:: ~"':.' ,
,..~'- " :"~:-""-'. I: . . ~'~ " . t . j:1':.,
.....: . N'- . : '.~' ~~' ... ' , ;;::; fr
,. . .:.} ..'.~~:,:..{{;i :.: .;~.:.:/:,:.~." ;,:":~~j,; ':"
,. . , " . I. . '. L.. .- '. " .00:: ,.
'.:~ '~"'.l.'~,:"..:: ':L-~.,-:-,~, ~. . y. _.., '~.
. '. .:~' ~-'::. .:.:.....,L~,GK.~~:.....: '. "".', "'-~..' ..,:. - -S;:'::I(~';'" ,-
..,. ....~:. ..,...,.. .... '. .' ''''''--.'' ,;; '.';.. .:;~.
':',. '-::: ~.;~.~.:":':;,"....:-'.~',,:,,~'~'. '~<. .', -, ::.~," '. ~~~.'. ~ ,.'
.... ....... , .. "') -.~~ /l'"'' , .~
.' , -c__''. ., 'H' ....:.::~>.L-1.,h~ . .,'
::' -'';;1= ~.~;:t~'~:;;< ;: ~;'..-:::,: , .'"., :/~. c.~:J:.:.- ;:':i.; "", .
. '-"', - -- " '. , '~1 '. ~J:." ~...t
; .;; :"",:.;;, .~~:;if ?~:: " '. <:-\ :,-:: . ~~ :\..~.~: ,.
~ - .. . . -'-'. - '- -- -'- --, -,. . I.. .... .. ~ .
. .~::.:: ':.:~\i*~~~rii:~'(X ;:\.r':,~::?'{)I.:l:'
'. .. '. ;;::,.'.' -7:'~ . - -'':''''.-: ':';":- :: ::";'-~' . _.- ~tfjl' -',. ; ':' "I.... ," ," .
'.'" :..::::..,,'..::..,;, :,:' ..:.-,:..-..~=-,.::..- ,.=..'-:=-...~>.,~:.<...:. >'";,;,, :( .~"., -.
.. " '" -.". . /. - ". . 'I ' ·
.- ...":: .' . '.:::: ;-;':;. ..~; <.\:' ~:. ; ,;". ", ::ff:'
"'" 'O-c ' '._ . '.' ,~., . " , "', j" .
.'- ,:--;:-'., .' ""':::!._'::_~;.~-.~:.~.:;" {"~ :\_...-:....--..., ,:..,~"." .."-.....:. -~ '.' . ..1...' -f: '.-
,." ~':"" '" . . .... . ,I ,.,:'. '-.....,-.c, ," . ., .
';~';::': .~~tl~/?~~:M~~~~:-~,{' -, . ',' ,'0:}:;,>
,: ~ "" :.~'.::P'::':;~~;'~'~.i" . ,~~.,
'1' ,7~"':.~:::~;fG~(o.,:::~~::,:.~.~ ',': '.:::.:::~~~f~l:;:::~~~'" .
.!" ,.......:/... ......:
I ',.
"f '. . . d.:. .. .:"-,-j.-.:.I.;,i.;., ."::,=.~.,.." .
.... /~'.. ",1 i'Jl..' , ..'.,. 0, .
L<~ . .' 'Ii-/L' .' :' . '.:
" ..:.. Co . , (;~,!;J;;jI ;::~
. .;....:
~.,;'
'-'-,
. ....
L
.......
. ." '--'
~.:..", -' .
: ......
,;
.~:
."
.:'".1
-.
[ ,
'-
t
L~___
.Sauna:Environ,I....,w C~---.
I
L
L.egend;
;rf'
SIn Iru-;; Mount.JnW.tch
,'PopuIaIiOnot.VJoIa ~ with
., estimatftd ~ot ,Pants '
',Patentialiu~,~ mapped
'''X~~~.~,:~,!,;}.:.;, " ' '.
AddiIion3l'PGI8ntIaJ iUrisdicboriaJ wetlands
mapped by Envuonmental ColJaborat~. ',~ ,.,
--- -~ potential juriscldicmaf.walers
'(stream Chann....) ,mapped .by'V"1dli AtJ!ynaIds
- -- Unvegetaled pohrnl. jurisdictianaJ waalS
(stream channelS)!nqappedtJyEnvlrot.'ll'nenL1l
Collaborative
.--.Perenntal spring
,
luplDe/HbdOllBlue , eA.
JobuDy JUlllp-qp/C.Ulppe SUwrapot , _'&I
,~.
~
;
. " ~.
"
"
": :/~ >'.~" :;,'~. .', ~',',. .,:: :t,':.'.::,..'>=:~~'~~::~-~:~:;
'-'.-.~ . ;:.~:. ..'~l".'..~ "L'~:'-'
'" ~'... .... .' ..!~:' e.... -, . . ...
'....\." "'\j~,..t: .:,,"'-.... . ... ".:'"
. ' " . 's.,-
. , ,: . . -,-.,',
'\1'.;'..",.' .
~ ,\.
.. .. ... ~ ~ . ~... \ '.:.. ". ::~
,-,=~~"." .-:.:. .\,:':. .', ' '/i~/~" 22-
~;-: '.-.- :.:;/~ ,;'.~\.. ~", .::, , ... ...',;:-. ':; .:"':.,
<.~- ::,';;.1:- . . " .-. '.". /...' : ~
"-~'~J~~~ -'. ....V,.. -~~" :'.i:'7[' '.: .~,::~~-::'
. ".0. ..... --. .,. .. \... ....' .. ..- .. . . ·
'- , ' '~~.,..'- .' ,.,'~ : ...:\',': .',: :..~j";:;;}L~., . '.\ ....
. ._- '~"~:-' _,: :. -. . .- :J". . '- . '
...,~,:f-:..' .' ',..-'. ':,. ."'.. .':'.... :...-.::-::~ '-''1-:.. .' '-..' .. '..
...... _ . '.. ::-i::-". ~~.~...' ..";' ~_:..=- . ..zr ._._' - . ....-=-
-~~-t~- - - ". . Iio--"--. - _.....,_ -"..' ,;,:..- ,-,.. ' ''---:
.-::_-~=~:~; ~~~~ -:F=~;~~.=::~:~:~~~~~~~lf:-;?
'...
." . ., ~
.-t~,'-:- , .
~'~ '~. .-:r~ '.... ..
I. .~. .~. ..
~,. ..'
...... .:
'..:~ -
:.~.---
<<
..... . ~
-' -
':'-
- .. .. ' '.
.: .... ::~......":",
.:. .... ..,
. .
-.' .,
'.,~.
.... .~
~...: .
.--. ..
',:
. ... p. -. .:"
,
,
.-
"
'-
..
....
...- "'-
't", ."
.~
" ....
~
/-:, -.
/' ' .-...
.;~ ".. ...
"
,,'
.-
':.." ,":,j '.~'
"
j
l'..l
".LE II ER21 b
,.r-
I
21.24
i
:'. ',' " ',' '''-.. ,'. ......, :",~:. ,., ,., ,:, '"
}::San:?BruncL:MountainWa tcb-.
P.oO:' ~OiAOr: _ ,., .f'
';~Bri'sba.D.g',,;,eA",'~::94005 L, .
, ,.~, ,Se~~Etllib~r.+~.~~
. - -, . . ;.':~-._L~:~;j ~;,:'-,~~.~:".....;_,- \:;::~:,,"'.'~,\"~:'~~~____ :;?;."~ ..; .... ..:,;;
Mr . Jim Herni'sh".:..'"
Planninl:!; Divtsion
~Ci ty of South'San'Franei'sco'
~P.O.Box711.::': ",,;., ,...., ,:,':;",\""",:"'i.,,
So Ban Franci:sc o,'~CA:'19~083
,--
;
Dear Mr. Harnish,
Our recent comments in response to
the DSEIR for Phases Irand III ofTerra--
bay contained an error. FOllowing an
inspection of the Phase Tllsite, we re-
tract our elaimthat the Report preparer'g
biological site survey failed to record
lupinespeeimensthat support Mission
Blue butterflies.
While we standby the rest of
comments,we regret this error and
appreciate your forwarding of this
to the DSEIRpreparer.
'our
would
note
~---
Re~ards,
7t:..L- )~!
\ Phi\iP 'Batchelder
San Bruno Moun tain Wa teh :-
;"""'__f
,
\...-
"
"LETTER 21.SANBRUNO;MOUNTAIN,.WATCH.,.,
'_.~ . -... ,. ' ",~
ir' ,,; _:4': '.::" .i" ;.:~~'.' ~ .'.
Response 21. 1 The introductory and concluding comments in this letteraddressthe'~merits of the
project" and express a preference for an alternative to the project analyzed in the 1998 DSEIR in view
'.af 'the 'site' s'environmentilI'resouices~:~I:riformation'onthe' effects ohhe'projeci:oosensitive resources
'(suchas'archaeologyandbioIQgy) .:3IiOiherelationsliipt() . the ',overanin~grity. ofllie ,mountain are
addressed' in . various .sectionS of the '1998' DSEIR " and, previous >ElRs. .,., Thecommentors' questions
abouttheadequ, '" ,'ac,~, o.f.',th. e)9,~, ~D.SE{R3Iii11,.rY,s,esai:ep~ntedaDdrespondedtoj)(~low.
"., " "". -,. -. . ,,--, -, -.- ;' '.
Respon~~ '21'1" 'The commentor;'; concern~:abollt the ,sensitivity of the :site'andcthedarger San Bruno
Mountain area are noted. The Effects of No Significance listed on DSEIR page 338 were taken from
; the .. Initial, Study,l ;Environmental'Checklistforthe,projectwhich : then were 'expanded "as a result of
responses '.to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and.thepllblicscopingsession 'far the project. As the
1998 DSEIR's biology section discusses, numerous impacts of the ,project have been identified.as
having a significanteffect onbialogicaland ~wetland,'resources. ,.These include loss of sensitive native
vegetation,caIIippesilverspof butterfly ,-and ,seeps.and ,other wetlands. As stated on DSEIR page 156,
wbile,theproject ,wouldaffectlocal.,populations,of-wildlife 'species, restoration and open ,space
proposed on the ' site and'as'part'of,the HCPwori1~. :Jl?inimizep()te~tiali~pacts on general wildlife
resources;' H, ,
Response 21.3 As the comment indicates, it is questionable whether thepereriniaI spring referred to
inMitigationMeasur~ 4.3" 1 (a) couldbeIecreated,sllcpessfuijY.:rne1998,gSElR (DSEIR page ,160)
,acImowlegges,.the :aifficrilty"of.~reapxi;g:this ;~ieJU1.i~rspripg,"~d;foJ:,tliis,r~on Mitigation Measure
. 4.3,,3(a)specifican,X.reguirl?s'th~~Sl)Ii~g!t~Jbepr~seryecll'an4~.\minimum'setback'Of 50 feet be provided
".aiolUldihis:fea~.Thel}hase,}IlJS.iteMi#gation:PUmJ)eyelopment,Altemative assessed in Master
Resporis~ 7~3;'1 woUld I'reserve4:he~source'of'the;spring;.and ,restrict.,grading;a~minimum of 50 feet
from thisJeature, providing an indication of the feasibility of its preservation.
'1;:.:.'.
Response 21.4 The infonnationprovided by the comrilentorabout thepreserice of larval host plants
Jor callippe silverspot and mission blue butterfly within the proposed development area is noted. As
'discussed;an-DSEIRpage158"the SanBruniJ "MoUntain Habitat Conservation 'Plarz'(HCP) is
· considered.to 'fully, address 'potential impacts' afanticipateddevelopment. on mission blue butterfly.
'The Section 10(a) permit issued ,for the HCP.authorizes' the taking of some mission blue butterflies as
La,resultof;developmentWith.theiUIlderstmding'that implementation of the HCPprovides the
'framewoik'to',wtimately eIlhance !t:he;overa1lsurVivaI"ofthis protected species. "'No 'additional
.mitigation 'is considered necessary; <although the proposed salvage ofnativeplants'recomrnended in
<Mitigation Measure 43-2 could benefit this species 'as welL . .
'The 1998'DSEIR(DSEIRpages151-152) 'provides 'background information Lon the stitusandhabitat
characteristics of callippe silverspot.This includes the results of mapping on the 'siteby'theproject
,sponsor's vegetation specialist of, the distribution of larval foodplant - ,johnny jump-up, (Viola
,',pedunculata). . ,:Dr.'hArn6Id.:independently'verified 1he'DUipping . effort for the 1998;DSEIR'which
'indicated',that . the' mapping'gener3lly 'was' accurate.' 'IU;eemshighlyui1likely' that any large stands of
'jahnny jump-up wentlUldetected during'the surveys .coIiductedthis'1ast spring ana"SllIIUDer,-but there
:is ;a:possibility 'that' small clumps of 'johnny'jump-up:'occur iD'the1locationsindicated 'by the
commentor. '. '
. Mitigation Measure A.3-2'wo1ild<apply 'to 'all 'stands 'af johnny jump-up 'within 'the 'proposed
,development area. including',thoseidentified.by "the commentor."Supplemental d surveYs would be
Letter 21-1
necessary during the spring' flowering period to confmn whether any larval host plants occur in the
locations indicated by the commentor. The need to prevent construction-related disturbance to stands
of johnny jump-up to be preserved also mus~"be:addressed).as:,~part\0f;)MitigationMeaSure4.3..,2. In
.response to the comment. the 1999 FSEIR has been revised to include the following provisions as new
,second and third bullets. inthe~:' .. '" :c;;r,:::,r,};,: '
l'
. ;~~.;i":, ',~~:\:(?:~i-'; f: ::~.-!:: ,s~,.::~:',~~ ~:~:.~~>:~t '::".l~l.)!:'. :~.f,:-. .~:. ~,::: ::'_+:~.!.~'~ :::~: :.:,: ~;:.~;::'~.~ r;":,;:,.r_..~":.~q~:.:.~ Ei. ~~j:~~; ~~-~~:<" .~.:;::: :~;; ~,f' \ .
._' :M/f/gst/on.;IIe.sure 4.a-~ /lbeprQj~ $JlODSOI"shall be.required!tofulfi1l. ihe;b,mdownerJdeveIOper
,obljgationsidentified ,by the San:Bnmo M(}untain HabitatConservation,l'lDn wjth respect to ,the site.
If'San MateO 'COllntr does. not obtain anamendedJIicidenw t8k~pepnit~~~ inc:1u4es th~ c8llippe
. "Silverspot butterfly ,''theprojeci muSt be redesigned to .avoid 8ll1arvalhost.p1aD~. 'If, the ,permit is
amcnaed to' includec8llippe Silverspot; "the'landowner-shllll incorpOrateany.DeW:perri1itconditions
into the project. The 'following measures also shall be implemented to further JIlinimi7e potential
..impactsoftbeproject,on1he:c8llippe silverspot ' ." ,,:,;,;;,,':"',CJ.:i'<'
';......0
,."~oject'plansshanberedesigned,to av'6iddisturbimcetoanddevelopment'ofareas supporting
populations of theJarvalhostplant{Vicilapedunculata) to .the greatest extent possible '...
'. "A sunnlementalsurvev shouldbeconductedinsDriDlz 1999 to'verifv,thenresence'orabsence
ofanv larvalhostnlant (Viola lJeduncuIata) ,0n,thePhaseID.site ,in ,thevicinitv.of the
perennialsnrim!and ,UDslone from ,the, existine: ' access, road. ]f ,larval hostnlants are
encountered. thev should be avoided to prevent an illel!al take under the Federal Endane:ered
'Species Act unless an amendment of the incidental take permit for the HCP is obtained. in
which case their loss would not be considered sil!I1ificant and no additional mitie:ation would
be recuired.
", ,_ ...::.'V
'."
. 'A11;siariiis:6flaival host'rilantwhich~aretO'beDre!lefVed'on the'PIi~e'II:~d'Iii"~iie'{sl.o~jd be .
:adeauatelv protected ,froIri,constfucfionrelatetl 'disturbance. 'These"loCatiolls should be
ddentified'.as,a' ~no!disturbance'zone"'on'alll!radiDli',-olans.'TheneriIneterofstands of -larval
,'host-nlants withinlOO'.feeNifnr.oposedmdine: anHconstruction shoUld:,be;'fencednrior to
~jnitiatine: of l!I'3din2 to:'Dfeventnossible'damal!e:and'loss.', ,', ..' "
.. ',<-;- ':-'.
" " ."~-, -. c. -.' ~
. The proposed Restoration. Plan shall be revised to include a cOlIlponent to salvage and
transplant existinglarval.host;plantsand adult nectat;plants;. ~..'
. ',". _.....:_. ,:,_, . ".<. ",,'_ '.-~ :.::_._:'r''7,;-~::~-, ,_..,.-_:.;;'_:';.'J.:;:':,_,:_,:"",-."c'-'" .'-r "~""':""
.Response 21.5, The statuStof,plantspecies . listed ,ui. PSEIRAppendix.7.4 "BiolQgyjsddentified
.accor~g ta lisriIlg under, the:State .or Federal, En~gered,;&pecies Acts or, the California Native Plant
Society's Inventory ,of, Rare :CUI/i. Endo,r;r.gered,Vascuitzr Plants (ofCalifomia. As :~the,1998DSEIR
:indicates,indefiningspecial,;status .species.(DSEIR:page,J 49 ,ifootnote126.), ,species, ,maintained an
,Inventory lists JA. JB,and 2 are considered,ta :b~,ofspecial status.Plants.inaintained on Jnventory list
. 3andpassiblylist4. still, may, be considered of special~status,under Section .c15380aLthe.8tate CEQA
Guidelines (Guidelines), as indicated by~the,guestion,markin theJistofpotential,special..,status species
contained in Appendix 7.4. None .of these speCies of concern was encountered withirithe.,proposed
,de:velopment, area,d~g.systematic,survf}Ys., af"the"site,.,as, .conc1uded 'for 'the':') 998 DSEIR (DSEIR
page.150).
;
L_
.:' . _ , . ~';'.i '_' -- .;;- ~ . .. ";i'~-,-', .. ". , . . _ .'
,Re$ponse, 21. 7 A consultant. ,Thomas Reid,Associates"is;undercontractto:the:City; ~San Mateo
County, .and .theU.S. .Fish ,and, Wildlife Servi~.(USFWS),.to.oversee,and.monitar..implementation of
theHCP,pursuanua,:theagreement;b,etween,these,entities :which,establishes.theiHCP.. :That;~ment
. gives the HCP.monitoring consultaIlt(the ''Plan.Qperator':),theauthority"to revie9.QiC;tivities covered
by theHCP for consistency with the Plan on behalf .of the signatories. The proposed 'Xerrabay Phase
n and ID project is subject to the agreement. theHCP,and review by the Plan 'Operator. .The Plan
Operator' scontract ,is. to perform that'WorK. ,Any question, abaut the appropriateilessoftheconsultant
taperfonncertain,.services farPteCity, County ; or,USFWS, ,:whether in relatian .ta this 1998 DSEIR or
'-
Letter 21-2
thepen~g.project, is :an~sue :outsidethei,~c.~peof,theDSEI~ . but, ,jnstead"is~an,'estabIished
reglllato:t')',p8l'aI1leter .of th~p~je(:t:yy~ch. i:~':rel'O~~. ~~!?~E~R. .asI1q~4,~:~ecomment:
:Response 21.8En~omrientaI:do.c~~~~ :~i~~(vbruY:4pplicmts' ipr9ject~scgptions.but instead
'present aspects ,'?(pI'()jects :as JJ~QP~sed:, :"~."~9pical~y~e~, the.naddres~asp~tS.,rele'Vant to the
analysis .oLprojects' '$ignificant:,Of ,Potentiall;ysjgni:ficant.in:1pacts.:This.is~because EIRsdo not. take
positions on.prQjectS., ,.Theiefore~:projectdeSCriptioiiS'nius~.be';auowed"to~'s.peakf()r 'theiilselves". A
. . .C',_ '. . ..... .._.:...,' .. . _ . . - . _ _ _._.. _:._,._.1 _. _ _.,'.<.' ..~.'. .:..... ~,~..,.. '.,.',' , ,_' ,", _ _ . . _', ,_ ,'. :' .. . _; _, ._.__ .' .
. careful reader may draw conClusions about projects on the basis Of EIRproject descriptions and lor
the topical analyses. IiifOrDlation presentel:i in the f..r9ject Description ~s footnotes isdesi~ed to assist
readers in that way. ,;It ,is,.a;nonna! ~~pectation' of EIRs :on>e~plqyment::generafu1g . development
',projectsto .icieJ?tijY,the:e~ti1l1Hteci D~!'.~{-~DwlqYee~'lI1, ;9t~projech\4es~tioIl' toMJ,y,disclose the
intensity of the proposed':use,;and .,.proy!.de ,a.comple.te..description;ofpost~prc)jectconOitions, if
approved and implemented. In addition, a number ofphysicaI environmental impacts analyzed in
EIRsaccording to CEQA and :.the.st~eCEQA" Gr4delinesdGuidelines)~aredirec~y . ,or indirectly
employee~based,;such astraffic,and"parking impacts. An, ancillary issue discussed in the 1998 DSEIR
whicb is;partlY employee.basedJbu~not.a::physical,environmental impactunderCEQA and the
GuidelinesJ-is .increased schooL enrollment. .SeeRes,ponse13.9 .,foranadditional discussion of
.emplqyment. .]t sbouldbenoted that thedensitr factors identified ;bythe,pf{)jectliponsor are typical of
;:thepropos~dland ,uses, .althougbthe ~ponsor' s, estimate. of fUtllre employment with implementation of
the.proposedproject ishigher,(more ,,'.'conservatiye'~};thanthe ,numberofjobs.,ex:pectedto"be created
based on the employment ratios.
,Response,21.9:The question:isnot clear, With ~gard,to ,adequacy, of on-site parking, please refer
.to .Response..},3.15 concemirtg parkiI!gadequacy.~orJ:lhase,JIIcommercial.deveIQpmentand Response
13.45 conceming,Phase :rrresidentiaLdeyelgpmellt. >;.
Fie$ponse2:J.10At:the, ' time the 1998.;,D$EIR.,air ,:qllality ,an~ysiswas,prepared,theDSEIR was
, ,.correct,;and .,the ,B~y Area ,\Vas anozonemainte~g~(,area.,.The;analysiswas,perfonnedbefore the
r~gion., was. redes~gnated ~asan .ozonemonattainment,' area,inJune 199~". eventhou,gbthe .[)SEIR was
published on July :1, ,1998, ,TheEIR,consultant antic~pated.this.redesignation"and.the.,redesignation
does not affect the air qualitr predictions and conclusions presented inthe)998.DSEIR, The region's
air quality attainment strategies address the more stringentCaIifomia ambientairqualitr standards.
As a result, . the.redesignationof.th~ ,iBaY.Areaasa ,nOI~:~ttainment area. for ozone "under. the Federal
..c,leanAirActdi,d.n, ot,.chan,ge ,th, estan", dardsof.significanceuseddn .the 19981)SEIR.
.' - .
, . '
. Response 21.l1.,This commentad~sses'ihe. ~eri~'of the project. l'otheextentthaten.vironmental
,documents addre~sthe'effecu;,ofdeveI9PIJJ.ent"projects on;sc::hool$,those.,analysesrelate:to, physical
'environmental impacts(suchas'impacts ,from building ,progmnsinitiated to.alleviatecapacity
constraints ,of educational facilities), nou9.the.subjectstallghtin schools.
Response 21.12 AsciescribedaboveinResponse ,,14.5,the.project:sponso{' seqgineer contacted
..:representatives to(PG&E,and,th~.'San'Francisc{)\V.ate{.Dcrpapment.{SFWD),b()thof :which must
.~pprove . devel()pment,. ,inc1uding.'gradiIJ.g:to:~build ."Toadsand.instaIL.utilities,.;proposedwith their
'.' respectiverigbts-of-w~y .,~APG&E :e8s~~f::is lo~~,onthe PhaseJi"site, and ,a :SFWDeasement is
;l()(;~e4 .on. .thep'haseJII ,site. qAccording tt,l .tl:le,~ponsor~s eI!ginee:r"grading,.road construction (the
segments of San Francisco Drive and Co~~ns' '~K'" ~and "N",:Stteets), and utility ,instalhition within
the PG&E rights-of-way would be acceptable to PG&E.Final alignments and connections for the
SFWD~s.two, watertransmission.1ines still ,are beiIlg discussed ,with SFWDstaff,butboththeexisting
. and anew line.(being upgraded by the SFWP) would be relocated to the ri,gbt-of-wayof Bayshore
Boulevard, as realigned. '.;,
Letter 21-3
,
c,
" . ," '. .;" ,,' -. ,;..:' - . ." ':.'- .: -'.. -. _: ';. ~'-"" :' . '-".' '", - " . ;~. '- -,.." '.: ... .' ':"; "; -: .: -:: . -.-. ;.
. ResponSe 21 ~13PbaseI ,site ,grading' replaCedas1ib~tantialDaturaI' environmeDt\vith ..an. engineered
one."'Tliis replacement was' completed man area'ofgieiller 'geologlc'instiibility"tbanhas' been mapped
ontbePbase n andm sites'.Tbeengin~. slopes abovetbe Phase ~site,l1avebeensubjected to
',s~griif1cant .PenoC# '6f~~t.welither; :?Aithe~ 9;98 :DSEIR'staieS/1hese:c.onditionsl1av€~lea to a few
'~or :sijpou~'w1ilcb !u.'e :concentJ:ilted:PeaI: ,the~"bedrc>clclcover 'semmeIltiritei:face;': Minorslipouts are
,",,~,~~'c~s~~C? ,;of'::~~',~$~)~l1a8e\~"ap:a.~3~1C?~~:wo~~"be}1i~je5#~c:('to ,a slope
.maintenaneeplan andslipout nntIgatIoil'Silriilafto 'whatis beingdoneat>PhaseI. ' e" ,,'
. ,-, .-" '". i.:.:;:(:"" .... - ',. - - ", -,. '.' -' ."," :-:-. "-".,,-. ;...' """'-;'. -":' .-'...._,: -: ", ."
,
". -, -""- . . -', '-. -, - - -,' .,- . ", . ,,- " . -
. -., . '." - -. . ,-' : - ,. '. .
. ., - '. . .
";'RQPonse':21 ~14';potentia1wotkol1tsid~ :the'projed~'jsaIways suoject:to '. i-eview:'by the, Hep
;'Inom, "torin, g ;CO, n, sill,:" 'tan, t,",(P1an,,' ,,-,"'Qpe,", 'ra", tor).", ::The,'proposed roekf:, an ,'JD1, . .tl".,gation,, o"nthe P, h, as, . e ,I site was
. reViewedrecel1tly,and "\\Iork aboyetbe',HCP fence'wasnot allowed 'due to"sensitive'habitat. Similar
reViewnvoUldbe conducted Qn"a caselby~casebasisforPhasesnand ill;:' .
".. : ".~:.., :.... '_'.;0'. '<
:, Respons"e2,1j 5As~tb Phase''1,'thegeo1ogyof the fPbaseU:8i:idill,' sites "has been 'studied for
evidence of,potential' sI6pe'failures..' .', The areas of mapped landSlides (intheW oodsWest,Commons,
and"PointlleighborhoodSand Pbaseill ~it(~)areproposed'to'be mitigated using 'standard engineering
methods.1q'he proposed ,metbOds iwouldinvolveremoval'and 'replacement (with drainage ), buttress
keys (with'dnlinage)i:'andret3iriing 'waIlS ,( witbdrainage).In other areaS, wbere'landSlid:s have not
,'.'beeniidentffieiFbutbuiiedvaIleysare"present, sUbsurface' exploration was' . conducted to look for, slide
planes"witliin'the'buried-vaIleyfill.:No slip planes'have'been observed in the exploration pits.
Slope, stability analyses have been conducted, on representative slopes of . the proposed development
:areas.,wThese 'arialysesassume water;at the'surface,and;the, factor' of 'safety isator!abovethe 1.5
required by>the 'project:' 'Slope 'momtoring wowdbe'reqtiiredto 'eviiluate:tbestability,rififue slopes and
the groundwater conditions during and after excavations.' . , ',..
" . - . . "
'.'>ReSponse:21.'16'The'am6iri1t 6(debriSwlliehmaf'accumillate'in"thedebrisbasins "arid. ,deflection
:'~strUctures'vvoilldbe'a'>function'of many'factois',the'mostimportant 'beingweather.lBased on the
~xperience 'of~last'Winter(1997 ':1998), tl1e volume"ofmaterial which 'Came 'iioWn:inthe five existing
'debris'baSins;pntbe~PhaSe I site was Jew'c1ibicyardsin totiU. EaCh basin Cis designed;for.more than
'100 timestbat amoUnt.
ReSponse 21.17 1998 DSEIR'Exliibit4~2-3andMitigation Meastlre4:2': 11 address . this comment.
The design' criteriai'fortbe debrisbaSms'on.tbe iPhaSe n and"ill sites are the same as used ,for tbe Phase
1 site. In brief, the designcaIls for the,accumwation of debris intbe drainage from previous debris
, 11ows,'futi1redebris':flows, 'and ,.a:"~sarety'factot" ,of:lOO:cubicyaic1s."'<The l'haSe T debris 'basins ,have
. ;perforinedaS'&signed forthe'lastnine:years,"inCludingperiClds 'of sigriificarit runoff., .'During tbese
'riineyears, the'maxjmumamountcofmaterial.inanyone of tbe'fiveeXisting'Pbase] 'baSins bas been
',only a few cubic yards~aS discus'soo~in:tbe 'inUnediatelypreceding response' (Response 21.'16).
"Response 21.18 '~The"potentia1,. ,for' rockfal1:impaets'.:would:be nutigated 'usllig::varlous options
'-discussed'inJ998D$EIRMifi,gation!Measure ~k 14. "This measure woUld 'benecessary~gardless of
',bow' the,'rockfans~' iDiuatea '~StaIidatd :engineeii#g:practice.'i.s'to'evalUate .'the CfootCtonsof. force
"premctedfromvanous,"roc1cs 'rollirig.:aOwD tbe~'v8iious'slopesusiI1gtbe'Colorado:Rockfansimulation
.progrilm.'~The::preoictea:f.o.rcestberi~}lsed to recommeiidanapPrQPri2lte ~tention 'structure. This
'reCoimnendationis:revi~~~b~1h~~q~ fOf appro.va1P,riodci'corisn:uction~': . :.', ..: ""':""' ..
'I',,~ .-'.~ ....' t :'~' .-:.- '_-.',' ;'.,~'4,!.',.,:~,1'::', ' ".",.-"
". - ',' ,.." . ~' ".: .":. '. , . _' - . I' .. ., _.. -",' _' . . _ . ~-,,:' ': . -' .:. - .' " , ' :.. - . " - ~:.' - ':' . " _. _ -, . - ':- "_ . - .-." .' --
"Engineered fillisaesignedtO.perfonri'urider .seisnnc loading. .,AUcut slopes'are 'analy:zedfor static as
. 'well 'as seismic loading: "'.Tbe mirilmnm safety factor for project : slopes under seismic loading is 1.2
~seismic and ,1.5 static. 'These are connnonparameters used tbroughout tbeBayArea.
Letter 21-4
, ,
;Response '21.19 :The\EIRarchaeologist:reviewed,:theHolmanandAssociates' ;F.ebruary:1998 report
.. and found the "exploratory.andevaluativ.e'.metbodologies:,and,.'ConclusiODS';~garding'theinature and
extent of CA-SMa-40 to be well within the 'bounds of CEQA-mandatedprofessional archaeological
. .;,practices. .;;:Holman & Associates used standard,archaeologicaltest:excavation:methods ,and procedmes
. in' 'detemiiDingtheverticaland'horizontal'bomi~ofthe 'Shellinound'site.'HoImari:has!an M.A.in
: .' ': "}lrChaeolQgy . and 'bas "been eonducting'ar<:haeologi~.'investigations,of this.'nature ;in"the)B~y Area for
. . '>'30 'years and .is .:qualifiedumnaking,these judgmentS,':~EIR'archaeologist.,;Chavez:has 'an MAin
')arChaeology 'and '25 "years of,"e:xperiencein :;arChaeological ;inv.esti~ons~and is''WeU~quaIified in
cassessingthe: accuracy and reliability.!. of;teebJiical ,archaeological.work.i.The:broader' :areahas been
subjeCt to CEQA mandated research and field.inspectionseveraltimes 'duringthepasuwodecades, 'as
summarized by the 1998 DSEIR (DSEIRpages 278-282).
: The :EIRarchaeologist'has.nocomment:regarding'a ',di{ferencein,'opinion, conceniing"Mr . Holman ' s
commentsraLthe 'July $E1Rstudysession'and .thewriters'.cpinions..asto,whatmeets CEQA
;requirements .for estabIishing.the physical 'boundaries of an archaeological' site.'Mr . '''Chavez' critical
.reviewofHo1manandAssociates' ,'.studies ,atCA-SMa-40 . are based "primarily 'on ',the February 1998
'. Technical Report.
::i!
<Response 21.20 PhysicaL proximity suggests 'a ,possible',culturalconnection "between,:the two sites,
,;CA..SMa-40and -92. ,There.is ;no3rchaeologicalevidence :that:thetwo..are:physicallyrconnected by
cultural deposits above Of below~ground.Bypresentingmitigation,measuresforpotential project
, 'impacts:to':bothsites," the "1998.DSEIR;assumes that iboth sites ..,.meet:CEQA,criteriaas' "important
,';culturalresources"." .
;:::
TheSEIR need not establish the cultural relationship betWeen the two sites .or detennine if an
"3rchaeological:districtispresent.Those;determinations wouldnotc:hange~the.1998 J3JSEIR'impact and
mitigationrconc1usionsand .:recommendations...in ;meetiIlg. ,;CEQA .;culturaliresources "management
requirements.
'~.
:NativeAmerican ::response to.the1998 DSEIR ~bas ,expressed'concern~.;fovthe;potentialofor off-site
:i'prehistoricburials. ,ArchaeologicaliandNativeAmericanmonitoring iis ;recommended for '.all project-
..re1atedgrading and excavation work. ,Please: see Master Response 7.3..6,for, further discussion.
. - , ,.
.,Rel$ponse21.21 The ,eompleteelimination,.of fill as weU,as:-any.;park:orlandscaping .development ,on
the site would be compatible withMitigation,Measure4~9-1(b). " See Response 30.5 for ,an additional
discussion. The Phase III Site Mitigation 'Plan. Development Alternative woUld eliminate, all
construction activities on or within 30 feet of the boundaries .ofCA-;SMa-40.iImpacts .of.development
would be totalIyreduced to a less-than-significant level and would be in keeping with CEQA's
emphasis on preservation of significant archeological, historical and cultural resources. Please see
Master Response 7.3-1 for a detailed discussion of the Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Development
Alternative.
Response 21.22 The comment expresses an opinion and, does not present a factual basis to support
its different ccmc1usion and .todemonstrate that the 1998 DSEIR should have addressed these topics.
, As described above in Response 14.7, this "supplemental" DSEIR focused on specific issues mised by
the currently proposed project versus .thepreviously approved development concepts examined in the
1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR. The topics selected for analysis in this 1998 DSEIR included issues of
significant 'and potentially significant impact as aresrilt of substantial differences between (or
substantially different circumstances from) the proposed and approved plans. The issues of aesthetics
(18a) and recreation (19a) identified in this comment were "focused out"of the 1998 DSEIR through
the process described in 1.1 ElR Requirement and 6.4 Effects of No Sigmficancebecause they did
Letter 21-5
'. hI
". . :. '. . ,:.:' ". " '
'notrepI'eSent:new, sfgDificant,orpatentially -sigirificantimpacts'llttributable.to\the:'cui:rentIy'proposed
':'~projector iInpacts'notpreviOUsly;analyzectin;thei1982:ElRaIid 199~.sElR. '<;:, ,,:,';~;:~f:;~:')'~:. ','
..:...:.\'(:i::~,:.;- 'L: ~":<'~~Y',:~,;,::l~+~;-;:.':'\.~'>;"~;~:<.;\'" ". '.-:::<'f~;.;:t~~{,~,,,,;,':-~"1~:~":'-~"~-:'~:""\_ ,,';-~ i."~:.: ..>:;".:' ,', .."., .,."" , ~.' ;:~-:'. :~. ":-;;,.>;:AS~':~_'~~:-:~~";'
. ':R..po~.21.23'The:pI'Qject, spo~or,.submi,tted:iradin.g .ancl,:utility~,p1ans,to ,:the.;<:i~-;~p8rt Of the
'.,penditlg,:applieation.\Those:pIansare'ondile',with1he,.PlariDin,g Division,and;areav3i1able for . public
, '~'review/':TheJProjectsporisOJ,}:mchjotmb.iiit.mOre ~dei8iled.PlaDS. orspecifications:to)h~{Gij;y~garding
'.a~~cap",,for:'CA:':SMa40"()r"'a::paikCJll ;PaiJ:~of'the;8ichaeolQglcal.site',as;part.o{ the:proposed. project
,analyzed inithe ;.1998,DSElR ,:{but~see .fQrther .beloW). /a'he project~onsor,did:.'not,submit draft
.';covenants,;'conditions,'and -;:restrictions't(CC&Rs), ,for 'either;the,.Phase ,n ..or,.:m"sites.,in . .time for
.; ,.>preparation of,the1998 DSE1R:,(or;1999.'ifSEl~k
:-
:!
,il
..
t..
1
. L.n.~
.
\'
,
f-
These omissions should be seen in. several contexts. First, the proposed Phasemproject requests
:approva},'ofanamendment,totheTerrabay:SpeqificPlan. to,alter"theapprov~ development concept
for theiPhaseill site, ,although;italso is :iny>ortant to acknowledge that the~pr{)jeCt .sponsoralso seeks
: approval of grading ,permits to immediatelY,create building!pads there. ,,',.Second,.theCity,'must review
and a.pprove8I!Y ,CC&Rs,as "part'.of oitsoverallconsiderationof 'theentireproject..CC&Rsprovide
additionalprocedmes beyond the basic requirements of City zoning ordinances .:orconditions of
approval the City may require of the project {if approved). However, 1998 DSEIR mitigation
measures ,do Dot .,rely :on ..implementationof-as'yet'undefined.' CC&Rs .toreduce'the''Significance 'of
..'.impacts identified. '~CC&Rs,and!the'legaldocuments'establishing'property'owners'Y'building owners'
'associations,would,be'public.,documents-when submitted to the City and; ,thus, available:for inspection
;bytheptiblic.~'Deficienciesof:,these'and;()ther;projecLapplicationdocuments:identifiedby the
,commentor..relate ,to the merits of ,the project ,and City, considerations when ,deciding ,to approve,
. conditionally approve, or deny the project.
j~-
, . -. -.- .
'. i,-' ,.',..',<-.::;"7 ".".~ '{'I'!:-:~'~~.:~.:::;'_~,F-;:'''~! "':.;"/'_:'.~~'~'
':During;the"puhlicreview..period.:on theil998'DSElR. tthe.projectsponsoridentified,;a:new,development
:iconcept jfor "theiPhaselll;site, r,different,irom'ithe,concept 'analyzed f.in '. thed998 .JJSElR; " 'That new
concept is described and assessed in Master Response ,7.3-1. as the PhasellLSite;Mitigation Plan
Development Alternative, That alternative assumes no capping of CA..SMa-40 and no development of
':a park,on 'the1archaeologlcal;site.'."Plans ifor, a cap ,and,guidelines 1n, CC&RsJor;:park:;aperation ,would
mot-be necessary, if the 'City "approved,and'the sponsor',implementedthe Phase llISite !Mitigation Plan
'Development,Altemative .-However;dfthe'City,approvedthe:pendingprojectfof'.thePhase' m .site, the
DSEIRassesses impacts of that proposed development concept on the archaeological site and
'identifies',Mitigation ;Measure"4il..5(b)'.to ;address'tsignificant groundwaterand'surface drainage
impacts :exceptedtoioccm as:a restiltofcapping'the:site~ '
i-
i
Response 21.24 ,Comment 'acknowledged~
L
.'-.
~,I"
I
i
,-
;.
Letter 21-6
eNINNVld
'BR6t .ll9nv
a 3 AI 30 3 HLETTER 22
3 Arda.t '\Ct.
54V\ Fra.f\V\ SL.OJ C4. -,J.41z..t{
tkj.. ,t 0, lCf qi
.l)ear iM.e~ers iA*\.ie'30..,fi.~f~s<.of'k",..i"'5j~l't.>
m\':>'kH-er",& irltesptMSt.40+~e.arCL:{)t .\E.;t,~,pe(tdinl~~ '~ ~
:r~ ;13~ "De,vdop~'~IIr,' :r:'wiU:nd-'~~f€fri~-fo6f)~c{h'c.'~tCvts
. if '+be, \~L'~, :hLitratker)'~41en."ifl)~meVltc1( '~llC.i5.'Inaddt"h-lt1lx'
will' a.Ja,e.6sf:1l2..;"f>,.z,ce2!o~ "wh j c1':,:r'~~e!ie. v,e,,'a&.dehi~a.J~;t;%e- ~~C-6 i
.rij1r .~ prefect'. -~lU'UlGtf,\d ..,k.t6\D r\c-~re5l>u'tUS. ....:
, The.f3rddevwl(~o.1L~ad;~;\l/be. .~%~ . Sp\ist"Vld1lone
22.1 . ~'cU'\ vi{'o.ee,S\~ilDCtLteil witk;V\ f~.e -pror~ve.lDpW1et1t: Tk 5~
" r~deG,du.r~b'\Ce. ,Of .a.w~_*1fe._,~'~\~~"u" 5,CCO,~
Ctff>,ALlti~., ~e. ,1i~.,cf '~e-"lGr~:~~r~lJs~.i~.pt;. ~.1f:r no,
~"~ el~'. "i~'~1k.>~,,'~.~~.'.'lt+_j&.:~..~~t,,~;;t.MuE}be-
,~eCt~ ~'~;aw:l~l'e: ;~efll,#ons~~tWe.;'~':"'~.<WhO'~e...~ .
, '~;~~;::::~::;l;;;~t~;~r~~'
~:~~,,::;~~~naJ ER~n~'~DfGr,Sj~0M8~__~
22.2a j r-M1ckOM.l1j ..u.e.~l~ does~t_ ~ ,~-/{,e.l($ *'l~lic. ~oe-:/l..t
tcold~~af~ ";~ia.wet.l-d~~ ~"r~! ;~ise/fW'l;c. ,sch:d
'~t~m~eArbj5fO.&t>. ".ad~~~;-eoCoo~~~'woJld ',.bM~
.&ovn.~ C1-,h~i'~ iV1'LJh.icil\~e '~pH6~i)1OWas.e.~~ ;t.fe. ,~
'yur-d4!, "0... 'lL'm.Mr)er'~~Q6 ';M.i~'Vi~e-lti"~m-~';)S~'~
or ~'.'Dh.b1e.. v1tla.8e..at 'Ccade'jijlls '~~~. ,'~.,.cf'~se:~
receiv~ v~.~b~ ~".{kn ~ft)~.~(~~#z,pJCW~J ~
:~:lr1.'fuSf()f,LJC~~.;~*"v6I1-:~e~ ,.it> .$Lf'p~~r
~'...L..... '.IxzC,.~~~(t\-TDY1~:ttreeohieh.AA,&k!~
~ a. "clasG .,c{-..,~:Shid~ '~~~l&:{.d1~pe.tf)Y\eo ..$~,ihG:~;oo
_ ,JSo.vl~~~/'iS ,'~';ble,'}~'.,~\i'--."~1'off~PYl'.o.;J'~,~'fJ;~
22.2b h~01"',~ 6t\e. '~'.'~'1r>Vi~:r.~, '1bc,~~eu~ __A&lr~
~~'",~ed '~}ld .~ a.-&iTf~,1hit,~ (be abb .10 Vist :the-
: ~ik l:6t~8pu.h~'G- Jra.VI6f~aHDn..? n. _, _ _... .. On , ....
I llm aJso ~J al:>(~)l.t+ irtCfeoSetl i~cts to ~. wtttef6hed !-.
a.Vl." VleArL1Jj .~~ wetia.w1:s. ..~i"c.b ..wid, ~.~ .l'1~va~ ,,~cteJ b~ '
th t5 -h1~ Df 4eveJcpme1t. Grnal ~ aviil su.b~~pa.VI ~ wdl eot1fiM.e.;;
,f +0 )pSS.i*~j I;Q~dU1cf~ase.d:e~c&i Dv1.1bifL) vl]urn:.will ea.,iti1a!-6
'22.4,roa~~~~~,tt.:r~;~~~!r~~:;~ L
Pf'Wes. -t~;(1~,PF S.lver5f.cJaVldM.i.$/QJIft~ J;.fI,;es. ,.
~(Cld().titm ~~r ,,,hakd-a:l-J1C16 (leve(~5uCCesshJ0J m/~ed. ,'C,
:rrh~,~n<. ,4oes-noJ..dJdea,u.o..t-.€lji,a.ddre.ss',fth3a.~\Ot<l' , '
22~5' t~tt~,the-,EL ,doeb \Ylor"'}1:l4'~ ..+he.wi&dClr'71 ,4
~\..;Jr.jpe-LP:\"Ckllel Clrme>1!-:1 '" Il\<',Ali"el1..Q.! r;44jc:l-e." -e.lqpetl,cM1 t1
wltb ,ptllNl6)f[,r,ah ec"V-\~ubJjJttfBedevelt>f vn~ ",5.u.chas ,.th e. new
7f.:a,.,tr.".md\h;sh(lc\i;umCf)h1pei";'t.t',}~Vlaje&i }~K'l1 ,iv:rr.)W~o 4vil( .k-
,~tls;ble,,'~1l'l4it;l~~.,if,~t~e,~e"e.lD~;i s .l<t\<,C<:ess~l? '
;W~,c":;\/Villi;~~..&-nd-emo{lh.o:ntf,5U1chdev~l,, ',,:2.n:i5,Up.~t).s cl,cA
,tbe., ,,~.evCA.."To.~.jt() ;5.:F!~.Visita.tron, ;lJ ~11~,: ?' Wt16"a...'cost-
::~:t";74;"~~ite:~~:d~:l,~t~~~~:;; ..
!V)1orc...'fr~t4.bl<':.i!' , . .. '.""~ . "
22.6, , ,'.~.,~ f\t~. j~,. +ky#-,i~r~J~,.~<<Al~u,fSi suCh OS
, 5.wl,ChAs.~~~~l.l'?retS.,j;i.().. ,:..ur~ h-Lr.",.,S(,'}..:~e,~r,:"ir iV ~~Jq\,entll..aNuJ
, ..,.~ula;h-C-O,.{5J10,.!.dtJf~eYlt '.~ .~CLW\,bli;rt~1 Sus>t:'beccwsG.
,~Cha.sb~~Hte,.J~40es!,Yid--,.vtletv' 4hoJ,l~, .,~ " --
~~ra,~ked~!;ri~t ;_h?ile"-tlPf,fl-i;n~& (A)~'~ ,~Ptlo
,~.mJU':~'~rf;1'~4s, " ' ...., ',." '
,.', ,'i:!,.1he,~4.~otr)~'~'r'C~;~.9r~.G.r>~#me..CJf'ld;!~n.'~, '
',. '.'~fZ&Cu~:p~~"e,~~Jojlc6J .~Dns ,.
"~':A~ki:~~~j,,~;.~.~'fu:.'~ c.t#le{j.laJ~~ ; "
It8f>>~-th&~s5>~~Fr~~B>~~~.:rneet-~
J~,5ip\\SK;n,Okltm~ IvialtU\,!!~'ves. "4 .,\Vflt,~CJliuns'9~.
See\<,~,perYl')~erit,~-e.ch:~ .'"cf-tl1e., ", J~.;'w\.'~.
22.3
.:'2
;
- ,
c-'
i
,3'
22.6 "De-"cJ.e- ,~u.aj time-, o..nclte.sou~ '~+h~e. rl.e- "Create-
o..f\ttntorthe. ',f'e5,bho-n. ~ +he a.r~Jpe.rh~. lnc.Lucknj
0.. ra;hx-d ~1tN)e.. Vi( (llj.e..P\~~Y\~o~~/SQ..vld ,~
~tSrt-~rSc.e.V)4-.er.CoLAi~ 'tt, d-e.S>i5\')ed. , _
ThO-N\l( J>u~rt10lA'"-h'me, '(U/1 cl". .amsi &€ro:h'~ ~I.. .
9~ '~a. na.+ivereZ,lderl-ef +h,-e.~V\~~ ~~
FOr 50 ~e.ars ,,'a& we..-ll as Q>i\B~~e, envif'01"\merdzJ
d\.l.udietl +~er- ~Y) ,+ht... S:)..vd;"~N\C4'.st.O ~Y'I'~'~ Schad 1)l'~h1Gt. .
,;Jj",
-.-
J,. ~CLr 1" ru.lu ~ ..:.
'- \.J ~
"'._.~~~'. '..~
f
"
... .
,
1
'~
. iResponsii22: 1 '-',:Thel 998 DSEIR aC:UJresseS.;the.jristori~~r,larCtJae()lggicaI :Siiriificanc'e6fthesite
(DSEIR pages 280-282 and 283-285).MasterResponse;'73~'imtlReiponse30;3proVid~' 'additional
". di,'scus, sio, n" ,o,n the ,importanc, e" (s",ignifi,' ,can" ce) "o,f, hist, ,~,.,orica1 ,resource" s. ",;The,l,',99,.,~" ,., D", S, 'EL, 'R, ,,;presents
"MitigatioIi\Measure'4:9-1 (b)' whichwotild'protectthe'site"frOIn'~edesiructive 'forc~s.6f'capping and
would require very'little arehaeologica1' e)Ccavationonthe' perlpheryofthesite :DSEIR, pages 290-294).
'Also,the 1998'VSEIR;presentS 'thecP~ent'OPen'Space''Altemative IDSEl!J.page' 328) as the
environmentally superior' alternative "for"'mtb3f610gicaI · resourCes:'" }'By"oiinplementmg 'the latter
approach,the cultural resources at CA-SMa-40 would be preserved and managed in tact in an
undeveloped landscape. The Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative would eliminate
all project activity on and within 30 feet of the boundaries of CA-SMa-40, resulting in preservation of
the site.
Response 22.2.EIRs are intended to analyze the significant or potentially significant environmental
impacts of projects. The State CEQA Guidelines defme a significant environmental effect as a
substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the physical conditions which exist in the area
affected by the proposed project. 'Economic effects of proposed projects, including the costs or
benefits to public finance, do not constitute environmental impacts according to this definition.
Therefore, the 1998 DSEIR is not required to address hypothetical revenues or cost savings. In
addition, as noted in Response 21.11," to the, extent that environmental documents address the' effects
of development projects on schools, those analyses relate to physical environmental impacts (such as
impacts from building programs initiated to alleviate , capacity constraints of educational facilities), not
to the subjects taught in schools.
Response22.3 As noted in Response 19.1, the. impact of the, project on watershed sediment yields
and subsequent contaminant loading to the Bay would not be significant with implementation of the
mitigation measures identified in the 1982 EIR.The 1998 DSEIRdid not reevaluate water quality
impacts identified in the 1982 EIR and 1996SEIRbecause the current project would not alter potential
impacts or required'mitigation substantially, including City "Storm Water Management and Discharge
Control", National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) , and Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) requirements. In view of the site' sextremely degraded and highly erodible
existing conditions, project implementation as proposed generally would decrease site erosion and
sediment yields. 'Implementation of 1998 DSEIRMitigation Measures 4.2-8 and 4.2.,9 would reduce
site erosion and sediment yields further.
Response 22.4 The commentor's concerns about the loss of habitat for callippe silverspotand
mission blue butterfly are noted. Refer to Master Response 7.3-9 on the callippesilverspot, for
additional information regarding the concerns expressed by this comment, status of the amendment to
,the incidental take permit for the HCP, and need for appropriate measures to fully mitigate potential
impacts on the callippe silverspot.
Response 22.5EIRs on proposed projects are not intended to evaluate the financial feasibility of
,the project ordavelopment concept but, as noted above (Response 22.2), are intended to assess their
significant or potentially significant, physical, environmental effects.ElRs are expected to take other
reasonably foreseeable projects into account in order ,to assess a project's effects in the context of
cumulative conditions. 'The,cunmlative development projects identified for analysis in the ,1998 SEIR
are listed in section 2.4 CumukztiveDevelopment. That list does not include redevelopment of the
Candlestick Park site in the City of San Francisco. This is because impacts from such redevelopment
Letter 22-1
~'
i
I
'-'0'
j
would be too speculative to assess in relation to the effects ofthe'TerrabayPhase IT and ill project due
both to geographic distance from the Terrabaysite and a known:~..)PIQjected~,horizonwhich
would permit analysis withan.y degree of credibility. The hypothetical failure or~abandonmentof the
jpr()ject ~~lYewCJuld ,\>e ,~pecu1atiy.e.~,lt.~ llot~prQPria~,{nodsjt e':tl)ected).f(}r,,:mgs\to..,engage in
;;~~~sJi-ec'.llctriePt~':.fIP-~}':''rt!s~.~al1.,:W~j;~". .,.;.,:,;;;,.,' ';';,<>.~:L h', :" i':,;";:"'''''',::,{, ,:. ,,:,. ,r...;,.S"'}':~~'" ", ,
..h..<:' '>~~r-;~-~;'>:> ,-:.:~,>.~:;: \',i.: ~. ,,~~:~-..'.:::,.~ ..:." ~~ .;;. ',_.-:..~. "'~l,;"': ~:.:.' :~:.:~'~__'_" ~':;,.::0~r-;/y:-1::1_;'t~,i,_.:-.: _ t~:..>:~.:~-~.:~:~;:\.-(': ~,'~-~:~~i:,'y: )':': ;<;'r:{~;1~~~;:~;~~-~.;:-1~!~: :')_i~}':::' T~~-:'~.;.::..:.~~':'r,If.":~' L1-';.~~';. :.- .
"'Res;ponse22.6 .'..The iOImnen!. 3ddresses;~pects' ofthe,prqjea'.s.ments" and,p~g. process. The
, :coimnentoris refeITed.lo'Master Re~ponse".7.3~11. but also': should 'remember thatthe ,.pr()ject site has
'been, designated, fordeyelqpment,by,theCitypfSoutft StlJl.f.11UlciscP ~Generallla1J,zoned for
develO,pmen~andappro"ed"fo!dev~lQpmell(~ce.l~8Z.~ .. ' , , , ,
c.
,
,.-
,
"'-7.-- '-~_
Letter 22-2
:LErrER23
i!MERICII.IIDI!lS ;RBLIGI8US :BELIEFS'
23. 1 lIElUC!lIIDI1I BllJllEIFBIE LElBI BIllE LIFE DB mum 'DEBS liD
IBULBIlIE !IIEI DBlfYl, fill III BIlE fBEYllL! sa f8 fDE'IEI1I"1
"smBBLFD!BE JlDIlIBBIIIf.DD fBBIB SPIBIf I8BLBfBlm BlCI m ra
fB EIllfl.fBD JI fBEBElI8ImDBImIlLDPLlCE IE BUBI1L 8B8UD IEIlll
PBlDII BUILD I BlfBJRP88L.l8fBE SPIBIf COULD fm I um BEFE fRlmJIGfI
!BE 'SIJDU'.D DmICf IS BUBmD IIfIfBElIDIlI SB IE CD!m DImBIR
fB m SPIBlft. IF!BIB!JIlI83 lEBB'fB IB ILfBBD II fmEBED n!IIE 3PIBIf
IBULB BIY IIJm&FImB. IBJID!BEBUSI m 'lllB11I'1BBE
FEIIII JIf8 !JIEIDBln _S8 U IOfB BIIfBRB!DE BUBJJL am: BlCIII
mBlU'S BY YEmfBD D JlYPUBP8SE FOB BD HEBE flIY. ,I CUlIT lCeIP!
m,8FDEBUBI1L 8IBBID DB lLL8I fIE 38\ftBBCDmBlmlJlBO
FDBmB.
, III"!,
IJLL m BUBS
LETTER 23, WILL TWO BEARS
Response 23.1 Comment acknowledged.
utter 23-1
, ;CitYof::SouthSanFrancisco
,RJannir,g::,Department i-';"\; .',:". '
315 Maple Ave. .,';1LETTER24>t"';
'iPj;C:L~Box.:7~:1 . ' ,!;;. .h,;.."",;.'J"':;;,'S.,.::,""i:,]\.",,:::\:' ;;:(.;;;:,;.i\,'.'"
South.San Erancisco,';1CA94083
. '. - . .
. ,.,,>i~FtE.;:CIE I V ED
:.:,.,: :'~':::';,:<,. ;- ,:1 !"::""': ,'" .
.'Ai u" G" ,.,,"","29"''''''''
""....;::, ,.-.~.- ',:'1 lOB
.;,',::",:.,.;,:, ,.:: ,:,'",,; iJ, .
<':'L.':;~:{;:,;'::'~i:iN~'NG",,', .
P4. 1a, o:-)'1Rlease,:erlter:\thefolloWi~ comments;:aboutthe!dr.aft:SEIRforTerrabay'Phase?II, and
" I"::into the:record~':,".~s'a:Citizen<.df ;:San}Mateo;County,a~frequent<'userand>admjrer of~San
Bruno Mountain State and County Park, and a commuter, I have'Several.areas 'otconcem
;about;;the,;prQposectRhaseU land;JJt-tplans;>whiCh;J,willitryfto!keep1brief.
l. There are several quality of life problems associated with this development for those
"who ,live :and{w()rk}in~BrisbaneandSoutbSan}Francisco,;and .fonthose iwhof use: Highway
. ,;.;t01:
.;,i()ne of\thesefis..lr'pollutlon.caused :by .tneincreased1rafficto1thearea.TheSEIR
'says:;severaltimes;thatthe,;addednumberof:cars:that.wouldcome;into.the'area.onla,daily
basis lwouldiincrease:the.;air-(poJlutionibeyand:acceptable standards, 'set:by.;the\BAACMD.
There is no way to mitigate this problem. More traffic, caused by more development, "
.~meaDs,mC!H'e',;air fpOllution:jn;;the','ar.ea~>.','~~ ," I'-'.-)\'.:;-~'~
.:"'~,Anotherrproblem:f:is\the~Jncr.ase;tAlf.f:Jc;itself,'.":1Even with1he Joad;:jmprovements,
more cars means more sitting at iStop.iligbts;~3:<signa:lized\;imersedions,are~plannedjfor,
BayshoreiBlvd!)iiand~more5time.l,ys.tto.those1IMngfnearbYi;~We,i8I1,]moWiOOW ,increase
,congestfontand;cat~time;.cr:eases!our.qua:liW~bf,jife~<tmani.8ra':,wt.len"mostipeople;feel. that
they don't. have enol)ghtime;::wt1yactto :cut::our:iqtJality/of-4ifea11ore?
...,..,':?)i:;Qn~Hw',':ZI OjJ.,,-.t~af,flc :1w,1 U:"ncrea.e~:y~atljeast-15:.dlllring:;theirush:hours
'(P~~);,:;JNc).'mitigationJmeasur;es{:ean_:;taken::to~altenthis:\iman.'8rea:'Where~reeway
~ ; congestianis:alreadyraeproolemjianc:t:Otherldevelopments,iilike,tIleAirpott,.will makedt
worse.
l Yet another quality oflifeconcem is that the project may Induce more growth.
,Page ,335'~d.Gtheireportstate,that:'tJessfdevBlopment;wa$;PlOposetHspecificaJly.to ,reduce
!ofti'site,~rnpacts;attributable to;the.lfJI;jo"'4deVSlopmBnt,:concept~~\flherefore,,\Teduced'}:~ ,; .
development.:at4be,~Ter:rabay,'site}would!fnottprodlJce:;and"'oppoltUnity".!JtO"add,an!equivalent
. complement'{of,deve/Qpment'{lilsswhsre;it:l~B.;regiorl;~;:Ihisstatem-entisjNOT;:a:sound
"lIogicaLar:9ument..+:' ';:r"I'(~;,.,,;; .
"j]fc~l~anmedto:shoot:;two::birdS;and~nlchange~mysmind;and"only~shoot'one,;that .
;doesn't;prev.entanyone.:slse:from ~shootil1l,9 .;theiotheri4!Jird.:~}Ukewise.'isca:ling tback;the.;plans
'.since t996!.OOes,NG)j;\'p-otectithe :;prDjectfrom~iAducing111ore ,gr.owthrnearbY4~JJ1is~pJan ;will
set limits, on Te~y~1and,'.but".Dther1MOpertymearQy~could"well,be\8ltered;;bythe~influx.of
'. workers, travelers, and consum~' into the area.
;..4. 1 b',People' who live and work In this '.areawlll bear the brunt of (the." ';}'
problems this development creates. "ltlatlmeforthls:9<>>.vernmentto ,decide In
favor of protecting the quality of life of Its citizens. . ,.
~4.3 II. There are.,several biological, problems 'with the proposed plans,"manyof'whiChboil
down,to whether the loss of habitat can be mitigated. Through'grading, paVing'and
24.3 building, habitat will be" lost for all species .thatcurrentlylive\in,the:area."iCont~rY1O~th8,
conclusion reached on ,page 156," believe that. planned 'festorationrmeasut.Et~-a~~~~n
space provisions will. NOTmakeu,p:f.or:1he'lleresthatarelost. '~;}\:;~;~~f:~t~,~,S' ,,:
. ;(.'t} ';~'JMat1y'~habitat mitigation measures- ,:~lIke transfeningone typeof,habitat:lo'8ildU,er
':' loc8tion,sil'Qplydon't work. -The attempts to create good~Mlssion..t>lue"and :Silverspot- :~;::: ,
i, -'butterfly h8DitatonthegorseJnfestedsaddle,' after building 'on the good . grassland habitat
, on 1he1)9r;tneastridge,isaprime example. This,prQjectproposes todisturblthe~~t of
twoPFeCferal1y . listed .endangered species . (mission blue and Silverspot) as. wenas~drain a
weUands. The small fresh water marsh. although nota potential habitat for the ,:r8d i,J8gged
. frog or San Francisco garter snake, never~the-Iess represents "an, important resource for
:;, "..wildlife"in.\the,area,,~includil'lg,MlJiQus ;species IQf,;-bi rds, '1theiPacific"tree'frogland h western
itoad."'iiObviouS~;:.tbe';sndaQgered bl:JlterflieS:,cannQtafford!'babitabloss~:.whicbdstheir\;",;;
.,primary ,threatto;suMval.. . .
<For the 'eny.lro~nment,,~theBESTjialternatIYe;:;18' no,new':buUdln,g8~ ''DOlmOre
. traffic, no,hookramps..
24. 1ii '"III.":rrheitwo'8beltmoundson;the;site'Suggestithat1he,'area~1hewholetvalley, <,not just
themoundsthemselves--were home totheOhlone Indians.WithsolitUeknown of the way
L :;01 dife of,our:predecessorsIin;::ttIis:area,'.JNs;;untbinkable,thatavaluable'SiteUkeithis would
,be,destroyed:for;iyet'more ;botels;'1'sstaurants,:anc:l:shopping';;ceriters.!A'imtlch:better:use of
thisAlandiwould'be,some;'type ,Gf;preserve~bonoringand:explaining,the'heritage:otthe
. Ohlone;.peQple~?i"~;)"iF".'jl'i~:',.' :.,:,\,""~ ,'.
Even saving the larger mouncHtseJf~andbuilding,'aroundfiit'!itinotial-goocLsoIution.
."ffihe'wboleevaJleYi.with'the sprirng,1marsh18md;smaller;shellmound,"Sbould~be;'S8ved. Jtis
A:J.ILothEu5ite~of~0hlooe;jlndianilifetfor%overseoo~rear.s.~2..1:f'~')ti;t:;';;t:"*i" ," ;-1,:~,~"i~"~?i;;;';;'..s"":y:' ", '
.i~ :,y'):;:tft; :GnIy,)thetdescendantsf:Of!;1I\lel~blonescan',r;eal!y'speakiaboubthe~cultural!andL": '
religiOUS$igmificance:,;of,~this.Wlley,~LJtth.8ffact.that;btJman;;rernai~.:tJ1aveib~D~o,LtIiId." :'
means that the a~ea"s""-u' Id~, ,1;f'ieC!~Di\f~s~, '-~--""'pI' ace',::H"';";~'\:"':}',r""""<"";,,,\!>:,,,,,,,,:'5,'.,...,:\"'s'"
I' ,- 1.;1\;1 j.J.ICI.~. ~MiiiiiiJ"_'.~fiiiI "".... ~~....I;l:JU..: _ . ,.;',' . .";,'-'."',.,. . '_:" ',_"",' "':'."_' ~",._.". _', ,~.,,;.
. . ....\.NTbJ.i8rea;.aho:uld,:be;$Savedl.tol!wltsml.to1'lcal, ~cult.ur.1 fand ',rellglou. ,
8Ignl:fl.cance~'/fhere;Js...reabdealdo,Jearn'.ef.e;moth~f.onour'generatlona 'and
thoBe ,to ,come, :,astweU has;an~obllga~lonLto~re8pect.the:hedtage\ofth'e,:Obl;one
people ""/"'-:".'H:.~: '
, " . "..""t". " .
}.:;:-)':, J:'~:"~ :~: ::~~}:".;:;~~';:':' . '.J:, ;"';,:,;":,~'~\~~';::' ;~:..:';;-
.~, '.,.;,'/:'
:,r._.:,.
1,,:.... ... - .;:' '~-: -;. ,,;>-'-,:,>'~-~: ~"1:~';:,
\
)
t .j
I
r';
,
'. ;"1
.'r~
i-
,"-
"
"'\'
i .
.'~
. ~
1
:"'f
~ (J:l~~~~::<l>L
-- L
LETTER 24~ KEN MciNTIRE
cRe.~olJse.24.1,:,~ThepoituneD!~~~esth~~~~merits<of,theproject",:an(r~xP~ses il:p~f~rence for an
a1temativ~:~() .the"proje~tassess~in. the 1f!9~1>;~EIR~,:J'h.C?:comr.ne~~'discus~es ,SO~: ~fth~ .project' s
,:significant,~virOmne]]taleffeCts :ancl'9ther .tc>pics!beside_~ ,pqy~ica.llC\'Jlvirc;)Jurien,~,Jlw~lwhich EIRs
,;are not:iDtended,to:#:aa!~;:~ecaus~,tht? co~nt49~:,not~e~guestiOllS8bo~t,thead~y of the
DSEIR,..imaIyses, ,no '"respollse,is"requirecl,~~vertheless, inclusion :'of-,thecfJmmentor'..s views in the
',1999 ,FSEIR,Will 'm3ke,;themavailable ito,City; decision-'nmkers, . 'Ph~ase:see Master Response 7.3-11
.and,Re~p("'s~.13.6 ~~g.airguaIi~.:The 19~8;DSEI~i1istspr()jectfree\VayjIIlPacts-"lmpact 4.4-
1 (DSEIR'page 190), Impact4.4-4 (DSEIRpage 194), and Impact 4.4-13:IDSEl~;,page,208) -and
intersection impacts ~ Impact 4.4-2 (DSEIRpage 191) and Impact 4.4-3 (DSEIR page 193). ,
,:.,:./
.' Response 24.2~ d The' commentisin~orrect. ,Among ,the, interrelated ,actions i reques~py the project
sponsor.is' anamendment,tothe'.Te17abay Specijic .Plan.. ,Thepw;poseof specific, plansoisto establish
permitted,la.nd-uses...and ,set~wable densities ofdevelopment.,.:Once:a,~pecific plan is
implemented, the area covered by the plan is ','builL out". Buildout,meansthaLavailableJand is fully
developed. ,SanBnmoMountain, County Park .is the on1yundevelop~Jandadjacent ,to ,the, project
,Site. ThatJ)arklandis ,permanently :prot:e.cted ~undevelope4.ipublicland."No.()pportunities.for growth
are ,availablethere~,UndeveIQpedparts o(,thepr()ject ,site,~phill Jromproposeddeyelopment areas,
ultimately.would be' dedicatedtothe.county,parkas.partopD;lplementin,gthe;proposedproject. This
., is:areqwrementoft~e San ,B~Mo~tairL. Habit~,;Conservation,Plan ,(HCf9.whichrprovided, for
. limited development, including on' the;:pr()ject site;in.exchaqge Jor,;preservation, o(th~,park and HCP
lands. Thus, no opportunities for growth are available there. Proposed residential lots could not be
divided and redeveloped in the future without City approval to create substandard lots (lots smaller
than minimum requi.red.sizes} or without illegal "spot zoning". Opportunities to redivide or increase
development on commercial lots would be limited by parking requirements.
The pending application proposes to reduce the amount of residential and commercial development on
the Phase IT and ill sites, respectively, compared with, the amount presently allowed by the T errabay
Specijic Plan as amended in 1996. The proposed amendment demonstrates that it is possible to amend
plans once approved. Therefore, if the proposed plan were not implemented, it possible, that anew
amendment could be proposed at some in the future. However, anotherpw;pose of specific plans is to
provide for accommodating near-term development,' usually expected to' be completed within two to
five years. Specific ,plans donotprovide for long-term development which is addressed by general
plans. It is a reasonable expectation that approval of a specific, plan (or specific plan amendment)
would result in implementation and buildout rather than delays and reconsideration which could result
in more development than, previously anticipated.
Future off-site development opportunities are located primarily in the East of 101 area of South San
Francisco and in Brisbane and secondarily west of 101 .in South San Francisco's EICamino
redevelopment corridor, as, identified in 2.4 CumultztiveDevelopment.Recent land use trends in the
East of 101 area have resulted in intensification of development compared with the amount anticipated
by the East of 101 Area Specific Plan. The 1998 DSEIRusedupdated development assumptions to
reflect thisintensification.'The 1998 DSEIR assumed the most intense cumulative development
scenario in Brisbane ,considered by the City's General Plan ("ScenarioK").~Projecting additional
growth beyond the cumulative development assumptions shown in Exhibit 2.4-1a and 2.4-1 b would be
speculative. Apart from potential intensification taken into account by ,the 1998 DSEIR's cumulative
analyses in the respectivetopica1 sections, anticipated cumulative development is not equivalent toa
project's growth inducing potential. Growth inducing impacts are those effects which result from
;Lettl:1' 24-1
opening an area to development (if not designated for development) or doing so prematurely (if
designated for development some time in the future).
i
j
All, public utilities 'and infrastructure' for tile. .propose4 Terra bay project were, built, t() Fet project
demand only and were'nof"ovei-size(]"}o" rrieet1iI1y~grOWth'beyorid,tl1afaIready;approyed under tJte
. 'j ..genera1plai1softhe:Cities'of'BIiSl?ari~anaSouth Sm,IFrancisc~";'fConstIu~O~".c:)f'!h~'1toc>,~:ramps and
... ."'i"the.Widenmg::orBayshoreiBoUlevafd,:inpamcillar,'woUld nOf'have 'a:~groWth'iricbiciIig:i~act because
'those activities 'an; 'necessary to address 'regiorW , growthalreadyapproved'by :localgeneralplans and
'also to address 'the project's impacts. "The:hook ramps'and'the:.Wideiling of Ba:yshore~Boulevard also
. are necessaTy to:address the 'prOjeqed ~1J'Qacceptable.tramc:'colldltions'eij)ected'to'eXist even if the
'prOject, ;isnot:briilt"given 'gro'Wtharitt, . cipatcii ~y' the:genenil'plaris, ',;:ofboth'the'Ci~esof 'Brisbane and
'SouthSari"Francisco. ,.... ,.",., \: \. ~',..:~.'
'..
J--
Response 24.3 The commentor'sconcem about the effect of the. project on sensitive biological and
wetland ;'habitaf'is noted.':Thereferencemadeon TJSEIR,page'156' was ..to1he 'Restoration Plan
l'roposedaspart oithe'project'which doesappeartoprovide"a feasible 'approaCh toestiiblishing native
'. grassland 'cover .0ngr8ded 'slopes.'However,'.the ,Restoration Plan woUld not mitigate '.the loss of
'sensitive 'Daturalcommuriities,wetlands, and 'habitat 'for 'speeial-'status, species. 'The '1998 DSEIR
'recommeridsmitigationmeasures to preserve'sensitive resources'tothe'ri1aXimum'extentfeasible and
providefortheirreplacemenbwhere davoidance'isnotpossible."This, inCludes 'appropriate, revisions to
. the proposed 'Restoration Plan 'to inClude a salvage component, as called 'for in Mitigation Measure
'4:3":1(b):"Peiformance'standariis.and;contmgencymeasurescwoUld 'be'requiredforaIl mitigation
'involVing creation -ofreplacemeiIthabitat,to ensure tl1e,succ:ess"ofmitigatioif:(Suchas the .provisions
'calledJorunderthethird bulle(in'MitigationMeasure'4.3:'3(b)). '..;,' , '. '
('
'Letter 24-2
. '..
RECE rVE D
. .
"~AUG:1';4 "1998'
'PLANNING"
':','.omt:edi:he:-
Historic Presc::rvaticm Cnmmig$icn
,(415) 877-3990
tFM;~p,5~8
'-',':';
""'L'.',Public'~Gomment
,:'TembaylPhaSe'n'a~m'SEIR
FSoutb'SmfFnndScO,;"caJifOniia
. <AujUst 14~TJ98
25.1
.t".",
':.I,c"
ThefuDowingciJmmentsarestibmittec:HnreferenCe-to.the'Draft"Supp1ement8lEnviroDm:ma1
Impact ..Report{SElR)fort.beTemibayi'hase IT&"m:aevelopmentprojectin'South San
Francisco. ThesecoIIllD:mts are representative of the Historic PreservationCoIDlliisSion' s
position"that the 'shell moUnd'baS~g1lffiCaritiJistOriC"aDd'CuhUral"V'8lue 'and 'shOuld'beprotected,
while allowing t:herest ofTerrabay Phases n&m to bedeveloped'ina manner1hatserves the
economic. inrerest'6f'the property1>WIlerbUt Oo:s'noFne,gativeiy impactthesheUDXlund. Any
tievelojmient~r:otber'8ctivity by'any 'gI'Oup "or iridiVidualsbcnl]dbe conducted :insuch a maoner
as.toavriiddRrnage~.:iiitruSion.'oi negative iInpacitO'the'stte:' :;', '
Th ":.y....I..;..,'ll.....---~ti.' ;;,;JJ,' ".
" , e' ;,.......,aua-IUI. VC",';"
, " ..
Tbe;Historic'PreSerV8tion::Comri:iissiori~riS;tbe'"JUly A1ternative"lIS,presentedby ~ .
developer attbe July 16, 1998. Historic PreservationCOrimiisSioIistUdysesslou;'thisaltemative
was uot'inCludec:Un'.the}~"butis~Similar~to':the;Phase:lI1ReducedCoinmercitllSite Plan
DevelopmentAltematil1e'ideritifie,Farid'a1Wyzed;m1be;g~11t"~'J1ily 1\lteiiiative"mcludes three
development'paas~;insteadof'seven:"()]KnioIt1l:oftbe~arCl:IeOlogJcid'Site '81ldtWosoUth of the site.
As, drawu;"the-limitsiof-grading-woula1lVQii'the 'arCheOlogica1'she"-by.'afum>xmBtely 30feet."1k
proposal is for :a 'lO-story,'340;OOO'squarefoot'dftice:triweroD:the'north'endWith"a'separate
parking;garage.'The'two"'bnil~pai:ts'.OD tbe'SOutlfendcwoWd,inClude'a '200'room,'100,OOO
square foot hotel and a separate 7,500 square foot restaurant. TbeJuly:Alteriiativecotlld also
"allow <foribededicatiOD'ofthe"aIClle6lOgical.site'as-permanemopen:space1111dcotlld include the
dedication of land beyond ,the shen IDJuna:exteDding~'SanBrunOiMo1IDt8Di.open.space lands.
-. ...; ';~: ;,-,~.;..-,<':. - .
i..C ~;'._'.".:": . '.'. ,"._. 0"
,4(K),Grand Avmue.P..O.Bax 7n,Sootb. San Francisco, 'CA. 94080
SpedficCommiaioner Comments ,
" , , . _...
Tbe:fonowiDgare specificCOIJlIIJeI1ts made by cormrii~oners.Wbile some comments
respOnd directly to the .$EIR. others speak to issues that will be addressed.at a later stage in the
plannn,gprocess : .' .
25. 1. Leaving the shen mound untouched, while allowing cowu.:;lcialdevel~rit to the
south and north. is an ~lei.approaClL~mJritoucbed"means no foot paths, no
1anri~.aping, and no fin 1IDlessdeen:m necessary to proteCt the site. No road, even for
,emergency ~, sbc>~,tra~~,sben~und.'(Vieira, Zemke) .
. TheproposalforasiQgleJ.gh'rise;;isrDore.acceptable ,than the originally proposed three
low rise buildings attbe riorth:side ofthesite,because it allows less overall buildine foot
print. However, thisbnilding should be tucked intothelnll!ride, with the parking structure
placed in front, to retlectthe smrounoing topography. (Viera)
. A maintenance program should be required to keep all trash and foreign material out of
,:the vicinity ofthe,sben.ID;)1md,,as.wellas,.to minimi7e~theJ)()tential for fire. (Vieira)
. ~ .Commission 8UppOrts8l1',effon,to,)ist.the .*ll,molJDdon tbe.NationalRegister ,of
:Historic P1aces.:(VieiraL",. co,.
. 'rbC"prpposed 3~fuQt bufier,betwCCJ.ltbe.sben lIxnmd,and'8l1Y icoWiD:;rciai,development
,1sa~oQdidea.JZemk~}"",:t~";>'c,, .,'" "',, .::" .' ' ",,', ,',,',.
..No~:velQpmenton ,tbe:qorth.Sieofthe~n,IDJund"as,indicatedjntbe"
. '~&~ilo.iuDmtaijy Pre~~J:)e~Jo.pmmt,A1temative'?'maY,DOtbe..necessary,and.,seems
bardtojustify; leaving the:.sben:DDumiJmtoucllef:1,With:co~rcial.de-re1()pmentfor~the
rest oftbesite. is acceptable. (Zemke) ',. ,.,. . . . '.,,' .
· Ensure tbatsmfacedrainagefromtheco~ial deve1opmentsdrains.awayfromtbe
sbellIDnmd area. (Zemke. Mowat)" .
.~~:ane~, ,.the~l1istoJ{y>J' heritage.!,and'~Dl).JCIl~,~~r.anceof,tbe sbellmnmd
,;site,sboukl~'preserved~) ,";". ':">,i;-,'" .'c ,D\<;.".,>,,' ",'
. .':-rm;imellnX>und'andvicinitYsho~seIYe~~,8;soapslJotjntimeto.giye an imp:ressionof
,how#-~ ~ked'and;w~oCCUIred,therein:~ipast.,(Hatks),;,;,:~,'" "', .",.""..','. ,",', .'\, ,
. ',Tbe"&viro~talJ.y.~f~ted.Deve1qprnentAltemative"js,~table.,,:(HarkS),
,. ..Ta;,ProPOSed.l~~:'P'~~~.at~top;Of;the;hill,isDJt~le~.~,.itis
. ",:obttqsive,~and'~gat.ive.1Jr implIctsctbe4lQjacenLmen:l:D)1JDd site. :.(H~) ,. , ," '.
.' "."nleioorth.Sh3e.of.tbe develQpllleDt;~.. ,aswen;asJ:be.nmound,';Sbould,beJeit '
,UDtOuCbect..;<Harb>.'.;.,.,..",.<:\~.";.:':'~,.',, ','" h,'::" , ",' ,.' '",' "
. . "1be.~~HI'lefItallY~ferIed.'DevelqpmeDtAlten1ative".jspreferred,.but.deve1qpment
'-pf~tl:Ie.Dorth.side"is.accqltabJe.a1so.'!~).,)\; ",.', ".""i,
," "I'PoUmtiat dCve19pD:at impacts to the sbeUmound site should be ~tifledand mitigated
25.2a based upon tbe newJuly Altemative presented. (Mowat) J .
'. ',The ec:1ges of tbe,~~lCja} developImmt should be treited sensitively to ,avoid negative
D::npacts on thesben mnmd (deJmlition, grading,draiDage, lighring,paviDg. waDs,
. Jlmil~.aping, etc.). (Mowat)
. If tbenorth parcel is deve1oped,the native viola species (food source for the endangered
, Canipe Silverspot butterfly) should be replaced.
-
i
..~ GrandAvmue,P:O.Bax711. SouthSanFrandsco,CA 94080
25.1
.
'B11ilding designsbould be sensitive to tbesbell mound environment, and should be
reflective of the site; fur example; a high rise that shades the site all day would be
unlu'.ceptabJe.Jn addition,tbesite's archeological and historicalsignfficance should be
conveyed in the site layout, bn;]dmg architecture and the site amenities. {Mowat)
The commercial develo~ sholild not ignore' the, shell mound; it should instead
embrace it and capitalize on its historical and archeological significance. There should be
some cognitive relationship between theSben~IIXnmd and the. coIDmerCial development
reflected inm~jJc1iug architecture,site design, interpretive elements, etc. (Mowat)
An effort needs to' be made, to propose more creative design ideas' fur the ,shell IIX>1md
site. ForexampJe, simply fencing it off andJetting the weeds .take over is not acceptable.
(Mowat)
The proposed $I(ic1itional200,QOO square feet of commercial floor area isacceptab1e as
long as it does not increase the site impact. (Mowat)
.
.
.
Conclusion
The Commission understands' that" based on scheduling issues identified, by the developer, the
July Alternative may rely ona final SEIR that can be ~d by late August The Commi!tSion
beIieves'this to be too short a time period to allow for)adequate review of the alternative, which
should include a thorough analysis of archeology, geology, biology, traffic, noise, and air quality.l
The Historic Preservation Commissionsuppons ~ essence of the July Alternative as described
herein because it appears to bethea1temative that attempts to avoid any negative impacts to and
preserve the integrity of the, shell m>llIld site, 'wbilepreserving the economic interests of the
,property owner. However,[iiieSEIR doesnotinc1ude an analysis of the July Alternative,land
such an analysis is expected as part of the Final SEIR if final support for thisa1ternative is to be
received fromtheCommi~sion. If" upon thorough analysis, the JulyAltemative is determined to
either not be feasible or cannot preserve the shell lmundsiteas ~sed, then the Commission
would support the Environmentally Preferred Alternative identified in the SEIR.
25.2b
25.2c
Restpectfully submitted,
Mowat
~--A-,,~ IZ# <.. ,.,:.,.......
,~~, -. .,!"~~ '
Commi~oner Feudale Commissioner Harks
J1/M-
.
a."
.~ "
· ".... ~Mr&.PJ ~
m ,," '-..
Comm1~ner,Zemkp.
Commi~sioner Vie'
R.M:Dm
C:\My Docs\BPC'i.cUas'a'c:rnbay Phuen a:mSEIR.CClIIDIlIIl2 (MViaed 8/14198).wpd
400 Grand Avenue. P. O. Box 711. South San Francisco. CA 94080
LETTER 25, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Response~5.1 The "Public Comment" 'prepared by the City's HistoricPreservationComniission
expresses the Commission's and Commissioners' joint and individnalpositions about development on
the Phase II and ill project sites, focusing onpreservationofCA-SMa-40. 'The Commission's
comment indicates a preference for an alternative to the project's development concept for the Phase
ill site - the project sponsor's new PhaselII Mitigation Plan Development Alternative assessed in
Master Response 7.3-1. ,The individual Commissioners' comments also provide direction for the
project sponsor on features recommended to be included in a Phase ill site development concept but
omitted to date from either the project or the new Phase!II Mitigation Plan Development Alternative
(such as the, need for a maintenance plan for the archaeological site and for drainage plans for adjacent
commercial sites). As with similar comments submitted by other writers, thecommentors' views will
be made available to City decision-makers by inclusion in the 1999 FSEIR.
Response 25.2 ,As noted ,in the immediately preceding response, Master Response 7.3-1 presents an
assessment of the project sponsor's new Phase III Mitigation Plan Development Alternative. The
assessment covers all the topics discussed in the 1998 DSEm (5.0 Alternatives to the Proposed
Project) and at the same or greater level of detail as the 1998 DSEIR alternatives were discussed, in
order to be comparable to the previous analyses. This assessment will be added to the 1999 FSEIR
text.
Letter 25-1
r.-,Ctrt,S:~. "
'6" ~~ :
" '. "'-
CITY OF BRISBANE
50 PARK LANE
'...,,'Srisbane~.;CaUfomia.94005
"(.41$) 467..~S15
FAX,.(41S) 467-4989
-~' .'.: ,:-.....;' .-:". ,~. ->. '-.:',;, ".'.' -. ".:" -:-.
" "'$LETTER26
R ECE.'NE D
AUG1 4 1998
PLANNING
-'- . . -." . ,,' ',' ", -,', ,';: ~.. ': -,.
CiD'.ofSouth ,SanFranciscQ,:pl~~i"g Division
315 Maple Ave.IPOBox 711',' .,' ',.
South San Francisco. CA 94083
- . .
.Attenti~n:A)lisonKrijppW ollam
Re: Commentson.~.Su.pplemental Environmental hlJpactReportforTerrabay,Pbase
n~m' "
. ,. "' -
Ladies,andOeritlemen:
'ThaDk youfrirthe .ItUnitY',to.co~eDt~n,the~Supple~~i8I Environmental
lnlPact Reportfor::rerr2l~y;:~en'and~..'Yeh8ye:~Jl1IDentsC?n. several issues:
','. ....;...<.,_:.~ ,-}:' :-:'-"',:' ,; ,:: . . . .~::.:,... '. _...~:,' .;:; <, I,: . ":...._.-~,.~.-_;- '~;".;;:;''':__:= :>- _ :', .:! ":.,' .~., ',,:, .'. .' ": :.'- ~.' . c:.->..":;,..l_~.. '-: .- .,' c. _ ,,:':.<, ,:.. -",-. _', ..... _:,....',,_,.. n',_:,,": . '.' ."_,,: ,_,,'_, :'., _' _< .
,26~.'1.,"-, ,A...~liook R~~p~.',~~'B~~..BOU1~~~,Realigii~~;,~:....i~::'i~;,:..., .,'".,.,..
,.' :. 'We.notetJ:l# the19~8DSElRcov~.t4ereconstruc,ti~,oft1ie.eXisting southbouild
US 10 IlBayshore ':BpD1tW8ritoft~rar1j;.:constI'uctiori o[a~neW:~uthbound US 101 011-
,ramp.(hqaklatrips) .arid the IeallgnD;lCmt of.Ba)'shoreB~wevaroand that the
, constructionwotildbecfimded oythe Terrabay deVeloper and lOCal public funds. The
book ramps are included inthedev~IQPment.yreement.forthe,:rerrabay project and
,the'98DSEIRdOesnorD:iaicatCWIlethertlUs, ' ~ioriWillberetainedin sed
' " ',',', . ' ", ".' ,,' '.' .' " .' ',,' , . pro ,,'. " ,,' ,." ..' ',.', propo
amended,"deVelopnient'~c:ni"~-DSEIR.Sho1ild~lose.the requirements
'regardiDg',the'hookrah'lt& in.the,Pi'9.Posea. 8mendeCideyelQpmeIlt.agreement as
:CODlPareato tb.erequD.-em~~&'inthe()tjg;rialdev~lo,pn1ent~ent.
, .'. l.' ;-.:.~" .~':/-_;,_,,,;, ....;~',_;:-'""""'_~.~;.~~...._<,,.,,~',~~ '-" , ", \,": '::::'~_;_:'-":: "_'~:""(".'.._'
,-. . c. ... _ '" '_' .....
The".'98'DSIER"~:n~'cRP22~23j'~"~~'"hoOk:'.~~s.,'~,.part of the
,proposed project. as.:aistitict'from.:interrelated~rtation'iigpJ'()vements including
'the' Oystei':Point1ftteiChange aDd ':F!Yovet.1J:'heCioCumem mcorrectlY claims that
.these'i.iiectS1T....~i;,....~e '*1d'Fl '., "et\ &:reiJY4~dent~ofthe' ", ,. ect covered by
, ,.PI'9J . \..u.&_&~. yew J~~U. n ,JD'OJ .
'1bis1998DSEIR.;.ConstruCtimiof.thehookI'BDp Was'maae,a 'conditiOD ofapproval
when the 'San'Mateo ;County'TrarisPortatiOICAuthOiity'aUthorizeaadditional funding
'for the Oyster Point Interchange on May 4, 1995. Resolution''l'995-S states:
''BElT FURTHER. RESOL VEDthat asa conditiODofthis additioDal~ A
fundiIIg authorization, the<:ityI of South San Franc~]. agreesto1hep1acemem
',' .'of8ll. lm-lampfnmi'Air,POrt'BoUlevard^tosouthbouridJlighwayl0fnorth of the
-'IOysterPoil1t:Int:erChanFlPrOjCctBiid1herecoDstructionofthe eXisting exit
- '. . -
':'..<".
"":;'-".
';.r !=.;}).:;-\<./....:. ~
~~;:~~;1h=;:o~~t:\~~~w '
'ramp construction 1IIianiCoDStmction work is environmentally feaSible:,1tuai.~~.'>~~~' "
thefundmg for such,;;~~'.~l'.8~between the Authority and;th~~~1iiiit-;~-~P~:::;~'
South San'FranM...."';''-;''';.2 ,'" . ",.." ','.,',:;~;,.;~,t/,t..',;,:",.:,..., .
. '...~,.~. .' ,'.'.....:;"..
BE ITFUR.1HERRESOLVEDthat asaconditionofthisadditional Measme A
;fuoding authorization, the City also agrees to include the. ramp construction as
described in the aboveparagrapb, as a condition,ofapprovaJor~eJldu.tent of any
conditions of approval, for the Terrabay Development PrOject.. :"',.., ",." .', ,'.
The fiDal EIR for the Oyster PointInterc~ states:, ," ',"'; ," ;., ',"
"A specialana1ysisin theEIRY(Stagmgtoptiorii#l)concludetftliatUlfiTnRtely, the
Terrabay Hookramps redesign will be essen1ia1forthepn>per~oni4g of the
new OysterPoint.Interchange"(page V-9).','>:";"" .
As these earlier documents 'indicate, the hook ~s and the Oyster Point Interchange
are interrelated projects. This relationsbjp'ShoUld beteerigriizedin theDSEIR.
.., .. '.u'" "
j~::.~~~~~ 'V~l:.?~~ .r~~.:"j~_:~.'
~ "..,'.~'--,'" .
: -.:' :~. ';.~.~.-"" -.' .... .
." i".; ~: ;..~::-. ~ ".' :.:-. .
. .~.. -
"'26.1-
,-
i
..
;
:r-
,
r
Other issues regarding tbe'hoOk Tampstb8tneen'to:headdress~.in tb.e'DSEIR are:
. The DSEIR fails to note that, in the 1982 and 1996 Terrabay EIR.s,the hook
ramps were listed asa mitigation measme for the 1raffic impacts of the
Terrabay project with the responsibility fortheirConst:iUction placed on the
developer.",Canwe assmne thatbynowdescnlm1gthehook~~part of
,.,',.,'...'the'project;1he'aeveloper"s:responsiDQi1Y:haS riot"been 8herc:d? .""..,
'. ,..,', ';',claiiiyiSc;h.eeaedln regariito.thejsshe'~fful1aing'forl:he;116cjk rBInps.lhe
EIR shou1d~,~ificalJY theTerra~.Y' developer~s,~butiOD to
,..thepl"C)ject and!~lti!Yvm~J!iS'sUmC1c#to~~tb.e:.l:100kramps in
,..',., "a1iD1elYmanner~';'Tbe'fuDding';.natiD:iiDgsh~uld '1)c" ,seftOttlfirilbe "
:"'cteVelojmleitf ~)~lhce1lieproject"ae~pqOniBclude~'t.hehook
".'....;'..;:~tb~~",~,~~~.',~~:l~~..~g~~..~~,'~:~.;~F~~in the
- . -'-~,.~ - - ;",.-, ,: ---:_.,-::,:::-:-~;: ,'---.. - -'.:'.,::...-.--., ," ,- -- --, ,- .'.-.:.:-:,,:,.'-:....>...,~_..:
. .... ','J'hellS~a()es. DOt ,a.dequa,.!~lyaisCt#.then~1n.gand~e,in'tel#1ationship of
, . ,." ,.:<;the"hoOk,ran:g)s,pl9jectvlit11:tlie.Phsl~~I1ICcmun.ercia1deyelo.p~Which .
Will'he'bUilffirst~the"hoOk, ,smPbase'm,deyel' menfar'Will tb 'be
,...,.. ,." 0.,.. '.'.. ...,' ,", ",,,' ,.".,'.~.,.. , ',', ..'.. ,..,.,.",o.p" ."'..,.,., ey
:':bUllf to' etbef?,Jf D.ofCOnstrucieaCOricUuerdl~vlhat WiU'betbe.trafficand
'.,', ..' ,,8 ",......,.,"', '.. . '." '.', .,.,,'...y, ,',.,',".
CircU1ationlmpac:tS? lfPhUem'isconsttuctec[bCfore the hook lamps, the
...,DS~sl101.1ld~!y7.e howthat;4e'V~~CJ.Pment ~1.1lci,~.~c~hy the
"'eiistb:w~!JS!1.~~,~!Y'Ysc,~,r:'~ ~guration.,.,.,.."C',".,;.,.
,.:ltiso~~.~~i~g thatt.he~fof.l Ol'lI1'C8.plan,was .~Y7#d under the
", ,',',assmmrtiOlJ}h8t~'boOkratIlps.~~4:be constl1Jcted bf#~~'Teuabay
,,' , ',~ ".;;prOJ~.~,,~#;}fth.eTertaba,y}'hase u:ancim"pmceea Vt'ithout the
" '.,.....,."..,;hQ.Ok:~tbisjvoUId~reViSitingthepriorEIRfo~>tI1~~ of101
>""',' ' <,. ..."'.....;:.", > ,'- -::...,_'_,......'.. ,.,' ;'.: .',: ,::'; ','_'.--:." 'f." "..,' ;. -...'.,'~' -;, :',.. ;">"'-"'.' -... :-.' :':<"_' ." ", . '-~ . .'.,'-- : ",'-.. ,-', ,.' , , . . ," ," - , " -."', ,': . -".:'
.'m:eaL.,i:')./::';' ':::.
.':8: .~j:"". '., ',' "",.<..:.,'n<"<":"'.c.,, .. ':' .,..,..,.:..i' ,,"',.
26.2' 'vrllLthe85.~ooO,~:YcJs.of 9rt DmtenaI from ~m.gradin.g(Chart p. 60) be
used as fillforthe'Ba,ysbore Blvd rea1igmnentlhook.ramp~;p1'9jec:t?..IfPhase m
.',.prOceeds before the BaYshore Blvclrea1i~ookramps are cons1rUCted, will this
26.2 material have to 'be exported off site? If so, 'the impacts and location of disposal ant
the impacts of the additional truck traffic should be addressed.
26.3' c. Cultural Resources
We note that the placement of up to 23 feet offill overCA-Sma-40 will essentially
,destroy the cultural resource. Mitigation Measure4.9-{a) is inadequate due to the
relatively small amount of the site proposed to be investigated.: Once the project has
been constructed, the site will, forpracticalpmposes, be unavanable for further
investigation even if the weight of the fill does not destroy the resource. The City of
Brisbane continues to support the preservation of the shell mounds for future
generations.
~~i1 "',
~PO"'R..
Robin Leiter
City Manager/ Acting Planning Director
LETTER 26,CITY,OFBRISBANE
Response 26.1 The transportation improvements (book ramps and Bayshore Boulevard realignment)
covered by the 1998 DSEIR would be retained in the Development Agreement and not changed by the
amendment currently requested by the sponsor of the Terrabay Phase IT and ill project.
The remainder of the comment is noted. The distinction the 1998 DSEIR makes between' the hook
ramps (and BayshoreBoulevard realignment) and the other constituent parts ,of the Oyster Point
Interchange improvements in the introductory discussion 2.2 Project Background is for environmental
review purposes. The interchange and flyover were analyzed previously in the Oyster Point
Interchange EIR, but the hook 'ramps were' not assessed. The EIR addresses the Phase n and ill
Terrabay sites separately. One reason is to permit discussion and consideration of the environmental
effects and respective merits of implementing the development concepts proposed there. Another
reason is to recognize the different levels of analytical detiril possible for the Precise Plan and Specific
Plan proposals. The hook ramps and Bayshore Boulevard realignment similarly are separated. This
does not change previous agreements and I or conditions related to ,the transportation improvements.
Response 26.2 The specific grading sequence would be worked out during the final stages of the
project and would be coordinated among Phase n, Phase ill, and the hook ramps. As the 1998 DSEIR
states (DSEIR page 115), the location where excess material would be used would depend on the need
for good quality fill at the time of the grading. Depending on the sequencing of the hook ramps
construction ,and BayshoreBoulevard realignment, some excess materials from Phase n and ill
grading may be used for the hook ramps. 'U this is. not possible, the excess would need to be exported
from the site and material imported in the future for construction of the hook ramps. The proximity of
the project site to Sister Cities Boulevard, BayshoreBoulevard, ,U;S.H101, Interstate.J80, and
Interstate-280 would be expected to minimize the need for truck traffic through residential
neighborhoods as was prohibited for Phase I development.
Response 26.3 The comment expresses a position about the "merits of the project" in relation to
proposed Phase ill development and preservation of CA":SMa-40. It does not raise questions about the
adequacy of the 1998DSEIR analysis, and no response is required. By inclusion in the 1999 FSEIR,
the City of Brisbane's views will be made available to City of South San Francisco officials for their
consideration in making decisions about the project. 1998 DSEIR Mitigation Measure 4.9-1(b)
presents an alternate approach to mitigating impacts on CA-SMa-40 by preserving the archaeological
site.
Letter 26-1
;,
STAt! Of CAUFOltNIA-IU5lN!SS. lIANSPOITATICN AN) HOUSING AGINCY
"PETE WILSON. .'0.0-.:
DEPARTMENT OF 'TRANSPORTATION
:IOX 236aO
OAIC1AND. CA ,~
(510) 2I6-u.u
TDD(510) 286-4C5.c
LETTER 27
,..&:1\, '
'~'
August 14, 1~8
,R EC E 'ViE'D
AU" 9 '~~
" i,>";,/'./:,.,.,,~~ING.,,, .
Ms. AllisoiiKnapp'
City of South San Francisco
g 15 'MapleS1:'rCet'
SouthSan'FranciscO,CAi94080
': f;:;,~"Ei~C':EJ'V..E [)
,', ~:':'::(..;,AlJ.~'.::J:,.~;":";..~',:,e"i~";"'c.,
J~l.ANNING
SM-J01-23.39
'SCH#9,082077
'. SMIOI2S9
, 'Re:'TerrabaYPhue Dalid'm;;;Drd SElR '.
''Ibankyoufot inclmg'the<C8liforriia iState'nepartmei1f of TraDSpoftation (Caltrans)
in the review processJor the above-~f~Prt)ject,.'\!~ .!~J:\\'~the}ollowing comments:.
. . .'c.... ;:' .,' ",',':' ....-'_.....<.."i,.;:,~':::,.:'-..L.,...:i,:;,.~:,.
.'.HYdtt>1~~:;8rid.~"~~}12~>,::/~...:;!;,.
27.:1 .' ';';"Bueaoi{apreVious"una~~b.;;(Jmll__eDt1#eC2i'ta1w~'aIif>Clear Water .
"'Hyarology;:CODsilltaitt'mrTmabayI>eveloPlD~1heeiisting'CtUa'.CWverts 36",48" and
60" reinforced CODCrete pipe(RCP)'were~1o':acCOmmOdate'u.1fi1TIRtebuildout of the
Terrabay site (please see A~,,",entCa1trans:B,;}'drauJics Sedion for details). Ho~ever,
\theproposm,,5Ystetus 'fOrPhUe'mSite deVe1oPment~afe-11Ot..matcheCho the above' , ,
'drciinage,systemsexcepta.'48:R~~''P.l~tS~aaid'~Vi~''~ calculations for
.<theproposed sySteI:I::L;;',: ,;'.:. .',.ic;,,~:<,'., .~::,,'O:':I1.s:'.;.;.t-'::>,L2;;:'> ".::x;,..,:,}\{( }/i."',~"",,':,.: ,"
2. "}J}:Te(f11ire(H~\faciliti~iIiOlaet;to'~'or.elimi,;.sitedielitoreseeable l~'
.':'erosiori and'~'seaunCntation sballbe"addieSSeali:id ~~bemc1uded in 'the
improvement p)arFforreVirir'l'iDd 'COmment'" ,; ,"0.'.' .'..' ";';~'"
3. ii4spart'of8ll1lj:Jprove(1~tOrinWaterponutioD~CniioD:PbUi~(SWPPp), IpJllOpr!ate
emSiOD 'CODtrOlmeasures RCOIDDlenaed'byproJectspoDSqfs CivirEDgineer-Brian Kangas
, ":;FoWk:'(BKF)'SlWlbe~incJuaed' mheflectea'ODUnprovemem p1mL:':"
':;~ :~',-:,~';_7: ':~;.';~',;...'~~ :::~<-:~,~-::, ':';~~~':.~'T{~~" -'-..~ '::~ -:'".~<_::::' _' :_~.-~~? - ";{ ;..;.~:t~p~:;','~"'j;}~:,'~::' ~?;i~.;.~~~::~~;;:t:-,'~',,-
-
4. ,.Page 139,seccmd paragraph, and second sentence,"FurthenD~the current,proposed
27.2 project J:CP1~ts a reductioniDthe percentage of developed area within project site
watersheds tnb~ to,.the freeway culverts." It is not clear the basis for this conclusion.
Please c~ .
s. Caltrans shall make specific comments OD the improvement plans once the final ODes are
submitted to caJtraus during the Permit process. .
'::".':::"j/;:";~/SMI012S9,,,;,-,.
AugustJ4,1998
'Page '2
t
....1
r
f
I,!
.~'-
"_','! ':;._~ 'iJ _''. ._:.,_-i{~'_\ ,', ..'~. .
Tmmcfmd,Circulation (page 162):
/27:.3t:';;{' Page 190, MitigationMeasme 4.4-1 suggests tbattbe developer reduce trip generatiODby
64%in'orQer to Teduce*e project impacts to aless than signiJicant level Is the project
sponsol:plauniDg to do that? . Similarly, on Page 194,'MitigatiOD Measme 4.4-4,
Will ,the-tripgencratiOn be teduced by 59% by reducing tb~'Pl9jec;:t.,~?
~-'.---
I
.'--- I
7.
. ,....;' ,_ . '_. _;. . .. - <~, ,::i_.;;,;.:...;,":"::,:....::~.;.-~.._:.~:~~ :.:,:,:;., '.:'..,-:.t;,:.!~~..:. . <.
On Page ,19tMitigationMeasure 4.4-2 requires th8.ttbeQYSter,Pomtiree'N2~Yoverpass be
widened and that the project sponsor provide a fair share c:ontributioIlJor,tbis
improvement Would the City of South San Francisco plan on widening the structure?
>,".-'0:-:'. ',,:-: "y-'-".::-'
27.48. Page 204, the year 2020 Hook Ramps PSRlPR Environmental Analysis Should discuss
whether there would bc.agy. pOsSiblej'h)'S;ical C()J1Straint,:SpecificaQy where the book
,ramps ,cannot meet 'CaltraDs dc:Sign siandards,and'wbetbcr,certain vehicle sizes, such as
,senii-trucks, ,are,toc!Jcn:stric:ted.fmm~g,'fh.'~s b~.,OD,physical'ccmstraints.
. C'..,' ;,_ .... ,. .-: ". ',.' " '~:.:'. ".....:',;~ .': ~'". ': : - n:';"'_'<"" _.;'. ,: '~'.- ,'-', _'.. ".,..-:,";, '-. '._' -,~ "'.__'C'. -'. - ",,-, '.- ~:'<'"", '-,- "'-f'" . . '-:,: ,'..- _: _' :,. _' --C_"', - .' - , '. ., --, . :" " -- ,',,_..' ....... ". ." .
27.5'.9. "P~?207,~~;~',~~]iridi='ti:'~".~.'i;~~e;:th;~,;~hook off-ramp
,wou1d.be;adequate,topreveut~ :OD,mainli~Ir.eew~}'>from~.IIt,the;Off-ramp
,iDtersectiOn.":Howcver,page209,Impact 4~4-i4:stateS'that tbcrso1.ltl1booDd'"
.j ,,),;Route,lOJ~n:cwa.y,()f[-ftJlJPJo~;BouleYMd wbcJe;divqe,;traftic Bowwowci"be
!"'c;:;~t~_~=~is"tU1D .
C..- .', . . ,- - .- .
':~'i :,...~. . ,"; J":: ~,._:."" ~''f',~j~:,: _. :;::_,'",,"~; ~.< ~~. . ~~:~;J~:~;;--:'f.-'i::,:'~~~',t:it~X.:-~hj.t~~~.d,"-"::~~'!\';<::':__~:'~';/:"<~:--'.':"\~:','lJ '\;-'-\~,L ';. ",:"';::_.';':'-'~ --",:;C:"::' <"':<'_' ,'. ;~
27.6,,:1 o. .'p'qc;~O,~,~~tiption~~:~.+l;~g~ignal$,wi1tC8ltrans beftlspODsible
,..'for~DD~tl1e~~:9Jl~,Bo~~~,or,,\1Vill~~.i~,,1he responsibility of
theprojeCi,sPonJor?'Has tJJeSigDal Opcration~<9r~~a.~~.'~ contacted?
27.:l"',11.,,.;qa1~~;'~J.'~~:1.~et~1!8~e~~P,~;~rJ~~cl~'thc\~ute lOl,corrldor ,}
. . ',<,~,betW~tbe,~~,CoqII!y,and~tbe;Sail,E~J:O~.IiD~..I.corridorwhereramp
".' ';'meteTing';m;bC'ir;~plem~~~!~~i~~Djit;i~;,~~,'11l~f9~"t!leana1ysis:ofproject
impacts for years after 2010,sbould include ramp metering at the northbOund aDd
isouthbomu,i Route. :~PM~~()~~.'8Dd,tbcfl1turc'RouteJOIJBayshOreHook
.,.,i'";0117raJIg)s....Iftl1e.~~~!i..~y~,!~i~,mitigati~such as wj~the on-
, -'ramp~:{!r;a;9~<~.~~.~d~g~~Ti~c=dJ10"'Jan~i~di~g,storagel~ to the [-
exisfuigOD-rampsor local street'8pplO8Ches should be considc:red.",.".. ," I
~..
'r
;
"
,
.- ~..
,AKnappISMI01259
August 14,1998
PageJ
,;,;,):, .' d"""" .~;.'~:H;":;~~~~:",,.~,,~!.K {~:};...~J't:~:j{i,G,c.\,;;,
' We appreciatetbe oppOrtunity to. work with you on this project Should you have any
questions"please call Dai c:lnl~Z 'Jf 11;)',staf! at(5 .!W.28~573 7
"Smce:rely ;),::";,'",,x,; .""
HARRYY:'YAHATA
'.~~
PHIUJP BADAL
cDistrict.B1'8DChChief
IGRlCEQA
Attachment
,qa:...
~~fcc:THolmes SCH
,,'
'"},-f'/
.;..:;:;
I
I r
. I
I
. I
Ii
II
I:
p
I'
I,
I.
L
i i
,
, i
, !
I r
. ,
.
,
.
..
, '~"'/ISIlr:rans
. ~CAUFClANA DEPAATtoENTOf' TRANSPORTATION ",.,
.' . ". ,:,,~,_,::. 'h'J,... .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I FACSIMILENUMBER::>'"{S'+O) 286- 488Z.
,I, ATSS .s-5&k"8~2.;
~ I
. I
f ;
District -4
'HYDRAULICS, ,:S~EC~TION
';: ,:<..\:.::-t\.t::~' t: :~'~.:i'~:~; r.';.d~~~~~,:.:_~~.~t~:'r:::!r~~" ~!~~~';:"~': 6':~':'<~-,j "\::~?~ :~{:> -'., 7~' ,~:~~~;._~-~}~: ).~'fJ~:~::~~~--'/ ~':"~f;,~~t:f" S.tf>:::~::>:':.';:;~~~:_::;' ;!..~,.v,~,::~,_,: \, .
... ,'-'" . 'c.
,.,..,....-':-'.:.;.,...:.>.t._.,../.r..~?__;.~_;\..:._....._~~',. .............__~ ....' ."~ ", (""~ .~~ .
'lti\GraDaAvenu'e~"Oak18nd.'CA '9:46~2
,....'c.',.,-: '.\ -,'; .
7-/ J 7/98
, I
DATE: ,"
~' ',"l.r" ~ "
TO:!
I
".:~~v.r..~\ ,\-\,i~tl~~~
\J\'\\~~ \1~\,,~rp
.. , "'r\'tdt'L1/1\"LS ",. ".,.
"(o//r5), -~~7- trczl
ORGANIZATION. .'
ATTENTION
DEPARTMENT
FAX NUMBER
'FROM:
.~~~~ (~~~~~ 27
NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET): ,
s-
,,.
JI
I
"L
;
I""
'.
1--
i-, ,
, :, 'I
I ; .
-l.~_
.-
I
~
I
..4
,..::ill ,
......~'~.,'.:
--,;
/l-.
---,....
-- ..fJI.'
'j'
,
-
~....:
,..
,. "
''''':''
~
-:--.
-.~
.-
-DO It' c..
-. - .-----.
~
.. .
.,,"~._:
,,.
~
~
~.",
--
.~
.
'-
~
,-
--- --
---~-:::..~ --'!'"----
-~- --
... ,
. ---,~
'.'~" '
'a
I.
~~----; a.~
'Ct '
~'.
,--
c:;
..
.........
--
~
.........:
. G
1::,
2'
.
....ACI"C
","fl.
.. ..
:.:
..
"
--
!.:NT~
---. i
:;;;'-~'D( ~..jJ
,.
" ,/ '..
'"
.
-
.
-
.
1
,... "
l..AN
0-'
I
9)
6.
~l
:...
.".7
......,1'..1
;--~--.:...
. >> '''-----
~~I
""-4~...:u;:3fif~J}~'
'~'-1lUCii P&.AIIj
~ac....~..,~
..
~.,_J
'1
:- ..;; ~/. . .". ~ .-.~:.
...~.._."~..
.-"'~ -.--'.--:--
. .----._, '.' "
-~- .' -~..{~~ ."
" '. .,.".....'..,~..--,; ",,':;',', .
- -. . "', ~-..: '~";,~~.",,;*,,.~ ....----
'. ..' ''7''=---'' ,'-:::-'--:'.'. . ~ ===-= ..-" ___..;::::::;.
~--- ~~." ,;,,' ",--" :=:::tt;.-r'---
.~ ::,,~. ........_~ ..,,.' 7~~_"', ..,..
~.--~
...
...
~
_.~
,
t
'~'_ ,'. ~.~'=4~-=~"~-;~._.
..~
,..~
\-'
- - - - ~-=---;--"'-
~ -..::; ~ r
- ':'.,~--V-==
~
,..
-
.-
-
I
-,
~
..hr
-,T-----.----~
'~.,
. .---~..-_:=:__.7:- =-. ...:;..
- -~.~
pI-"
1,;
}
-..
~"
~I" .
r~
-' _.~_._" .
--.'
::......:u...
-,'~-
'---
.
I
L.
-. ':'" :: '. . -. PlZ--"'. w:
~ -.' H.
-.". --
- ".l'
~~~,.-,
j '-- ..- ,
-:- -;..--::..-
.;.... ,-
or -.' ~" .. ..._", '. . _, . '. _"_'.:"
_.:..'~.'..,"..~:".:~;_.':~~
~. ~'_.; I
-----------,.,.-.
:-:-=--+- -,., , "',-
'......
~..-:.~-
------.4'
~ -'~.'
~
....
.~~-'::.:!":. --_::.-
-e.,
.r ,--
-----
if!:
i.
......
. ';...i.
'II..
,)
I
,
,
~',', .;.., ;'''<, ."...,'
.' . . .-' -"~ .
.- ~~~:' '"." .<-:- ':
IF' '" . ~,
".' ---'", " .
~.- .~,-
..;,
~...;
"'..~0.:
, '..............
~.c
""";
.. .."
""'I.
." -,a
.-'11;.:' ;",.--
~'o..--
-
", :orf
=r
i\
..:r-
I
.\
. "
" ;l...
~",:,;'
...:1
j s:
-
..
~c
;~,
:--~
~ ' '\...-","",
.,REDUCED . PLAN
",:_.:au '...
" .
f:: I
, ..-.-.....
,-
\
.L......
",1
. : ~ r .
.."'l..-,..i
J:
. - ... ~. .
Iou 0421":
''I
..,
'1
Ii
:.
I
-
...
'~
II)
-
...
o
'...
a..
J.. i
o
en
Z C!" C
Z oifS
~ ~ "~~
< "J: 5 0
t-O a: ~ =
~ '::>> >0 ~ ~ ';. .
i <L I .,I!: cc~ aJ o~ J
5 ~~3= ao ~H:J
~,~ ',0".:,:1:0 ,~',~ c.!
(,) t-CJ~ 0 It au ~ I
l!s155?= I!!~ ~2i '
IE t-,',:;",~.'w,i ~0 ~ ,i! ;
wZ rf-Z ~a:l
w I 'Z',~<' oll! ~
. :E:5 '1;1- rn Co en
_ t- .... ~ft ~ UJ a: lL '
a: -;~" .,. w 0 '
<1-'''' II: ~ .Ii
....0'.....02; J
W w.' ',>'5 :.
c a ~'~
a: 0 w
a..fE ...J
~
ell
o
o
~
It
i 1
,1'111 ...~
G'c ~ .lIt ,I,:!
1.' ~ p..lll.a..
! d :Jffil IiI! !if
I,~'%I..J. ~
'"I ..... !
~. . . . . .. . .. . . . : :
'-'
!"
I
t-
U
o ~
(,) ,~ ~
,., a N
E .u~
z '0"
"~ ~
....=g
zo+
C IIg
., .N
=~
:z: ..
...
5
II)
r
d ~I
f 1".;
, 'i ·
i1 J - ,.
Ji/
J
\
i
. .
-=
~
;,
,lD
....
.
~.
:0 :
.' ;
J ..
.~ i
g . .
i I.
I : !~
.. .. -.
i~ c .' II
i~
eJl
..i Ii
iii
!
Ii
o
..
,C
..
..
,.
ii
\
.\.
..
\..
.
~....,...........
:1
'II:
=:5
.N
J~f
o
,.
c
o
,>e.
.. +"
0-
,II ~
~~
.....
&II
Z
C
m
.,
a::
m
J
'I
J
i~
,!
.1.2
I,
'~
J.
il r
!. ,
I
J
..
;;
.
o
.J..
",:LEF!ER2Z"qAL1F.oRNIA,DEPART!AENT,OF.!,JY.NSPO,FITA TJON(CALTRAN$J
. - . - . ,.
. .'. - -.' - , ..,
-,. '.' "; ','.:; ", . />/_.~-:~-::'.';',~,,:,~-.:.:-:- '-~'l:?::",'.;.,~,c.;-~."<t'!-.:,.:.' ,-. .':.,
"'Response27.1,'Thecommentor. has confused ,Clear.water;J:l:ydroIQgy,J~e'EIRA:IY.dn>logist) with
, ,BnaD.KaD.gas~E'()uIk;(BFKAhe..Pl"9ject~po~or!s 'eDg:lneer}.\,;The.ret:eren(;~..to,~~ .4~~,:3(),.,and 36-
" ,'inch ,diameter ,freeway ,culverts. ideritified,in:thel~98..DSE1Rn=present.both fie1dinspection'I>Y .the EIR
',hydrolqgista.ndconsultation.~~,BFK;, s.~',wh(),yepiied th~,:existf:n~,e()f the 'c:ul~erts~as indicated.
;' FolloVi..up'.field inspections. by.J3KF }oc~ ",the,~pO~j.nch ,,~yert dn1et,:burieg'under freeway
landsc~pingadjacent toBayshore.:Boulevard,..cThe.culverC-currentlydoesll()t,cro,ss, Bayshore
Boulevard, . .,' Tl1~refore;Ats:future~~';wpplcL~e~,:aIl'.aiIditional:#e..in',aCros~',the"r()3dway. BKF
" submitted ,l1ydrauIic:computations;fortl.1e.P!9j~t;storm'drain:~ystem ,an~Jorthe,pl"Qject sponsor's
Phase 1/1 Site Mitigation Plan Development Altemative to the EIR hydrologist. The computations
.verified,thatthePl1aseID l00-year.,peak stormwater cdischarge'could~behandled <ad~quately by the
existing culverts under Bayshore Boulevard,-an of which discharge into the Qpen channel to the east of
D.S .10 1. Furthermore, ,under the Phase 111 'Site, Mitigation PlanIJevelopmentAlrernative, which
includesareduced4ev.elGpment areato .avoid;grading within th~:archaeolqgical site, site runoff would
be conveyed in the existing 48-and.36-inch, cul."ertsas:well ,as the,60..:.inchculvert, The 60-inch
culvertwouldbe, extendeci 'across Bayshore iBotilevardand,would accommodate ,construction, of the
,new hookrarnps alon,g the ,west side of the freeway ..similar l1y:draulic.computationsfouhe Phase III
Site MitigationP Ian Developme~t AlieT7U2tivealso verified ,itsadequac~,to convey.,.the lO~year peak
discharge (for reduced development density and impervious surface coverage) with satisfactory
freebo3.17d, .
-
""TIi~comlllents':abollt,includip,g;drai.nage:1acilitiesiand'erosion,control.measures required to minimize
i::siteerosionanddoWIIstream sedimentation are noted. Subsequent project site improvement plans
';'ShotUd,reflecLthe, comment' serosion-.:controbmeasures ,and ,the 1998iDSE1R's additional mitigation
",,;imeasures,caddressing er.osionJlIld,'sed.imentationfunpacts.,
'" ."., -' . .
~;Response 27.2 As discussed in the 1998 DSE/R (DSE1Rpage138;ithirdparagraph), BKF's original
'analysis for full buildoutpeak flows from the Phase IT and ill watersheds assumed an impervious
, . surface .area .of .50;,percent.'The,EIR.:hydrologist,detenniDedthahtheproposed,projectcwould result in
impervious surface percentages of 39 and 18 percent, respectively.Thisrepresentsa~decrease in the
proportion ofimpernous (developed) area on the Phase nand ill sites.
.. . . .. _. .:",.:,":' d:" .':;.,
. Response 27.3, . :These"arethe,',deveIQpment reductionsrequired,(assu~g; no,: feasible ,or, fundable
,(physical,mi~gations,woUldhe.av~le)in ,ordc:r:torecluce,,:projectdmpactsbelow ,City significance
criteria levels. As indicated in Response 13.36, proposed column locations. for the south ,to eastbound
flyover off-rarnpWill preclude widening the Oyster Point Boulevard overpass. This issue is discussed
fully inResponseJ3~~6~ ".',
Re~ponse,27.4Accord4.1g toBrain~gasFoulk, .,~eJirmdesigniq,g the ,hook 'ramps, no design
exceptions ,m;incoxporated ,in:.th~:9JIrent ,bo.ok,ramp,design..1 \ 'Therefore, any size vehicle legally
allowed on California state highways would be able to use the new hook ramps.
. .. -'. ...-,.... ,.', "" - . .'
:Response27.5'Qperation ofthehookraIIWintersection :With.Ba,ysbore. Boulevard,',combined with
proposed off-ramp storage, wouldpreelude off-ramp traffic backing up to the,freeway mainline (based
. , . .
1 Crane Transportation Group (EIR traffic consultant) conversation with Brian Kangas Foulk.
Letter 27-1
upon year 2020 volume projections). The southbound off-ramp diverge operation at the juncture of
~the off-ramp "from. the freewaY,mainHne,isprojected to operate ,at:LOS,F.~onditionsin. the year 2020
with or Withoufthe<projeci: ~th;the':pfojeCt;"off';;mmp'volumesare 'es~ ;to increase 'by about 11
"percent due to thepIl?posed'Jlook raDlP ciesigIl,(the design w()uld allo'Ypghttummovements from the
off-'raIn,p 'which 'wori,ld'-re ffifficiiIfto~ond,Uct\vith the ~*tog-~aIignment).'The~fore, based
"on the'sijnificai1ce':cfiteria:usec:F~,th.e!;J9?&D.s'E1~ ;a}gieaier'than~one:peicenbmcrease.in traffic at a
';qocatiori8IreadyexPtme11cmg:l1n~f".ceptaole'operiiti9ifis'coDsidered:i'sifn';ficant iJnpaCt:~Qperation of
the'ffiveJ:'ge'areaShotild'baveno'1inp8Cton' -available ':storage::oo,.the'llPproach:totheoff-ramp
,intersection>with\Bay'shore "B01ile"am.:';Howev.er,uriless'tbe.Dew';'hook"raInp'desi~;preCluded right
turn movements atlB~ysbore'~oiilevaritwbichitheoreiica1lY would ieduce"incie8sed off-ramp traffic
.below, 8" one,'ipercent;increas~,;~the 1m1y'other:a1temative, "t~maintain, :traffic ,below,the:one ,percent
increase'le~elon;t}1~ off'-ramP at;the'Qi~e.rge~'~~u1~be;ri,o.f tOf~ristru9dlie'prqject. ",'. " ,
,Response 27.'6' ''The''Cities,.of BiisbaIle3l'l(rSouth'~ai1'Fral'iciscci,Will :& responsible fordetennining
'which, party '(or parties)' woUld 'fundinterconnectiIlgsigmilsaIongBayshore'Boulevard at and in 'the
vicinityofthenewbookTa1Ilpsmtersection.' The project sponsot' s '8Ccessplans. to the Terrabay Phase
1II site, from'Bayshore 'Boulevard 'have'beeri;in 'fliix' (due to a 'proposed'project'3nd a new 'alternative).
However, consUltation with "the'c''C31ti'anSSignal iOperation'Branchhas'beenpartof.theproject
"development'process.''CaItrans'wotild'need'toappI'ove'the Jinalplan'for "signa1iZedintersection
operationat1ind'inthe 'viciriity 'ofthe;hodkramp1ntersection.'Thisrequirementhasbeen: added to 2.5
AdmiriistrlltiveActioni;aSifollows: .. " ,
.CaIifomiaDepartmentof Transportation {CaItrans) encroachment.permif/(hook.ramps
construction within "theright-of'-way ,of a State ,highway) andsil!DaI, operationaoorovaI
',dsil!DaJ.ized 'intersections ,at and in 'thevicinitvofthehook.ramointersection).
";~::..t:;,:. ,,-'
,""~.,..,,, ".'-',,:-' . ... .
'c."~~- ,', .
. ". " .. .
. :,...,::.:',~ :':' ::'-;,'":~ .."
," '..,... " '.
,'~Response 27~7,!.Based;on "discussions,~th;Caltrans ,District. 4.,'5taff2 ,implementauonof on-ramp
. metering could produce moderate to isigriificant,vehic1e~backups iOntothe:locaLroadwaysystem With
'traffic volumes generated by full area development. , Theparticu1arsabouton-ramp operation with
ramp mete$g:areasfoUows:,;'~ '. -
, -, - .
-, ,Metering,canbe'designed to .anowieither one 'or 'two vehicles 'per'lane loproceedw'itheach green
",(;cycle.
L.
- 'The number of vehicles which can be',processed at a metering sUltion raIlges from ,240 ,'to 900
.. 'VehicleS per hour "pedarie ,with operation allowiIlgonevehic1epergreencycleto'proceed. With
;operatiorialloWing'.two'weliiCles, per 'green: 'cyCle' toproceed,capaciry"mcreases :t() '1,'100 vehicles
"per hour per lane.
. Metering capacity is assumed to double with provision of a secondon-'ramplane~
\-
. ' -"'When:HOVbypass:;lanes:are-piovidetfaimefuHnglocarlons,'Ca1tiahs'experienceh~ shown that
15,t020 percenN:iitotaloD'-r3.mp'vemcles qWilifyto use;this'lane."" , ,.". .'
-When Caltransinstalls ramp metering, its initialdesire is toprovidesto~e for vehicle backups
''',ifrom'themetering'ijghts: entirely on 'the , on-~. "Ifthis:isnot possible,'CaltrariSWiII work with
..... '.;;..;',_.' '-" ',.;:.:i'-'.......'.........'.,.'...:.'l." ' ~;,i/.~..~~_'..: "". ';,",-.";:O't .~. ...- . __.~
2 'Crane Transponation Group conversation withMs.'Chan Newlander. Senior TransponationEngineer. Traftic'Systems
Department
Letter 27-2
the local jurisdiction to provide additional storage area on the local.' surface street leading to the
on-ramp.Caltrans'primary objective is to preclude on-ramp traffic backing up from a metering
.location to impact flow, of local surface street traffic not bound for the freeway.
· Caltrans'would not provide metering only at the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange. Its current
plan, when funding becomes available, is to provide metering concUrrently at all interchanges
along U.S. 101 from State Route 92 (S.R. 92) to the San Francisco County line. .
Review of projected volumes contained in the 1998 DSEIR shows that. at maximum metering
acceptance rates and assuming the metering stations would be located on the two lane sections of both
the existing southbound on-ramp from Dubuque Avenue and the northbound on-ramp from Oyster
Point Boulevard, year 2000 volumes (including full buildout of TerrabayPhases IT and Ill) could be .
accommodated at acceptable levels. However, this assumes that the metering operation, which will
encompass all on~ramps along U.S. 101 in the County, will allocate adequate time to the Oyster Point
interchange on-ramps. There is no guarantee that this will be the case because most on-ramps along
101 will have heavy demands during peak commute periods. With projected year 2010 volumes, and
the maximum metering allocation time. the northbound on-ramp would have PM peak hour demand
greater than maximum two-lane metering capacity unless a third (HOV bypass) Jane were provided.
The southbound on-ramp would be approaching maximum two-lane metering capacity during this
same PM peak time period. There is no room on the two-lane southbound on-ramp bridge crossing the
freeway for a (third) HOV metering bypass lane. The southbound hook on-ramp from Bayshore
Boulevard would have commute peak volume levels well below metering capacity limits in the years
2000 and 2010. This on-ramp is programmed to have two lanes at the metering station, one of which
would be for high occupancy vehicles.
Letter 27-3
A"ff.'~~' .~. .~~ '~"","~~-""''''-'''''-'
_...;._....,.....--:"....:.. . . _ ,.....--.IIII'.~. . ........ '0.' .--:'.." '_"
~~ ,....; _,.',.. ..'.......~.,. ,'. "~ _ r.' ,,'. .'."
",":".. '. . ..,...... ..", ..., Ii,' :',:. ...._.... ". .' ""- ".. r.. ,... ~. ~.'~
.",. '. ". ,,' .';"::/'" ,.~'.. . ". . ,...-. .~.~~ "j,;,(I::....,~~1~~~~~'1'~r~;~
~..~:.~....~~..~_IJ~..~.LE;;.ER;8 . ','. .:.:,~~~';' . -" ,,:~' ,~;,' t. "';"
.51 ER,RA:<."fJ,J..,','"LJ~, ..",F!,.,;,~9:M.^;;".,~,~l,;E":t~,:,,',",..,San,9~': P,,,,,y;-,.,P,, ~, ',.'.
';' ';'.. ,.'" '. ,'.:SanMateO. SanClC1ara.~tlJ vuuntles
:,.':,'<~'.';,.-~::.;;,'__:.;: ; .;,,_"-,,:.-;".1,.. / ~::;.:: ' .- ..-;....:,:.~-'.-:,:"."..t-"";,;,.".:.:.~..~;...~:},;'
'~. ,',...,: ':,' c.:,,,~''';.,,:.~' - ..
.
'AllY'tl4.1998:, ,'.,
.~(,.:.;/.,;;~:,.:;;.L';;,,;.: ;:~:;;" :::...,;'-- ,..f",;;';, ;"""
rm\~'~.j'.'.'.:.,
planriiDg'DiViSiDri
cty of South San Frandsm
P.O.Box1.11 '. '. ,'".; '0'
'sOu.thSalfP~CA94083'" ..
-~ ,. .... .... - -', ,-"
.-" --'_:':-"'"
:'~.r.oinrrientS OI,li~hJK 'Terra~y'Phasen&m
Dear Mr. ' Hamish:
Jqribtd'lilfofthe'~Pneta~pterd.:thesierra.(]ub,I.~, sm,zriitti4gthefollowing
'~on'the-DSEIR'Terra'Bay'PhasenCk.m ..". " . " "
General Comments
28. 1'lnadequate ReVlewbfMitigilions':':":'Witft'SOlDe,ei:c:eptions, 'we;findthat'the document did
an a~te job of identif.ying iD;apacts.~However, itscliscussianofmitigation measures
'1ild:s;Cletiil'8riddoeSnDfanaIyzetMpo~6~fnnpactSof1:hOse1riitigationSmeasUres.This
'is e'$" "'''.an.y,trUelfor,;~"niitigatiOns'tOadClresS'a(iaitionalroaawiatli'arid,parlcing, and the
~tOwetlandsJ~CEQA:a-Nftl1eiGUiaennes'reqm.re thafJidtigatiQi1s'be"fully described,
. deterInined if feaSible, and if likely to itse1fcausea significant impact/thOse impacts must be
reviewedalthou,ghirtJess detanthantDe, significant impacts, of thepro,ject. ~the courts
"'1'USWillid~to;'tne':a~s~'COnaUSionthifa'nutigat:!on'willbe effective;.thej'still:teqUire
1hlt''the!iUbStantiaTSll.ppoitirig 'mdeDce;~beptOViaea..~1U\.aaequate'ElRDoes not rely on
,~~~~~~~~~.::~=:~~oonmeas~."., '.",<;>"
, .
, ' .
.. . . - -
Webelieve'!thatifhere:ShOUld~be.substaJ1tiar\Vor1:aone"oni:rnproViIigitheaesaiption of the
lriingations'1neasures/the'an8!yses'oftheir.;potentialimpactsandtthff'feasibility .of such
measures~'~HoWever/Ji'W\y"of these'nUtiS-tionswowd'11Otbe necessaiy:if a modified
Reduced .Residential (the ' Reduced Residential Alternative as desaibedin the alternatives
i plus a reduction of some housestoacamunodate additional road width andparldng) and
\:the ppen~aCe AltematiVewere'seledechls itheprojed: 'altematives.'IfJi1eSe;A1ternatives
" ,wereiCbosen,"there'wouRlbe;1essneeo7fott:he iadltionaI detail.
, . .
.
3921Easr &VSMre Road Suite 204
,Palo Alto. CA 94303
415.39Q..8411
FAX 415,,39()..B497
Printed CD 100% tree free b:Daf p
. .}p..p2,
" - {.:. ~;:.:..:~~~_~:~;.rr_:-:;:'-,
"'("i' ':''''\''>:''':"",<", ,,",:, ';'< '0: "..,:' ", .,
28.2 Desaiption of thePryjeC:t ~'~!ieifa:Cl~ Stt~yObjeds to the ChOOSmg an
alternative which .reianbles:'the'july"altematiVe'UNess the draft SElR, with the alternative
fully descriNKIan analyzed, is re-drcu1ateci. 'We urge this for many reasona.The project
.. has not been fully described anywhere. :Whi1e It may be so~hat.~tothe Reduce
Commerda1 Alternative, there are also some very significaIit CiifferenC:esiricluding type and
, scale Of use, parking and circulation requirements, and visual impacts. : Further, the
, alternative is being offered as a way to mitigate impacts to the b~cal,~et1and and
archeoJogial.resources.However, a full analyses of the ~Y:~9f.'~ mitigations has
not had the benefit of pUblic J:eView. .:b'~A~,~i,',,;:,;:,,'('d.,:!~c;;/..',/:,Z".:..,,'\
.....'.-..',.,',,',.,'. .,...-..',
This approach has fundamental policy impJ;~ti~ whicAfjlrex~~proje<:t. The _
foundation of CEQA is consistent and fully described.project, and adequate public review.
While it is understandablethatpn:Jjeds .C3nandwiD be ~oriified~ the information
generation during the reView , period ana.that alternatives 'offered as part of this review will ~
be responded to the FElR, it is not expected that asubstaritially new alternative will be
developed.
--~-
28.3a,.Altematives ~.1he Sedic>n.on Alternatives,is veryconfusiI!g and we suggest that the 'entire c'
" '. , seCtiOnbe re-wntterl'for claiification."Cor1cems,are:~1atefin this .commentletter. '-,
.SpedficCommenls
i.._
28.4"1 ,pa@41:~2.39 7,Ispar~,~iinc~t,1d~,~~~,totals? "
.'."'2[J.~-;:~~.~ ~.,H;;::~:lipp~=iJl~<~i~~~.~t~~{:~~p~~':irid:Reaeation ---
. '~Divisionabout.this,tra.il~a~?,.i~,f:ountt,is,"~tin,gJ.heJ?-art~6:~ste.r;Plan.Input should' .
,be:Pmv:i:~;,~"'~~'be:~~~,a.~ti,~~Ol\:if~,~no,.~1JIaIlCeS that it will ~..
.occur.? ", ' ' '" '<.'" < :..., "," ..,." "
','- ~:::_:':: ':\ "--"" ',-..~,<: :/:>~';:: ,': -~- " ",' ,':: ";.;
"',.,28.6a" "Pa.~sn.'2;,.7h:.~~~':~~;;;~~,~~~~2~~,~~~b~'for,ieview.
,; ,Muchof.tbe;nu~gatiO!\:identifiedm~;cb:ument,JSbased.qn.;,~Vitie&which will be
. '. recorded in the CC&:Rs~'~W~,:lvjtl\oUta~,cqpy,of;~,,>$uqeCuoanyChanges
. based on environmental review,and permitting, the reader can not tellUthe CC&Rs are
acl4!quate",to.~p~,:~,mit.iga.tiorL:At4'111inimua\,,~~~t,beJ)IDvided as part of ~_
,theMit;igatiorlcand.Monito~,P~.hIhis.comment ~pp~,ey:~:tiIne'a mitigation
identifies,that a.co1.ltro1,or.~~,wjltbe~ated,into;,the~ect'.s"CC&tRs.
'. ... - .
"',.';.:",,>:::.:; -.:'-'_" '.-.c(
':"' <",}
".: '.::.. .;--:I.){":~ -;-,~,;~;- . "'-:" .' '-<~"-::-':' 'L"L\;':'':'_,'::, ,{,,'::'~~~:~~":'S:';')/l::~_~~<'~~ {_.~_...: :.'!.:.:-,,~~<::' ,:,('.:;~~-'i-~':.~;'~{:';: :~:'<r.:':]-:.;;~~'~.:-:: :' ;;'-'::',-:::':\',-.-:~(~' ~-'>::';::'<'~:~'~' ;~:'~'::_ ..;',\: :;::: .:. ;::;'~;.-.';'.'
,28.1a'. 'J>a.. '51, ....,'~;'wm:thecmmnentnoted,inIootnote~a~.be.addressed?:Ibemitigation
identiiedinrsedion ~~.not~ped6.c'eno1.lgh.to~this.-identified)inamsistenc:y with;-
. the Ha.Please correct this table and indudea mitigation that plants not approved by the '
HCP will not be allowed as any planting. by the master assodations"the homeowners' ~ -'
,ssociation or individuals.
.-- - --- -...r--- ~ ------
page 3
28.8~,\,-"" .o8'!',.52"7'~~~::~a.~,~~'~~~',a&,.::c,'~~~tb,e~~"... t,on
, '157.indic:2lteS that w.~,,,,,l"'ft' ;&1II:u;JC:~uail8l""AA.UJl: ImLa Dot '..,. ~W'Mi.'h1ic,.
fCl.;~-.....n;.~ .~~ '~",~"-",~:..-.s.........tfr~-~-"'".'" . '~_'~,:......":,,,;.:'~1.:''?f'" . :,,,,~""_',F' ......+..~.-..r.-"..'l>'~~.~~.; ,:.-~"......~.~." .".':;;"~':~"!>:''"':1'._",'''''''''~''~'''''''''''~~;'':- ~,~'. ,;-I'UW'
.rftieWii01'.iS.t:nere.JtCit8;ibOUtWbere,b. ""Wicanbe:ftmeWt!i:LeubJiC.revlew,of thislan is
- "'" 'critid,C~".'enlhit"rDiiti ". '"iion1ui,Jhij~~$i.,<,~,"w~:"~:~therestOt.tiOn Ian.' his
also uJ:~thattbispf:nw~~peefea~1;WN;~~~Hii'L County
"';~..s~g",~~~,~,~~~;~~,~!,,: ,;;,..~..,;'.' "'C/':',', ;,.;)<:
28.9 pageS6 -Where will these retainingWa11s~rPi~=~~&Jri.i~height on a
, map.Howwill~ be.treated?W1l1therebe A visualim~ct.from these walls? ,When will
.the'.ribi~'~.i11slJe~~~h~~~~'~:,:.~.'.t::::~~,';~;'i'~:~\'t.~f,":>;~~;;' !::'..~';._, *,~c:t:~,I}~.:L"~"':' ",;,,'::,". .
,.28.6b. .~ge,,61.7,Prqper~~'. ~~~an.4c:~.~'!~.also..see:conunentsJcn:.page 50)
" ..;;WitbO~fthejJjiB!Y.to~-a'araft;~~.cannofbeansWerea "One of .
theInost~n~ftteritar'~ .iSthe.~lfirianaif~bfiibr 'Ofthe 'Associations to
maint8il\k.1.~enlertb.lifiilc{CC&b~'JWJ:;feeS.be.aSSesSeCl Of~ on aone-time
or an-going basis1How \YiD.'the"fee'sChediile'beaetemuned? 'How'dfteriWillthe am of
meeting ~",requirements of theCC&:Rs.be ~?,Whatis thf!,~ppro,ya1process for
."".,',,."11 lnCre ,.._"',.,.";fees?''lYhatcOntil1gency-1sthetejs~.~not.~ ,." "".. 'te'firUIi1aal abiJitr to meet
," ~~~t:~;;~~.t..;,,:"' "" p>',K"."." ",.~" ,e,,:;" ,
~-~~"~=~~~;:~ '
doc:ument,5uchu page 141, it states that'"'Ihese controlSSM11be~.iriduaea'm the ,project's
CC&Rs and.,~,1?Ythe1't!pective ~As.soda~~'ca1\tl1e,Citr.enforce
'~'CCckRs'or'wmerlf~~,~~::~.:~.~~'~~:~~;?r.~..~,~~,-~~tiOn1
page 62-Proj~ ~ __,:Eiow, can theaty!pp~vetbeCC&tRs_for both sites if they
":,,'~~~ '~"=~.~~~~;,~"rc"!,{,;-::,..,:;;,,',:...;~;':,",....'...":.,;;[....7;;~i":;~...:'~"',-,.~:,, .7-:.,.;;>,~";,__..':":,.'c. .
28. 10 Page 62 - $pecific Plan AIiieridment...;ls there;~te.iritoiIri8tion';ptOViaed to decision
muerstoa,pprove,all of these changes. If not, what needs to be provided and whenwillit
be'piovided.FUrther"hOW1s1l'ufincollsisten ;With the Mimid 'at Code,noted:m-lootnote
~~~"" h^','.t...;.i\.,...,....~ '"..,~,,,,, &,'t,,,.."'I",,,,- ','
28 11 page 63 - What zoning ordinance amendmetitS:wmbereqWrea?" Are1hey;.the same ones
.:, ,listed under Administrative Actions listed on~ge 68? '
28. 12 page 69.- What is the timing for theapprovaIS~byother~n5poriSibleagenaeS?Whatis the
1ikeUhoodthatthese agendeswouid ~ ~~al~in ~p~? ,
, :. :.:_:,~ ~.5rF }.:;:.~.~;:~~:i,~-.~';, '{:>":i. i ... :.:.~ ~'\" .:_i,-':" ;/ .. .':, '-'.. ):!. :}~-,~:~r;._;.:~.:\\~-.~t~;., -;' -'.' -~ '", :c'; :;.~ ).~.. '-:-,-'
28'3b' :paje'75~'The tumUng,Qf.the;altemiltivefiS DUsleaamg'U1d~'P1ease see my
. · detailedcouunentsonSedionSAJternative. 'C"';".'>:"; ".'".,.;,.",.. 'o;(:':Y,
I..ama Prieta ChapterComment&
page 4
., I
I
'28.';,~II:.~.'ilt.~
28.14 page 113 - Why is the ~ld~~_:,~~.;tl1t{'l~.or;~:.i1Uiw~;Bast not
i,;;.,;>;,,~:~~~,?~~;,mi;~~~~'t~!'::;I"';::';:';~!'JZ/(E:i:}.);..;}}:' '/' "".,.".,.,.;;c'.. ,."c:, ," '
,....:--:>_.~.:.;~ ." -':':'~_:_""::'r.\: - ":',.:" .':_~ ::X,:.-,. "-:;:l':~ .:,' :-.': :"~-' ' -~:<~.,- ',::.., ~.~:) ;~.f:'~.:_...":-/~;: ~.j\~.~-\:>,;:',;: ,~: ~-;-~.~~':c~:{,~;-tt>,~~': '\':'~ r':":.--:;.:<:~~~;~;4:.:)-:,: :,:: _.-~.,~~:::;f::..:. ~:'~~::\__;:~':;:~:"" ,....~.::;/i.: . : '_~'.:,~' :.::._....,.:., 'f",. _'
28.15' ',,' ", ""'.'.'.116 "';;'Htigatiori'Measure:4:.1~1P1~,~.Wl1a.t~;~l'J'.~";JdI1I:l;restoration?
page"". ",~"." ,.:." .". ,....,. ..',...... ';' "',' ..,.,. .....,'., ".~ .'. ,.." '
- Where and when wiD the in-kind restorati(,'Jnoccur?'" ,.,Co ".,' .., ". .,.'",,' , ,'.,
- . .~
28..'16:":P4.'120J121."L'~f:~;~~~..~~i:~.~'flid~'ia;:tified"irl;the.'~' and
"j Phase.'mSite?'~riiit.!ptians,;~wenas'~.Qftlle~~implctsofthese mitigations,
, .~~~~~~=~hHCPor
papJ~~123~'~p.a~4~i~&!4iijption~1~a),-"Wheri,Win.~..~fi.:.focksJope
stability analyses'be' COJriph!ted?Whe1lWill themitigation'be'identifietland,analyzedfor
, any impacts the mitigation may cause? This information muSt belI1llOe available to the
decision~,prior ;to.certific:a~"~~J;,si.nce you are,approvirlg at.rl.prqect level for
,~P<irtt. '.Jfstuai~~~~_~,~~~Of~ ~.~~ of these
.".,"'j'.;~~;..:~~;i~;~tf~~,~,;;;~,J.~~..';;...J;,;.c;.;~:';::"~;';";;{':'}'\'A',":,:;;,>..",...;";ii;;.....,;'.;;2.:,;~.I;!.,,;,,\L:;,.Ii~,:.,;~~,.1.
28.d7J'~;~;~~~~~~~~~~m
. .
. :,:,..... Jr-: ,A- .:_:~\'~~: : ~~~}">::~ --.~-:: :;'::::~:'.~: ~,~:>;+~_:. '~~~~:rt~ \ _..:~.>...~~~;- ~~'~:i:.:'~' :""-;J;:-':;.t~.:H:,:f':..'f:'::: '-~;_;_: .:....:?:.::..;:; ;..-t':.::, ~",;';<~h_~.-):~'.' ,-:;..i;':"::;::I\:i-;f'.~~r~:":'_:'~I-''''''::_>'':': .:~:;>:;,: ::-:.
28 18 page 1.26-127 ~ 1'bedeSaiption Of the grade; helghti.pd.d~gg...9f,Ba,ySb#e'srealignment
· and the hook ramps is not suffidently detailed. Norlt thedesaiption c:onsistent with
...., '?::~~;:~~~~:=;':.'G."i;t"i'''C'Gd'N'4l~;;.,. .
.28..1.9,\ !pgeJ31"0..~!,g-2,;G,"0ne~;~Je;tc>'~'~here tJ:Le.;ptI?pOS8d,bullding
. 'footptintsare an this map. Without this informatiOllr the,d~,in~t'&,~ DOt
. determine if there are specific Iootptintswhich should be eliminated because of potential
;..;~Juu~ard.".P1ease''''d.d,~'OV:er~I~'r~/'';';''.'i)i".'',t,... ,"';"; ,..'..',
.' . -, . ~..~:,: <';.':,:-~: '7?::.':'-;;~_":~;,:i::'.:') :! '~~-;~;~':~_r:~',:::,~'-"~::/; -',',::.:.., ~':~""_- ':-":<;'.::':<r';)j-~.'~_'>.'""~:::~;;--,;~:,, ,...-y,:/::'~,.~~~.f_;.~.:,~.~> .:~'<,;':_-- _' .
28.20 page 141-Mitigation4.2-:f~HOWwm~proposedgtadiIl.gplan be~? What
~jD:lpa~!~4.~~,~,~n?, .(..,.".,.,\,;\L\;,: ".',..,.,
, I
!
, '
t-..;
...... ,
,
r-
L
L
28.21
.---: ;;"~':'~~+:'S" -,:..~ ~-"_,;:;~ ,::.....'r;\').~. A -;; <'. ,.,'!\"i-;,t.:-f:{~;i~'<:~::'{HJ::~~;' ~:.. :'. ~ _:," :,_.".. ~ ": -' '_, ~ __.:.! .,~ _ ".~._. . "<I.: -. _' _'.. .~_ ,~: '.. , . ( _ ':~. t;, ;' ,'::",:\;-.':t;,')~;::_'f;:'S,
page 142 -'Mitigation 4.2-5 Would the potential mitigation alter the surface or subsurface
hydrological'flow:,in~,a<'Y~y;tha~\IY~i~otber'~a'ld.~.~M~I,.to
wildlife would be bnpac:ted? '");,,.::,. ' '," ,
~~ -, . '
.L-__
.--- ... ..o&~ --,t'ur:L "":UUUUII:I.IU:J
. page 5
28.22, ~ge,!44 ~;~~ga~~7~;~J.be:q~,sh,ould ~:tbe;~~,~tion. ,vL~also"
"d\ ,.,~.~t;,,~~~p~:,~;@S!1'OI({'in,1ands.tQbe:cieeQe(i'~~~~,:,01" in the
, bUffer Zoned, Or will it encroach into theHCPlands? If the infeiioraltemativeJs chosen and
".','" - -, "
. - ',-' . - --...
it encroaches, would there need to be an In-kind replacement?
. . '- . - .'
., .... ',I \.. '. -.", . ,,..... - .,-.., , t .,. '.. .. . *. - . l"'.... .. . ... ........ - ." ",.,,'.,~_ -' ~-'~,',.~;,',',.','.;" .,.....,.',.'",.,. ,_ '~,",. ,.".,;'.'.'". :l',',.',',',.,'~:"',,',:~.,,.,ft,,',-"",' .:.,.-!...',.,'"i-. ,,',..,~'~.>'.;, ",',...,:;,..'"'i!",...,.l;,-.:,.;~;.-{<,'-.~.,,..::.:;, ~,'
. /.,.:t.;:"~:f~. -..:_':.~.'.~:.~f~;-~~.//t:!<.'::'.;~.~.:: :<,.__.~:;';:~:;L:;,,;;~;:::~i~~-.'.f t~ ,/~)./,.~!-.~..~._:_. .~~. :"i-;-t -7.:~~;,:~;-~)~:~L,: '_:~~'~_ ' , ' ,_ '.., ,~'. .,_ ' '. c - . '..' ." '_ ' .". ' , ,
.28~23,1~~gel~INc!:~~~10:.~jHas.tbeimpa(ioUhiSadditi0I1.91:~ater,on.themmn drain
,:,..ysteJrl" .' ,', .,,' ,...., - , .
2824. :~ge,146~,lI.liqga~..2~1t~~BowJ1igh~\Vi1l.the,'retainitlg;wall"be7 ;,;;HOW J.arse,will the
, .3 'basinbe~:,WhatJ1lJpads wiIlbe..causect.byltheactivities,toibWld>and,maintainthis debris
'basin?" -
. ,
28.25 "Page 154 - Biological Impacts and Mitigations - The document does not adequately
,analyze,any,wildlifecarrldorsorimpactsonwildlife'migrations.:rA,re.there:any,conidors in
','; ",nrn, ','~,' .,for'1d, e"~-'a,nman+?. .
."".r-~~'" . '."~ r............~-......
, .
28.26 page 155 -Exhibit 4.3-1....The'reader;isunabletoideterminewhere the proposed building
footprints are on this map. WIthout this information, the decision makers can not determine
:ifthereateispedIic!ootprint:s which&hould"bereliminated'to;.protec:t .biological'resources.
"'-:."
" -,~~,;(,~:, :~-~ f ;~:;>: ;~::.: f?~;:.~ ~jj:i ~,:: ,;~;~:
~:28. 7b page 156 - ~peCompatibiJity -The .statement "No highly aggressive plantings..." is .
,.,') ..not;c0nsi5tentw1t:h'ifoot:note '~a~tDI1:page'51..,.''', < ':'/"" ,'''-:>,'.,.., ".",\ ,",C:",
:,~':;;. .
; .' ,~-:.~1\,~;}j:;:'_r5;:, '::;;;,};,:-: :::: -: - '~;;~!;
.-:-,:':",._-
..... ,",: .:-\>~'::\,i.::;',.'.. :.
" ,',-,'><1,"_.;,..7
.,~ '. ..:...:.. ,'0 "', , '_,:' \"
'~'.28.8b
page 156-7 -'Mi~gation 4.3-1(a) m.e!HCP.;Restoratiori1'lanis\identifieci'as~a<DJitigation.
While the document onpa,ge 157 indicates that the plan has been analyzed, the plan is not
..~~-~ ~ ub1:-'. '. ,-4.,;,.-:.;; '. ':;.:~-' ;'",-'~I..~":1_...;'''be .'" ed\n...'Llic
pt'OV.IUCU:lorp, '~'revJeW'nor1S'UICH:.a:c::iteIlWUUt'W.lJCl1:;U:IC:"PUUlcan;l. ,revJeW,,~uu
mview of this plan is aitica1, given the that a mitigation (4.3-1 (b) isreqUired'toimprove the
plan-It is also indicated that tlUsplan was peered reviewed.. Who did this review? Has the
"County HCP ,CoordinatDr '1'eviewed' and 'apptoved..'.tbe,plan?
.. ,,;,~,;~,< ,.,:,':':,i"':~~ ,.
laM Prieta Chapter Comments
.ptp6
r-
.". '.',... page;t57-4Mit1PtiOi\~U-1.'(b) "~~~'Dii~ptipil.~:~'~:hiftb4tthe '
28.2"l'-feaRbilityOf:c ",~;the' ',' ~""', 'isoUth'~'~c:analthefeaS11:ii1i9' '(i'reafi!aq a ..
'arendtdl~tan~,Fj~,d(';"f"C:" ":~:":;~A.)'i~~":~""{hd,):,~';:':';\';',;;;.",;,:";~;~'_""\ L~,~:;;;,':~"';;:i';~';F~j ,.', spnng i '
'. .ii:>~< 7tI?~ r::i4?,i::?!./~ :l5:{.~::~;?~tr>.~~_:.;r'/~s:::,,::-~;;:: ,r_:..../:_ ~):~:J~~.;~~'(::::.-'~-::'>~:..1~P;-' -.::~j,:\ -"
. , .
, HowcoUld~Pacts to the spring be avoided?Is~tOwithin SO.t.!etS11IRdent to
"prc>tecUhe:sprmg?'lWhatfoOt~intwowdneea1o'be removecfGi"aa~;;toc~~
spring? Will anysubsurfac:e or surface drainage impac:tthetproClUc:tiVity:Of'ttiesprlng? '
. . , . - . . '
5 ;Alsoithe~impacts'or~tiI}gra'Sprir)g_:not'cletaneCl'S1~yitttbe:~.::,.,
j ;.Where\axdcl...,epiing\be:created? ,:HaVe*'YcpoteritialSi8:beeniaentified?<W'dl,a drill rig
need to be brcn1ght in to create the spring?, What impacts'wm grading for 'equipment access
have?Isthere~~~.~tion that will need to,~~ arou,nd the S~?
...... ',' '.~;-,...,,:..', ... .::;:-;.~ ";", :'. : - ~ :',' 'c- -.' '" n: :,::;,. -::.< " "
~-:':',<<"'->-:''':-'''
. . , ,- ~'. 'C~;<-':,:/::'y:' .::::"" ':~;':'.{';_~..:~;'
:Aiull'analyses:which;answet'S,questions:sudlas'theseJDeedsto;,comp1etedtbeforethe option
ofa re-aeatecl ~ can be cxmsidered as a viab1emitigation.
"'<~ co:>> .~' ~:,} <7 }~,~.":::~::-_;~}(:,) ~::!_:t~ :. :~'~~:t;:)~::.~..,~, h:\":~1-.'(~ -~~~:.';":.tJ~i~;'(1'_;'~'.~k~!;",tt:~.'{> : x~} :::;~':::.: .'
:.; -~~~.,::;:i:;~;i~j;_'tJ5:::;',':l/j;',~;\t->~ ..t<_:if:i;;,'>~;<~:;~;{_\.~J~-::r'> . ' .-, - '.
."":.';'--";:<--'-''-''
.":','-1_'-'-.)'
.__n_. __.:
'~'." .;,;"
'1,1:0 ",,';as~-" '!:l 2 '''T"I..:_ '. '.n . ..I._aid 1.._ ._I_":J::_.:.I __..;,I ..1:"":..;,1_..;,1 .
28-28'" ';pa,ge:~ 7'7,;-~""",,'~""~~.jJu~,:Jm,.gatiQn';NIUW', '~'UIU;~iCUIU.WI'VIUC:U :intotwo
.,tnit:jga.~t;'hc',," ;,',;",~.,~;,"(;.;<(,.,),.n;:'" ",t:q:icJ\.;t:"" .
;::.':\(,;:~.:.:.,;' t',(..'::,~\,;:' j>~_.;~,t~." ::->i~";-.'h., ":-:~>':':':':':~'-?~;:';}-',":~:~:)r.' X?:~~.-::-f:':.;:(~-"';--;_;:>;~' /:-.'~<~:: ,r-'i~r(~ ): >.:::'.~~";':~" (',-, >-- . -, . 1 :....,..' " -." . :::. .
AlSo,it shOUld be clarified..thatAf,tileJs,DO,;anttmdmenUo;the.HCP;.there,:are.Jarva1l1ost
plants also located in the Commons area and that this site would also have to be avoided.
Whenwm a dec:isionbe made Ql1,amending the HCP? '..Jf this is not know1\, , it should be
assumed thattberewill not bean amendment and tbeproject should be redesigned.
If there will be an amendment, a measure which redesigns or eliminates the developmenf in
the Commons should be included in the measures to further minimize the impad5 on the
c:a1Uppe silverspot.
28.29 page 160 - mitigation O-b,Where and when will this mitigation occur? Will a bond
required to ensure performance?, 'What will be the impacts of this restoration?
'28.30 page .18S-Exhibit 4.4-11 -While the square footage for the uses adds up, the uses
identified for ,traffic measurement are. not consistent with. the chart on page 41.
'--
,- ", :.;;,..-;,~ ::.",.,,;;,
:~,~;'-i ,',-' ,
Loma Prieta Chapter Comments
.page '1
28.31, paget86 -Since the ultimate Use ~~'~~~l;'~~:~"'~'i~,a range of trip
. ;, ,.i '{.generatian';~;should.,.be~cl;;)...,,,,.,;..>? ;:'. f::'X, 'E' 'r":'::,; '+'::"\''':!':; \;'7",'
28 32'Jpge 197;~Ddtigation"fWitIf,tbe,~'ChOOses.to;~'wider(mads;,1hemethods to
· adlieve:.1bis Qld~.im:pacts'ofd:hose!methods'must..be,~il~"/x";?'\1",,-,~,,,,,'1<'~';"
page201<miti.gation'4.4-.-9,.lftheiCityd1ooses torequire!O~erflow:parkmgi1:he methodsio
a~this 8nd thektp~~ of those methods must be&taned.'further an~ditinn81"" '
,..! 'lmiti.gations:tp;~CDnsidered(wow(t,be,.the:requirement'of:'a,,'nlet;pal'lciJ)g'servi.ceJor:special
'e\!entL.:-"c __,>0,," '
28.33
~ '..
page 202 impact 4-4-10 The number of parking spaces and the sites/stru~for
;pro~g,.the,~par~,is:i1'\adequa~y.desaibed.;The'arei~"assum.ptkms.,"Also",the
document id~,thatmore.;parking.;would:;be"need.ec.{,Jif,~,~ed.'$ince,the ultimate
use is not identified, a range of parking requirements should be reviewed.
.~. 0',;':-',.' .,.;....r~'.',;_...-:~"'.:,. ..~. .-:..~._;....~' --'~;. ."'~':-:'- .~,~.~,-,:,;~,-:t.,\;,'~;:~,:;""", ,; -.-'-~' ,_. _ .,~..;.
Further, to avoid impacts'of,tobiolqgical~,.the~parAAg$trUcture;on~parCetC may
be deleted-Where will parking be accommodated? There is insufficient information
Pro~'to,~,^~,~c;t~tsOJ:cb:t1P'cb!;\of~~~1ParlciIlg;filgJi~"""c
.'; .' ,...'.., -"" .. ," ;. :.. '",-. _:. .' ".:" '. .... :-." - .
~;.~_~ ~,,;-: ,/}.;'~; " ,~-~:/~... :.3::';: .~:: '~.::-_,._':~,;:c(J:':: ,:..;'~j~~::,:,k'2'>:.:.':~r:;.;t-_:9y;:~:':t.:- ~:: -.t:c;-: ,; t,'~;:.fl:~:~*:~j;~~~~:;~l1;:- ':':~",~:;,': i::~~~t:.. ,-:;t':;~!{'--f',~/,_ :rJ:Yt)}:' /~:;;:,~f_l~,~1~t"9;~}-" :~~~::)::.;-2,-;~.~;',- ,;~:n~_:-~~~.s.:f-<.
,.,28.34," tAge.2oa;-~~~~11.~:~pact'~1J;)elistecl~~,S.~~;"Miti~~ should,be
-:. :i,~J()~,~:~pac:tfoJ.o;~;~l~~~:N'~.'~,;.,,;:~:,~;;,.)l-i':::::'!;\G';:c'f.'
. .- . ',' . .
L; ~',~~~_::.~t;::_.:_~-;.\' ;;\',;::l',,':~:-' ..,?::;,~:t- /;~,r::'~\' ,.<:~ ~r' '~":":::;:;-':-:";;':'~~-:Z:J::~'-':::'::::~.u~';~..:~'}'~/':':?~(:~:'~~:;~~~:'t;~\~>~:';-, ~-~~:rl,i:,:;"':: .:,,'--::,(':";:',' :r~_',:__":;~\':~:':'~.~;><~I\~~~~?-..-,~~: f~: ';-'.:i, :....'::-:~~:_: :~,::,:;:.. '-'. ~'. . _ '; '. A' -
1) ,They have not addresSed the problem of trailhead'location-or the violatiOii oiety and
APAstaru!ard.&,tJ.l!t.\!~d~,~.f~trailhead'Was;~"~:~!gatec.t/~~~~,,,:.
. . -- -
-.,:_:.,tf~~"( j y:...~;.~"{;:::--:'!, .~-~.:, :..': ,<<>",,~t...... ';+;~::'" ". ~.':;"'~':.'-' -;,:~\'!":~;:V;;"'~'~:,:':':~;:".,' ::'-_":-"~~(0:~~:'~:~~ ~'~t~-(->-;
2}They have not addressed the ~ ofpariWlg Spacis~ard w~they would
'.conflictwith,theuses.on~.theicommer~site,isnotanal~~Eor ~,wou.ktthe
trai1hedi,be,JOCated neai:a~UiiiitwhicllW01l.1if~~lY"be.bUs.Y,~weekena
.'. ..,. .;'__ '. "" "_,~ "_,, .' .; '_ _ :" '_,,'._ ._,,_ '."'"e ." ,'_ , ..... . . _, ','_~'-" __..,...,. .-. . '.: "__ - __. ~ . . _;- -, . ".....-' ..-'_....,.....'_ .. _ ,:-.f;. ..... _,_ - . ,.>, _. . '". '. . "". -.__.,:_ "+ '_'.', ,-.,'
'3)'~'tri.'.~;~id'~~f~~~~id~,~~is~j4~6fiea. Is
there any way to provide them acc:eSswithout requiring a vehicle trip? -- "
. . ..
< 4) Also, ~ Of the'bikepaffion:~;,Public-~trietalld.si~IJkSe>ri^~yoplrSide/ifis-
conceivable that people will bewalldrig Or biking in the roadway.' 'can a bike path on the
"priyateilt~ be:req~asJJ:li~!i~!;~:~~~pa~,w~~:~:~pa~g~~,~,
;mitiga~? .
28.35" ~F'214 - Air~ty' ':",The ~~>:~ ~,~ a'~norhattamm~~~'~~ this affect
. ~y C?f.the ref~ 1Ulpacts"or ~p.tion measures? '
a..mnarna:a \""l"~ '-U&IWlt:lwt
',~8
r'
, ,
. i
r
28.36 ~221-Mitigation4>3re:&replaces -Cangasfirep1acesbeinsta1ledinstead?This . I
would further address the particulate problem. '. " '. '. ' , ';,~...., I
j ;/t,~.; ;V:Fi{t\i:,':;,.f~'~;,<;.fiJ:"\;t~?'t,;.,; YJ;:/Hi : /,;,i\;:;!j.<;.;' i\';,,1.';';'l~i.;';;;;") .'-"-::,,; ;'/'i/}:.i.' ;~2.>f"/~T' 'M:;;. ",' f;'i';:', ".... __. r .
28.37 page 233 -Impact ~6-2 -'SFOisconsidering:altUnWay,1'eCorifigtiratiQn:whid\'JDaY change .
;thel1Oi&e pattemfor.ttJe ~OD. :Sinc2 SlO is. in the. middle of .~, ~,~t
thenmway~nfigurationtthe.projeot'annot'beconsidered'speCWative""Has!this
'~dproject~been*m~:in:~tthe;.noise;p~~ df:h',~i ~""
28.iS8J~~:233"":iri.lti8:"tion'~~~""':iwhat'is'1be:,viSwn1riipads'ol>~'~wans?
;: -, ;:~'::",;i;.~::}o'~~i~~;of~~~,:: :~:J: '- ~ :f.(: -: ~:'2{; ~.' r~;~,;:t:~.~.:if :. : ?~t:;~~:~:R.;:~t,-:!~~;; '~'.~~~~~ ..;',~';f:7,~}:,,~~q? :tJ~;:~:J;r::,.,lfit.~.,~: '.f,:T~.~i:~~~_~.:.~':JX", , ~:~:.~:?, =: ;;,~~,_:~.:.;-:t~f:.::~t~:~!;:: '-'~,::~;~: ~t~:.., ~:f':'/<< ,~;. :~ Z;~:C~? ~.>.
. . . '., .
28.39fpage:239,~,"iDp.it4.1..1" ~'this'impact'ShoUlBUbetecorisit1eredhiaightdf~the'Planningh
Commission inquiry on August13~ 1998 about the City Police being responSible for parking
enforcement on the private streets.
l,
.'/':':.:~<r7:: :~? ;,;,'--'~",<'-' -":"": .:::}'f:': ::3.~:i.. ",t,~/::;_;::'" ,z-,',;,;'': :,:',:'::::-: ,. c_::~ ':^~'J~:~;i:;{ ',T-:'.:'-;t~.'::;~'.:;' _~:
28.-lJOpage\243 ~Dtigatkmil:7-4""~ Where:woWa:thiS'eqWpmelltbe'wtallea?,Whatcimpacts
;. 'woti1d,iIs~inStiDa1ion"andmairtterwu:e'_ve'on..1UI,tul'altesourceS?"""
,,-,:,,,':':"::'~":;:"_,1' :"',~'_!_'"''''
28.4.r~i~~~~=~~~1Il=1~,~~~~~thenuIribers
,'- ..-::',',~ L..:'~: /ft!f,;:~~;;,:'if..t~;~.: .;~;::,-~;:;.~;>..:;16~~;r~'fi.:;':;:' :.' ': .d.~~',;..-h:~.t}~.;:; ,{ - "7:. ::.:i~:~X71:_:),;~;:,'::'}{ri;;/;~t.:t~::!:~.~,; ':'~':',:~?.{~; :}:I{~~t~:i: :~)t:,:;- -;; <t~;:';"':>: "\~"".i~::';\:'~;::-"\,<'"
28'42' "sedionlii~.Wbere(mf'tbe:1Iilpad$ftO'~~Fiie~Nls~t,ltiis<,tIOtiJmnediately .
· clear to. the reader that tbiswas~ in apreviotJ.sdocument. Also'. an additionalatiess
, 'rOadi:WaS:reqwrea:at.t1ie'iP<int.~;lfi&una.earwbetber'\thereiStlmectian inIthat;part :.
of Sister Cities Blvd. and if sowowa:that~i'fiie;tI'tIcl:~t'from'iDe west to. '
,makea.U.turn at SisterCties 8I1d Bilyshoreif~needto ~ssviathe alt:emauveroad.
>"'f. ';.:Y~.':;'i!.(.() ;,')-,:+A3,<~~,' ';:\r-'~::r.t.:{\_:~-: -~~t;~:>: :,~'IN} \~'~\,~,~:,";~}~ .,1t~\'[~j.;J<i1fi~~r? >r;~.', !~~::h~-'~O-~~.,~~<~:t'~:-, ,:.:;';"i::~,';":; \:;-~FX;.'~ 1";l::t~~;~~~. ?:ij/{:: -. T~.;.:r:;.;:. ~.'J' :\: '~\:;f~~,', t:-.:.:~.:,:'C - - .'
- - ,.- - - - . - - - .
28.4381=~~~fi'i~~entlif~jBliOi'e'~1iMt~with
.:L~(~~,;::::}'~~~~~~\' ::~:t~';~ ;~~~~-;;~.;.-jr:;;' .{,;;.~_,:::~:::;~>/~\y:~:~~? .7: -:::.:" '.:.~. .
,,' ,',.' , ...'.page'2V~282 :;'the'.aescaptiOriidoes:riOt;iaeijUafe1y'anaIyze"lhEfShen moWtas'aDdtheir
28.4J!, .teIatioll~tO.the~UrrOUnaing:area;cWas1:he area'~ the'lrIOUnd.used'for:burial
;~~:;~t;~~~:~,~s-
28.43b .~,a1tenk1ti'V~:~d~Y,d~gns1511.~as~t,!~,~ \\f~,~;~~~~~,,~mitigations
'.'are nota&quate1yrevtewiil mthis'section." .' "" ',".. .,.,' , ',<
.'-, . - " ' ..~.,:,:-::-.-.)-:.-.,',<:; ):,~_-b,~~'.:~--' --.~:'::. ': -'~'>;. :,...:,~f';:<~'::~,i"- ,:;:~.:.:."~' ". - ..:('~L -}:" ~~:;':-,~-4<~~:;:-~~';<::: :~:/:rC'~L~} :~:::;/:~
. "'page298'~'A1~~lives~1lUS}en.~sedion:iS.very:~~"The:~Of.Altematives
28.3 are c:onfusing or misleading. For instance , there is the Reduced CODunerdahdtei'native. i
'lbenthere is the EnVironmentalJyStq1erior Alternative which incJ.udesan .alternative that :
'mCotpOralesthe'Same~.~.riot~~'a.s.s~ptklns.i1bei'r1aps.~the" ;
altemativesare not IabeleaCoriectly or-oemy.'Tbe'COihpansOJi'dlartsdOmt1JSe consistent ~ '-'
fi.gtnes.Thetotal numbers add up, but the numbers getting tD the totals ,are not consistent. '
!
LomaPrietaChapter Comments
. page 9
28.45 page 300 -exhibit 5.G-l-addingthe information about the,desaibed proposed project (i.e.
. the table on page 303) would add clarity.
, -...
28.46 . page 304 & 314-323 -,there.isnot a thorough discussion of the variation of the Reduce
. Co~atDeve1opment Alternative, an alternative which-clearly-does a bett2r jobot
meeting the goals of both the applicant and avoiding significant impacts than does the
, Reduced Commercial Development Alternative. These should have two differe.td. names
, and better evaluation.
;'
;28.49
Further, the impacts Of pad. 3 under this alternative on the shell mound should be
reconsideredlt will impact the mound by a disruption of the experience. Are there some
treatments such as retaining walls, landscaping, reducing the footprint or adjusting the
orientation of the building which reduce even further impacts to the shell mound?
28.50, Summary -We urge that,the Reduced'Residential andPennanentOpenSpace Alternatives
be selected, They are the best alternatives as they avoidiIr\pactsrather than mitigate
impacts. A voidance, if feasible, is the best way to go.
Thank you for your careful amsideration of these comments.
Y submitted,
f3p;6--
TOTAL P. 10
'.....
LETTER 28, LOMA PRIETA 'CHAPTER, 'SIERRA CLUB
", .'.,Response28~1,\The1998DSEIR's ," mitigatiou.;Jne3sures"..were "des~gned~from.the::outset to be
",effective, 'consistent:With,.the'intent~oftheCalifo11iur:EnviroDJ:Dental'Qua1i~'. Act :'(CEGA) - to fully
ii ,\.'tlisclose ::projeetS' '. :effects 'andtheability.;to>reduc::e~or'eHmln'ate:'Sigriificiint 'adverSe ~impacts. The
'measures presented 'are 'considered rea1istic'w'ithinthe "timeframe'ofproject'phasing ,and lor. the
,enviromnenUilanalyses,woUldbefuIJ,y ,:or :'partly succesSful inreducing:the'magninide :of impact,
woilld"be'appropnatem' .'the. fcontext:ofestablished,',City ;'poIicies'or':zoIiing,"'and 'would represent
. standard practices of the lliscipIine(s ) involved in analyiiJ)g the 'project"'(such' as 'geology or traffic
.'engineering). ' ' .. ,',;:i 'j, ."" .
The effectiveness of each 1998 DSEIR mitigation measure is discussed immediately following the
4escription 'of:the'mitigation 'measure .-itself. '",,' 'This'lsbecause ,. some measures 'partly reduce the
'magnitude of impact or, whiletheoreticaIly 'couldmitigate'animpact,cotildnot 'be implemented for
reasons-'beyond'the ccml.1 olaf the 'lead agency 'Of project sponsor. This also is because implementation
of 'un examined IriitigationmeasurespotentiaIlycan]ead'to :unintended-secondary~nvironmental
effects. Where' secondary impacts would'resultfromimplementing allor-part' ofa measure, the 1998
DSEIR identifies' and characterizes the sigriificance'of those effects.
The 'discussion 'ofsecondaryimpactsfrom:implementing'MitigationMeasure4;4-:6,related to 25..,foot
road Widths <on the;PhaseJI sitedndicates'tradeoffs between devoting more land to roads (thus less to
'-residentiallots)to ,vvidenroads'from22.to 25fee~'onoIie'hand,andiiistuibingmoreland through
;grading 'and I or building-higher -retaining -waIls,,'on ;the'other:hand.;This : discussion of Mitigation #
Measure'4A4i further acknowledges 'that thePredse'Planproposes 22.;;footWideroads t6avoid these
..types'of secondary'effects,'stating-that"~ose 'revisions weretoreduce:the-extent. of development and
accompanying.grading,'thusniinimi7.ethe footprinHjf disn1fbance".~JVfitigation Measure 4.4-9 on
overflow .park:ing'supply'-identifies'thesecondm:yeffectS~'in .'the measure itself, 'inOicatingthat housing
units "'could be eliminated to 'accommodate additionaI'patkin:g, but" omitS. 'repeating this inrsummarizing
the Significance after Mitigation. Therefore, 1.999 FSEIRtexfreVisesthe'Significance after Mitigation
of Mitigation Measure 4.4-9 as follows:
"Signlficanc:e;after'Mitlgation ,Clmplementation'.ofMitigation ;Measure;4;4~9'would;eIiminate
:theimpacts, raised by the absence'.ofoverflow parking .in.1he'residentialneighborhoods,and reduce
,the ,severity. of: impact;to aless-than-significant ilevel.:Because'imolementation ' couldreauire
'.', additional -landtoaccommodate..overflowoarkinl!:.' this.measure ,a.1so,could eliminate housin~
,units. at least in the near term untilmonitorinl!: indicates the adeauacv of Phase n'site parking and
demonstrates that land area reserved for parking can be developed, with housinl!: units. .
The cotMtentdoes not present s1ibst:aDiliue.vide~cethat iIIlplemenm.tioriofMitjgationMeasure 4.3=3
on wetlands wl)illd .result',in ~gnificant seconcia:ry :in1pacts....DSEIRmitjgationmeasures to protect
sensitivehabitats,onthe.projectsite would prevent secondaIY mipacts inthe,eventwetlands were to be
re,placed.on-site.Wetlands replacedon..,site could not infriJ,lgeon sensitive habitats without conflicting
with the ~th~l>SE'IR mifi.gation measUres~, '
''The~bnu.nent~pp~to'.,e 1riteni~y iriconsist6rit. It~riggeststhat~ijgati~nmeasuref:identified for
the. project are inadequate 'but concludes that ,~e, saIne: measures;.vould beadequatefo~ alternatives,
shotild the City approve the Phase lIReduced.Reiidentiill Developmeni Alternative and Plulse III
Permanent Open Space Alternative. Althougb additioluuresponse is not possible in view of this
ambiguity,thecommentor is referred to DSEIRpage 302 which states that:
, ,
Letter 28-1
For the pmposes of this 1998 SEIR's analyses, both the Reduced Residential Development and
Reduced Commercial Development "development ,alternatives" are assumed to incorporate
relevant mitigation measmesicientifietHn, )beprc:cedingch@pter.,:.<
, -' '.-. - . ........ ,.,' ...... "'-'-,
.- !
~- I
, r-
,..Response,28.2 Ananalysisof.the"project~sponsor!smewPhase1IIMitigation ,'plan, ,Development
.Alte,mative is,~p~sented,in,MtUteT;,Re.qJPllSe',.Z3-1.,and'bas ;,beep:inserted<~S.(). :Ait,ernatives to the
: Proposet[,p,.pject, in ,the ..FSEIRftex.t "Theiiproject~orhas.not,re-v.ised. or~ainend~ tlleapplication
.,pe~g,before, .the 'City. ,J'hus,theSpeqific, Plim,Am:endmentn:maiI1s the development concept for the
Phase ,m,site,,(the .concept discussed. in ~2.$, R.r9jec~:DescriptifJn )"and ;the Phase !II,.:Mitjgation Plan
'"DevelopmentAl!.emati.ve rem3in~'an'alternative.,CEQA~ts Jead ~gencies tc?appr,ovea project or
. alternatives ,analyzedjneD\rirODIIl~ntaldocuments .aIld,;lunlike documents;,,~par.eti~pursuantto . the
National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA),doesnot iequireEIRs to define-3Jld",assess,~projectsand
alternatives in the same level of detail. ..
"Master ,Response 1.3-.2explainsthat ,the'developmentconcept.described ,by.theproject~ponsor' s new
,,;PhaseJJl.Miti,gationPlan DevelopmencAltemative,is,covered by current :,and .prior.environmental
,.documents., It re,presentsavariationon .,and.a combination ofdevel~pment,concepts .evaluated in the
1982EIR,1996,SEIR,:and 19~8DSElR.,The 1998 DSElR,,(DSEIR,.page.299}.e~plains that "EIRs are
,ex,pected ., to"address.aran,ge-of.reasonable ,alternatives,:,n()t;all,potentiaL.alternatives". Identifying
alternatives for analysis in;EIRs . typicall,y,involves.,establiS~g,ar311ge, ..of ;JYpes,andintensities of
development to, no development which "brackets" reasonable or suitable land use concepts. The 1998
DSEIR ,evaluated variations, ofthe,proposedPhaseU Precise:Plan:and-PhaseIDS.pecific ;Plan concepts
,ag,a '~ocused" EIR. "Furthermore, the 1998DSElRalsqi.isa '~supplemental"".env.ironmental document
",whichis,tiered,off'of'thepreviously,certified:J 982 EIR,andJ1996SEIR"bothofwhich,areJncorporated
,by referena: ,{DSEIR,p~ges<,6..,8)"""Forthese,reasons,:,thel998 ,DSEIR",together with,the,J982ElR and
1996 ,SEIRi',provides,adequate,infonnation,about"project ~ite,conditions, ,;the;:s~griificaJ1i'effects (and
,measure, ' ",' s.!ito~,pli#gate'ithoseeffect$) ;of1hep<,currently.,and ;.i)reviouslY,';ipro, posed C,pI'()jects,and the
,:potentiaijy!,s~gnificanteffects, of:a1tematives,to,tPe;,,(:unent!y)and,ipreviou~lY:;prQPosed:projects.to
,'enable,.Qi,ty officials.,and,members ",of~the(public ..to ,deterniine.the.potentiaUy,:significant,effects of ,the
.' ::new PhaseJIJ,ltfitigation ,Plan Deve1Qpment~lte~~.and;makedecisions ;abou~the>project and all
;alternatives:\Vithout'recirculatingthe1998DSElR, ,.' ",,'. ,",.,'
.~ '. . ! Y
In further response to thecommentor's representation that the new Phase III Mitigation Plan
Development,Altemative.isa'~newproject',:;,thecummtlY;:PrQposeddevelopment;:concept for the Phase
. "ill'site'consists ,ot;an,amendment to:the;'FerrabaylSpecificPlim.' 4Rather.than>.being a substantially new
, ,concept,:the.RhaseiILMitigation Plan..DevelopmentAltemativeis.somewhat;similarto aspects of the
"":Terrabay;Specific~:;PWn,preViously,1appfoved&velopmenpconcept.dFromlthls'perspective, .the new
':'Phase:,iJII'Mitigaii()T1 il!lan),DevelojJment'.Altemative,:cotild ."be',interpreted'as'a ,refinement of the
approved . Terriibay ':Specific:;PlarL ':The'City, requires "approvaJ.~of'precise 'plans 'for sites covered by
adopted specific plans before any development can proceed. Preciseplan&, as on the Phase II site,n9t
omydeflne'the'land use and deveIopment concept'in'more.'Cletail ,than do' specific ,plans but may also
reqwreadditioriaI 'environmental revie~ -'intheev~(the.precis~plan conceptd;partssubstantially
'from.that'previously~proved 'in the '. specificplari, . should ,', environmentiil,conditionshave changed
sUbstantllillY~intheiDterVenhigtiIDe,orsbo1iId . uii~gafioD'me8#res. oraJ.te~ves"previously not
considered orc()Ilsidered infeasible become feasible'(see'1~2ElR'Dettiiland 'Ob]ectiVity).'For these
.reasoD.S,publ!c1'e~e,\Vand pomment would not be pteclud~ now and would not beJoreclosed in the
"future In 'the e'lent'the new.P~e~I~Mitigati()ri >'P1oil"DevelfJ.pment'Alte17iative\V~re to evolve
. substaDtiaIly,' differently than .presently, defined. ',Therefore, , the. City,is' not, reqUiredtoi'ec, ' irculate the
, 1.998 DSEIR (alsosee ?4aster Re~po1L!e,'7.3';'2).' '
.~-,
Letter 28-2
'Response 28.3: S.OAlteTnattves-toithe:ProposedProject,,:ddsCrlbesaseqJ.ence of tasks conducted to
fulfill CEQA's'legal maiJdateand infoimationa1expectations,b~ginriin.g' by iliscussin,g the reasons for
analyzing alternatives and summarizing how the individua.l3IteiDativeswerefonmilatedfor evaluation
in the 1998 DSEIR... :The1998 DSEIRthen. methodica11.y.preseptsatQpic-by-tQpicdisC11ssion of each
.. alternati\,ecomp~ Withthe,:eff~,ofQ1e;PrtljeCt,as pI"Q.Pllsed~)n tl1e,past.,en&OmirentaI, documents
....di,cl..not::;compare ....81~veSamoDg.:tberi1s~lv~~.and,' 'd~tenDine:which'pn~'altemative, 'which
, combination. oLaltematives, . orwhich'variationoD.. .0ne.orp-ore.alteIllatives . was . environmentally
superior- superior either to 'the other alternatives or)o.theprQfecti~c~tlieState CEQA Guidelines
"'0( Guidelines) 'now'iequire."The'199.8'DSEIR !s-EnViroDIDfmt8ijy Preferred}\Jt:ernative identifies which
'. development a1ternativeaiIlongthose,consi~erediIl: the 'EIR'hasbeen:selec.tecl .as ,superior.
". .. .'.',~' ....c. _. .';-,.,.~.:.._~.:.., ," _ '," ,.'..".:.,.":"'!......... "'.,_,.'.>,'..~, ' ,"','.'~" ,'~_" .' ..'_---~I ' ~
. ,
In'. recognition' bf:theCIifferentp'arts ofth~Terrabaysite.tphase.n' ~Clmsites), the 1998DSEIR fIrst
, formulated and independently analyzed alternativesiorthe'Phase TIandm sites, second . selected the
respective "enVironmentally superior'alternative for each site, and third ,presented the results for the
two sites as one combined Environmentally Superior 'Alternative. Those' steps' reached two
conclusions. One was that "no development" alternatives - the No Development Alternative on the
Phase nsite and the Phase II/Site Permanent Open 'Space Alternative - would result in fewer
environmental impacts 'than "development"altematives. . The other conClusion was selection of the
environmentally superlor4'oevelopment"alternative.' That "'developmenf' alternative also consisted of
separate.landuseanddevelopment concepts for the 'Phase II and Phase m sites, as noted above - the
Phase II Reduced Residential Development Alternative andthe'Phase' III Reduced Commercial
j--'
Development.Alternative.
-....
'.' .......... '. '....... .....
- . ..... .
AdditionaIreview .further refmed the'environmentaIlysupefior"~development"a1temative.This ,
identified. a.....variation. '. of the. '..Phas... e..II/Re..dUe.. '. ..e. d 'Comm. ....erc...wl D. . eve1ppme..nt.. A..' [ternan.'. . ..vel..an. .duse and
developmeIltconce,ptsitebut no change in tbe'fhtzse.l/"Reduced ResiiJeniialDevdqpment Alternative.
The '1998'DSEIR"identifiedresUlting.landuseand'developmtmt,conceptas the . ,''Environmentally
'PreferreaDevelopmenti\1ternative.... 'The '.'resu1tjs,~the > Environmentally' ~riiJerred'L?evelopment
. Alterluztive . EXhibit 5.&.;2 . otilyilltistrat~the 'PhaselJI..part of the Envi,.onm~ntally" Preferred
Development Altemative, comparable to Exhibit 5.4-1 which showed the ':PhasemReduced
Commercial Development Altemativeassuming full :cievelqpmentnorth ,and south of the
archaeological site. .
'. "- . ,
'NumberS ill the text and exhibitSil'l:S;OAlternatives icJtheProposedProjecthave'beenrechecked in
response to 'this comment and found to be conSIstent arid accurate. "WithoutJurther elaboration by the
commentor,'the source of confusioriis s~~~~~~~and nofurtherresponse'is,~~~s~~ble., .
"Response28;4 'Square feet of development, proposed on tbe'Phase'm site are for total. building area.
'The :project 'sponsor did not identify parking -area 'for the 'project description. 'That area would be
determined based on the number.of parking spaces.required persquare feet ofCIevelopment Ultimately
proposed by individual parcel owners. Build~g footprints and parking area would be confined within
'thepatcelacreages ~identified.'According to 'the project sponsor,theparkinglots 'or structures would
\be located;within 'thegmdeapadarea'identifieOonJjlans'forthePhasem~ite. ... .
-. . .
iResponse'2B~5 . 'Aspartcof.:theoveraUj>lmmingprocessfortheTerrabayPhasellandmproject
'continuing -simiiluineously'withprepatcitionandpublic . reView of the 1998 'SEIR,<City staff members
. and representatives of the project sponsor both have consulted with San Mateo County staff' and have
visited the project site as a group to inspect and preliminarily agreeoD_potentialtrailhead locations and
trail alignments. The existing T errabay Specific Plan, approved by the City in 1982 and extended in
1996, requires provision of trailheads: and trails on the. :project,site, . The .1998 ,DSEIR ~s Project
Description (DSEIRpages 44-45) i.discusses ,,proposedlocation'cchanges.The,City 'would ensure
Letter 28-3
provision oftrailheads and. trails Clntlie si~,in the~ame Ill8DDer that.citystaff ,\\,ouldmonitor other
;;features<!f~e,prc>ject];~Ql'osed~y,th.e, ~~oI",or p~q11ired as conditions of a,pproval,as,has occurred
..:andcon~m~7s.Jo:occUro~Jh~~e.Isi~<;" '.;:",. '~",.,:.""., . ,. ,." .
. ,~-' >, '_ .:< _." ~'/':. : ....\.. , -.:: <. ,,<:t'_,., <',', '_' :...,->~.,: ,.:: :r~>>7:- ,:- ,~...-:,.;-:..~......~ ;:~. ..;;.t,}.!....:..:. .-'.I~.~.-'~.:. ~",,~ '0;'" ',: ~.'.'.<:;> ~,:.,'_,.:.,:;...:.: -". -.">:: , :.> . ,"" ".;, c..'_ ...:.;.'; .....
. ".....'Respt:Jnsii2B~6.....1'1ll-e.e 199$..DS~R ,niitigaJionlne8slll"es.'reqriire.the :project ~ponsor to 'insert. the
. . .';proVisionSofthosemeasures'udhe:.coveilantS. ;Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&RS}for.:the project.
........ This;i~preaseJ}' ,to' ,ensure' .jheir 'lmpleme~iafion 'oll:a joiig~term'baSis. .'..The.'j 998 PSEIR 'requires
;"incolpolatiOIuif,these proviSions .inany CC&RsIdraft or final).' 'IfdraftCC&Rsh8d beeIl'av8.iIable
. ';during p~par,ati()n;of the ,1998,DSg{~,~it: the.Y:.had included these or ,e,quiv~ent.,prQv,!si9DSa1re8dy,
'the 'EIR..preparerscouldhaV~ .revie~edth~",ef:(ecpvenessofJhelelevant...p~ovisions~,andthe SEIR
mitigation ineasures may nothave been necessary . The Mitigation Monitoring Plan to be published:in
'theCertiftedSEIRwillnot containCC&R:provisions. . The Plan will contain mitigation measures
jnitially,presentedin the.:1998DSF./R,.modified.(ifneces.sar.y) inre~ponse to comments,,'Coilditions of
;project ~pproviilwo~drequire;the. ~onsortoincoq>orate relevantmitigation.measures (and
.monitol'ing re~ponsibiliD')intg9C~..' . ,
Homeowners 'Associations (HOA&) collect'du~s ~grii~~y, noimany,on.a montlll,ybasis, 1 .Mortgages
on.residentialprl)penyinclude:HOAdues, in the manner that mortgages inc1udepropertytaxes, and
,theseamOUDtsare. pro-ratedinmonthly mortgage payments Jortheterm of the mOl1gage (after which
time homeowners ,must ,pay their HOAdues and property taxes directly). Thr01.lgh inclusion of HOA
dues' in mortgages, prospective home buyers who qualify . for mortgages would be deemed to have
adequat:efmancial ability to pay. .
State law requires ,that HOAs must be establishedincompliancewithCalifomiaD~partmentof Real
. :Estatere~aponS.PFC.&Rs ,providefo~the ,estitbliShmentof,HOAs, identifyJDembership,~Ures, .
..:,:g()ve~glJoard,con:J.Position~d authori~, ~methods .of eiIforcin,g ,proyisions.. and.resol~g . disputes,
.andIDechanisms. to;raise T:undst~~arry()ut HOA:acti'Vities.'Such methodscaIl.inc1udeindividual
'....:.single;p.UU'.. ose'levie..s (such as. to.. 'pa. yforeme..rgeDl::y.reparrsofc.. omm. .on .facilities.,.). .Th....... e~partment of
Real Estate<reviewspro'Visions oLCC8iRsrelated to, the establishment and. operationofROAs before
appro$gtheincorporation,ofHOAs.' . .,.. .... .
- , . ","". . , - - - ; ..' :: -, '.~',,, . '.' .
. . '.
'. "-- . -' ... - '- . ~ " , ' , :'-~ .;-~: .:'- '." .... .'. '
South sari FtaIlcisco w01lld continue to-'havetheauthorit)i to emorce all applicable City ordinances
. (code enforcement) and conditions of project approval (if approved) through its normal police powers
toprotect thehe~th.andsafe!yofitsresidents..TheprojectHOA(s) would enforce provisions of
;C~&RS.:i;nfoicementbythe'HOA can rat)ge;'froIitHOAactiononbehalfofits,membersbip (with the
assoCiated' c()stsbilled.t().the'IIlember(s)re~ponsible for the ,action taken)to,placemen(,of liens. on
property.' HOAsean hire individwils or orgBnizatiOlis to oPerate or maintain commonly-owned'land or
;facilitie~,and can.ern,plo'y ,j;pecialized, ..coIlSJlltantsto,perform . routine, ,periodic,,()r,when,necessary,
occasion8.l tasks ,(such as inllI1emeI:gency)~.Th~ 9ty has .theright to enforce ,certain..provisions of the
CC&Rsasdrafted.. .
. _ _ "c" .
'Re~ponse28.7.'As thediScus'sion ,on DSEIR,ptzge156 lndic8tes",no highly ,.aggressivespecies are
proposed in plantings near,theintetfacewitb undeveloped, hillsides .wherethe,potential for,spread into
open space lands wollld be greatest. Undesirable species (such as acacia) arepropo'sedasplantings in
,_developed~,.asshown.onExlnbit2~13lDSEIR,,p4ge 51),;which the' Habi~:Cons.ervation Plan
..~.,(Hc;f) . monitoring' consultant (PlanOperator)~.deterI$edto;be :~c~table... ::J1le.HCP :planting
":: ::.; '- -:'. : .'" ",,- -. '-;" .:..~;. -~: ',' - . -.' .' .": -',' ", ~. . .... ..... . ',", .',' -. - .' - , - ,. '<-..'" -. - ".
,': : '" :'-.,':~--'
. .
. '- .
,Th~fonoWing discussion rderstO"HOJDCOwoCrs AsSociationS"(HOM)which is a generic term.. jI~wever.tliis term can
':be used intercbangeably with "Property Owners Associatiori"cwhich 'would be formed on the' Phase m site.
Letter 28-4
.T
I
j ,
-1
':f'
i
t\
I
l--
{ . "I
"{-
i--
: I
L
L..
,
L.
,
,
,
"-
:restrictions:are. cincorporated 'Jin'.the,;CC&Rs:fofsthe"projecb.:which ,togetheriwith>HCP,. monitoring
. .' consultant J;P~:: Qperator'..reviewwould,.ensure,:,appropriate::'plantQlgs."" As ,discussed in 2.5
.' ..... A.dnt.iliistroiive.AcDons fJ,iJnDSEIR. page"t70;,'.the;.HCf consultaDt:1;J;P1an~or :would review the
projectjfor:compliance.:~th: the'HCP~ ~,This,would' be :as~parat~;:actiQnft9,1ll~Cityconsideration of the
.projec~~(and ,SEIR).:;;See :a1s0 Re~ponu:21.8.. ". . . 'o''.!)T;; p >.;.'
.' ~t7~~':;' tt:'i'j.:?~~f: ~~'~~''';i~)}~: :::), :::'-..~;J;,:~:ji:t:{:;,~>~-,~1.~:':~~i ~-t.>~:: ~ri- ~ ~';iJ:~r~ i~i~ .{\t~; '...~-,it>..~.~". ,~>,--:.-.::~~.~~:.?~3f~#j ~i~.~i-i -~ :~;}kt~~1(~ J\~~:(.~.:.r..,f-~iJ.~~~.I1j~l:
"R~poflse2B.8!J1rb.e1998J)SElR;(DSEIR pOrge,156j,summarizes:-the:PUWQse,andadequacy of the
project's,proposed.Restoration:Plan..,Jhisiplan consists oLs:ixioversized'ImWS\whichjdentifyproposed
treatment'Jlreas"on " graded ,:sl()pes::and.:,;specifications ,ioy,sitei"ptq)aration.'~erosiont:control and seed
'application, containerplantings,imaintcnance"morii~oring,,'Success,criteri~Iand.:remediation.. The EIR
biologist reviewed its adequacy, the Habitat. Conservation Plan monitoring consultant I Plan Operator
revievved:,a draft/Restoration iPlan...and \themonitering,cons1iltant\V,;p,lan~Operator ,eventUally must
,approve thefinal;plan."l'he,RestorationPlan;is part of:the,projecUs.:.application;materials, and is on file
with,andavailable,for:priblic review,m the.'cityo,sPlanning Division,:as:identifiedonDSEIR pages 7-6.
t.-
,Re$ponse2B.9RetainingwaIls :are:,pI"Qposedtobe 'built,throughout:thedeveloped areas of both the
Phase llandPhase,ffi sites. TheiI::10cati0ns;;areJnapped.onthe'proposed,Yming Tentative Map and
Gradin,g .. Plan and . Grading and .1rrqJrovement,:Plans,submittedito the,',City.JlS'partof. the project
application and available for publicinspection,at'.thePlanning Divisionduring:nonnal'businesshours.
The scale of maps submitted to the City and used by the ElRpreparers to conduct their technical
,-.analyses icannotbereproduced.,at report :size:and::remain.readable~ ", ~Thisinevitably:resultsjnselection
.and'simplification,ofrinformation,'!oillustratedrurepotts.'However, :all'a.pplicationmaterials, including
full size;;mapsand;p1ans,are;part:!of:the:pu~lic'record. .tAlthollgh'application materials do 'not describe
how;retainiIJg ,walls :would:,betreated; MitigatlonMeasure4:1,:,,2(a)"whicb',refersto ,retaining walls on
. ,the Phase :n,;and:llI;.sites/Tequires'thatcreUri,niI}g'walls ;higher:than ,:ten '.feet .!sluill ,not';be,,:designed as'
:;poured:in,place'.'stIUctures ,but:.shalhpro.vide~step. backs ;or,iciibsplanted,with:vegetationiandbuilt with
..... ;rDughstoneor,earth, colored(IDaterials',',dlta1so!requires~that.ttheprDject:sponsor~shajhsubmit.plans for
.. all d' & . ,":11 'high than fi "fi.n' .., .....OL__ _Tn' .. ... aIls
',vretammg:MI' eSlgn1.'OI:'(W1:WS, . er.! ..;ten, eel<' or ,~lty('reVlew,;~:"tr~e:illl~slte;retammg w
would .:be ,built .aftersite~gw.hicb fthe;'lprojecLtsponsof:pIoposeS:.:"'to.initiate.immediatelyafter
project approval, if approved. (Also see Response 13.22 ,which.'discusses ,Mitigation -Me~e 4.1-2(a)
in relation to construction of retaining walls of up to 18 feet for the U.S. 101 on-bound hook ramp.)
:Response2B.1D . The:cPlanningCommissioDotand,CityfGOlmcilmustidetermine',that ..the;:1998 SEIR
. ,contains sufficient information to "makeitheir respective decisions:iabout fall 'aspects 'ofJthe . project,
. ;including:the..1998~pecific>,Plan 4unendmenr., 'before 'the;-Commission >recommends;and:the Council
certifies,.',the:SEIR,as,;complete. . The "Ci~\requiresprojectsponsors ,to ireviseiapplicationmaterialsas
,~necessary,to..conform-with;City.procedures. .:,The,CQUDcil,wouldnot;consider ,applications until
completion ,.of ,needed\revisions., Throllghout 1the "planning"processcontinuing;pariillel to
,environmentalreview,iCity staff has performed countless. reviews and critiques ofrsuch ::materials and
,. bas,provided,thei:project,~ponsorwithspecific';direction;about'what:additional,'expanaed; 'or revised
information must be provided before City officials deliberate on the merits of the project.
. .' /Response:28~11Amendment:ofthe;zoniI1gordinance:wouldbe ,requiredJOr;any,iaspect of the project
whicb, .without,;amendment, .~ould . "conflict ,:with'\existing,~CitY,r;code. "requirements.' or zoning
,regulations.,' ;,As..jdentified' . by ;theicomment;~.the amendment:,would rinclude"sections .20.63.030( a),
. ~20.63~050(1,l), . 20.63~070( d)(l),;20.63.080(.~)(l~ ,andt(B)(3,),< 20.63.120(E):~{lkand :20,-63.140, . among
,;others. ,.... .' '. . ..
Response2B.12 Each permit granting agency has its own procedures and ,schedules for reviewing
'and acting on applications within its respective jurisdiction. 'While these agencies may use this 1998
SEIR to some extent in making relevant decisions, some agencies have specmcadditional
Letter 28-5
'reqUirements which.must',be:met:andhin :~;'which'\wou1d'.:affect;the1timing',!Of)permit . review and
'.'approval. For "example,'itbe1U:;:S.;Armyi:Gorps 'DfEngineers . wOuld reqUire thelproject sponsor to
. ,submit a <wetlands_?Iestoratiamplan ttiIDitigate-thelossof3ufisdictiomil:;wet1ands~,;mterefore, it is .not
.:possible to;estiInate.;when:ialha,pprovaIsi-woUld;be received ',Jmd(permits iwouldibe,:cgnmted. .'These
agencies would not require changes to .theproject.,penre\but 'could~IIUike,;peImit:approv81conditional
on, specific mitigation requirements, ~chasa~e~4 ~pl;aceme11t rati9: .I,ncC?;rporation,of required
'"mitigation ..-measutes\'on-'site~~coii1d\change'<the:~profece;m~tly~'\;t'mowever: . "DeCause",cregulatory
....... "'agenciesmsuaUY'ProVide'different~optionsfor ;on-' ;'and,~~off~Sitemitigation.\{suchas:'a10wer in-kind
:.:replacementnrlo:foroo.-site:'mitigatiOIi 'andia"higherintio;for,off-site mitigation)~dt~is;not 'considered
. ,likely thatagency:actions.'W.ould.changerthe<project,subStantially,ni-ii'i::: ,;,' <<," .
,-. -, . ',. ',.... ,-. - " " ,- . - " '. . -,
,iResponse28:13...J19981JSEIR :Exhibitsi4:1 ~la,:t:o 'lc:showfu'iiildingifootprlDtson,existing.topography
,and ,atascalemf.onednch,'equals!200 feeti(;l'~=200'))h-':Site,geology (,(Exhibit 4:1..,2) is "shown on the
-sametopogmphic'basemap'but ,at;'-a~SID3ller scale. Simply:coverlaying the JOotprintionto 'the geology
map wouldnotindicate areas which should be eliminated but, rather, indicates areas which would
,need. to 'be,>mitigated.'\;iPlansishowmg ':proposedgrading~and'mitigationof,potential"geotechnical
"hazardsare.fuawn ~aea$caleof'one 'inchequalsi40 ~feet'(1"=40'). }Those:plans are'presented in the
'referenced :documentswhichare'used'by'the ',decision~makers and are. available 'for public 'Teview. at the
";iCity.ofSouth SantFrancisco Planning Division:
..";:.
~. ' ,",'~1'
.j.;
,iResponse2B~14The'seeps;and.-springs'discussed in;43 Geology, 'Soils,andSeismicity'are' identifIed
.ibecause,of..theiriimpact onigeologic,:c;onditions:whicli is a'different analysis than iidentifying seeps and
,<springs ,which meet.:the'Standards!for wetlands,;undenB. analysis i()f biological resources. . iThenumerous
,,'seeps;'and ;springs:shownion'Exhibits'2\.;1.;,2~and .'42';;2::reflect\indications'of igroundwaterandsurface
: ,':;:-s;tseepage,most .ofwhich.tdoi.not~t~into':the;growing'season"'once:raiD:fa1l:stops. ....~This:fact..generally .
, ...,.' 'jprecludes.~establishment':'of ,wetland;.iVegetation'. necessaryffot;;consideration,:as ,.potentialjurisdictional
..wetlands\indicated <in:tExlnbit';..:4:3..1;',":G'Wbile ,several'\(of!fthe >!SIIUiller::areas:ma.pped ':as ,. potelitial
,jurisdictional ;'wetiandsin {Exhibit '43~1'"teChnicany:are{;fresbwatermarShes;associated"with hillside
:-:'8eeps,:onlytbe identified-perenniahspring:had:mfficient flows'duririg the::criticalsrimmermonths to be
-identified as such initbe.:J:998,DSEIR.biologyseC1:i.on. .
,Response2B..15 In-kind restoration refers to the creation of replacement habitat of the same type
""rather:than 'out..of4cindwhich',meansofa::differenthabitaitype; d~estoration ,wouldheiimplemented on
'>graded;slopes dn,rdedicatedBCP'open"space,areas ,as 'a'.componentiof the'proposed,tRestorationPlan
AdiscussedonJJSEIRpage,:I56.and,possiblyas ;a'component'of.the~wetlandmitigation \plan referred to
,';.;:in:.Mitigation:Measure4.-3';3(b).jblWetland ,,~lacemerit and:4.;,(JI' 'restoration .'wouia:'berequired if
;;complete.avoidanceof;wetland:habitafisnotdeasible.')I'he :wetlandmitigatioi1;plan~',which could
,inc1ude;bothhabitat,rep1acementandrestoration,would::belsUbject'10i.review;and";~pproval by the
'iCorpsand would'be:implementedas}a 'component of the project Referto'Master"Response7.3-8 on
wetlands for, additionaHnformafion ' on ,the ,wetland mitigation plan-proposed 'by the project sPonsor. .
". . " .;-':,' '\_. "'." ::~....-~
..... - ',.",. ."',
~", ;--,~'~. .." '" ~'
.::.;-;1:":;:;'::::- t'.':";f
Response 28.16 Same as Response 13.23 regarding landslide material in the proposed Commons'
:;neighborhood ,,'and .on:,;the~Phase;m~site.i;~1\s .currently ;designed,:uppereut.:'slopes 'proposed for the
,Commons"n~ghborhood -'would,:have;:l:5: 19radesiin,coversediments'1lIldexisting landslide. material.
These' slopes ~would :.not/be 1feaSible1as 'proposed ,(and 'need to'be.:modified\(flattened,.';supported with
,.,retaining'struciur'esi};:etc:): ..}Becauseithe!upperl'arts iof\tl1e:eXistirig.:;Gloj)es'are'near' th6;HCP.' fence.
potential modifications need to be done on the lower parts of the slopes. . Such modifications may
affect the layout of the roads and buildings. The 1998 DSEIR text has not been changed ,in response to
'thiscomment.;' - . ,
Letter 28-6
r
. i
.
J .n-'
\
..,'
i.'"
'(
i
". i. ~.
\--
\....-
1_-
r"
,-
A draft of ,the rock slope'stabilityanalyses,was"completed.in :late:Jun~:1998.;The'mitigation measures
. identified in ,the ,1998 DSEIR ,(rock:.bolts,hYdroaugers.:flatter,.:S19pes)/stilhwould bea;requirement of
the' fInal grading. The ,performance;'ofitheslQpes,totl:1ese t'mitigation.;;measures ,would~bemonitored
usiIIg slope indicators and piezometers. 'Readings from these, instruments would be used to evaluate
';"the effectiveness: of:themitigation"measures"and; would.;be,crosschecked ; with the .,results.'of. the slope
..."stabilityanalyses. ','" ,',':<: ~""'~~~;"~'c',.;-;,.:;J
-. !-, '~-".~
,:Response.28.;17 ..,Fences:and 'other ;simple "retention ;''StrUctures;'wonldbe.limitedto,the base of
.outcrops<and above cut slopes and would not prevent .movementbYJlargerwildlife.: It, is not likely that
most\wildlife:species,woulduse,these locations~dueto\the!extent ofdismrbanceand,relativelysteep
slopes. The 1998 DSEIR(DSEIRpage 154) acknowledges{thatyiildlife;;would:be,eliminated and
displaced at least temporarily from areas encompassed by development.
.;Response,28.18,.-.Thed998 DSEIR text (DSEIRpages .286-287) ':will,be:revisedinthe .FSEIR,as
indicated :inResponse 13.46, as follows:
,The projec~proposesthe;placementof,engineere(hearth,fill (placed, and. compactedin.Jayers) over
the CA-SMa-40 cultural deposits. ... . ,Generally , ,fill would ,be deeper, on, the ,eastem.than .on the
western side of the site and deeper on the north and south sides than in the middle which would be
,contouredintoaswale converging into a drainage.basinJExhibit 4.9..J ). Pads~for,parki~g lots... .
dPill over'the southern parking pad would raI!ge,from a,ppro~ate1.y23 feet to about ' eight feet.
The southeastern edge of the oarEng Dads would slone down' to the realigned Bavshore
Boulevard. The toe of this fill wotil<lbe sUPPorted bv athree-,to fou'r'-'foot high retaining wa11.AlI
, '. "utilities, drainage.-landscaping,paving; curbs, etc. ,would be placed in 'the ':fill covering the site, and
no penetration of the prehistoric cultunil'deposit isproposecj; ,
Re$ponse28:19 ,Exhibit 42-2isan:-existirigcoIlditionsmap"and, 'thus, does not show"future (post-
"project) , site. conditions.:~Proposeddevelopment footprintsare"ovetlain on'Exhibit 4;2-3 which depicts
, 'a, combination-of 'eXisting 'and:proposeQ.debris :,baSin locations and is drawn' 'to 'the same scale as
,Exhibit 4$,2. i\BotheXhibitssbow'thedevelopment'boundaryoutlinesfor eaCh part',of the project.
Thus, 'the locations oftbeproject structuresin'EXhibit4:2-2'areeasilydiscerned by-comparison of the
Jtwowithout"an :overlay.' ;,.,
,Re$ponse28.20 AI:. "iMitigation ,Measure 4.2..;3 ;.indicates, .'the"'grading:\plan :-ShoUld 'be "revised to
'promote drainage toward lhedebris 'basin rather1:han to::the southwestitoward:its.currently shown
:,outlet 'onto ,;an .unprotected ,'hillslope.';::rbe ,debris basin is.proposed ito'be located ,i in ; the opposite
,- "direction(northeast)'alongthedesignated:contour. . Contour ditches 'woUld ,be partly 'grouted, and, with
proper::energy,dissipation .atthe.outlet,'as'provided for in othe 'recommended' SWPPP ,the drainage
'wouldmotbave any;,secondaryhydrologicimpacts. .
Response 28.21 The freeway access ramp embankments would, be constructed at the lower edge, of
\the:Phase IDsite,immediarelyadjacent :to~theexistingBayshore'BoUlev.ardaJ.ignment. \1nterceptionof
mpslope.seep~gewouldbeimplemented;atroughly ,:thesamerelevationas :the 'existing:ground, surface
: and should iDotcreate'significant;sha11ow~groundwaterdrawdownforinoreithan'a 'few .,feet upslope
,\( westward).ofthesubsurface'draininlets. <Some of the'willow;thicketacreageiin ithis 'area would be
',.lost.due',to"constructionoperations,:as indicated,in 1998DSEIR, sectioIi'43 ,Biology .;.Otherwise,most
of ;,theimpact"on,upgradientseeped :zoneswould'occur:as:the,direct'result.of'hillslope .:grading and
,drainage modificationsundertak.en in ,association with tbeconstructionofproposedParcels'G and F.
. :For instance,a1thougb.Exhibit 4~2-2'indicates a"longstrip'ofseepedhillslopeparallel,to',the upper edge
'of the . colluvial deposits on ~the Phase'ill site, the ,1998 DSEIRbiologyassessmentindicates that only
part of this mapped extent supports sensitive habitat. Moreover, all of the seeped zones identified
Letter 28-7
''Upslope of these two parcels'would"be'Obliterated:byhillslope;glading, ,so:jjewatering;impacts would
:be' moot. ,4~3,.BiOlogy:rldenti:fiestthesebiological'impacts}'andcthe-impacts,10thedownslope willow
.' thickets as Significant'<impacts.;and-quantifies the ,resulting losses. . .
", .' '-.
, "C::'7-)'S~,:''t-,.
",' . -'
. ,.' -. ",
,_.:.':"-) ~'.>i;.'~'.':i:':"""'':;':, " .
.;
Response 28.22 The access road this comment refers to extends from the project site development
· .,area outinto.the,HCPJands, .beyond,the 'project, boundary. "ITbus,'the'restorationeffort',(first ,option)
would require the involvement and support of the HCPmanager andccoordinator,(planOperator). If
the less preferred option were adopted, only the on-site roadway segment would, be stabilized as part
iofthe project. <Additional:roadway"stabilization would be undertaken where' necessary by 'the County
under the proVisiolls'ofaSite'ActivityPermit(see Responses 1~;41 and '19.1) .
'Response '28.23 . Yes.'The C{stormdrairi~syste11l'bas'beellaesigned 'forlhe cllnmlative development
within each of the"develoPIDeIlt areas,as~gJull, storm drain extenSions within the impervious
,:.surface.area..Inad4itio~~-thejnitialdesi~asSUJI;1ptions :,of impervious surface" acreage were very
.conservative;so ".the, j-syste:mjssomewb~ "over~esignea,):ompared, ,withthe:magnitude of flows
expected fromdevelopmerit ascurrently,propos,ed ,(seeResponse.27.2).-" '-
1Response,2B.24..The;desjgn.criteriafor ,thedebris"basins,,on.the Phase,JI and\msites,are.the same as
".used-for:the.,Phase.I.site.y.Thecletails ,ejf cthe,debris"basin,.design ,were"studied iandapproved for
'i.construction,duringtbe ,environmental review process .and,pre,construction -desjgn,phases 'of the Phase
.ilproject which '.alreadY ,isbuilt...:rhese ,design;procedures;:including sizing and configuration of the
,basins., can be ,foundin.'Compilation ,of Documents 1?ertainiTf.g,to, Terrabay-Development.,Debris ,Basin
Facilities prepared by Carroll I Resources Engineering and Management(CREM),:Septeinber 1988
(DSEIR page 139,footnote 119). This document is available for review at the City Planning Division.
Io.,brief"the designica1Isforthe ,accumulation, ofdebrisin,the;drainage from.previousdebris flows,
future "debris ,flows,. and ,o.a '!safetyfactor'" ,0f,ilOO'cubic 'yards:. ., The . Phase :1, debris,baSins have
,;performed as designed ,for, the lastinine ,years"including;pericids ,of :significantronoff;,During these
'nineyears,.the,maximumc3ll1ount,of,material:inany,one'.of.thefiv.e;existingPhaselibasinshas been
only ,afew!cubic,yards,;,as discussed in Responses 2101.6 .'and21.'17./The .1998'c.DSEIR 4.1 Geology
analysis provides further information on the <impacts 'ofdebris,;basin 'construction' and other measures
designed to stabilize landslides and potential debris flow source areas. .
,Response2B.25 .Thereare,no'established'~wildlife,corridorS" ,;oD'thesite'whichwouIdbe directly
'affected,Qy;proposedde.velopment, as ,a result of which.the .1998 DSElR 4.3 Biology analysis does not
:~provide,aseparate .discussioD'Of.this ,tQpic..;,Theprojectsite'isJocatedatthesoutheaStern':fringe of San
Bruno,Mountain.and',isbordered.by,actively;used roadways,and freeways, with no:connectionto other
;,open,Space,.or:undevel()ped lands which .would.draw wildlife'acrossthesite..:Adiscussionof wildlife
'u.seof,thesitej~:providednnder :each of;the,various habitattypes (DSEIRpages J 47-149) which points
:'outimportanuesources..(such ,as ,areas.ofdense,cover.and-springs).'" c' ;
,Response~;2B.26,' ,There1ationshipandeffect of.proposed development on 'biological :resources can 'be
determined ;py ..readiJJg:the ,1998.DSEIR 's ';a5sessment6fimpacts, (DSElR : pages 154-163) and, as
Letter 28-8
necessao', ,coIl)parmg Exhibit ,4.3~1..torelevant '~ps' ofthe!site(suchas ,Exhibits 2.1 ~,2.3-14a, 2.3-
14b,.2.3.-.l4c, 4.J-la,4,.1-1b,and 4.1-:-1c).' , ,.
. '....' : ~:'.".
'Response,2B.27 The.,:,commentor~s.concerns:;about.:ihe,ieasibilityi;of ,ad~uately,{protecting ,and
.,:.possib!y<recreatiItgtQe, perennial.-spring;onrthe:Phase 'm.::site"are,poted~j':Quesp~IlIi"riised .by the
'. commentorover the location of and access to,any recreated'~p~,~o~d::n~,~9.,'~~J~lllyaddressedas
part of a proposed wetland mitigationplan which must be approved by jurisdictional agencies (such as
; the. ,.U .S.:Anny Corpsof~gineers;and CalifoJ:Dia ,Department ,of ,F.iShandrGame).~The1998 ,DSEIR
.;(DSEIRpageJ60) acknowledges.. the,difficultyof,recreating the;:perennialspring, ;andJor, this reason
. ,;MitjgationMe~ 4.:3.,.3,(a) specifically:requires.the.spripg'to bepreseryed.:and:;a,minimllm setback of
.50,feet:to".be;pl'Qvided,MQund'cthis .,feature.,.Thisisconsidered,an;,adequate:fsetback,assuming
'preservationof.thespring.,and'1,lpsl()pehillside:andmaintenance as partoof:.the';private.or, public open
space lands,'None of the other springs or seeps on the site had perennial flows during the critical
summer months,and,'::specificrecommendatioDs 'footheirpreservationwas,not.!considered essential to
protect the; wildlife .habitatvalue.ofthesite;andthe relationship 'oithe :perennial spring to the adjacent
open space Jands. ,As;discussed:in ,Master Response 7.3-1,.the:Phase;lIISite,Mitigation Plan
DevelopmentAltemative.proposed,by :the : project ,sponsor iwowdpreserve'the'perennial spring and
restrict grading a minimum of 50 feet from the source oLthis:feature, ,consistent-with Mitigation
Measure4.3-3(a).
,~V:
Response,2B.2BMitigationMeasure'4.3-2/provides .clear, options, on treatment .of,suitable habitat for
thecallippe; silverspot. and dividing.itinto two separate measures is not considered'necessary. A fInal
. ','",,'. ,decision has 'not been irea.Chedyetregardinganamendmentto:theincidentalt:8ke..permitforthe HCP to
include thecallippe silverspot. As .defInedin.:MitigationMeasureA3-2,:4fan'amendment is not
obtained, then the project must be redesigned ,to avoid all larval host plants, including the stands
encountered in :;the ,Commons ;areaandrotherdocations onthe:Site.Due .tortheir ;relatively small size
'compared 'with 'the Jarger:stand,at,;theiDorthern ,.:end'of)thePhase lID "site.. ,and \With ,.other larger
'populations",on'the.mountain,: :cpreserv.ation {:af;thestands:iini:theGommons,area.,}was~.notconsidered ..
"significant ifthe.amendmenLis ,secured 'from,the:U:S. · Fish:andWildlifeBerVice:!(USFWS).Salvage
',;and,replacement'plantingsofjo~yjlllIlI>-'upslto. be,providedas 'part.of!the~proposed.Restoration Plan
:forthe..project'wasiconsidered.adequatemitigation:forthe anticipated loss:ofapproximately 400 plants
in the Commons ,area'jHowever,connnents.receivedifrom,theUSFWS{Letter d2)indicate that the
Service would prefer to see the host plant populations in the Commons neighborhood ,preserved as
well.:Refento\theMtlSter'iResponse7.3-9 'on :callippecsilv.erspotforadditionahinformationon the
",status, of the amendment to the incidental take ,permit-fortthe Hep. '
.;Response2B.29 The need for a detailedtwet1and mitigationwoulddeperutontherlegree,to which the
,prqposed ;project.is "revised ,to ,avoid jurisdictional habitat. Asindicated:in iMitigation Measure
4.3-3(b), if complete avoidance is not ,possible(asrseems.likely),:thena'wetland'lIlitigation plan would
be required. This plan must be completed and approved by jurisdictional agencies before issuance of
.,' ,,;any ,:grading~or<building:.permitJor'the;:project. :.as :'indicatedinMitigation +Measure4:'3.,3(b) (DSEIR
, '. ,-page J61,l1hird:,bUllet)..A:sdefined:intthemeasure,:,any,replacement,wetlandl1abitat preferably would
"be "located ,on the "Phase;m;site ,and '~would ;bei:implemented~during 'thei.initial"stages . of project
".,j.ID.plementation. "A bond typica1ly:isrequired'for;:all habitat:restoration, and ;landscapeimprovements
to ensure successful implementation, and:appropriate,performance 'criteria:,andcontingencymeasures
would be defined as part of the detailed mitigation plan. Refer to Master Response 7.3-8 on wetlands
fora'reviewoLtheconceptualmitigation'planpreparedthe projectsponsorand the need for additional
'provisions to adequately mitigate identified impacts. ,.'
.Response 2B.30'EXhibit'4:4..Tl>shows.'600boteFrooms, as does Exhibit 2.3-9. Exhibit 4.4-11 also
shows that 63,000 square feet of other retail 'office I restaurant uses were used for the traffic analysis
Letter 28-9
''-''
I
I
I
!,
, ,
:.(themaXimutri"potential) :as'does'Exhibit 2:3.;;9 . <EXhibit 4.~lLsliows;four'restalmuIts,"~' does, Exhibit
2.3.,9. 'Specific" assumptions allocating office versus'reuill ,use:in-EXhibit ;4i4-11'were . identifiedQY
City staff for the detailed DSEIR traffic analysis. 'This detail is not contained in Exhibit 2.3-9. 'The
, ',',:combinatiori'~.of uSeS'cforPhase1mwaSpchosen "uythe fCitj<fortnlffic .analysis "ptirposes to create the
. ;+maXimum~~potenti81 traffic ':generatiOl{ for,Phase:ill'iIl'ordetit6ensure;.thilfthe.J)SEIR.'analyzed the
", . ..':. :'worst'case'sCenario'for:traffic:~-.~;i:-".,.,.: ,.,',',....,:.,'~"..,",..,,"',.I:,,',',;.',.-,..,i,,:,', 'I;'.',.":,..,',:.'~,',~,',,.:,>"-",.,.,",'.:.'.,,'','..'":,'..'",,,..,.,',. ",',',.~.:;,',.".,',',,"~,.;':.',,:,.,:..,.,.'......--"'<,.,;"',.,,.;,',','~'":.',.,:::,,:,.:.'.:,...,',,',..".,.;...,.,;,.".,.,:,.,...,:,'.'",.,;,..:.'~,..',..",',..:,.,.,,:.r,A :;".... .....,..'.','.,',.~, ;,::::),<:"2,"',:,'.' , , '. ' " '
~""".'~'" . ~.::;.~~.;:',:.~~.;);;...~.'.~:_1~~:i:;~},~ _ .:~)c..;.f.:,:~:;;~ii~_~~:~':;,~,,~..:. -.~_;.~';.~:>:;/: \:~. _ <~ ',', -~_ -~' <." ' ,,-'. ~ . ~' " '_~"J, "" '. - _ .
.'f-
I
LI
,-,
'1"
I
,-,
L
; Response:2B.32 .' The,<commentois':correctiin;stating:.tbat'prov'ision':of ".wider 'roads would require
redesign of 'the development ,:and. reassessment oLimpacts " andmitjgation'measures'throughout the
affected 'areas:,of!;the ':project,Site. ';Provision !'of ::overflow 'parking.also would ,require thorough
. environmental review ofaffected.:areaswithin,the site. The DSEIR identifIes the secondary impacts of
!;both: as::discussedimResponse 28.L
Response 2B.33The comment is correct in stating that furtherreviewofparking for Phase ill will be
"necessaIY'whemthe lmix,ofland,:uses:isdefined,Responsec13.1S..discusses .tbisiissue.:'lf'the number of
, ;parking "~paces frequired'for,5the'type:andintenSityrof ,developmentcprQposed could not be
. ,accommodated; with '.or rWithout.a~gamge,," theCity:;would ..;reqriire~the ,project sponsor to alter. the land
,]usemix.orreduce,the :amount' ofdevelopment.'c:jn"site. '
1Response.2B.34.Ihe,EIR"trafficTengineer:-;agfeesiwith:::manY'c:jfthe concems'raisedby ,the
" "commentor.ji;:After:;San:MateolCounty'$taff~1Jllerribers';.have mnalized, the "loeation::'of:the ,trail and
:trailhead"this;iissueccanbe.OOdressed'inrgreateridetaiL ':However;tthe,EJR traffic'engineer .isconfident
'that i.sufficient ';parlcing'4cbuldibe .-proVidedi'Bear :ll<trailhead docatedifonthePhase;,m,;,siteand that
.'.commerciallots:mould:.have'sufficientparkingJor',this:use .duringtimes"of'gI-eatest 'trailhead use (on
weekendsand:afterwork<hoursonweekdays}.ff'he;:question 'concerniDgneed for,a'special walking or
.:biking,path.w:ouldhave:to be addressed'once:.the'trailhead'site is identified.
I
"[
u.~,Response2B.35 Same ,:as .Response,21.J:O.,Af the,time,'the,'1-998 DSEIR':airqualityanalysis was
prepared, the Bay Area was\antozone,maintenance:area;.,tHowever,i\the:regionwas redesignated as an
ozone nonattainmentarea in June 1998 (after the July 1 DSEIR went to press). TheEIR consultant
,Mticipated ,this .;redesign8.tion"and!the:redesignation'doesnot,affecftheair:qu8.litypredictions and
'~,conc1usions '.presented ,in the 1998 DSEIR. ':The;region 'sairquality, attainment :strategies : address the
;more',stringent,Califomia. ambientair,qualityistandards.
"-, ::.,;:..~.~:>.",~: ::'i-:';'~" .
Response,2B.361998;DSEIRMitigation :Measure '4SJrecommendsfirephiceinserts 'which would
;reduce ;particulate ,emissions ,'substantially.;;GasJireplacesiwouldreduce.'particu1ate:emissions only
. slightly moret:than :fi~place-jnserts;IT'herefore,,'such a.smalltbenefit was not considered sufficient to
.;require :gas~places.;;Nevertheless,Mitigation.Measure ,45.,3 has been reVised "in,thed999 FSEIR to
" ,:.enco~ge installation ofgasfirep1aces,~asJollow.s:
\
L
:...- "Pireplaces,shall'.beequipped ,withfcertified';wood :bmriing ,;fireplace inserts' which meet ,Federal
emission standards. It is difficulLtoassess'.the'overalLeffectiveness of this measure due to the
infrequent use of fireplaces. However, the measure would reducePM10 emissions from fireplaces
,by up, to 90 percent. lnstallationof naturallmS firedlaces isencouratzedto,furtherreduce particulate
emissions. '...
Letter 28-10
,Response,2B;37 The, 1998, iDSEIR','Doise',anaIysis,used'the', most"recent 'uoise::projections ,available
from;theSan Francisco International Airport (SFIA). '!Ibe.airport,wannadeaware '.of this: project. The
:;:airportreceived'and, on;'S~ptember,;}9, il997respondedto'~the'Cityls.)Notice;;of'Preparation.'(NOP), as
... noted:.on;DSEIR;page, 3. "', Since the aiIport ,has/notlanalyzea':Doisedmpacts'of;a;:plannednew runway
configuration, it is not possible for the DSEIR to predict noise'levels'a5sociated,with'that;action.
. ,
' ,
" .
oiResponse:28.3B"Thesound 'wallswotiId,be relatively 'small'compared:with.:the'beights of buildings
"behind them.'.seun&walls~uldbe Visible, topassers-'by'but-worilH 'not be' ViSually prominent. This is
because graded' slopes and structures wotiIdbe visible uph~~'behind sound"bariiers due to the hillside
site.' "
. ,
Response 28.39 TheCi~y rlf SOllth 'Sari'FranCiscopolice'DeparttnerirtS.S#D)',Jp~kdsnkt stated at
.the :August,J3Planning Co11UDission' study. session",thatSS:E<'PDre.vie\V"of"the :projec~assumed ,no
enforcement 'of traffic laws ,and parking regillations on the site; Drily responses' to' cnnllnal,activity. 2
The SSFPD has not, conducted research since that session to verify staffs initial response that
expanded serVice required for trafficandparkin.g enforcementiIl fact wouldilppact .thedepartment. 3
Nevertheless, J998 DSEIR Impact 4.7-1 calculated the..prQjec(s ,estimated requirements for both street
service and traffic control personnel using the .S.sFPD's".ratios,respectively~' ,oL1.18" and;O.090fficers
.per .1.000 residents, 'hn,pact 4.7 -l,alsoused qo,~seiV~tive;persons,per, househ()ld"(pph),,estimates to
. reflect the greaterDumber,ofbedro~ms per unit,prqposetiby,the pendin,g ,Precise Plan :c()mpared with
the number originally approved for the Phase IT site ,gy J:he ,1982 Terrabczy,Spec:ific,'/>'lan{and extended
'in 1996). The DSEIR . analyses concluded that impacts on police services would 'be less-than-
.significant,
Rluiponse2B~40 ,Police communica.tion~,equip~nt.wollIcLbe mounted ,on,the'roo{oiih~,lirst project
to proceed (whether ontheTerrabay Phfisem~site,AmerigaySuites,HotetatSie~foinh.orBay West
Cove building in the East of 101 area). lnst3llation andmaintena.nceof Such equipment would not
, , affect ,natural resources.
"- .
", ., ..,. -
'Response 28.41' The 1998DSEIRes~ted thenri'mber 'of;-tI.cJ.clition31pubJl~:scho01 students
expected with project implementation based on the generation rates provided by the respective school
districts ~dused by the distticts Jortheirpl~g ,purposes.Thesedata~flectconservative rates for
'calc1ilating potential imIiacts.Testimonypresentedby, a representative of the project sponsor ata
,PlanningCommission,s~gy session. indicated, tha!' the,n.umber ,ofschool-age.,children ,~ho Jive on the
. .PhaseJsiteislower,than would ,be estimated.us~gthe:c:nstric~ 'current:rates~,reflectedin,the DSEIR.
Evidencepresented}:)y:the,project~ponsor';srepre~entative for,the,.Phase,Isit~,supports,the,conclusion
,thatthe'districts',(and DSEIR '~).data are,conservative,andare,apprClpriat, e,to'use for estimating student
:,ge" ne, ra, tion., The ,'DSEIR JOUnd ,tlu1t ,the,.J>rQject':sJlnpacton,schoolswould,not,besignificant under
'CEQA. ' . '.', , " .,j..".,'."" ,'" " ' "..,. '.
Response2B.42'The 1998 DSEIR (SEIRpage .2).states . ,that "[t]he lnitial,StugyJ'Environmental
Checklist focused on identifying differences between the 1996 and 1997 projects and on identifying
2 Sergeant Mike Massoni, City of South San Francisco Police Department (SSFPD), speaking at the Planning Commission
Study Session on the Phase n project, August 13, 1998. Sergeant Massoni is responsible for crime prevention, planning,
and traffic review for the SSFPD and both provided input for and reviewed the 1998 DSEIR.
3 Nichols . Berman conversation with Sergeant Mike Massoni, op. cit., September 16, 1998. According to Sergeant
Massoni, if the SSFPD provided traffic and parking enforcement' services on the site, the City would require the project to
redesign streets to meet citywide width standards (wider than currently allowed by the Terrabay Specific Plan).
Letter 28- I I
r-
. potential :effects not. covered ; (orjnot covered ,adequately):by,prior'environnlental.review";L'It continues
,,,to :list~the"topics ,analyzed,'IDcluding ,police ,protecti~HSEIR,page ,,3J'!,and 'omitting<frre,protection,
:.statin,g".tbat t~fbJased';on "the 'Initial, StnQ,y,^the ,City;requirechtbe1preparation1,ofa focused Supplemental
,~EIR to ,eNQluate;,potcntially..;significant impacts.. related to,. ;;, .~~ ..The199&DSEIR; (SEIRpage.3) further
.ie~p1ains';(in the!text:andfootnote.5):':\::r'~~'~ '..' -~,> .' .',' ..,. ,
I-
i
, .
, , ,
. ,... .
,..... comments. and:requestsior,anaJ,yses were iDot,:addressed.in',cthis'SEIR itpnorenvironmental
dOCuments ..,adequately :.<,~yzed ..;:,tbose "tQpics"ifiithe. "concems,'involved. ienvironmental .
:conseguence~otthe,projectrleemed ,insignitjCllD1-:'1.~".CEQA,()~, if the.issqesrelated . to the
merits of the, project or subjectsb~yondthe SCope of an EIR.
.'. ,The, 19,.,,8,2.E1~. anal" Yzed." the,impactsof th, e.prgject on,~safety ",' 'The . pro, ~ect was, required both to
, "bUild anofully equip a trre:stationwhich wasccnm>leted.as.partof Phase I and to maintain a buffer
zone 'between the edge of the development area ancl1:heSan Bruno Mountain open s.pace.
.; ,~\~.,;:::;' "',,'..:,',:~.~.,:::',~__.';:':'.">~ ;'.':.:, ..:'~: :.>,,,;,, '." '.,-,;,}', :.~'__,>:,.:~.'l.:;~::'~:',,~">:(.;...,~.-\.> ., ,"::,._~', ' ".,:"" ,:;",. '''.'''.~
'The Sister, Cities Botl1evard' rSollth San'Francisco'Drlve ,intersection wasconstnlctedaspart of Phase
'ldevelopment-and 'isproposedto'becomefully operatiolUllwith~iny)leinentation of the Phase IT
prQject. 'ThemterseCtiori':'configllratiOll mcludesa break in the median andwOlildaccoimnodate left-
,"tums'into 'the site'by"vehicles traveling:easilioUnO on Sister 'Cities Boulevaro '(acrosswestbound traffic
on SisterCities:Borilevard).'This~intersec;tion wouldpr~vide the only direct access to the Phase IT site.
Indirect access ;'would'::be '3.vailableviaSouth San "Francisco' Drive at the . Sister Cities 130ulevard /
''JeffersonBtreefinterseCtion'inthePhase'I site. .,'.. . ~
/:~" .~' '~,':' ",..:,', ,..... '-'."
Response2B.43 ,Same'asResponse,13A6 (and Response 28.18, . above) ,Revised 'Exhibit '4.9-1
is presented after the responsestoLett~r .13artd also will be inserted in the Sertifif!.d EIR.
, '~"Mitigatiori':M:eaSUre:4~9-1'(b)-:discusses-~aii -;:aItemaliye .13ayshqre :Boulevardre8lignment ,design
u~~ga~ier-suPP~rted;~~dg~'or~~?V~r(f!~p1$,pilge293t."'" ",' ,..',,', . ,..' ,."
'..: o.:L: .~:;,: ,~':'~'}:;,:,;::~,':~ \',:" ,:,,-::-} ,:,:... ~:,'.-,>'; ('.',::..: .~. i,:'~':;_::: ~';' ,:';"<~,;,,,,-,: '.~ ,,-,:,-;, :'::;":,<,:,': ,} .'!-.,'..'.;-: J ~.")I".::":.7,"~ ,c, ',~,i.~,:,:, 'L'.',,: ;': ':--', .
Response2B.44 The SEIRis not obliged to address issues regal-ding the'National Historic
Preservation Act ';' (NHP A) or National" Rc;:gister .of Historic, J?laces eligibili~. "Please:seeMaster
:Re,fponse'7.3';3forfurtherdiscUssion.:< ' '.]. -, , ", ,. " . ",,"
::.,:>',~.,~ :::/:, :'.,.::.~:, .';,,:~,: {}:.'<:,:::,::~;: :',.+'IL':' . t~;~::~;.,,Js~"~,/;:~?::,:':::;"::', ," ", . " ';', '.~
."'Fordiscussi()ni.egarding,lli~ 'potentiiUfor.'6ff':siie'btinaIs,please see MaSter Response' 7.3-6.
">.",':~' ,,:,'::: >~':,:. ". -".":- . ;',~,:/ :.'.' :~<~':, '-::-:"~~\:::::J 'T"r;~,~"':':~ ,:..t "~~': \,~,':}".J';1:l-~ >C' '-':~!J::~'\, "(/""~~;;"i:.', ",.. .~.'.; >.~';.:.-~>:>" "~,i. ,::~.~ ri:~,;,'-Li '<:,'.":-:: :'," :~".- ~.",::;",':'" ,:
'The 'Leaa'~gency 'must'deCide::what'.iS' die'appropriaidprojecf'a1t~1liative."'ID,lightofstrong Native
Americariconcemifor 'thearchaeologicaI~ sites'ano:'the 'greater 'SanBruDo 'Mountainse~g, the best
alternativ.e '1IIay;be'permanent'open'space;for.the~Phase ,mjite':(fha'seJll' . Permanent Open Space
'Altemative)::7The'Phase (lIh:Site~';Mitigimo;t:'Pliiii fDevelopmentAltemi:ztive would eliminate all
,'consttuctionactiVities on 'or within 30 feet of the boundaries 'ofCA"sMa40. 'Impacts of. development
woUld be totally reduced toa less-than..,significant .level and would be in keeping with CEQA's
emphasis ,on. preservation. of, significant cultural,resources.,'Please'see .Master Response 7.3-1 for a
,: 'deuiiled.discussionofthePhase IIfSiteMitigation Plan De-velopmentAlternative. " '
,-,...., . .,.,'.
l._
Response 2B.45 Comment noted. This infonnation, presented in the Project Description, is
combined' on the following page and will be incorporated in the' Cerlifiea EIR.
Lettc' 28-12
"tProDOSed :i:?No
,,)PrOlect,d rDeveJ~nt:
~":;eihlb/t 5.0-1
'Comparison ofAltematives' Assumptions
A I t e Tn. tiv e I
~v:..., . ",', ,:Reduced" ,,' ,Reduced,~..Pennanent
,. ~'~&il?g ;"~;'1Rt#/dentilt(}'"Comrll8rc;aF7 "1)pen Space
;.SpecificP.lIln;OeveJopmelff"'De~/;,pment,i '.
Phase II Residential Site (housin.x Ilnirs) --' ,.' " '.- .' " "-..,
Point 181 0 181 181 . .
. Commons 32 '0 47 ' "0 '._ .e :', .c, " .
.:, '" , ,-
Woods '..-'.' 135 ",,0 ,.'.,"0;: , :204 '..., ..,. 135 ", . "~- " ' ",' .
.. ,.,
Total 348 0 432 "., ,.316". ',' . .
Phase I/J Commercial Site (sfJuore feet. aceDt hotels)
Hotel (rooms) 600 0 400 . 380 0
Mixed-Use 35 000 0 0 . 30,000 0
Office 1 0 57,500 . 1 0
Retail 10000 0 0 . 6,000 0
Restaurant 18.000 0 5,000 . 12,000 0
Other 0 0 268,000 tl . 0 0
0 18,000 b . 0 0
0 0 . 0 1,624,788 g
63.000 c_
343.000 J
a . High technology center.
b Health club.
c Without hotel.
d With estimated hotel area.
e No assumptions for this part of site.
Total
o
348,500 c _ 48,000 c - 1,624.788
669,300 d 293.000 d
f Offices could be one component of mixed-use development. The Reduced
Commercial Development Alternative assumes second-and third-story
,offices above restaurant and retail uses.
g Permanent open space within "development area". The project and all
alternatives would preserve open space outside the development area.
Response 2B.46 The variation of the Phase III Site Reduced Commercial Development Alternative
(the ''Environmentally Preferred Development Alternative") was identifIed after analysis of the
original Reduced Commercial Development Alternative. It is not necessary to analyze the
"Environmentally Preferred Development Alternative" in additional detail. As the 1998 DSEIR
explains (DSEIR page 299),
EIRs are expected to address a range ofreasonable alternatives, not all potential alternatives....
Analyses ofa project and alternatives can coversubalternatives or variations of alternatives
without assessing each individually by providing sufficient information to enable readers to reach
conclusions about such alternatives.
Exhibit 5.4-2 (DSEIR page 319) presents a "Phase ill Reduced Commercial Development Alternative
Development Summary". The title of Exhibit 5.4-1 (DSEIR page 320), "Phase ill Commercial Site
Plan Alternative", has been revised to "Phase ,ill Reduced Commercial Site Plan Development
Alternative" ,for clarification. Because Exhibit 5.4-1 is conceptual, additional detail would not be
appropriate. However, a description of the Phase m site's resources considered in formulating the
land use concept depicted. on this exhibit is presented on DSEIR pages 302-304.
Response2B.47 Exhibit 5.4-2 (DSEIR"page 319) presents the "Phase ill Reduced Commercial
Development Alternative Development Summary", part of the analysis of 5.0 Alternatives to the
.proposed Project. Exhibit 2.3-9 (DSEIR page 41) presents the proposed Phase ill project, part of
section 2.3 Project Description. The fifth column in Exhibit 5.4-2 entitled "Size" .in the 1998 DSEIR
will be relabeled "Development" in the Certified SEIR, comparable to the third column in Exhibit
Letter 28-13
2.3.,9. Exhibit 5.4-2 accounted for parking coverage to ensure that the land use concept was realistic, a
, .,::d.if;ference between Exhibits 2.3-9 and 5.4-2 noted l?Y the comment. Also see Response 28.4.
" . _'. ~.,.;;_:",.:. '~'.::;~:'l~>:""" ~;.:~_~ ,-:,.._:,:.~{~:\t;:'::,;;, '~~:'';:~'~~},,:,:''~ :j1~.~:.' ":~-~ ~:.~_ _ ::';~<-:;;:,\,',,;.:i,:"::' _,~~':~.'~~ ~-~.1:.~~:::.'.~ ',:>: -,,,_ _ , _ ..
')Response2B.4B'Same .as':Req,onse*'283and 28J16.
. '-';::.','::':- ~'~';~-'::; ',>.,;,.'"',' .,.
-,,:'~:~,..;,'~:h~;l!~~~i~~.~~,~arIfe',~~~'~~;;'~e.~~~. ..:An,aIy'~~s..'of .:ve,ry:~Y~?~Ii~ofan. a1~~ve:- ~s not
required,.and,ltlS inot.neces~ i(or'ap~pnate) <to:anaIyze'a land ':useiconcept mdispI'C?Pomonate
"aetilil thaIlf!1e_,~o~:~i?t-',iS defined. "" -' .", _'H ' ':,;:, H" :,; ,
ResPtJnse2.~.50,:T1iecoinrJ.rerii'8ddiesses)b~~'Illerii:S'of ,the_pr()j~t;',anl:i e]!:Pressesa'preference for
.a1ternanves ,assessed in the,1998 DSEl~:.Jllclusioll,in"the 1999,FSEII{will make;the',commentor's
viewsav~abl~~q,City decisiOll-:makers. '
:Letter 28-14
.'" I
1"
i
'J
r
1'''-'
i
r-
\
l'-
"
LawOffi.ce<of
· CeJ.esteC ."Langi.J.J.e
,p .0 . 'Box ' '5649
Berke~ey,CA94705
(510) 420-1253
VIA HAND DELIVERY
LETTER 29
August 14, .1998
Jim Harnish
'Planning'Di vision
City of Sotith'SanFrancisco
P . O. 'Box 711
South San Francisco,CA 94083
Re: Comments of San Bruno Mountain Watch relating to .the July 1998
Draft Supplement Environmental Impact Report for Terrabay
Phase II and III, San Mateo County
Dear Mr. Harnish:
Enclosed please 'find our:comments 'on 'the Draft Supplement
Environmental Impact 'Report "("DSEIR") 'for'Terrabay'PhaseII and ,
III. Theattachedcomments,are'intended,toincorporat"e 'and
,supplementcommentsindependentlY:'submitted on 'behalf of ~SanBruno
Mountain Watch, as well as comments by other members of the public,
and should be considered .in context with such other comments.
Pleaseinchide :the above-not'eda'ddressand 'tha.t of 'San Bruno
Mountain'Watch,clo 'David Schooley, P.o'~"Box :AO,'Brisbane:-'CA94005,
in ,any further communications to the public by your ,office 'on this
proposedproj ect.
'r 'am particularly interested in learning ;the dates"on.which
the San Mateo County Planning Commission, 'the Board 'of 'Supervisors,
and the Historical Preservation Committee will hold public hearings
andformallyc,onsiderithis issue.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.
:.Thank you for affording us this opportunityto'comment .
Very'truly:yours,
. . ..
-.' ' . -
'~"""4'
:' . ,',. ,...~. , ,.,""'" ~"fO, .",' _c.
" "....~
Celeste C. Langille
cc: Brian Gaffney,iEsq..
Charles M.Mil:ler..I'.:Esq. ,"
. David :Schooleyj::~[sari':Brtin6:7MoUn.tain ,Wat'ch
David Wright ,U.S . Fish,& Wildlife Service
r....
I.
OVERVIEW
The conclusion of the San Bruno Mountain Watch, after review
of the 1998 DSEIR for the proposed TerrabayPhase II .and ,III
project, is that the draft document is legally inadequate because
it fails to sufficiently discuss the following issues as required
by the California .EnvironmentalQuality Act ("CEQA"):
Project description,
Si.gnificantenvironmental impacts,
'cumulati ve.impacts"
Mitigation,
Alternatives,
~nconsistencies bet~een the project and the general and
regional plans.
,,_Failure toadequately,apalyze each of these issues will result
in:vio~ationso.f ,CEQA,thecNational,Environmental.Policy Act
{".NEPA'':L,theNationaLHistoricPres~va tion.Act ("NHPA") ,the
CleanWater.Act ("CWA'':J<;,andthe.f:ed~ral,EndCiI:lgered Species Act
('~ESA".) .
29.1 Under CEQA,ifsignificant new information is added to an
environmental rev:iew,document.after the commencement of public
rev:iew., ;the lead agency must issue . newnotice,and ::mustrecirculate
the.revised document .f.oradditional .-:commentary and con,sulta tion.
_(Pub. Res. Code~21092.1; 14 Cal. CodeRegs.,~15088.5 /("CEQA
29.2 Guidelines") .1 Inaddition,theredoesnot.appear to be any
referenceof:'submiss iono f.thisDSEIRto ,:the State Clear inghouse as
reguiredunderJCEQA,Guidelines '~~15205and 15206~)l
II.
THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION CONTINUES )1'0 CHANGE 'THUS
PREVENTING ACCURATE ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT'S IMPACTS
29.3a
An accurate, stable, finite project description is an
essential "element <of.aninformati ve and legally sufficient EIR
under CEQA. County of Inyo v.' City of Los Angeles, (1977)71 Cal.
App.3d 185, .192-193. '(Emphasis added)CEQA .requires an EIR to
describe the proposed project in ,a way that will be meaningful to
the public, to the other reviewing agencies, and to the deci.sion-
makers. ,.(CEQA:.Guideli.nes '~15124). Theproj ect description for
Phase III is vague and incomplete. It is lacking a general
2
,,29.5<' Even without .:,the, obfuscation.created by 'the:post-DSEI~ release
announcemen tofap....:en t:~rel y ,:new ",potcenti,al,al terna ti:ve " on Phase
.~ I II.by.t!1e ", projectsponso.r".J.the<draft'sEJ:R,.,a t 'pa;ge 28.8., ".recogni zed
"
the need for clarity ,and"questionedtheabilityof:.this document to
be.usedas"aIlinf0rnlatiori~ltoolbYithe.~ec.is ion ,maker and tne
public:,.'-' , , .' " ,.', ",.,",..' " , '.
[D],ifferences ,in .,application,materials.'descr~pti0ns of
proposalsfor,thissi te;should _be .identi.fied to.enablethe
project sponsor to clarify precisely what is.proposed and when
toenable,pub,lic :officialstomake.decisionsabout the
project."
29.3a
29.4'
";:;
29.3b
>-',1:
descript'ion'o'f,:t'he'proposed:project" s ,technical, -economic,. and"
environmental characteristics. The DSEIRi tself admi ts"the '
shortcomings of the Phase III.project description on .Page 5:
.;}
~... .-....~. _~~. '.'. ~,.: .::-.:-',.1 ,~',:,_..;~
'~.T.heac,tual~des'ign ,of'the ,;buildingsandthe 'Sipecific uses
fore~c:h,identif~eci; ;p~ildi~g Jpada:r;e ,notprovided~t:this
," ,time. ,Apotential.reniains :.:that,f.urther"environmentalreview
,i,~.... ",....' ~> ',' ::.- ", ".'. .. ,,~.'.' '_,._.; ....,," ,._ ; ,;. "',_,, _"''''','_ .', .;.j. .:_....;~. _,':,.. ._.:.... ;_'_'."'.' .." .' ,:,._ :......_.. .~... '_ /"_.'.'_.~.
. ,. coUAdberequire'd)gp ,~:proj ect~py~prqje.ctbasis',when~;Precise
Pla~s ,;J~I.s.pecifiC:,:develqpIp.ent,..:p:;::ojects,:\are;?ubmitt~d, to the
City"foI:".th,e~,Ehase.c.~,I:ts~te~," , . '
Moreover., the fact that theproj ectdescription is .inadequate
is further..hi,ghli gh t,ed ,bythef act <that,SunChaseISterling .has
proposed . ',an ',~en1:ir.ely new ,site ;..des.ign,incl.udingnewbuilding
locations ,and-design .cspecifications,on the cPha'se III site. It is
no ted,dfortherecord:.tha t,as..tudysession dis.clos ingthe. ,detai Is
forthenew,'~pot.ential alternat~ve"Phase.IlIsite is scheduled
for August 27, >1998, after >the.commentperiod..for <t!?e DESIR closes
on August 14 , 199B.No extension of :time:Jl'ias ~giv:en for.this
comment period as it had been forthe1996SEIR by the City of
South.San Franci,sco...
Phase ,', III is ",a .site ,with ,unique biological ,and important
cultural and archaeological ..r~sources . Each .ne\of,building. . and its
placeme,nt.on.,the,sitemust.:beseparately....analyzed for its:potential
for significant and cumulative adverse impacts ,affecting the
environment. Withoutfulldisclosureof,the extent .ofthe .project,
thepublic.and,decisionlIlaker~. are,dE;prived of assessing the full
.poten tiaLforsi gnif.icantimpacts , including the potentially
substan:tia~,~dverse<aesthetic:: impact of a ten ,to 'twelve story
.building oIl the Phase ,III site.
"Only through an accurate view oftheproject"mayaffected
outsiders and public decision-makers balance the . proposal '.sbenefi t
against its environmental .costs,considermitigationmeasures,
assess the'advantage of terminating theproposai and weigh other
3
.. -..:r,;,
,'{\;'i/"
;:, '
i
tl
29.3b
alternatives in the balance. "County of Inyo v. 'City
':Angel'es, '( 1977J.'!1;\~Ca13d185,':~r92-'193 ~." .
. . :.~:. ~- ~w~. ! :.......-:>.",., ..,. :.,,:.':,;.
I
: I
_. .Wit:tIqut:, '~ :t:!I;i~e ,aIld_?taticproject descrip,tion for Phase III,
there, 'can'ibe rio ,analysis,:6fthe'~Hgnificant.impacts, to thissi te.
Therefore;' :'the'public ':'can '.:not 'independentl:y'assess:theimpact,
',_CO' ol..-,.~. ,".c_ _~ .._~,.:.~ ': _, - ,,'_-_-~~...;.-',:. '. ," ,..~.-,"..'-" ,'. :'.~
whichimay/be,,'si:grii:ficant':givE:m}the' ,re'sources dn .,the'vicini ty.'
Because .thespecific';acreage,'Jbuilding' :'site:loca tioIl's , as well as
ever-y"'otherpro'j'ect ':comPonerit i's'absent,fro~ 'the'DSEIRforPhase
III, the DSEIR' sentire analysis ~pertaIIiin.g;t6'Phase 'III is
undependable:~a~~;,~.r:ade~ate. ,'. ,.,
The'1)ESIR a'lsofailstoaccount: for-rea's onablyfdre seeabl e
futurephases~o'f"theproposed;project on~both:'Phase 'II~and III.
See Laurel;Heights , T19B8)4 7Cal.3d37'6, ''3'93-3'99. "Because of
these omissions , important 'rami fi cati.ons'o fthe ':'proposedproj ect
remainhiddenfrom"thisdiscussionandthus:frustra te'thegoals 0 f
CEQA~Santiago'Cotinty:Water'District v . County of'Orange,:(1981)
118 Cal .Ap:p . '3dcS rS,'8 3 0 .
t'-
;j
.~~~ :
:.~ '"::- .,,'
III. THE DSEIR ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING DESCRIPTION IS INADEQUATE
. -. - " -' ., .,.
'An ,'EIR'must describe:'the "''''erivfronment'iri''the''v~cinityof;the
proj ect"''as':it ::exists:be.fore';'tne'commencementof"the,'proj ect,from
both a local and :'a~:Tegionalperspective '.':"rCEQA.Guidelines~1512 5. )
Thi sde'Scriptionl's.iintended'to',oes tabii.sh'a 'baseTine <for analyzing
the 'proj~ect"s~envi;ronmental"e'ffect'S ';:fCEQA-'Guidelines ,J~15125( a) .)
Here, 'the DSEIR,fails togi veanadequatedescriptionof 'the
wetlands 'andlor:xiparian ;:"habj:tat~onboth::Pha:se'II and III, fails to
disclose :the'specific. >location ,~andextenfLof:riparlanhabi tat .in
close 'vicinity to ithe"site,Unde'rstates,thesignificanceof the
proj ect'location"to"SanFrancJ:sco Bay , ,and ,doesn't discuss .any
nearbywetlandpreseryes.
29.7'
,. - '. .... "
-mxhfbi tr-4 .3--'1 'delineates 'bothpoteIiti:alj'urisdictional
wetl'ands:mappedby Vicki Reynolds ,and also delineates. additional
'potential juris di ctionalwet 1 andsmapped-byEn vi roninen taT
Ccillaborative.:But,.'there'isno ,other reference piovided'for
EnvironmentalCol,laborati veas 'to the timing or methodology of
their "delineation and no ,discussion 'under 'Environmental 'Setting of
these"" additionaT'potential j urlsdi'ttionaTwetl ands";'or tif the
potential impact to them-by the project ..,>Asstatedabove there is
no discussion of wetlands and/or riparian 'habitat from a local or
regionalperspecti~e.
In. addition,' there is no regional or '''vicinity'' description of
,'plant ~peciesof concern, animal species of concern and/or their
\
:.
'~,
.';___ 1..-
4
,29.7 i
29.8
29.9
'.,'~-
foodplants. ,Due ,to chCiriges: 'in 'environmental, cond.iti~~sandth~--
status'o'f^different specles'ofconcern,previousenvironmental
review documents ~re. notr~liablesourc~soi .info~~CitiOrl"'t:o,qualify
forbaselinereview..'wi thout:^,the, ,above, informati,on"provided in the
.DSEIR:therecan . be' 'nobaselineforanalyzi:rlg the /.project's'
environmental effects. '.
IV. ',^ "~'THE"'DSEIR'IS~"INAJjEQUATE;:m:CAtJsE':rfF~i.S TO 'ADi'QUATELY
DISCUSS SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL'IMPACTS
A draft,SEIRmustidentif.Y;and,focus ',' on.possible significant
environmentalim.pa.cts:'ofa propoi3edproj ect;;. 'Thei:maiys is should
clearly identify both direct and indirect.impacts,as they occur in
the short and :long .tei:1n.JPub~.Res.Code.21000;CEQAGuidelines,~
15126.) An agency should nqtbe allowed, to hide behind its ,own "
failure togather.data. Sundstrom ~{lst'Dist. 1988,) 202 CA3d at
311.
A. INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE . PROPOSED PROJECT AND GENERAL
.AND REGIONAL PLANS
.',: . ,
Inconsistencies between a ,proposed.projectand,
general/regional plans are "normally cc:ms~deredsignificantimpacts.
The CEQAGuidelinesstatetha,t 'an ,EIRis reguir~dto analyze non-
compliance of the proj ec:t,:wi th the adopted,environmeIltal:..plans,
such as theHCP"where.1:lon-compliance represents,a,~ignificant new
environmental impact~ "(CEQAGuidelines, ,App.G(a) }.(Also;see p. 93
of 1996 Final SEIR). ., "" .. ,.'.. ".',
.INCONSISTENCIES'" BE,TWEEN' '.i'aE"PROPOSED PROJECT
ANDTHEHCP
Habitat ,restoration, revegetation, and. maintenance ,of the
status of all species of concern~havenotbeen successful,in
various portions of theproj ectareaq and. in areasadj acent to the
project area and are not 'in.conformancewiththe county's,
"Standards for determining successfulrevegetatione~pec:ially for
disturbed areas being reclaimed for conservedhabi tat and to be
dedicated'tothe County of San 'Mateo in accordance with the San
Bruno MO.untain Hab'itatConservationPlan." The evaluation of the
. failur.e of restoration.e.fforts specified ,inthe.,HCP ,is necessary
becausei thasoccurredovera 'long period of ,time, and this
failure hascontinuedfar'longerthan justbeingpartoI'the
"process of 'long-:term restorat'ion 'plan implementation" f1996.FSEIR,
p93-94.
The failure of mitigation/habitat restoration/revegetation is
not part of the process of long-term restoration plan
5
29.9:
29.10,
impl ementatioIl , 'but i s,acl ear.mes sage tha ttheHC:i?I?-on - compli al1ce
has, ,resultedina'prec::lpitous'decline:inthe <Emdangered, .'. " .
threatened, and sensitive'species:that once 'thrIved ,on San Bruno
Mountain.Ther~e '~pecie's.'hayedbeE!~.adversely':;afiected~b.Y HCPnon-
'compliance :to:.the'exterit ':that :this ,is a significant. new ' ,,'
envi ronmen tal.impact ,':whichwas'not'anal yzeC;,in th.'e:,~1~9 8DSE IR.
Add to this the fact that the project sponsor is proposing plant
~p~c:~esoIl.t:heirLaIlg.scapi:n.g.:J?+an".:J:llant ',List;.'.wl1ich are not allowed
:,tinder .the?~HC:~;,due,t9':~th~i.r2:,:rn~?is.ive:"nature ."r;;cDsEIR, 'pSI, footnote
a)'. ' ..., "i,;(.C ":,:"/,':"H":';.:...;.,L"";.. ,..';..<.:..'.: ':~:':,'~' "':."c""
, "j
Faihire"of 'habitat resfor~tlonwas).dent.ffieq,)n the, 1996
DSEIRasSupplemental'ImpactVW-l(1996,:Final~sEIR'p.. 197)
(regardless of ';fact 'that-recommendedremediation'work,wascompleted ,"
by Pacific Open Space in '1995.:)'rTheI998 DSEIR ,states on page 55,
footnote'68, that application niaterialsfromthe project sponsor
currently do not reflect an increase inHCPland to be dedicated
for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain CountyPark~
, , '
29.11 An additional conflict 'with the 11CP, which . was not addressed in
the DSEIR as a significant impact isthe'fact that the HCPcannot
be amended until December of .,the year 2000, per :the, terms of the
HCPitself~Thisconflict~illcontinueforthe next two,years and;
needs:to'identifiedas ;signific~nt ...Page'62 of, the DSEIR lists the
requiredi3lllendments 'to:previous,approvals ;theS,pecific .Plan
"Amendment, 'the'-ZoningDi~trictAmendment;. :and,theDevelopment
Agreement 'Amendment~:Thereis nomention'ofthenec:e~sary
, amendment to 'the"San'Bruno'MountainHCP.""
29.12
,2',INCOlllSISTENGIES BETWEEN THE ,PROPOSED PROJECT AND
"SOUTHSAN'FRANCISCO'SMUNICIPALCODE
Phase III ,as proposed,isinconsistentwi th, the requirements
of the 'City of South San Francisco Munici,pafcode . "Page62,
footnote ,'77, references ,thefactthat.the'project~ponsor~is
5 eekingapprova~'ofan,"~:niti al'PrecJ. sep Ian" forthePhas e I I I
sit eand 'further propos e s,itha't" Suppl emen talPreci.s e,P lans" ,wi 11 be
forthcoming in the.. future 'for 'Phase .II1si te parcels : The City of
South San FranciscO' 5 Municipal Code does not contain any
provisions 'for the planninghierarchyand.termino~ogywhichthe
pro] ect sponsor is proposing. "Therefore,theproj ect :sponsor must
amend the DSEIR 'to conform their site development planning to the
Municipal Code in order to meet 'the .speci.ficproject..application
"reguirements:fC?r City cOI?-siderationof a precise, plcm..
6
B. AIR QUALITY AND DUST
;i
29.13 'Th~proj ect ,aspropo~ed,wouldPotentially resul tin
significant.iII,lpacts .to locaL,air.qua1,.i ty~byv:iqlating"BayAreaair'
quaIL tystandardsfPotentiall,y contributing'si.'gnificantlytc
'existing.airquality violatl.ons,,"and ::potential:ly:exposing::5e::si ti ve
receptors to .,substantial('pollutant "conqentJr'ations~ThelEind:.ng of
less than ,significant 'impacts to 'cha:qges:in,..loc.al ,long-term air
quaIl ty ip,notin sync ,with ,:recent re-,evaluation of Bay'Ar.ea air
quali:t;:yandthe;reali~tic:<..effects .,ofjproj ect:,iIr!plementation on both
human and animal residents . TheI?eis:$~:subs'tanti'alevidence to
support ,the ",assertion that the proposed ,project would not 'have a
substantial adverse impacts ,on,locall,ong-term,air' quality.
29.14 Dust has been identified by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
asa threat totheadul t and early .,stages of the endangered and
candidate species of butterflies on San:-BrunoMountain.In ~his
proposedproj ect there is.nodiscussion of, ,the .significant,
cumulative adverse impacts theinereasedheavymaehinerytra:f ie,
,and ,removal of thousandsofcubie yards of dirt 'willhave,-tc the
~,butterflies of the Mountain.
Theproposeapro'ject"area 'eorifains'wetlands,including ,areas
,,-,..., ,"".-'.
J _".,.':~ ;".
C~,LOSS'OFWE~;HABITAT,
-, . . - -,-'.
The importance of these wetlands and riparian habitat is
summarilyciismissed, ..on pag~154bystating,that"TheCorps
even tuallyw ill ve r i+ythe, pre 1 iminary -,we tl and del inea,tion,a.'"ld
determine the actuaL extent ,of jurisdictionalhabitat,onthe'si te
as part of its permitting ,process." There 'is no diseussionin the
DSEIRregarding,theloeatj,pn ,and.significaneeofthese 'we,tlands on
theprojeet"site to"other >wetlands in,the'vicini.ty .or .region.
7
~\
_.r
D.
'CALLIPPE SILVERSPOT.BUTTERFLY AND ITS HABITAT
-L.:-
-,'
i
, ,
I
29.1.6a-
"The:caTlippesilverspot:butterflywas ':listed as endangered on
December '5 ,T997::(62',FederalRegister-;.64 3 0 6)'.,dtiec.toaongoing
,'declineinthe'status<:of'ithis.'species ,~^?I'~e::l!<"S ." Fis~,'a~d,,",~ildlife '. r
'Service stated~that;the':'primary ~cause'6f'the~;decline in ",.the ' -
callippe .silverspotibutterflyisthe"lossanddegradatiori'of .
~habi tat-"'~( 62Fed.'Reg.~ at 364311-64312.) The:DSEIRfails'to
recogrii ze,;therole:that~:habitat>preservationandres tora tion plays
in~thesurv'i val.and .recovery'o fthi s'speci es"especial1 yin.l i gh t
of:,thefact thatportions>of,the pro] ectarea<were' proposed as
criticalhabitat:-:for'this 'species.T43 'Fed. :Reg. at 28938 and 45
Fed. Reg. at 20505)
'\'-
'i
Sect~ion'90fthe "ESAprdhibits any 'person, incl udingany
federal,' state ,or local government entity, from "taking" an
endangered -or threatened-species .( 160.'S.C .'~~1532(l3) ,
:1538'(a)-CIYfB) .).'"Take''' :'is 'defined as '''harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, 'kill,t'rap,capture 'or collect or to attempt .to
engage inany.such conduct."(16U~S.C.~1532 (19).) '-Causing
indirect harm to an endangered species through habitat modification
or land management techniques 'constitutes a taking within the
meaning of the ESA. 'Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter 'of Communities,
(1-995 ):115 S ~':CT."2'4 07 . ,'..".,:-.
L
'Page40f:the.evaluafion'by.:Ri tha.rdA. 'Arncna '0 f pro] ect
impacts 'to..the.callippe -;inthe'DSEIRapperidixstatesthat -earlier
gradingofportlons'of",'Phases 'TlandTII<~'piobably.resul ted in some -.
directloss.'ofthe;grasslaIldhabitat, incl'liding larval andadul t
'.'foodpl:ants,'plussome,iridividualsof theCallippeSil verspot. " His
evaluation 'goes .on 'to:state: .'
"\addi tional"grading, 'Whidh will be necessary 'to complete the ;-;.-.
'proposeddevelopment'softhe:'Phases'I landI I I portions of the
Terrabay~proJects:ite ,".wi 11 also re 5ultin "the direct 105 so f
g.rasslandhabitat, larval.and adul't>foodplants, and "
individuals of the endangered CallippeSilverspot Butterfly."
There is.amandatoryfindingofsigriificarice ifthereisa
reduction 'inthe'nUIrtber>ofa listed spe.cies, as "this would
stibstan fiaTly a'ffectthe-call ippes ilversp6fbutterflyand'i ts
.habit,a.t. ,<CEQA:Gtiidelines ,:App .,G( c) d "To 'the exten t'theDSEIR
"\conflicts~withthe '.HCP'ibecauseincidental 'takeOfCallippe
Sil verspot\Butterfly:will~occur 'andnoprovi s ionin'theHCPpermi ts ~,
this incidental take, this needs to be identified in the DSEIR as
significant impact under Appendix G(c)ofCEQA Guidelines. 'The
evaluation of significant impacts completely ignores Arnold's
8
29.16a ,findings ,as.,totheoccurrence"o fincidental,take.o:f.callippeand
,) his,findings;,astoiindirect". harm:,.tothe callippe., ,.". :The:onlywayto
, ,avoid' incidental.take:ofthe 'callippe.under ,:the(ESA2i:sto:not
implement. the project.
'The DSEIRis,alsoinadequat.e:because.'there::isno discussion of
disturbance, i.e. harm or harassment under the ESA, to this species
or 0 the rspe ci eso f'concern:::Yfrom'J.etheiefrect's.{'.OITi gh t.s ,ai r
quality/dust, temperature changes, among many potential adverse
affects to. sens i tive;speciesthat,;would'.occur"fr.om::permanen t _
disturbancE; ,:ofctheir:h~i tat.:,In :particular ,the, ,callippe ,
s i 1 ver~pot,blltterfly,and:otherbutterfl\yspecies, arehilltqpping
s.pecies{seepage 151,:andArnold' s callippe'letter>:inAppendixlthe
permanent .,alteration'ofits:hillside habitat.willlikelyhavea
,significant ,adverse . ,impact.
.E . OTHER SPECIES :OF :CONCERN
29.17
The DSEIRsummarilydismisses any :potentially ..significantor
s i gni fiean t.impactsontheother:special-:sta.tllsbutterf lyspeci es .
On page 84, it "statesthattheHCP "fully addresses potential
impacts .Q fan ti cipated.developmeiJ. ton,'mis sian blue'''" w.i thout,any
analys is"o fthe,curren t.sta tus'o f ,this 'species '.orincludingany
informat ion"as.,tothemo strecen t: surve'ysfor."thi's;species.. ,The
proj ectfails to discuss:inconsistencies between<the .proj ect,and
recovery plans for the listed plants and species. (See also '19.96
Final ,.SEIR,USFWS .:commentletter,dated2/1'5j96.J'
..-....... ....... 1 d
iI:::I.ll:I From .a .socialand,economicaspect,,'the'project,as,panned an
implemen tedadverse ly impacts,/p.eople\of:l'es:serf,economic:means . The
residential housing on the Phase II site provides no rental
housing. '(DSEH~.,."page 34.J Also"d>ecausetheaverageprice of a
home>onPhase,I'was well ,over ,$300.,,000 it could'be;assumedthat
Phase,IIhous ing:,priceswi 11 beinexces s,ofthatamount,well
above --what the.averagexesident of South,~SanFranciscowollldbe
able to ,afford. There:,ismo attempt -to:provideaf.fordahle ::housing
".for South ..san' Francisco-residents"
..F . :)MISCE~OUS ;J:MPACTS
'Y. THE ,'DSEIR IS INADEQUATE 'BECAUSEITDOES'iNOT INCLUDE ,A
-SUFFICIENT DISCUSS IQN,OF.MITIGATION MEASURES rFOR:SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL ,.IMPACTS,.
AnEIR,mllstidentify,and,describe-measures,needed ,topreduce or
avoid each .pc>tentially significant environmental ':effect lof ,;the
project. (Pub. Res. Code ~21100 (b) (3), CEQA Guidelines
9
...
:'S15126(b)( 3 )~~) 'Because;the>nSEIR .;does'not~discus s.all's'i gnifi,cant<
adverse'impacts,: as 'shown >:above i':then'the:discussion',of'mitigation
pre sen tedtovda'te:can. not; po ssiblyhaveiden t i fied:allithe:'spec i f i c
mi tiga tion:measures which must be addressed .:rIn O,:particular ,the
DSEIRfailstoaddressimpactsandmi tigation provisions for
pesticides:and .introduction>of'invasi vei.sJ?ecies:..J
"'GEOLOGY; :::SOrLS ,,4.AND'~~SE ISMICI'l'Y
,-
29. 19
,':Proposedmi tiga tion!measures.pertainingto ,'.' geology ,so'ils, and
seismicity::arevagueandinadequate .";:A'key texampleofthis::is
'foundon Pa-ge:.120which,:"byway>of 'an exampl'e,'uses lPhaseI
impl,ementation,as,analys is towards ,'poten ti alJ,ymore' signifiCant
impacts'::..the'''volume,and ,areal:,extent,-ofmas s^gr ading'forl ands 1 i de
repair could be greater with project;implementation.than 'Currently
estimated." It went on to state: "Theenvironmentaleffects
would include disturbance of larger areas of natural slopes, loss
of more native vegetation,'.,potentiallyintensifiedshort-term. air
quality (dust) and construction noise impacts and possible
encroachment in to:theHCP ,area,~'" 'The,mi tiga tion'measuresforthese
po t,ential1 yadditional H'S igni f i:can timpacts'do:not:addres sthe above
ilanguage'xegardingadditionaladverseeffectsanticipatedfromthe
actual pro ject i.mpl'ementa t iO!l ~.Further)on,page120'sta tes,tha t
"no.,miti'ga tion'is ;:,proposed,forlands lidesidenti f iedinthe;Commons
nei:ghborhoodandlPhase.:I I I >,s ite . "The measure s 'di s cus sed' on the
.fo.llowing',page,;are'not,clear ly <defined. "
29.20.
Othervague-miti gat ion :measuresi"include'us'ing:placing';netting
around rock features to prevent them frOItlmOving(page 79) ,and
building retaining walls higher,';ithan:'teri'if:eet" 'to "1hold 'back unstable
hillsides (page 77). Other mitigation measures address the need
for 'more ~detai'led,soil :andigeot-echnical'study 'which 'is obviously
neededibef:o-re:.further:;review!can ,proceed.
Without :full "disclosure"ofall:ctheadverse impactseof'the
proposed:project.and resulting "proposed mitigation 'measures ,.the
'extent'ofpoten t i al ,degrada tionto>.the,adjacen t 'S ens itivehil.ls ides
"(HCParea'')iscunclear. "The .hugeresponsibilityfor'inspection,
'monitoring,and.;-maintenance~of 'future'erosionand land movement
should not result in anunfair'.burden:to"theb.omeowners/owners of
the proposed pro j ect,tothelocalgovernmen t, or to, the public a t
large:, "due.to,:>.-fa ulty:ap.alysJ:~t';of,:sj:gnitfican t&mpaetsXand
d.In.plE!mentat:iori:Fo'f'~ima,tta'inabTe -"mi ti:gation,::.mea:sures:~:"/,This ,past
winter and the adverse :impactsonjthe':;steep.:sTopessurroundingthe
. Northeast Ridge project are a clear indication that the lIlOSt
); prudent <approach:is'~the:im.plementat.ion'ofaproj ectwi ththeleast
amount of disturbance 'to 'the Jexisting ,environmental'" conditions.
l.
10
29.21
29.22
..-.
29.23
'B . CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
"'The DSEIR's"failureto'adeguately'cictdress cllIIl1ilati ve impacts
does not provide an opportunity to;address mitigation of these
potent1allysignificantimpacts. An'EIR ;'mu~tdiscussa project's
cumulative impactswhentheyaresignif'icant{P1ib.-' Res. 'Code
~21083 (b); ,CEQA ,Guidelines ,,~15130.)andimustalsoexamine
reasonabl e :;options ,'. ~or'mit'iga. ting !"o'P{a~b'i'd~n~~:s;Igni f i cant
cumulati veimpacts. (CEQA .Guidelines '~15T30('b)'T3) . ) Because the
DSEIRfailsto,adequately acidress all the cumulative impacts
resul ting'fromthis"project,i t follows that ' any discussionoi
mitigation 'of dallthec~ul~tive impactswill.'beinadequate.
The DSEIR also iails'toaddressthe cumulative impacts of non-
compliance' o'f "the'ReF as predicate for addi'tionalmitigation
measures.
C. LOSS :OF JURISDICTIONAL 'WETLAND HABITAT
Any mitigating measurewhich'providesforin-kind replacement
of wetlands on the same localized site 'from which the original
wetlands were destroyed' 'simply does not make sense . (DSEIR"page
'86.') 'This:ismarkedly notable on the Phase III '.site ,which 'is
bas:ically wetlands 'habitat ini tsentirety, especially during the
winter "IIlonths . 'The discussion as to implementation of "how no net
.c. _", ',. --.
loss of either wetlands habitat' val uesoracreagewill'occuris
wholly inadequate because 'there is:nodiscussion of -where other
potentialsi tesconta'ining'the 'same unique . features might""be
located. The lack of potential replacement sites for project
mitigation enforces the rationale towards preservation rather .than
degradation. (See page 15J,'footnote' 3'4.)
.-".,
'In addition,thefeas1bili tyoflong~termmoni toringofany
andaTI'mitigatIonmeasures' 'for sensitive resources on the Phase
III site is questIonable given difficulties in enforcing compliance
and potential.turnover'inownership and/or tenancy.
D. . CALLIPPE SILVERSPOTBUTTERFLY
29.J6b As pertheabove'discuss'ionregarding sigri.:Lficantimpactsto
thecaI11ppe,'incidental.,take 1's Tikely to 'occur unless the 'project
is substantially 're-designed't'o'averid 'ariy'and all harm or harassment
to this species. The strict requirements of the ESA would not be
met by mitigation measure4.J-2, proposed on page 84, whereby only
avoidance of all larval host plants would be necessary. This would
likely necessitate the creation of a large buffer zone between any
building site and callippehabitat to avoid significant obstruction
11
29.16b
of :the callippe' sessential behavioripatterns...;,,;:.'!'he "salvage .and
transplant existing larval host plants andadul'tnectar plants" as
amitiga tio.nmeasure would,:need to. , beanalyzed;on"theJJas is of,
feasibi 1 i tyo.f,thedifferen tplan tspeci esto.'bo.threcover,:from
i,trans.plant~ng and adapt .t'one~(and .differentenvironmental
condi1;ions. (DSEIR, "page.84.) " '
i
;
. ,j
I
,'E
, .'- - ".- ~" ..... ~ ....c
". '.:' .....-. '" _L" ,:,'_:'::;~: .; ;,:." ":':.~~->:..'i- :-~:)~~.}~-
:, ,VEGETATION',,~ ,~~W~I~!IABI'1'AT.L()SS ",~, ;~SCAPE
,CallJPATIBILITY
,
.(
._ "Thesal vageco.mponen t to. thepro.po.seci'resto.ra t{o.nplan
29.24. discussed in ,part ,on "pagEL 84 is,.too.tenuous and unp:t:edictable, to. be
the predicate actionfor'mitigating' the significant impacts to.
these.subs tan tialand.irr~placeablebio. lo.gi calreso.urces . The
:~ monitoring -and implementation .of .thesalvage component ,appears to.
be unrealistic and unreliable in' terms o.fthe financial "and' lo.ng-
term commi tmentnecessaryto make it a ,feasible mitigation measure.
Creation of a "replicate" 'perennialspringsundersco.res the unique
characteristics .o.f this irretrievable :resource.
,
-;._-;
F. TRAFFIC AND PARKING
29~25
In general/. ,the mitigation measur.es pro.posed.to.reduce.the
si'gnificantimpactstq traffic appear .todepend.on ".unattain'able .
goals and speculatiyefundingfor ..implementa t~on~_ ,For ,example, the
mitigation measures..onpage 190 and 194 which discuss the "potential
significante ffectsi f ,the",developmenLisno.t_.reducedby,64percent
and 5 9,percen t.'respecti vely" depend, ,entirely on..specula tive.:fu ture
funding and are who lly inadequa.teinaddressingthe already,.
unacc.eptabletrafficlevels in, ,the pro] ect' area.
, '
'-
29.26" The pro.posedmi tigationmeasures,forPhaselladdressihe
deficiencies of the proposed dimensionso.f o.n-streetparking
spac.es, ,garage spaces , anddrivewqy~apron'spacesareinadequate. ,
(See pages195-201..JAllt.hediff-erentmeasures~I;equired <due to. ,'the .-=
.deficiencies in the DSEIR appearP,.to be.. .co.mpetingwi th.eachother
for space. Asthe,pro.jectis "pr.oposed,mo.st ofthe.abo.ve '
dimensions are sub-standard and do not co.mply with City codes. _
There is not enough emphasis on ,housirig density ,inrelatio.nship to.
street width, parking, and safety .co.ncerns. .Themi tigatio.n
measuressho.uld allowmor.e.than.the,minimumrequirements inor~er- 'i'
to,.add:t:ess'impacts to.. ,safety and ~densit.Y . c.f residents in,
conj unction wi ththe environmen tal, ,~lmi.ta tio.nso.f. the !prq] ectarea.
i
'--~
'- !...-J
12
I .,
29.27 . VI .':THEDSEIR,IS :INADEQUATEBECAUSEITFAILSTO"ADDRESS : THE
',MANDATORY ;'.COMPLIANCE '~WI'1'H 'SECTION 106 'OF ':THE : NATIONAL 'HISTORIC
PRESERVATION ACT
",",-i
:'.;1,-
As page 279 "of it he ,19.961FinalSEIR'for'theTerrabay<Specific
P lan,and~Development:Agreement:Extens ion reco,gnizes, itha t:if sites
CA..,Sma -4 OandCA";' Sma- 92~are;e'1 igibleforlisting "ontheNa tional
Register:ofHistoric.Placesand,;afederal:.ypermitor stateperml. t
pursuantto'federal,' authority is required~>'NationalHistoric
Pres erv,a tionActl"NHPA1':):reviewwouldbetr i ggered.~ These, two
condi tionsappear to be 'met in :the1:9 98' DSEIR"butnomentiono f
NHPA-reviewisincluded.Page282'of.theiDSE IRs tates,thati tis
'~believedthatthe site (CA-Sma-,;40)'meets.thecriteria for
nominationtotheNa tionalRegisterof'Hi'storicPl aces. " Page 286
of . the DSEIR states that "Based.onl t'S close proximity and possible
connection to the larger 'and :presumed-,to-:-beimportant 'site.(CA-Sma-
4 0) ,CA~'Sma-92also 'may have a potential 'for meetingCEQAcri teria
as an important cultural resource.W Ttalso '. states ',that in the
event that further research establishes such a connection, it is
possible thatthetwosi tescouldbe perceived as an important
archaeologi-cal';di strict/"'~~Property"'eTig i:bl:e?for,'.in~lus i on in",the.
National, RegisterofHist6ric;PTacesis,,not,;.:lim.ited,,~'t0properties
that have been officially determined to be, eligible, but includes
propertiestha tmayguali fyforinclus ion"underthe"regula tory .
cri teria ."Colorado Ri ver Indian Tribes v .'Marsh,'( C.D';CaL. 1985)
605F.SuP12' ".1425,1437;36C~F.R'-'~SOO.2;{ e') ,,'SOO .3'('fr..
. . ".' - . , " ... .
'Pages6B-70'li.st :th'estate and federal agencies and respective
permi ts'neededfor 'project compliance . 'Among.. them ,are the U.S.
Army Corp of Engineers and"the USFWS. ,'Because aSectionH'404
permit, ,under the Clean Water Act 'for 'fill of'j urisdictional
wetlands, willlikely'berequiredas,well as an Amendment to the
Section'lOla) permit, under "'the ESA, ''for incidental "take of the
Callippe 'Si1 verspot ,butterfl'y, ,then compliance wi th'all'procedures
and requIrements .ofSection 10 6'of'theNHPAismandated,'incl uding
esta.blishment~bfaMemorandum.orAgreement-withtheStateHistoric
Preservation 'Office thatspecifiesthemi tigationrequired .for -
Section 106 c01Ilpliance. 'An 'additional"exampleO'fa ':fede'ral
undertakingwhichwouldqualiry'for'NHPA "review Is 'the NPDES permit
issued by the San Francisco Bay''Regional Wate'rQualityB6ardunder
theCleanWaterAct~
'Under'\NHPA'~l 0 6, federa.l"agencies lD.usttaketwo 'actions before
issuing permits for activities ~that1Ilay, affect:properties'~listed or
eligible;for listing on the 'National "Register. An agency ,must
consider the effect of the project on such properties 'and Hmust
13
29.27~ provide an opportunity for comments to ~bemadetothe.Advisory
, Council on Historic 'Preservation.16U,S,C,,'S470Jfl . Both the
'Na tional..{Adv.:isory:~"Co1mci.l'~and,..t):re)St:ate,~Historit::',ffz:eserva tion '<.',:...,
'Office 'have',.extensiy~~"authc)'rit~y,'i6>c6mmenf::;'ori"a~::p~oriit ,application.
., ,,' ',' ',. ,.' " "~.',::\"fi,'::');:X)"':f";k:3~~?n;';'
.Untilthe exact conditions of these significant cultural and
archeological resources are fully 'researchedand"addressed, ,wi thout
ciegrada tion : to, ,the ' .shellmound."~,,,.,there~,can;be:y;no,adequate "bas is of
"disclosure to' the; public ,andthedecision,:maker ":as,'to,,the
rami fica tionsof ,any.,disturbanceoI:s igni fi cant ;lmpacts.tothi 5
site.. Total omission ,of any 'reference.toNHPAreview,:as,already
discus sedin>:the19:9 6:SEIR,;as,well ~as':thelack ,o.f.involvemen t 0 f
membersof,the'Nati ve ';Am.ericancommuni ty, ,underscores :the
recognition of these.invaluabl,e'si tes;asbotharchaeologi'ca,land
cuI tural,:resourc~s ,.',Completeparticipa tion and input from the
Native American community is indispensable to this assessment,
especially:oonsideringthefactthatmembers .ofthiscommunity
be I i:e'V'e:that;thelarger,and'small-er'..shellmounds arel inked
together, possibly as one integral site .Without.theabove
. info mati on.., the significant impacts are unknown.
"-'. ._, .... '.'
.--. .....-.. --'.
29.28, VII. THE DSEIR IS' INADEQUATE BECAOSEITDOESNOT INCLUDE AN
.ADEQUATE CUMULATIVEDSPACT ANALYSIS
,Cuinulative.impactsare,d~~finedastwoormC;~e , individual
e f fectswhi ch", cWhen,consi5iered-together ,ar,e ..cons i derabl eorwhi cl<l
compoundor:increa$~:":oj:he~'erivi.ronnlental-iIIlpacts . " CEQAGuidel ines
~15355.) A cumulati veimpactanalysismust "view the proposed
proj ect ,:1n, connection, ,wi th.other,rela ted .past, ,.presen t ,and
, reasona:blyfores~eable"probalJl,e future ;proj ects,whoseiID.pacts might
compound.or interrelate ,with those .'ofthepro.posedproject. EPIC
v. Johnson, 1 7.oCal.App.3d604,645.
,.. ,n,. .
The DSEIRatpage 335 does make a cursory attempt to dismiss
! the.cumulativeef~ectof,:i:m.'pacts .t()biological,and<archaeological
resources, ,:but..omits.any : analysis. It ,references,theEIS/EIR
:preparedfor the ,HCP, ,in 1982, ,but neglects ,to address the changes
~.which:havetaken .place,.in .the ',last ..16 years.
14
29.28- One ,-example ,of :a 'change in.a species 'status .is ,the listin,g ~:of
"j:.,the'calli,ppe',silver'spot -butterfly :.cdue:;t'o.;'a "decline-4iIi "population
oV.er .,theyears .:i,Anotherexample.is ::the/bay ,checker$potMh'ich was
..addres-se.diin',the-HCPand .had .,proposed <critical 'habitaton,',:SanBruno
.Mountain,)but:was ".exti:rpated,:from :the:'HGP."area ...;'~roundT9'86'inpart
,. :by .non~na:ti:vep1ant :..invasion,..:four,j.years:int-o ~the ::rHCP,~. "
implementation. (Draft Recovery'P-lan .Yfor 'Serpentine:5oil "Species of
the SanFranciscoBayArea,February 1998 ,:pageII-191). The
Recovery Plan for the baycheckerspotstatesatpage 1I-191 that
.'F~~...i;,.;';P?t.~I'i~':i2ef:Jf~9F;:J.?~i.~ trqd,1l~t4:Qrf~~9~_,:'th.~;l:g~y'.,.qiJ.eq~~F$pO t .0n,S an
Bruno Mountain deserves investJ.;;9ati.on.~~,an9,6n,;~pag~s-:'j:jII-166-168 that
"anysi te wi.th appropriatehabi tat 'intl:1e' vicinity of the historic
'range,:of.:the bay checkerspot, ,should)be.considered 'potentially
occupied <by.the:butterfly ~.,'
The;impl em.en ta.tionof t'he;;HCP on San Bruno Mountain has 'had
cumulative significant .adverse'impact'Sonsensi tivep'lan ts;and
. animal swhich.must:be,considered as'parto fthisEIR . Those pas t
.projectswhich must be:considered are ceach',of .theother .,amendments
tothe.:HCPallowed,'since1982; c':the,developmen tson ,the'Northeas t
Ridge ,Radiod~Ridge./ "and.:Paci'ficPointe;.the failureinzHCPfundingi
. and the inability of j,the 'Habitat Manager .to.ei ther'successfully
restore rare plants and plants or to eradicate invasive non-
natives.
. c"()L:jrh';(;~f~~en1.(~-;;€~6n'~it~f~~~~ie,pro~~2iJ'~~I~~esal1
aevedo.PA1~nt.,a.ri(Lp~Qjects~..4;ri);;tl1e,,:'pro,j,rect,,';area"incl u~ing 'the
.Northea~t"cRi~.gEt:iliWh:icn:,;;~had,;~6curre~c::es.l:q:(,:;lands li'des' :.:this pas t
'wiIlter<r;:'"arid~~s.p~cial+,Y~L.phEf~~Eastof..i1;OI.:;a,~ea,:::prOJ:ects, ,The East of
101 area consists of four . distinct stib a-re as., 'including East of 101,
Gateway, Oyster Point, and South Airport. (DSEIR, page 64) The
East of 101 ,areadevelopmentscappear.to affect large amounts <of .
wetl ands,"or'San.Francisco;Ba,y- adj.acent'tidelands . 'Yet ,.:there is no
di scussion.;o f:cumula tivei.mpactsonthes esensitive,wetlandareas .
'Theseincremental;yet.~;cumulative '..effectsareexactly~thetypes of
proj ectsforwhich theCalif,ornia State ,Legislature.created CEQAto
govern.
The omissionc.of;.tliis;crucial evaluation.renders'theDSEIR
.,wholly inadequateias;an informaticonal document ,for the <.publicand
,:the decision~makers.
'THE (DSEIR ,;IS "INADEQUATE \BECAUSE:IT:OOESllO'1'"INCLUDEA
,.iSUFF,ICIENT"DISCUSS.ION-:,OF;ALTERNATIVES
. 29.29 The DSEIR did not analyze any alternatives for the Phase III
site which,didmot':as's,ume ,censtructiono'f/the m.s. 101 southbound
hook ramps and realignment .of :Bayshore .Boulevard. In.addition,
VIII.
15
. '
l
. ". - ...._.._~'o.::~\...~:.)>..~;.'"::l
'29.29 ~ ,bes ides, ,.,the',Pha-se]: II';~permanen t,~pen '. space,al.ternative, 'the DSEIR'...... '
,,;~< 'did'notaddres~ithe~possibility"oftteduced"development,., on 'Phase III "r-
whichwould'-be,':limited'-ito ;,the'ia're'a 'sout-h",6fbothi'CA~Sma":40"'and CA-;,
Sma-92, ,'including !a .:buffer::zone .: SThi:s>a.l.terna ti vewould~educ::e the
" commerci:al';development'.cons iderably, -",:bil't~wouldal so ',avoid.-tl'ie .
unmi tigable-:significant:,impacts "to~'traffic,-'long-term';:air ';quali ty,
" ,andbio10g,ic-al. -~nd ',cultural .resources.' .
IX. THE ;:DESCRIPTION,;OF,'LONG-,;,TERM AND
CONSEQUENCES.IS . INADEQUATE,;"
r'.,
L.
(
. .~....
.."r<:-.
,
:J
f-.-
29.30
i..
',Thisproje.ct'propos e'to!allow.::mas:s Iv,e new devel opment'to occur
in the same vicini ty as populations rof,;among;other ,San:Bruno
Elfin,Callippe Silverspot,andMissionBluebutterflies. The
,populations of El'fin;and'Miss ion Blue :continue to';declinewithout
,any movement ',towardsrecovery-;frolll'~their'endangered 'status. 'The
f'urther,declineofspeciespqpula tions iSde,':facto;along-'term and
irreversible -environmental <consequence~, 'The lossiof important
jurisdictional ,wetlands.cannot <be adequately, mitigated. ,Failure
:toassessitheseimpacts ,;makes ;>this,document .inadequateas
informational jdocument'forlocal,~decisionmakers!or the concerned
public. .
X. . IMPLEMENTATIONOF,THEPHASEII RESIDENTIAL .ANDPHASE III
c.<:PERMANENT ~OPEN<SPACEALTERNAT-IVE~S IS'Wl:THIN ,'THE "DISCRETION OF
'T!iE'CITY ,.OF ,:.gOUTH~SAN ',;iFRA:NCISCO,ANDSBOULD;BE . 'THE ".'NECESSARY
:MI'l'IGAT:ION,:FOR'i:XISl"'INGENVlRONMEN'l'AI.:;,CONDITIONS., ,.\PRESERVATION
OF CULTURAL BSOURCES , AND"AVOZDANCE'OF'UNMITlGABaADVERSE
~S IGNIFICANTE7EFEC!I'S
29.31
:~Pub:.Res .Code~2lo.04pr:ovidesthat"a public agency may use
discretionary powers providedbydsuch ::other'law ~'f.orthe,'purposeof
mitigating. ,oravoidi-ng".a ,significant',ef'fect,o:ron,;lthe.':.environment.
The 19.96 .,FinalSEIR . considered ,'ctiltural'resourcescmitigationand
preservation "Of'aportionof'Phas:e:'IIl~as <'open space . ',., ('1996 Final
SEIR, p293). Any fill or capping of the main shellmoundwilllead
to severe or total destruction of this important cultural and
a:rchaeologi.callandmark..The:Phase 'ITI''S.ite .:contains important and
irreplaceablewet.l'ands.,As"part:oftheproposed 'critical :habi t.a t
for the CallippeSil verspot Butterfly ,the,:loss:'ofthishabi tat and
food source will likely jeopardize the continued ,existence of this
,."endangered:,,~p.ecie 5,' .,.,......,':To,get~er:.wi'th;.t:heo,T:aboye,.~:reasons ,exi sting
tr af ff ccondi;tions;and:!air,;qualij:Y;j.ma~dat'e\:r~Ciuged developmen tof
Terrabay Phas~ II and III.
r-
,
'EIR'sare:.theprimarymeansofachi:eving the policy goals that
,'agencies"take,allaction:necessary ~toprotect,rehabili tate:and
16
29.31 enhance the environmental quality of the state." (Pub. Res. Code
~~21002.1, 21061 and 21081.) CEQAis to be interpreted to afford
the fullest possible protection .to the environment within the
reasonable scope of the statutory language. Mountain Lion
Foundation v. Fish & Game Com., (1997) 16 Cal.4th105.
XI. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the DSEIR does not meet the
requirements ofCEQA and should be revised.
17
,'- '.;,-;. .- ~ -:
LETTER 29, SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN WA TCH(CELESTE LANGILLE)
, . '
:~,-.:: " _ I, _ .~~_""'Y~:'<,_",_ ;~,'.'~,.,"~::';::i:',;;::)<,:~ " ',._-,_ _ ,_ "_:",,~:.., ,,:~,':_";'_,_""'''''~...'::'
. ':ReSponse 29.1" " ,:A1thoughthe >,coininenf .~,does. not '.:identify~,sjgDfficant',:,new.:itiforrnation, the
, cOlmnentoriscrefe~. to'Mlister,ile~po.me,f3-.2"ResJl~ns~28.2, and .ReSpo;S~.29.4~ ",,' ',', '
.' .- " .~. . .0:" :;' "\';', .':".':~.' }:.:~,.;'lr'~f'?;::; '-.:t;{ "':;';.r::''?~:';'':i;', .,',',.,:':,,,:~.:.':.>.:'>:~ '; ,:;;\ y} ." :~;';"'~"": "
,.Response '29.2 , .,.Letter'OO ,of ,A~gustJ 7, 19~~from Anteio Rjv~plata,' Chief, .State."Clearinghouse
',(SCH),states.thai' the' Ci~~aS,';cp~lied, \.vit!t.pte~ Stiteg~arU)ghouse .rev,iew,requirements for, draft
environmental doCw:ric?:rlts, ,PWSuant to:~~,Ca.1if,?~a:~vito~e:rltal.'Quali,ty Ape. . .'.., "...
";n "'.':. :;~~:.:.- ,......,~::_.:.'.',:,'.';'~.,:..':":.......-,.....',.o,.'. !......;.:.'i.;,......-.:. -.,~:... "__::,,,:'..,...;- ...._. "-., __, _,._~..., _~"',:.. '_: :...".~<._ ,_'~._ '_ ". .__..._.. ......
., ,- " ",', --., -.' ,- --,' ,.
Resp~'ns~'2s.3',;;The"'~6irifueht'gciDfu~~s:'thJ/CitY ,.~f..Souih.".s~"~F~ciiSc6'; ~;step-~y..step planning
process and,' in misunderstanding the process, questions, the adequacy of ,the description of the Phase
IDsite, development concep~ characteriziI:1,g it.as :a,~'shortcomingn,of the ~ase,.ID:project. The 1998
DSEIR(DSEIR.pagesl and 2S),clearlyidentUies .the actions. requested by the project {$pecijic Plan
Amendment for,thePhase,TIand ID sites and Precise P1an~provalfor, the P.hase U.site). These
differe~t steps:-inthepl~g.process:definf:,.projects at different levels of detail. The first sentence of
the.panLgI'8ph',cited'1;)ythis cOmmentreads:~'[tJhe, jevel of detail ,ofthisSEIR 's analyses is
: commensurate tq ,the ',detail afforded "the,project", . The 1998 DSEIRdisclosesthisdifference for
readerS to underStand why" the PhaseTI site's Precise Plan provides 1l10re detail than the Phase ill
site'sSpec,ific Plan.,
, "The199B'DSEIRalso'~orrnsr~f:rs'iha;.asreiem:d t6ibythf:c9mmen~"~[alpoten~~ remains that
.fwther tmviionmenta!i-e.vi~\vcoUldbe,reguired ,~na,pr()ject:-by~project basis wbenJ>recise Plans for
~pecific develQpmentprojecis, arejsUhlni~.~Q the',qty cfortge ,Phase,rrrsite",l[)SE1Rpage 5). When
"subiiritted in thefiitriie, spoDSorSOf . specUiC'developri1eriiprojects .woUldbe' required to prepare
individual Precise Plans in the 'manner,that a Precise Plan, for the Phase ,n site ,has been submitted to
the 'CityforJ~ppr~vaL ,.c]~af~:reS,P~~v~'~r~fiseJ~!t>>Ji!,ou.Id,J}ereguired to.. sl1o~lOEand building
.dimensions,.buildin,g :footprints,elevatio~, .~d..all.~ther detailso[,proj;>osed .development., " However,
':the. commentor shorildnote~tthe loc3.tio~of.buil~gJootprintsinreIation ,toexisting.siteresources
wo1ildbeof less'impoJ:talice 'aJlfl.in ',s?me, c~e~;: irrelevant,:~l"!creatio.n ,of: griuied "pads than the
disturbance. caus,ed by dnitialsitegradiIlg"The,penclir1g, projectrequC?sts.gnli:1iIlg,pemiits Jorboth the
Phase ,nand' m, sites~, and,the"pr()j~t, '~poiis.orplaris,to. .c.ommence,gradir.tg:i~Ilmediatelyafter. project
. 'ill ....",,' . .",'.,i..' "'.,:'." '....,'" " '..'..,.'" ',.. "..'....,.',. ,,' ,',.,.." .' ,'. ,...-..,..c'.. ......' .'",'
appr?v. ", ,
. " -, - "" ,- , - ,- -, '. ,.
;To'date,theprojec(sporisc?rhasnO(~yis~:tI1e,.p~~g~pplicati~ri t8'il:~i~e'the-<prQPosed Phase ill
'.develQpmentconcept with the new p1uise II!Mitig~on Plan DeveiopmentAZtemative. Therefore, the
. Phase mproject analyzed by the 1998 DSEIR'haS not changed durin,g or after the,publicreviewperiod
,and remains that eVa1~,in,the DSEIR:The vi~effects. ofa ten~ to 12;story office bUilding would
not exceed orsubstaritiall.~diffrrfroIll thpseof an18-sto1Y.40o..roomho~l,previously'analYzed on the
Phase ill site 'in the 1982.E/Rand.1996 SEIR. ;Th~City~ s~ppro:v.edTe1Jabay ~pecific ,Plan would
allow Such developmep~~ithoutthe. ~pe,Sifc.P~/}Jnendmentcurrent1yrequested'bytheproject
. sponsor.
Response 29.4 As '.'describeii ,iD)he 'iInmediate.ly':preceding res.ponse, .tIieproject'Sp~nsor has not
revised the,project description. 'The new ''Miijgation,Plali''is an alternative ..until thea,pplication for
'the'Phase m developme~t concept' is revised. "The CilY 'Can approve ,the,projecioranalternative.
. ,:.-.~.;~-....::::::-: ':-:",". '. :,.,'-.....--:;.\:',~::~;..;;'/;.:.;'.-;:; ":'0_::-: '/:',:';_"_:'-':;;'_: ..-',>:',~'_?_;,,("-,..:::.. .:,..~ .' - '..:.,'-.-.. ~......'.': . .~. '::.::' '<':.,' .
. "Btiilding 'locaiions;for'~both'the 'I)luject '.," and,riew phdi;e .,111 'sit~'. 'Mitig~ii~nPian Development
AZternativeare defined by j)I'OJ.',0.sedgraded.,pads(EX1:iIbit7.3-1).'Whi!e the new Phase III Site
Lettcr,29-1
Mitigation Plan Development Alternative shows office.building and ga11lge locations on a graded pad,
the footprints are sc~~tpati,c~
~. ..~';'\o "';~ ~,
The. PlanningCoID.missi~n scheduled separate, hearings and.study sessions on, the [)SEIR. and project
.' ;ai1ddid~o'before~~cPI'()ject'sponsgr ~~er, subIDittea, the nevv,':;MitigatioD'Plari". as a 'comment on the
,EIR (see'Utterl:l3)';6r:presenteti"the'concept at iniblic"heanngsor'sfudysessioris~ 'mte:public hearing
on the J998 DSEIR, wasbeld,on..July.23.,'1998 dnringthe JWY l,throqghAugust,J4-~ 1998 ,public
"review'perioa.Smdy-sessionson:merits"ofthe pnjject'\vere divided into separate 'Phase IT and Phase
", :m :ffiscusSions,-the'timl'Qjofwbichstraddlea theSEIRpublic -reView period., :.1tisa coincidence but
not relevantto the'EIR.'thatfthe'Phase"U study sessicmwas l1eld AugUst 13'C"dWiIlg" the DSEIR public
review period) and the PhliSe msmclysession was held ,A~st. 27 t'after"thepSEIR,public review
pe~ocl)'-' ,,', ",.,." '.',.,', ,,".... .,'.., -" ",.'"
,~. .:. : .;.--.' . "- "-' - ..' " ;'. . -. .. -' .' ",.' -....' . . .-..'- -,-,' ':
The ptiblic're;jje~ijeriod'for ;the1998pSEIR'was45aayif]ong."'Co~ntsdid not identify
"'significant'new impactsoniitted . from ''the '1998, DSEIR, ,or ."rais~,qriestionsin ,response to ,which
'sUbsequentanalyses,conducted after the c,los~'of the public review' period, identified significant new
mpacts.1Leithersimation'hadoccurred, \the City-wouldihavecirculated the new jnformation for
,publicreview arid'comment.ln^the -absence of significant new impacts not previously disclosed to the
public, the CIty:is notreq1Jired tp extend or reC?pen, public review (see Master 'Response'7.'J-2).
:<' .~ "'0 " : " : ::~ -'.:' ':;- - " :. -:, - .:-. \ --, .- ~'., . ';:' . .-, ,'>. :, -- '; :: :_:' - -. :,_' : - - .. . ',_;_., ': -,}. ~ ,,' :-.' ,- _' '.-" -_;-,:' j,:':,; ':~~~--'::-.' " ::' . . ,:,'_
Response 29.5 The ,1998 DSEIR statement 'referred to' by this comment is typical of' an 'BIRon a
specifIc plan ( or ~pecifIcplan amendment). While the type ofdefmitiondesired by, the commentor
"would,be"~deal,:such de~is ,n()timPerati~~!orrevie~g ,enVlr<?nmen~,~oi1sequellcesof and making
"'decisionS\aoout'1and ,"~~e:and1Qe\lel()pmen~",:c()ncepts ."( orsubs~y ..c~ging.tbeland use and
'develop~pt,Pi:~grani),.e~p~~~Y_:~tl1.inwl~mentatioIl;'.:~,the.~~ ,~~~~"of:.,Mi#ganonMeasure
A.?:l'(b).r' .":",.";..-."\'~; "". ,',,',', ,'< - '.",.'... ,.".,.'.' .
. - - -' ; - ." , '
, "- - -- - --, -' - - , '-_.' .,
"'!iRespon~~29.6 ~""Tlie<19911JSE/R '~aly~s'J)()tH:the':piQp<lsedP~e~ise'Pltildorthe'Ph~eU site and
'the proposed Spec1jic:lPlart1imendmenffor1l1ePhase IDsite:;'Tbe'Precise'PumproVides-detailed site,
'igrading,-'utility,'and'building;plans'''for-'1hePhase . U 'whUe.the :Specific ,.', 'Plan Amendment .provides
'grading1indutilityplans"andadevelopment'(iescription for"the''Phase ,IITsite. ,'Thedevelopment
identifie~proposed 'land usesandinteiisityex:pressedasarange of theamountof development which
'could 'be: implemented. The 1998 DSEIRmiaiyses assumed 'the maxllIlUm intensity of development
and maximum site disturbance todisc1ose conservative worst case impacts. In thefust case, for
instance~trafficanctassoci~airqua1ityanaJ,ysesassumed .maximumbuildout. In the second case,
geology.1lDd '-~i610gyanalyses assumea,~um. disturbance ,~fexisting'conditioIlswithin the area
'pro, po, ""s, ed,:forgraOiri, .,.,' " 'g,' ~ ..',',This, ,,'., ", " ap,p, ro,',acb, ".,is,.., stim",daid,'"" practice for" ERs,:.'.,"Th,'" e anal,', ysesc, on, tained in the
199"8',,D.,., .8, EIR",.',."wouldno,t", c"overspec,ifi"" c'deve,'l,o.p,'mentp,'rgjects ,.pro, pO,'",sed, '.,in,the {unw""" e w,'hichdeviate
substaIltiallyfrom these :assump~o~s'.c or~su~tionspre~ou.sb'.~w.yzei;l in the 1982'EIR or 1996
'SEIR)anO iwouldnot, c()verrefined orrevised:prQjecis subject to .substailtian.y different.on- or off-site
conditions. Contrary to the conunent,the '1998.DSEIR does not fail to.disclosereasom:iblyforeseeable
futurephaies of the project on either site but addresses ftillbuildout of both sites. .
Response 29.7 The ,1998/?SEIRAppendix7.1 identifi~_. the,peQple . involved in preparing the
, ' ,,'DSEIR,~Cludingth~.'tii(jIQgi~ts ,affiIiateC1'YithEnvir~nmentalGoWIDorative,~4.3'Bidll!.KY.snmmarizes
':the -'backgrouri4Ji11.dmetl1odsused.'inp~paringthe' ,sectionJDSEIRpqge ~147.J, jIlc~uding .previous
smdies and reports reViewed in preparing the assessment arid deiailed surveys conducted to confirm
the presence or absence of sensitive resources on.thesite. ",Where.relevant.thebiology analysis
adequately _ presents. the relationship,Dfthe ,site~to.surrounding habitat and sensitive .resources,
inc1udinginformation on vegetation and Wildlife resources, speeial-statusspecies, -and wetland
resources. This includes a detailed discussion of the habitat characteristics and distribution of special-
Letter 29-2
I
I
[I
!
. r--
I
,
\' 1
!
1'-
I
"
I
f-
r-
,..-"""-
\L_
~
,r'
'. :
;status, plant andanim31~eCl, . es known, fi:om,the.B~j',Areaand San,BI'lmoMountain vicinity suspected
,:to . possibly , occur on the .,site. .The' ,1998 ,DSEIR.;a1so~e~plains,the,.det3iled surv~ys ,:and, assessments
", co~ducted ,l?y,theprojeCt.~onsor's,conSultaDtS;or;the.EIR ,:biolQgiststlIJd.er~each/of"th~;respective
,":Subsectio, riS, j, D, S,~,1R pa, ' ges~l,' SO-iS3j. '\,This'~iDdudesad, '~~cB.pti()iiofth, e, ~etlan,' "cI_ass, essDleriiperformed'
. '. . '...' ...- . -,. . .-.-'.-. .. '- .........-. - '.' '," '.;" '.- .- c.. '.. " , _.;., ',' . "", .'._ _..... . _. . _. ,,: . _ ..f
by VickiReynoldS.,(the ,project M'ODSor;.swetlands sPet;Uilist):and ,the"peer;xevie~ ;~ormedby the
'.EIR biologist. :Refer to:MtlSter.RBspoRse:Z.j~8'_on ivetlandS:for~update(LiDfor;,,~tio~. oil';Crification of
cW~dS1>Y!9Co/PsaDli~o:eo~~~sOn~,~",!lItt~~~i'iiui::~.. .. .
Re~ponse29.B .,.,'The)998J)SEI1tfocuses',:PrlillarAyon,the,;significant'iIiwac~e;pectedfrom
. ..impleInentiJ)gthe;Pr9jeCL:Ho~evei.jt~oassdsse~-Somepo~ritit1lly.signifiC8A~;effects.~hich, upon
'evah.iatiori;' werefounB to iesiaItm less:i:han-slgnmeant impactS' (3.3 Less- Than-SJ,gnifica1u,lmpacts).
,In addition, the 1998, DSEIR analyzes direct, indirect, ,short-term, and "long-term'impacts. 'The
numbered.impacts. (4.1-}throggh. 4:~9:"~) are~e.pr9ject'sdirect.inlpacts., Itsindirectiny>acts relate .to
.unintended ,.' .secondary,effects "of. ~,mitigatin,g ,.,;significant "..', (direct) ,}IllPacts., '., ..and. . subsections on
Significance After Mitigation, discuss .Suchindirect-inlpacts.\Vhererelevant. 'Short.,term.effects 'occur
durin,gconstruction.and include'aiL.qua1i1:y~Pac:L4.5-1),andnoise.(Impact4.6-l).Long_term
impacts can 'inc1udethosedurlng :the- "life"ofdeveloPment.(suchasJoss"damage, or destruction of
environmental resources) or, those projected for a reasonably foreseeable time horizon (such as
_ cumulativetraffic~pactsJorthe years 2010 and 202Q).
'-'. - ---,,"- ":':'-,,; ,,,:,-,~-.- ..,....<;.. ". -<'-~,';:;,'~;:':::-:-:,'.~":J;.-;-.. ';' .:,,;.-- "..._.,~:..,' ';__ ',..,.","
Response 29. 1 o Thel'roject' sfina!. ,grading,P~.fw011ld_~determinetl;te total amount and.Iocationof
HCP Jandultimately ,dedicated to "the San ,Bruno/1vIountain~oun~,Park. ,.'The..,pr()ject,:_sponsor's
consultants were m .the'ProCessof'refining,:proposeai~~cling : and geotechnical mitigation measures
dtIIin,g the time:the 1998 ,DSEIR and 199p:FSEIR werebeing;p~pared.Mter~,the.,sponsor finalizes
.those plans,inclridirigmcmporation of relevant .(~r e,qui"alent) 1999 FSEIR ,IDitigatio~measures, the
actua1location of the HCP fence and the amount of land added to the HCP can be identified. The
.' DSEIRp~ge70 lists the 10catiopof.the,lJCJ:.fe~ce ~_ionetQP~~theiH CP'monitoringconsultant / Plan
Operator will address . inreviewi,J;l,g,~~.,project-for;~!PPliance with.,the'HCPfortheU.S . Fish and
WildlifeService(USFWS). .'.. ,
Response 29.11 TerrabayPlIaseTI aIJ.d m-pr6ject,do~~}:l9tr,equire-an amendmentof,the.HCP.The
,Ref. provides for development', onth~. ~~e,n;lUl~.In :si~s'IlDdJor~vie\VoLspecti.i'?ipfQjects when
,,1iltirriatelyproposedthere 'for coi1;1plimice_ .with,the;HCP.. '.Couy,lliincer;ports'ffiUstjdentif.y',the final
.':locatioll'of the HCPfence, the,jioject' s 1'f?posed reStomtiop.,plati;and,re~~vaIit.c:C~R~ections (such
. as those related ,to;pesticide-use).~'TheJ998_DSEIR.jdentifies,the, ,needJorsuch .irev,iewin 2.5
Administrative Actions. . Footnote 76~'(SEIRPage62~the.p~geanoiedby this commentj,refers readers
. to the .,subsection onadministrative.actions., 'The IootDQte states that u[p ]ermits ,and appr()vals required
by other agencies are identified at the end of this '7hapter(see24AdministrativeActions)':.
Letter 29-3
"'R~fer;toMdsi~r'ReiPiIffs~'7.3;'-9 tin kmp~'silve~p~ffora;d~tailea':@~ori'()ltbis\'sP~ies. the
.provisions.and ~y~i>t: the"HCP"in:addiessingpotential impaetS{)Il this ..SpeCies; and need for.an
. ."..amendment'tothe;Secfion~10{a)penffittO,1lddtheciilfu>pesily~ot:aSaJisted.species;':Amending the
" "'Section'!l ()(ar'1)eni#t~pPears.to'be'<blrgely'a>JliocCduralreqtiirement andsh011ldnotresult in, any
"additionw'reqwremen(c)f the\lanaQWii~V"dev~loper~':':''Miti.ga~oii~.Mea8Ufi4j:'i,wa5'"structured' ,to
',reqUirethai'the'prOJect~oe~~re'designea'to''iavord'all''IatVID:lloSi:phUifSofthe"c3nippe'silverspot if, an
amended ;1ri6identM.take<pemnf "isnbt':t5btaiJied " prior 'i:opr()1~t' 'hDplement8tton. ;'wl.th 'additional
measures recommended tominimi7p' potential impacts onthi$ ~pecies. ,CoD:lplete avoidance of all
larv81host1>1ants;isnot;c~riSidered necessary t(r111llyIIliti~ate,po~ntialimpai:ts. OIicaIljppe, silverspot
,;'butisa'teClmiciil:'reqwremeiiFif,'for 'so~'ieason,the, incidental tB.ke ,pemnt 'is~oi amended, to include
',.'the caIli,ppe:,.,.:,.-,,-,,,:,,,..ti.),' ,'. - ."": n:<C:'!L""'''':'''CC:''.:, .;"..", ':".. ,":~~" " ", , ~::,::j',t.".. '. '.' ..' ,.."",
~Response29.'12',The'CitYwouid not charige'its est8.bliShedlilmmng processifora single project and
does not contemPlate doing ',' so for'the"Terrabay .Phase)nandmpx:oj~t..:The reVised text of the
Spedfic'PlanAmendment Ultimately mustconformWithCityprocedures.'Thereferenced 1998 DSEIR
discussion waS presented toacla1owledge:lhis reqUirement. 'The'Cityis lead agency for preparing and
certifY~gthe;SEIR and ;isres~o.nSiblefor m8kfugany' modifica.tionstothetext. . '
Response 29.13 The air quality analysis prepared' on the projectfortbe 1998 DSEIRevaIuated both
short-and long-term air quality impacts. ,Short-term construction impac:ts on airqualio/ were found to
bepotentially'significant:~but:tnitigable(Iny)act4:5~1).' ,'Short-and long-term impacts on local air
:qualitywere'found tobe~less~than-sigDificant'(Impac:t4S.2).'Long-tern:linwacts on .~gional air
::qualitywere'found ~to :be.-;~Si~caDt'''81ld~tigable, ,as'is\tllt:: "case ,'with most large, development
projects:in'theBay "Are8.~(Jn:Ipact;4;5':3);'.:This' -is, 'consistent ,with.the":reg'ion"s ."current. '.air'quality
'attainmen6statUs -;.nonatt.3inmenHor'ozone'(a-regionaI pollutant}andatt3inineritforcarbon' monoxide '
:'(alo~aI"""_",.,','.mr".'.~"".,',,.',",p. ."cill.",.,'".,."",."u,.,.',."";,tan,'"..,,.,','.'",."",."t,.,)"'...".,."".,.,.'.',:"",.".,,,,'.',,',', :,'"",...,.,.".,'._,' ,',':",','.",':".", ',',',' .',','.."'.,,',, "':'.'" , . ,,', ..' ~"c. J" ,.,...,-', ',.,..,. ,,' .' '
. . .... ._~ .. :. _~-... _ _ _ _ ''c.''_-'. -.~ ;_.,':,::-.:':gi?;~.r(-L::;.-r:'I.' ~,:~-~:~~~"~;',.:--:-~>.:~<)<~,'{:.
:ReSPOnSe;~:14~e"998'IJSEIR.'(DSmR.Ptlge.158)',liCkDO"'1~ges:cori~"'ab~utthe'. potential
short-termimpact\df dust:;geneiatioil.on''larvaT 'ana :'adrilt'butterflies/'andMitigatloIl.MeaSure 4.3-2
:includes'aprovision:to'1mPlelIlent :appropriate~dustcontrolmeasures.2The 1998}DSEIR also identified
"measures to' reduce.VisiDled11stclouas':fromextendingc~yond,constr1lction :sites (Mitigation Measure
4.5-1 ) and toreduce'pai1iCliIate:eIriissioos"(Mitigation' MeaSure 45=3). . 'Other 'development in the
vicinityof the site maY contribute to a cumulativeincn~aseintheamo\1Dt ofdustparticu1atematter
'foUnd on.th.e' mountainailcl::Sun"otfudiIlg <areliS,:a1tlioqg1Jil1edistarice 'between.the"Terriibay site and
{)ther'1argeprojects(sucI111Saevelop~ti:iDderivay'on,the'.lloIth~friijge).and "p~yai1ing westerly
,wiridsHn' ;theareamost ,likely'.woilld'm3ke"-anYCumulative:conn:ibution .n~gligible:'TheJong-term
effectSof'on-:goiIlgdiStui"bance~soCiated 'Withthe'quariy openitioii 'in Brisbane and dust generated by
thisfaeility may'be,ofgreater,concern'to the lJSFWS and other agencies.
.:.l"" , . ~ '.' ~"'.- - ,.- .,.'. . - .;: ';".' . ".. ~ ". -' ,. '..- . '. . - -. . ."
/-'
. . ,':. . .:.'-;'",:""_ '. - - ~.:-,:"__'>_ :'_ :_.;, ,.,._;' _<:"- ." ;"': c" .
'Responsff29.'15 . The ',1998:.DSEIRdefinei'wetlands'an:doescnbes.'JuiisdiCrlon8I'babitat on the ,site
., (DSEIRpage'S!1.'52:'153). '~It,i1so ;discusses'''the', prellminaI)"wetlancldelineation, .conducted for ,the
project .sponsor by Vicki Reynolds and the peer review conducted 'by:thecEIR biologist during the
1998 DSEIR!s ~paration.'W etlands .indicate~on Exhibit>4.3:-1, mapped by .botb,the .project
sponsor' s,'and:I'EIR'Diol()gistS~ ~appearea .to'nieetthe 'defuUtion'used;by"the :'U .S. .,~y.Corps of
'tEngmeers"(c:oJ:Ps):"~e':exumt';ofjurisdictioniIwetlandS on'the'Si~'uwaS 'reviewed;by :,the'.Corps, as
:discUssedin 'the "Miister1fle.qollse 7.3-'8 on' wethulds.:l(iS'llotclear' W~y' tii~: commentor'believesthe
. 1998 DSEIR 'reference'.;to~e:v~rificatiori.:Proces~, all ;DSEIR:page:154"sUnimari1ydiSlnisSed" the
importance 'of wetlands" and'~p8rlan'h~})i~t:on thesite,,:The' J998'l>~E!~ indicates the J~portance of
these 'habitit~types't1iroug1:u)ui'ihe ~biology'andother'Sectionsu oftbe -report, and the discussion of
:biologicw:impactsJDSEIRpage160)conc1udes that'the'loss ofjurisdictionaI 'Yetland habitat would be
a significant' impactor.the project i'eq\iiring iriitigation. ' ' , ., , .
i.-,_
Letter 29-4
,Respo!Jse,29.,1,6:The.commentor'.Siconcemsabout ,the, "potential !impacts <of;the. project-on callippe
silverspot butterfly,arenoted.The 1998 DSEIRprov.idesbackgroundinformationDntheiStatus, habitat
characteristics, and distribution of this and other species of concern (DSEIR pages 150-151) and
;assesses,the, potential.impacts ,:of;,the"project;.(DSEIR.;page.158).);!fhe ,'comment ,does ,:not raise new
information:or.conclusions ,.differentth8!l;~~S~.1p~~n~in.'.the ,'1998;'DSEIR, ,As :,the1998 DSEIR
' .""conCludes,.(DSEIR .page; .158).:.the;;potential','l:iirect~i~4{'!n~t4mpacts"ofthe IPl"9ject would be
',considered ~gnificant;underLCEQA.',;~yeise,effects:W9uld in<:luOelloss;oflarval'hostplantsarid adult
,foodplants,tdust 'gerierated~l;ly ;.constructionactjvities..and:POssibly,~:the'take ..iofiindividual.butterflies.
The, commentoT is'correct.:inmoting ;thatsaIvage:and :traDsplanLeffortsrecommended,in Mitigation
<Measure4.3;;2::w:ould "require'considerationofindividual ;oharacteristics.ofeachplantspecies and their
'suitability fDruse.in restoration. Refer to the Master Response 7.3'"9;on'~ca1lippe\'silverspot for
additional information on the status of the amendment application to allow for incidental take as part
i'ofthe;HCe. .
Response.29.,17 The'1998DSEIR (DSEIR pages ~149.;,152)provides;a detailed Jdiscussion of the
,potentialfor:occurrence ofspecial..statusspecies ;on,the.site, ,including'butterfly species,of concern. As
'mdicated,on:DSEIR;ipage151, ,the ;recenLendangeredcStatus'ofthe,callippe'silverspot raises concerns
: about : the,;potentiaLampactsiof.the ,'proposed project .:onthis'subspeciesandtheadequacy of HCP
. provisions to.address;habitatJoss. ,On theother.hand,the.status, of mission blue' has not changed since
completion ,of the 1996SEIR,:cancLtheprovisions >'of' the HCP,andpreviousEIRwereconsidered
adequate_ID.addressing:"this :species..Attemptsto.obtain,input ;:fI'om'the USFWSduringpreparation of
the 1998.JiJSEIR,were cunsuccessfuL'Commentsreceived : from the ,USFWS '(Iietter1.2) focus on
compliance with the landowner /developer obligationsdefmed in theHCPand avoiding larval host
~'Plants,of the' c8.llippe'sil;verspot which is'IeCommende(hbyMitigation Measure 4.3-2.
'-;';Be;PDnse29.,1BThe'commentaddresses1hemerits . of(th~ . project, not its ,environmental impacts.
: Environmental. doeuments , address " significant ,0r;potentiallyi'Significant,,'adv:erse',impacts~on physical
,:>;conditions ..wbich~existdni:the ...area:.affected "",by,::.the' ':proposed :,;project, ,)not ;' 'soeial',:oreconomic
. "',iConsequencesunless there.is:a:direct~physicaLconnection .as:aresult:of social'oreconomic,effects. The
;'~icommentdoesnot -;providesubstantial:evidence.makiIJ,gcsuch .: a:directphysical,connection. 'No
::~'additional. response is required.
Response 29.19 The 1998 DSEIR discusses the proposed Restoration Plan and its provisions for
control 'oLinvasivespecies:.:(DSEIR.p4-ges156-157)L:,:This,includes:an ",acknowledgement "that control
. measures ,.may,dnclude;applicationoLherbicides',whiChwould:be:"reviewed ,carefully' ':by . the HCP
monitoring consultant-! Plan Dperator.
Response 29.20 The 1998,DSEIR..discussedAreaRon'.the,Phase I site to provide example of the
increasedarea,for..landslide.mitigation,:asisomething: w.hichdid;happen .andcould;happen ,'again during
Phase n and mgrading. In, that instance, the area ,of,potential;~pair forLandslide.R, was,reCognized,
and the RCP fence was located above the area of potential disturbance. The same was true in the Area
C andD ,Landslides.,,:.dNO ,..gradiIlgrtook:place rabov:e,the.iHCPJine,:during. the~mitigation of these
..,recognizedlandslides.,.,.-:Similarly,'iheareas,of,known..limdsliding ,have ibeen' identified ',on!the Phase'TI
andm ,sites, ;and;the:;HCP Jence;:has;beenJocated~to anticipate ;the landslidenntigation. ',As 'stated in
iResponse13.23 "it-is' noLfeasible'to,develop, the Commons 'neighborhood as presently proposed and
,notcreate;the.JpotentialJorsignificantregrading,.:including ;above : the HCP.fence. "Therefore, 'the
.<currentplans . need to'be modified,
See Responses .21.14 and13.22,respectively "regarding ',rock 'slopes and .'retaining walls. The
commentor; also is referred ,to ,the fullidiscussion of,theseimpacts;in ,the ,,1998,DSEIR :text which
' .. . "', "'. .. .
Letter 29-5
. . '" . ...-
'providescontextfor';the;determination .(jfimpactaDd identmcationtof 'II1itigatiol.l ~'nieaSUres '(DSEIR
'~Ptlges 122..d23;and:i17dd9,-rrespectively).' <:./' ,,' '"."",.".:. " "
;'. ':~ ~;, .:t'/~~::'::. ?::. "',>::"..\' ~'~~::... ~~~.,:,.~.',.:. ~~. ~:..-~',:~::. , . :, .''>:~~\,; ~~~<:.:~,>'~'.~:. ::(. ~ ,. ." ~ .
, ' . ., .
~The EIR','geologist doesnot-agree.thatthe'analyses;are:famtYcandcthelmitigation measures un8.ttainable.
Theiperformanee;historyof:Phasel ,gr3ding.8ftei:seveIa1 ;Sign;ficant~Winter:$easoris'Clearly'shows 'that
.',the,design criteria!use(hwere~appf()priate,,":T.he.'Phase ,I slopes 'WeresUbjecte(i,:to:,the~saine 'BI Niiio
. '. .' ".,' ": ,.",':"" .' .-....'...l.:..:.;.~.-,,'.'<~.-,...._......--...--~... --.."..-.,:..,'t:.:'''''~''.--r'''''''''''' .
:<'season:~as:the;NortheastiRidgeprojecLcThe 1997"~I998'El.'NiiioocStorms:ciiliSed some mirior slipouts,in
theIPhasei! ,development:whichdidnotimpaefaily::homes :or'streets.The debris flows ',which occurred
'were.alt.contained,within.;the'PhaseTsite debris 'basins (see Response.21.1Z)randthe'temporaryPhase
.,nand,m:siteSiltation;baSins. ;;mhemliti~tion mea.sures.jdentifiedfor :Rhases 'ffiand:ID ,"are simi1arto
,'.,':,those:used m;Phasel.
.'" " .>., .:~}:'.":" '!:'."! ", ".,~..: ','
~
"
,I
i-
I
1-"
.~
I...
t
,--
. Response 29.21 The 1998 DSEIR addresses cumulative. traffic, air quality, andptlblic:service (police -
and school) impacts for three time horizons - years 2000 and 2010 for the Terrahay Phase IT and ill
.project :and';year 2020 for, the'boOkramps'prciject. Other,anaIysestook cumulative ,conditions into
,account ,.in, determining ,the <significance' of:impactjdeniifiedas 'a'result<of:implementingthe project
,(such "as ,on ; archaeological :1lIld:biological'resources)..2.4 iCumulative''Develop11UJntidentifies the
assumptions 'used for ,the.DSEIRanalyses,including'developmentboth,east'and 'west of U.S. 101 in
"the 'City of ;Sou~'SanF.ranciscoJlDdiin~Brisbane.iIn 'addition 'lo;the:topical, analyses presented in
Chapter;4.0,the1998-,DSEIR.\s-;conclusions "are:summarized, in,'6.7Cum.uJative;lmpacts.Issues
. addressed there . include "traffic ,and circulation (DSEIR page334),air;.quali~i(DSEIR :pages ,334-335),
. public services (DSEIRpQge335), ,and biologicaland;archaeologicalresourcesi(DSEIR page 335).
,..".':,"o'r',::<';', .
;.., ~ ":,, ...."'.,,..".,.-......;
The HOP :consultantI.PJan:0perator:is"re$ponsible Jor,reviewing \ the !projeces;compliance, With the
HCP, and the USFWSultimatelymust determine compliance. Doing so is a separate action from City
'consideratioD".oftheadequacy,-of!the1999FEIR-anddts certification:aS couwlete;;.as;indicated in 2.5
,',AdmiiUstrative"Adions;(DSEIR:'pages.68-70).F'1IDhe'PJan"iOperator,r(Thomas:'Reid 'Associates) and
USFWS,'may,use,.,the J,999FEIR;to'.make their"deCisions. ;iUntiltheirrespective'reViewsare complete
',;and;a,determinationdsmade;there:presently;is ;notanyindication'that theprojectw.o1ild fail ,to comply
,with,,'the'HCP;and;,that, it 'w.ould :require cadditionalmitigation,;ascthis:comment;asserts.Both non-
compliance and potential . cumulative impacts fromsuch"purportedmon-,compliancewouldbe
speculative for the 1999 FEIR to assess. Also.see Response 29.11.
'. ,.. .,;;Response;29.22 ..If;complete ravOidance,', of jurisdictional !wetlands' 'is 'not'feasible,preparation of a
:detailed:wetland'mitigation ':,plan ''Would :bemecessary ,':as.called 'Jor;in)MitigationMeasure4.3-3(b).
Both avoidance .of existing wetlandsanddedication~of}additionalUandarea1tocreatein-kind
'replacement habitat would require modifIcations to the proposed approach to development. As noted
by.~the 'commentor,avoidanceof:eXisting wetlands would be :'the preferredapproa.6h' to mitigation,
although,creation;of !some replacementhabitat,appears1ikely,'given:the\unavoidable,'impacts associated
,';withthereaIignmentofBayshoreBoulevard. .
,;Response.29.23 The.MitigationMonitoringiProgram tfor:the:project 'Will consist of . an mitigation
"measures Hpresented .?m:,the/1998JJSEIR ; ana d999 , FSEIR, . will dnclude:any' still-relevant measures
contained dnthe '1982 .EIR:and J1996:SEIR, "and ',Willidentify'when 'mitigation.and I';orassociated
,.,..monitoringwould )bedeemed.complete. City:'approval;'of:the :project 'wOlild,be:contingenton
,',dmplementation :andrequired monitoring~ofwhatever'duration . (short;;. or40ng;;.tenn) , identified by'EIR
'mitigation measures or attached by the City as conditions '~of;projectapproval.ln'additiontothe
: enforcement powers retained by the City, it could require inclusion of appropriate .additional
:provisions iin;CC&Rs ,Jonthe,Phase . ill site. Because :.CC&Rs run with 'deeds';toproperty, their
; provisions would, continue lwith,'changes, in, 'ownership. -;Moreover, 'the City will have 'the .'authority 'to
.enforceCC&R provisions.
Letter 29-6
L_
~.
o-J
'-
'Response29.24.The 1998 DSEIRprovides;additiomil'infonnation 'on;the':adequacy'ottheproposed
>Restoration,Plan ,on DSEIR. pages 156i.o'157. Although 'salvage ,'. and transplanting efforts must be
,performedcarefu1lyandtimed :to' ensureoptimunrcrinditions"for. survival,'ifis a}techIliquewhich can
1be:usedsuccessfully"as-a 'componenfin 'rev~geta~g:gradea'slopes.;\Mitigalion'Measuie4:3;'1 (b) calls
:for revisioDS'tothe'proposed Restoration Plan 'to'~indude :anadditionaI, component for seed collection
',' and:plant,' salvageandiindicatesthat OperationS'be~.p,eiformed dumgthe"optimuID.'period necessary to
;'ens-ureplant survival. iThe;:cOJDmentor's" concemSiabout,'tbi~feaSib~ty.c)f 'adequauHy' protecting and
. '"possibly ,recreating;the"peremiliil,'''spring''of1he<Phase ,m"site "arenoted,':The1998 DSEIR
'..'aclmowledges 'the difficulty, 'of-recreating" the'peremfuil'spririgi.fDSEIR page' 160 );and, for 'this reason
(MitigationiMeasure 4:3..3(a) 'speeifically'reqtiires ;the'spring to"be-preservedand 'a mirii:mum setback of
50 feet to be provided around this feature. This setback would,be provided,as,cmrently proposed by
the Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative assessed in Master RespOnSe 7.3-1.
'Response 2925 ,'Please 'see RespOnSe '13~-35~" A-Iso, the 1998DSEIR' sdescription' of the 'SignifIcance
After Mitigation 'of Mitigation';Measures 4.4-1 and-4.4-4recogriizes the speculative 'prospect of
'Obtaining;funding to provide physical improvements and indicates .that,withoutmajor reductions in
project site development (from fIve to '64 . percent :dependingon . the impact), 'project impacts would
remain significant and unavoidable.
'Response 29.26 This statement of opinion (concerning the dimensions of on-street parking spaces,
garage spaces, and driveway aprons) isnoted.
;',~
Re~ponse 29.27 The cOmment, qU9stions_ whether or not . CA.,sMa-40 ,qualifIes, for1isting on the
National Regis~rof Historic Places. 'The 1998 nS,EIR.page282.states that, the site is believed to meet
thecriteOa' 'fornoIDinationtothe' register. . TheregisteI'.is"govemed 'by the National Historic
Pre,servation,Act(NHP, ' A)..Master,R,e~p, ,onse Z.3-3;p~0..,vide~a,~~tailed., ,disc~sl,.onof,~."e!!pplicability
ofthetoNHPAtothe archaeological site. '.,'","',. ,,',.,., .", "'." ',',
l~;:,
".
,Response,2928 ."The1998,DSEIR, briefly, sUlllllllll}zes in the 11l1]J~tPx~rviewlDSEIR page 335) the
cumulative 'impacts of" aevel()pme1:it.onsensitive,bi~l()giciil~wetlana',and ,~clu1eological resources
}nitia1lyisIentified.;and~cUssed:intl1emaiI1(teJtto6the~port;(f'hiipter,.4.0). ~1'he 1998 DSEIRalso
'refer~tocumulatiye. anal,yses:froID.,the,previous ,EIRs,fort}:le,;prC?jec:tand,the~IEAprepared for the
-'San,Bruno,M(}untain HCP.iDe,velQpmen~ ;inFareaseast;and southeast;oLthe;site would have little
cumulative effect on biologica1 resources associated with the site giventhe!facLthat the U:S.' 101
corridor currently separates these'two areas. Any wetlands remaining in the area east of U.S. 101
'would'ibe;protectedby 'Federal and State '1aws;'and 4ocaI:policies ':defined;aS':part of the specific plan
. adopted 'forthe 'area. ',Contrcils on-erosion 'and'sedimentatioD"called''forincMitigation Measure 4.3-3( c)
. cshould .., mirnnii7~the'Potentia}":~ectSof:prcijectiInplement@.on'on'thecumtilative . degradation, of
'water, qualir;y ,and wildlife. habitat value 'of 'the 'Oyster'Pomt 'estuary., AsaIso ,indicated in RespOnSe
29.21, 'the ":1998 .tJSEIR identifiesthesigDificance"of impacts"m,relationtorelevant cumulative
conditions. Moreover, the pending project' simpacts ,are assessed in relation to current and expected
:future conditions'l1c:>tiPastcon~tion.s. ,
.:. ,';,.':" :.;~." ._,_ _:<:\,::-:,;'~.<. ,~,'-':: ,,-::~'_~:.-.. _. ," ',. ,_ <':."<':'~_:':".':J._ _. ..", ...._ '_, '_"_'"."'_' """~"""" ....... ......
,Response29.29Thehoo~<rampsandBayshoreBoulevardrreali,.gnment"\\,e~"identifIed in the 1982
EIR,and a99~.:S.EIR,.onthe thre~:phased-l'errabllydevelopment.i.project:as ,.part-,,-~fthe Oyster Point
Boulevardinterchangereconstnlction,a component!irif;;regiona}!itransportation.improvements to
mitigate future cumulative conditions,' particularly City of Brisbane impacts. These transportation
,improvements "also 'are"cSU.bject ,to 'an ~agreement:;between'the":Cities 'of 'Brisbane 'and 'South San
Francisco (Letter 26). "The currently proposed design'for1hese'faeilities'isOitselfan alternative to the
design"anaIyzedin 'the 1996'SEIR 'whicb\waS 'Jourid ~to'res1ilt cinsigriificant :1inavoidable ,.adverse
impacts on archaeological resources. The transportation improvement.projectevaluated in the 1998
Letter 29-7
:,..~".e~,:~,$".,~,.::r, ;,;";,.~,=t,~,,-':Z,~,.~~,,ho, ~,"i,~,un,E"eRamp,n"",~,th,.e,Lj,,~e,!,t,!,';'~e;2
/KangasFoulk,(BKE),:is doCunientin,g th~;process~ofidentif.y~g ,alternatives,andrefini,n.g,the 'pre~~ed
. altemative,:tproject'\covered:.by:,the.1998 ,DSE1R~.', ,Pre1iminary.dra~gs.',to';be,inc1uded in the F SR /
", ,,:,PR.,are no\y,~v8i1able.'f'Ihe,J5J~8.DSElR..inco.J'Porates tbe,PS~J.-p.E;lly~:re!e.re~se,(P~EI8r,page 9), and
',.the,RSRJ RRAs'on,file,and.,available,foI:'ipublic,reviewm ,'the.,City,,'~partDlent-'of.Public::W om.,For
: "thesereasons,.all 1998 DSEIR' alternatives to, the ,proposed Terrablly tprpjectasspmed,thehook n,Lmps
'..and Bayshore'BoulevMd,'as>PIl.:!posed.:for,.,exceptthe'~o ,Develop~nt'1, altematlve.{I'heJ 998 D. EIR
addresses ,these, ,transportation '!rnProyements,jn. i"the.;discussion 'of, ,AlternatillesuConsideredbut
Rejected,(DSEIR.:page3fJ~).:,:'V;.>,., d'" ',' ','.. '.
;--
~ : ./.:- .;'~ -
;'. ',' \.:;"!/,'/~'~;;-: <"< ;,'. , ,., ""'-'-;~'~';
;,")..:..f';:_":'>'
r-
EIRs ,are expected to address a range of reasonable alternatives, not all potential, alternatives.
Analyses of '.' a . ,project 'andaltematives; can ,', .coversubalternatives,or ,:variations.of . alternatives
without assessing each individllally by providillg sufficient information, to enable,readersto reach
conclusions about suchaltematives.' "
CEQA does'rio{require":an~;s~ofyariations of Eilre~dy,~oIlside~dalternat:iv~s'~h~Mthe 'variations
do not ,present any S1l:bs~tia1lydiffe~n.t~viro~~~tal, adv,antages orc1isad:vanta.ge~.,
~>. - ":,"". .l.:. ': _ _ ,,:. .>:~: ':'-_~;,~":::',.;~ '~~,,__ .~>- :_' _';."_;'~',(_ ,:;:i~"~>' _<~ ':~,""_. ,":;-":~:"',"_ __:::, ;;_ ,':'~"';: 'P, -:::' _:_' ':':',.:':i<:' ,.".',~:;"::..,,,;,< -_;<:->,~-.; _,,:,,_,,_,,~,:~ '.:. _
, , ", ' ' , " - - , - , " .
'Response2g~30 'The<"f"ofioWiIlgdi~cwlSitin'will'be"~dd~~:t~'th~':t;,zp~l 't:J1Ie,yie-";"bfthe Certified
SEIR in response to this comment."'" '.'
-<c.',.,: - :::,':'::. .:- ',-"..- .~'.'-" , -.: -: : _ '.'_:<_'; :'.: .~_~'..:;--" . ,.-..... _ ,,--,_,::.: '" , ::.,' ;,-::,;.... '_:'_:~>-.',.~....: ~'~,,'_:" -, \.-:,.:,:_,,_,_:, -...;'-'-~;,:":-:;'~ ~.,:-: f~ ,,".- .:' ""':__ ': ,-_:_-_: >>>.;
Proiecf1mrilementatibn V-i6uld .comiihe"Ph'ase' n mid ill sites to develoDmen(sucb:thatthev
, . "cotild'not'be .retuined to'-cXistiu2'Drevailinsz . conditions in ithe'future.WhilelarszeDarts'of both.
sites have"been:1iltered cSlibstanti8nvbvDrior' l!I'llClin2'and'are'in 'adegradCd condition/other Darts,
, . ,Qfthe"sitecontain'resources 'which;wouldbe'damaszed :or-destroved.The "site "sarche6lolrical, :
cultural: and historical resources &renon-renewable.lIt destrovea, 'CA~SMa.-4~and 'CA.SMa-92:
','Would,.be 10st.,.,;,:.:,;",.",('.'. ",
'.' ,--. -, .,.- -" - , -, - ,
;,Noothernon..renewable .resourcesare mesenton tbesite ,which ,:would:.beJostdue.toDroiect
!implementation and which future ,2enerations could not reverse. However, the, oroiect also would
renresent both short- and lonsz term commitments Of nonrenewable enern resources to build and:
maintain site developmenUshort-term) and for trarisportationto and from the sitd}onsz-term). No'
..8SJ'CCtsofthe MOject would result in consumption of enen!v resources, aisnroporiionate to. other
" sinrllardeveloDment.':- ,;,,, ..." " ' . ': " '
-,,;,.:'>:;:::'T....'
.,~::-:..;~ ~;.:::':, )> .r~ ~'..' --_.~_'/$~{.:}::;-~!~:-. .
;The . HCP,~wasformi.ilated ~,and ...in::1plemented;to iprotectthe;biological.resources,referredtobythis
comment, as discussed in :response::to;other .commentsthrollghoutthisdocument.Theincidental take
ipennitacknowledges :that '.8i~develc:>pmentpotentially"could,affectthese':Species.but ,allows ,such
Lettcr29-8
individual losses as part of the overall preservation process for, San Bruno Mountain and the species it
supports.
EIRshave not been required to assess' the "relationship between local short-term uses and long-term
,productivity" since October 1994 when this provision .of Public Resources Code Section 21100 was
deleted. .
Response 29.31 The comment expresses a preference iorPhase n and m site alternatives assessed in
the 1998DSEIR, and inclusion in the 1999 FSEIR will make the commentor's views available to City
decision-makers.
. Lettr:r 29-9
~j .
u..W.OFFICE OF
:,Charles.,M. ,'Miller
.;,:~i:::.__/':~._"_ , ' , ,;:~'"_' ~';~...";~: :~-'-':,,". :.'-/,,;..j' '~..;:'_:"
.,',. '225,:Bush,Suecit'~:.'i6tliFloOr
san :F~ciscO: CA.,?4104
Tdcrp~onc:(41S1439-8357,', ',"
FacSiinilc: (4l5) 439';8358 .".
"LE.T1;ER3Q
Mr...,Ji:alHarm.sh
Pl~nningDivision
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711
Soutli San'...Franci.sco,CA -94083
'RE: "~SOH'DRAF'1' SUPPLEMER'!'.AL'ENVIRONMEN'l'AL IMPACT
'REPORT/TERRABAYPBASE lIARD III.
\'RE C.EI VE 0
;' ,,::/'~',;";',~.:::.'.~.::.'; - :-':':-')';<'- ~
. , ,
.AUG 17 -:1998
:,pLANNING
Dear Mr . Harnish :
We arepleasedto'stibinitthefoIloWinq'comments on the
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report/Terrabay Phase II
and III.l("Draft:'EIR"). './Thesecommentsare'stibmittedby the
:Paj aro' 'Va:lley'Ohlone ,InMan '\Council'( '~Oh.lone "Council") ,and San
Bruno Mountain Watch ( "Mountain Watch") (hereinafter
collectively, referred to as "Commentators".). 1 ~hese comments
:are,..limited,i1to,the:cu1.tural" .and'M'storicipreservation issues
s:raised.by/tbe,."propos:edproject.2 ' '".
TheOhloneCouncil was fOJ:med in ,1985, and represents 350
pepple.of/Ohlon~:;desgen:t:';";Mr .2.atric::j(:Oro;co.:,i.s ~he headman of
the. pajaro" Vall~Y,'Ohlone Indiansand'"chairmali:.oftheOhlone
,:Council.o( ,(See,Exhibi t.No .1attac;hed,'~CommentsbyPatrick
Orozco of.thePaj aroValley OhloneIndi.an Council regarding the
~ . In submi ttinqthesecomments the Ohlone "Counciland:Mountain Watch adopt
andinco.rporate "herein:;byreference',allother. comments':'submi ttedbythe
public, except those':o'fthe "proposeddeveloper,'SUnchase G.A.Califo:cnia I,
Inc.,{("SunChase"'l ,andany.ather ,:person,or ''E!nti ty,s'\J.pport'inq theproj ect as
described in any way in the Draft EIR,'.or:presented"'by :SunChase as a modified
proj ect plan subsequent to the publication of the Draft EIR.
.% "''l'he;tennprojeCt,''a.s'usedthroughout 1:b.J.scaiDment"re'fers .to the Terrabay
,Phase II ,and III propOsed deve"lopment."'c,
3 Although a description of the Chlone Council i.s provi.ded, no description of
'Mountain Watch is provided as it is believed that the City'of South San
Francisco ("City"') isalreadyfamil.iarNith lkluntainWatchandno description
. " " "-,"., ''-,.' ----....-:.-.." ," ':_" ".. ,'.""" ---:'",:"' ,". . ----",,"
:is neces'sary. '
· ,A headman in tracli:t:ional."Ohl.one:cul.ture :i'ssamewhat<,simil.ar :to'the'position
of ,Chi.efin other tribal traditions.
Pagel
08/14/98
- , '.d
'. .i.", .C; .<' " ,,'
,;':.~> i_~.:~.~:.'~:.~';: ..:-:_,';:;.... ~;..:...i:1ji}-: 1 ;;~;~~Yt.'K'~:'.~~,~f;t;~::'.r:~: . . ..
San Bruno Mounta.inShellmound,,),..:'BecauseMr . Orozco is a direct
.,. .. '::",~' , ',- ',' - - ,:': ~... ,." .': . .'!~~.:" '-' -, .
Ohlonedescendent he'j.'s:,partlc:ularly.qualif.iedto comment on the
pro) ect' ssignif.icant".';~acts;':~ori\'thesan BrunoOhlone Shellmound
(OhloneShellmound"J.locat'ea:Wi:th1ntheproj ect's 'Phase III .
. . - --.- ;~:;- L/.;. .:.\':-", ':'~ _: .:~'.'~~".. :L',.: :'_': ~~;.i .~:-~<::~:<'-/:/, I.. ,. - ..
'. >:-:, _?-7':.;' .,,~~ .~; -~:-~""j..:;:"!.:..-:'-~:,~ ,.*t-:' :.,
. " Itisapparent1:liat:~he \Cit:yhasexpendedsignifican~_time
:and'effortin preparation :of 'the DraftEIR.~Nonethe~ess;1:he.
Draft EIRis deficient in several significant ,re~pects ~:. .As
discussed more :fuJ.lybelow, . the Draft EIR fails "in;'':the' <foliowing
rfi!.$I>ects.: '~~,. .. ""'\i',,";i
"
i
I
!
-:,_':.'-:. ',~ "'"'.,".jr.;.: -.-,"'-', .
. fails to provide a definite ,project description ,so
that the project's impacts can ,be ciearlyunderstood
,and ".e'Valuat:edf/,a~:,requirecl.;un4er,t~~,},California
Environmental Policy Act ,,( "CE.OA~'-)<,,( Pub.lic.Resources
,CodeS21000etseq.) ;" " ," " ' '"
. fails to evaluate the project's impact on historic
'.J:'esourcesas, ,:required under CECA;
.,:.fai1.sto eva1.uat;e the;cumu1.ativeimpactsofthe
,>~proj ect .;OntheOhlon~,;Shellmound.asre.guiredunder
" (iCEOA;
.'fai~s "rto ,~propose~,;mi ti,gat'ions \that'Woul;d~educe .:the
project 'simpactson.~,the .!Oh:1one';',Shel:1:Dioundto ,1es s
than 'significant >leve1s asrequiredunderCEQA;
.. .:'j-,~,:..:~,;'-
':'fails:'tocons l.derWhether .;the.'>~'Oh1.one;She11:inOund 'is
eligib1.e ':for<'ilisting:on".,the'''Ca1.iforni-a'' Register of
;'Hi:storic<Res'ources,i(Pul:)lic~ResourcesCodeiS5024 .1
.~an.a::,:~~4-;~CCEt-;"S'.,~4'8':51J-';: ;. '-"";.;\:-~."" . --
'.'.:..,,'I'fafls,1:9j);:9'Vide'i;;Ior,,9~i'ianCe.\o1ith_':the')iational
, " : HistoriC Preservation. ,Act <:,( '~BHPA"..) 'p( 16.":0 .S..C..'S4 7 Of
-" , .. ~'- '-.-- :'., ,-. _.. : "", ' .' ,- . ''',' .'.. - ' - -. , . , ' . ,;'.,..~..: ---
1et,.,seg.) _, ..,and;related .iederallaws, ,regulations and
Jexecutive';)orders; .~:and
.-,-'
'-.
. ;f;ai1s;to.;,-prov~de . for cODlpliance with.the,Bational
Envi.ronmental Polic;:yAct.('~NEPA~';;) 142m. S.C.:S::'4321
et seg.).
Thesedeficierici.e~~l:e 'of ":suCha'siC]riificari6e ;' .s() ...as~.to
rendertheDraftEIR ;comp1etely deficieIit.TheDraftEIRmust
,therefore ,be..completely ,rewritten.'The',rewritinq .'of~the~'Draft
Paqe2
08/14/98
l,
'EIRmust 'be done:inful1compliance witha1lapplicab1efedera1
andstate".l.aws :,;and:regu1:ations~,;':-~It~i:sf.~ommentator' s position,
that.. ,once::this ,,:is.~idoned:.t :in1l.. :became;:readJ..J..-yvapparent .tha tt:h.
pr~j~t:7'.Il~ul.~ ;.,n~1:,;;~.,bui1:t.
,.-: .,:, :"',,:.' ~:',':. :-'>;..~.:,~;' - "'~:_~:~~.:..;~:::'<~h.~,~~j}:?:.:7:i~..:~:':.;::~: - :.~:t~:..;~:_~.-- '~.:.;):'~.:(.~;~:~.~; .'~,.
':P",;;[,.:'~ISICBfZI',ICARCE!.OF',TBE\OHLOlm,SBBLLII:XJRD
30.1
'~<,.";':'/~'~'.': :~:): ;'.:-:.;' -;./';',.[;:.,,:,:,{.:-:':/i?~' .:", ~~~v~~ _'. '," :~~~. _: .' ...~~~.~~-~, > ~ ._~~~y_ \ -:~ ,~~ .,::,:J.,~~:.:..
'Thereds>no,,,dJ:sput,e,:i:that . the TOhlone ,:She!1.mound',d:'sa
significant cul tura1:Eand;:historica~;;sate,.:'.'Nonetheless it will
be useful tobriefl.ydiscuss that significance prior to turning
the Draft Em'sdefici-encie's,.
:Thehis:toricsi'gni'ficance ::tof;;the,i;Ohlone;';SheIblound is
dramati.ca1:ly:pres'ented ':in .'~the . "~~JPreJ.:im1nary.-'f.:Report \:of
Archeo:1ogicalInvest:.i,gations"atthe$an iBrunoiHountain ;Mound,
SiteCA-SMa-40,SouthSanFrancisco,California ("Preliminary
Report ''.J ,,-:}by :~Ho1man~ &~~m so:cia.tes---::{ DeceD:1ber.::198:9):=- --
-'
B'y-virtue?:of :beinq,theoldest;;occupiedc'site yet
:found on 'the:;Peninsula-~,the'.initia1";arr.i\Val,:of
',',people:,in'the:Bay,Reqion 0:be'ing,an~important
prehistoric ,'event-:'0and,~by;;contain:ing':;;evidence';of
:changes in:stibsistence ,:?st:rategy;and 'styli:'Stic
chanq,es:.>,overl,time.;proba.b1y ,;relatedtt:o~'the
repl'aceDU!nt ;:o,f :~the:'~,l:der ""H()kans,;by;the~more:recent
,iPenutians ,;",another,GEnportant,~historic' ,.,event""..and by
, ,containinga?;IVler.y):.ong,,:;cu1.tux,a1.;.tSequence",'COJDparable
--- .. -.,. cc-;-::to~,~othe:r::-;cs"i'bes:1a-cro ss~:,:the,,<st:at:e;r-::-Sma"" 4~Of---:i.S <'cr'7c;;:~'--" --'----
. as so ciated ',.~w.i.th..Jvi:rt.ualJ.;'y",.,aIl\iof'':SantFranci:'Sco >Bay
Region prehistory. "Fina:I1y:;:the~,d.i;'s:covery'o'f ,a very
late prehistoric component at the site ties Sma-40
to'i'the2,periodi;io~;lcont'act]j;between~European".;and, Bati ve
cuJ.tures,an:i:mportant:historiceventinCalifornia.
(Pre1i.minaryReport,p. 83) (Emphasis added)
This his.tori:c;si,gnificanceds.l'echoed inthe::Draft EIR.
;The;.documented.i,antiquit:y,ofCA~SMa-40".based on
theraciiocarbon ..da:teJof5, 155c\years:.:B..P., {suggests
that the site maybe the "o1dest ,of its type" on the
Peninsu1a and perhaps wi. thin the ~San;FIanc.iscoBay
region. Because of ,'its long prehistoric occupation-
'{5l55 .,,~..!p,. to. ,,4 60<<lB.P. )i;ancL~:the,:factLthatjfewsuch
re]:ati.vel.y.)undi.sturbeci ,she11mound's:.:::sti:l1 iexistin
"the.Bay Area"..i.tcertainay 'is1Dne~of'the ,"~best
.available "examples~of.theshe1lmound...typesite. '
Page 3
08/14/98
'.r-
i
I
I
30.1,:";
. -' " .
, Of< ':.:"';';~~-; '::~: ,. ,:. '.~::-.'-::t'~\!-_t'~.;".''-', ,
,Archaeo~og:icaJ.~sites':-'.a.pproa~q,')the';'antiqui:ty .c. ..
~'of ','CA~SMa";:40;aores:examp1.esJ.o:f :tthe i~ol:destse,ttlement
and.economicpatternsyet .foUrid~aroimd.the;:;.Bay~':.rThe
'site is one-of the 'oJ.dest cshellmoundsonthe Bay
';>r;-tmarqm,~J.aJ;g~1y;;du~2-;,C?:d:ts":,~~~~CJ:ue'-~()~~;on, on' the
to.eofaste~psl.ope,at .the :edge'ofthe '.Bay, .which
;made'.:it"'Jiess:subj'ect:',to "b~g:0Under;coJ.l.uvial,'
~all.uvial,':;or_subaqueous,~sedi.mentation.
I
,r
-!"
-,
I.
.".-.;,.:,'.,';
,--
(Draft EIR, p. 284) (Emphasis:addedl
I
i_
'::-But',o:f,-,qr:eateS'timportant-ance d,'s..~tthecu1.tur:a~and historic
significance "'ofi;,the,,,Oh].one,:Shel.lmound:'to/,the:'Oh1.one-people
today." ;'Her,e:}Patricx "{)rozeo, offers iCOlgp,ellinq .test'imony.
Inwa:J':kinqithiiiland,<one'cans:eethatthisi's
first of all, a p1.ace of peace. In l.ookinq at the
terrain,' ':',I.;found ,,:evid.ence "of,cFC ,:fire -;cra'cked rock,
which,indicat,es ,that!there,;'was:"burning .:of,stone ,for
ea ting~or,.cook:inq .I:foundJchert Lthat~.shows.there
':was.,1IIaIlUfacturing:;of:arrow,:point's,. I .~saw:~the
,'richnes:s"'i.iof"-Dtidden.,f;,:.niih.ich .:~t;eia;s'.mle;ithat .,.there::Lare
b ' al"':a.. ','..lid.. '1.' f"'h' '1" d k
' orJ. ' S:'lL.Ut;tre.,:<\:~~ue~oo'r1.0 ,...,.t.. e.~c:.sO.1.'::1.S-;T" ar\;"
,#;that ''$.,!we're1''you,'.f.ind,/ev..i:dencer:Of:l:,occupati.ony,oI
~burJ.a.l;s ,.'i{":'The',;:fire...cradkedJ'xock,,~~y;ti'the .\;s,tre.am>tell.s
</ ;me:,!t'hat;ttheY'~twere;'!bU%'riinq'1the';st'ories "'for;~swea1:
l.odqes,.and~coo1d.nq!pl1rpOs'es 'r-;(u'sed'lfo'r';"cooJdngacorns
,:~f.or_.;..s~n'h~..'}:,,~e-.~illClqe::~w~:::most...,tl.~..i.;kely.,.,:loc~ted
'where ,'t'he:ba.~sho.reis;today. "
-
.-
..'ther.,~ar.}.:in'j1ll.Y";opi.ni:on'ihundr,eas 'of;;graws..
(Emibit 1, p.2}(Emphasis added)
~
As Iwal.ked,the 1.and, Icoul.d feel the
:.presenceof[mY]'.,ancestors"1:hat::are~bur:ied' there and
the hunciredsof graves there. In particular the
"area .between <'the .1.arqe,'and.small'~Shell.moW1d is
~ikely-;to;have'isol.atedbur:ius.
.'M;r ..;Orozco.'further''itest:ifies .tha1:'..notonlyhas'heperfoDD.ed
Ohlonerelig'ious;ceremoniles ;,at"the!Ohlone';She1.1Jnound,butthat
otherOhlon~s:have':probably:dorie.thesame'in'recen:t: years.
(Exhibi.t3 ,"Statement "iof.Patrick..Orozco"August: 1;'4,1998'")
:page 4
08/14/98
_'.'..7-.',,",.". .....'...
. '., ; . \.'" ~"'. " '. '. ,.;. . ' .-:. ~
30. 1 . The 'Oh1one)5helJmound, :;al'On9'~with;the:,:~alleY.in~ich ci t
sets,,:..and.the. 'sma1~eI,:.She~l.m.ounCl,':-':;~ch''.i;s,rabove ,the "c.Oh'lone "\ .
;:She1J.mound., <.i:s,A;'Sin:q~e' ;::sacred'iand ~rt'ant.:.Cu1turalds~t'e:;to
the':Ohl,one ;.peop1e...., ,( Id,~&l',':!nlere\;ar-e.:gra~es~,no:t'.:;on2y.::in:.'".the ':
iOh1011e:,;ShellJ.moundmut,..aJ.sodnaJ.1,!prObabiili.tY'~d.n:;the~and "iaround
' ,. , '" ,5 . ""~""""~"",~",~,.,,...,...<._..... .M",.'.'........,'.,.." .. : ., "..,...".
.. the Oh.lone :::Shell.mound .:; ::J'Id",t_:,;o;.3:nd..ed,,":Kr,f >Orozco !::has'on1y;,',:;"
.' ',-. , ...-...,......- ""'.'.-.. ...... ~. -.....'~....'..-- :...._-:."-,.-.~,."'....,,,......,._.- ..:',..-,..'- "
recently conducted a reburial ofOhloneremains :in.:~.~.,:a;ea,':near
the Shellmound.. (Id. ) , ,
. . . /~- . . ;.~-;',~ '.'::::-,,\,;
,!Eurther'ievidence;;:that..the..:va~~ey,.:around!:the';:Ohlone',,;
Shellmound".i.s",hi:stor:icaJ.lyandrcu2 tur.all;y. .;:iJqportantito'.,:..the
Ohlonepeople:i.s.Sthe ::pres:enceJo.I;;manY#P~ants.';:usedby,:the"Ohlone
people :forfoodandmedic'inal;purposes~. 'ifId. }:Mr.:.;(Orozcohas
noted.;thatinhi;swal.-ks,'o:v:er~t--hisl'anc:l"hehass'een\~plantstha t
were\usedby -m.y,peQpl~,H)suchas.hiy:tay '('soap.:.rootl,.:plantain, ta
shu 'ta,:;ya ".'Jbuckeye,).".".,wi11ow, ':cur~y 'dock and .J:Ushes..-R ,)'(Exhibit ,2)
.Based.con .,his ::.experience.,;;and,:ext:ens:i veJcnow~edqe .,2of,Ohl:one
cUltureand:histor.y, ::.Mr,.;!iOrOzco beli'evesthat...;there,:i:s,:aMgh
probability that the valley around the Ohlone,..she1.l:mound';was
also used for ceremonialpu;poses and contained a traditional
~ehJ.one:sweat1odge. ',~(Id.n '
".,.."Obvi:ously3the ,,;\Oh~one, '.:SheJ.:-lmounci", ,'and lthe ,/vall.ey:;;';:i:n' ,whiCh
' 'i:t.!~'sits" .is:::one'o'f.:Jthe, ,'1D08,t ,'~-important:::jhis:t:ori.c;:and i:cu1tural',
,'sates:i:n:;the. ;State.<o'f.,Cali'forni'a.:..As;a.t5'O,OO;y,e'&r "o~d;buri'a:l
: ;.Sd.te:,,>:the':OhJ.;oneSSheJ.;:lmound::i.s.;also:a,"SacI,ed$.ite.",to 'the;;Oh1one
peo,p1e..."",:.To cover", rdig'c.into"or;;o,therwi:sedistur.b:the>:,Oh1one
Shellmound"_'and.,, ';che'surround.:itng ,iarea 'd.n<anY::May ds ". ',de:secration to
the,>Oh1.one ,people. .;-(Id.~') In}other,.words" ':this;"area,ahoul.d"be
,left "alon..!
II. THE "...DR.Aft:.EIR 'tISIDEF'J:Cmtft':'BBCAtJSEIT ;PAILS ",:TO. '<PROVIDE
.'.., , ' .' :cA,DEFrlfIBPRO.lEC!J.':c:DESCrUP'l'I:OB;;
30.2 lCEOAGuidel.:ines6requirethattherebe,adetailedproj ect
i descri..ptionin:eY'e~,iEIR. "",(CEOAvGuideiines;::S:'1.512~~) ,;Thi's
desc:::riptioJ1'must':inc1ude~tbe'~,precise " :::loca.tion-:;'and,.boundaries of
... "--~' ,_....,'~..' ..,.';.. ....-..,...>,.,:........" ".
. 5 " The presence of graves and human remains in the Ohlone;Shell:mound is
extensively documented throughout thePre~iminaryReport.
-' ,.. .o\,<-..~: ---:" ::"'".':'.;.::.-:;~\:2.::'. ..~;-. ~-:... ~ '. ~'~~." -". -~:':(-:~-::::(""" ~';"", ;:;../-~_:,<'_~.~'::>:: ~J':'~ ':-_ ~ ,.:~""
6 'CEQA'Guidelines.'are, >'Xegul-ations;:acio.pted fbY,i,the .Secre.tary .,forResources
. ';pu.rsuant.:.to ;;authoritY~9rantedthe ,Secret~ .~:bythe'State Leqislature,inCEQA.
TheCEQA"Guidelines ,are ,to be fo~lowed<byall :,state .'and. lOcalaqenciesin
Cal:ifoDtiain the :i.mplementation,of ,:CEQA.
Page :5
08/14/98
30.2 the .proposedproject Iwhi.ch.]shal.~ be shown on .a detai~ed map,
prefei:ab~y ,t-opOgraphic~-~i.;t( CE~~del.~ries,/;2S' /1'51'24"( a),:)'" . ' ,
Cal:ifQrnia,",.courts )have~epeated1y ~lbe'l:d 'mhat,::;:','taln i,accura1:ei
.~lr. _:and.~~1Di t.e~,pJ:Ojec!:rdescri-pi.~'onjj;.'.~til. '.me:;qua~ro~: an
'i~oZIIBt:ive;land~legaJ.;J.y~-'-SDU;lci'elil:, ,'E~"i":., ,: (.See~":e,-..:q ';:./.,/County- . "Of
,byo:v.. "..C:ity<:,of ~ :Los;;JU1qeJ.:es,;f(;~91Z1J-;;11' 'CA3d~:a,85,',i1'9al~~Eqmasis
addedl.'7,;:.The :'iDraft, '.ErR ;cOJqpe'bel.Y,f:a::'i-ls ?..to,t.Jlle-et' :these: </ i ,:,;,i'"
;re-quirement.s .,. .,...-iL.'::; '. ""..;.;.. i"H;' ",.
The DraftEIR does contain,! description of,! proposed
proj ect...~-:;;fSee';'D:raft-'::'l~IR#"':P:,,'!.-";25;)":,'" However,<"jthe-IDraft'$I:Rthen
describes'ras<a,;mitigati:on':.m.e:asure?,hnitiqation "measuresi4.'!9~i(b))
"a.project, ;wh:Lch :i:s,substantia~1.y"di-fferent ,1"from':::the" descr1ption
o'fthe'pr.oposed .p.:roj ect~',,~,;(Draft ~IR ..:;~p-. . :~29:0-295") 7. It.is "
_ apparent:that ::the'mi.ti9'at.ion~;;measure ':i1s':simply <an ,:attemptto
,avoid ;CEQA's,and,theoourt";s ;"cle'ar treq1iirementfor .:a ':single
project:description. ',.AS .'" a ..'resuJ. t1t:!he,so-,cal:J.ied',mi tigat'ion
measure is not evaluated ful1yin accordance with CEQA
requiIement:s<.~'.This ,makes:..:i t,imposs:ib~ejfor'.the.~p1iblic :andthe
deci'sion-:makers:to be':fuUy and~:adequate1y:d.nfo~ed on ',the
proj.ect":!s"limpacts.,~:c, . -
. -Buttheshiftinq proj ect~descr.iptJ.ron'do.es'not7;,stop~here.
On August 11, J.998., ;SunChase:presented;even >athirdproject
desc.:r.ipt.i'on:~to ,izthe ,~S'outh -,;SanUF,ranc:iscotCi t-y:tCounci:2L,;-':i':'.rhi:s, 'third
proj,ect:,'::de-s:criptiout:d:nc:Jnided:3ddit'ionad.',xsign.i"'f:i:cant "and .trdrastic
,,:changes...1tothe';p.r02j:ect,p'l.an~:8,;\;:~~e::th.i.rd:'prog:ect';'description.no
.1onger'includes.~appmgof(:.dlE! .;()hl:one ,'~Shea'lmoun'd't'" as'~jdi.dithe ' :two
'Previ.ouspro.j,e:ct:;,de.scr~'Ptions:.~" ,:Bather !:than:.thedevelopment"o'f
.three:proposed':~commercial.';parce'l.s':onand 't'o":ithe'7uorth1iOf -,the '
:0h10ne~~She11.m.ound .( Se_e.'iDraxt,:EIR,EXhibi:t2 .'3~8a;).~the"tt;hird "
projectdescriptionprovi.des xorthe development't)'f>ai::singie
parcel north of the OhJ.oneShel.lmound. This parcel is now to be
,:\ ;:~ae\Vel:ed.~as \a,oo, ,"ra'te'~head' ',' '. . ':, er';iWi:'ti-:n:.'ukin .'S. 1
.._ ,...J2P.."~,, ,,,,:,.,,,,,~'''''_'~__'d ~....!b"...,.....P.g " 11Ilp y
put I what we.~have :'i.:s;;~a:~new~prOJect:':'ae'scr:i;ption.
":~-is -new,project.u" not 'however'. >stibj'eC'tied i,to"',.a.:JfU11EIR
analys:is, ;,as;.requi:1:ed-by,;lCEQA~ :',~.As .areslllt~ 'and-because "'the new
iproj:ect<descri.pt'ion'chas \<on1y:been'pre'seIited ..at,;ptib1'ic ,meetings
'7 The proposed Diitiqationplan-is not even cons1d.eredasanalternative to
the ,proposed 'project.. '"
':.;'i?/',',.<i:-,...:"..:.:.' .,....:...'.~.
'ApparentlySUDChase alsoaeeks to deacriJ:)ethisnew third project plan as
,mit-i;gation, ,and ,.,thereQy'~'avoid ;doinq ',a ~lT"EIR"for Jthis:"new iproj ect'>' '
deac:ription;'~'..',;Bere .:i.t.,d:a 'important ,,\tokeepin"'1Idnd<the~i:mportant:'mfference
!between :,a project<deacriptionmid',mtiqation,,"At'.ame;pointmt'iqationcan
bec::omea new project description, "and ~ntators,tsUbmittbatthat .. is
exactlywbat has occurred here.
Page 6
08114/98
30.2 'uteI:the.~u))1i.c~:ti..9Il,~o1:: ;:.the DIaft'EI~,,-:,~e,publi.c./as;"l..rell...as .
the\decisionmakers;.ar.e c~early,haD1peJ:,edi.f;:no.t"cprevented,from
effe,ctiv,' elyev~iuatiIlgand,:~commentin,g'.u.P(~mthisnew'proJ,ect ~'9
"'," . <.~ ~_.- "'_ -. .i'-I.:: .. -.- ,_. " . : .c.. '" _ ." .,... . ,,'. . ,_' .
FIcm..the '.v;i.t!~oii1~."()f.hi.~~oric;':'cmd.,.. cuJ.tura+.,xesources:",.-aJ.l~of
"the"ppt~ri.t~af:i'~~P~F.!,;.6;,;'the "p.e~proj ect\on;':~e,.mgCnie" ,.' ..',', . ,
Shellmou.ndcannot 'be "det~,~i n,ed~., ;~~!!.t"po~~nt~~oI:~,.:are.~~:~C)~",
expected to comment on exactly those iIgpcicts . 'We : doubt there
could .be ,4 mo.r~effe~ti ye, means ,of ,~r..zi~g. ,out ,public
p&r~cip.,tion'€:~~:"~9A~~~ces.s. ,."" ,', "",,,,'
. '-. '....,.
~'<':tri."'spi.fe9:..;ih~ :,I~~t":~~t "..tlier,e:i~ ,,~C):'singl.e".,cie'ar:prqj ect
descrj,p1:ion,':c:~~e~~~to#s;:~1.,endeavor,t,o-commeri1: ,on. what" ,
appear to ,be_'t~Ete ~r().:j~c:1:.descri.ptions.:Bypoing \so
Comment.ators 'i.p"nowaywaiV:~,."their.position,~.ttheEJ:R~aCks a
c1.earand detai1.ed 'project.descriptionandis theref,ore in
vio~ation of'CE~.
. .
:III . TBE DRAF'l'EIR IS DBFICIERT JD:CAUSE 7TFAILS .TO EVALUATE 'I'D
. PROJEC'l"SZMPACTSORBISTORIC :REsaJRCl:S.
30.3-
. ..' ....., , .C _, ,', . ",' ',"_' ",_,.
." . '.' <'. ..','-. "- ....,'. , '. - .....,'r..'
'It ... isas:t:oni.Jshingthat . ,the ,Draft ZEIR,conta.insu,no,evaluation
,QftheJ'rojf!ft's;.~~c'tS~o~"his,t();i.c 'resou.:1:'ce.s.. 'rilere can be no
c1earer vio1.ationofCE~. '
" . - ,. :.;,~ " ,'-' .,..;,,, . .
"~''''''. . I
,.CECA. ,requ.1.res, that aJl:BIR ,>conta:J.ll.~an' "ev:a~uat.i.on. <of the
project"s.impact~ 'on 'bothhisto;rical.,.and,ar.cheo~ogical. ','
~esources,: '~(Public,Res:ourcesu.Code';SS '~21 O"B.4:.i~cl,~1083~2J '.;The
Draft EIRcontains.an.att~tat-eva1uati,.ng,the;prQj ec.t 's,
'impacts ',on ,areheoJ.,ogica1..re~ou;ces,~"..(Draft ,,:EIR,- pp,. '276-29~J 10
However, the Draft '''EIRon1yprovidesa"s'''lmllary ,ofCEQA',s .
requirements' for eval.uation of impacts on'historicar" resources.
(Draft EIR,PP.117-118JRowher.,:,is ,there any evaluation of
iJDpactson historica.1.resources. ..
'This .fail.ure is of ,qreatsignificance . This is because
CEQA'sarcheoloqica1. resources section requires ,l.ess protection
than does the section on historical resources. (See Guide to
Ca1.ifornia Environm.enta1Qaality Act, by M.Remy, et al(SoJ.ano
Press, 1996) The result is a1.1 too obvious. Thetwopr()ject
descriptions intheDraftEIR provide for capping of theOhJ.one
- "'-'..n
9 :tndeed,atthe Au,gustl.l , 1998Ci t;yCotlIlcil. JDeetinq ;you:statedthat the
C:i.ty P~amiing'Staff ,baa stn.1.DOt hadthl!opperturdtytoreview this ,new
alternative 'and thatw it " "has' been ;ap;oblemnailin,q doNri."tbis 'alternative. "
. '~"--~'-',"'-.-;~". ',-; .-"':.. -,.....' -;:"":'\.;.,.,"'...:' _,,',..'- ",,:,,~,,_'" 0- ._," . _"'':~'_'
10 Furtber discUssion oftbeevaluation of the project~s impacts on
.archeological resources is provided below.
. Page 7
08/14/98
; 1
i
! r
, I
" . " . . - . .. "
30.3, 'Shel'~ounci., "~~m~;tte~i~.-"~~~':~'is:;~. ','a~~?y~a"~fi.~~~~~,~';:~9#':.;;t,'
;. archeo'logicaJ. ,~e:sources.';uride;"'CEQA:~ ".."lsee."PUbIic~;Res~urc~Ii,,7,C9de S
" 2J.083.'2 (b){3) r""'HoWevei,/;;:thls';":fs~'not:u f.pprovecf:iliiti..ga.1:!ion(.~or
" , ,"' ' , - "_ .,' --.,,-:..". " "-. ". " .'. ."..'.~". __ --. ,_.. ",:-:-- . ,'. ,.' - ....". _,." ..-.'- _' _, ,",--" .--, ..,.' .':c''- '.:. _""'~._" -, ,~, _ " ,', '--_; ,-.'~" '. :
'historical}~e~011rce's.:;"'~y,':1gI10x~g'the':;equi.rem~n~ ,.t9;,eV'ai'l1ate
. ,', ":,',' ",...,. ' " " . " ' ,- '" ," ".,..,'~"",,", .,~, ,~,,),", :," ," ,
the "project"s";imPact.~s"on."hi.'stor1cal.'-:r~sOp.rCes,."the'21)ra~'.-'J;~",.is
. e~~~,~~'~'F'j.n"~~~~~ii~~1~~;~~;;.;:L'J'd,4~:;:.'::.";;;~;.:,.',>. .
It""is.;conceded'1:hat :';theohiorie"~sheli:mOtind"is, ,anmstorical
resource as definedinCEQA~;j'(See'''Dra-ft "EI~, P ..34i":t"Tbe"'"
importance of "CA-SMa-4 0 "is ,undillputed,:due,:toits :,ant:iquity,
size;"':Locati:(;)n'~'.ana :content.s,' ;:i.nclu(t';'"g 'human.xemal.ns,.such;that
it ~;qualifietl' ""fo~, "inClusiori';~o~ ,,:the ';'Nat:i.orial"~Reqiste'r'o:f:'Historic
PJ.aces~'(");)::":(Pursuant . ,to ,"CEQA,:'the '":1)raft"';'EIR:mUst ,'then,.c:ontdn an
evaluation'of 'Whether'thepro'ject"simpacts Will have a
"substanti'al-,adve'rse'change .~iii;;the"';sigD.ifi~ce'",o.f'~~e',
resource. ( Public Resources CodeS 21084.1) "As'noted:above, the
si~ificanceofthe(~~~e .s.heJ.lmound is., ,its ,presence . Tothe
$an"Franc~sco ..i'Ba.y~cowmn,,,~ty'1its,,pre~enceis . ':'lJ.~.reminder ,.and
acknowledqement;,of ''thereqion's:;rich':his.tory.'' To the Ohlone
people, its presence is a link to their own history, a burial
ground for . their dead and, a!;8cr,ed.siteforthl!ir. .people todClY'
'The' Dh10ne "SheJ.1mound 'CaDnot: "besigni'ficant 'iI'it "is not '
p1:.esent~ Covering't'he',Ohlone:''Shell:D1oundis'substantial
adverse chanqein itssignifieance,.;', ....
sunchitse;';'s"tthi~ci'project--desc-:r:i~tion' 'd()es';not~~duce in any
waythis'~ubst'an1:'J.al'\adverse':ChaJ:lge\'Asnotea;,."the, :thi.rd
proj e:ct'description "ll1c1udes' ":the -cons't'ruction "of ,a 'ten-story
offieeo'bmldinqimmedi-ately'to,thecnorth 'of 'the 'Ohlone
Shellmound~u .~ "histor:ic resource's sigm.ficancecanbe'
adverselye~fected'by: ' ,
,...._ "" fi;,,;,"..:,.:.... .
C. I
:r
i--
;
L ;
.r-
,
'1.~an;a.iteration
2. isolation;
g .'altera1:ionin use ; 'or
'c' ;U.'Whether' 'the;~rd.p~oject. .d~cr:lption"'wo\lld ,als()'a11ow,acC?es~to' the
Ohlone'Shellmound ,by.way:of .pa~,.or. roadways~;whether, there.<woUld'be
'l.andscapinqof'theOhlone 'Shell:mound,or' other impacts besides the
construction ,of the. office bu.i.l~9', is ",UDlaloWIl.andt:l3.~refore ccumotbe
cQDlDlenteduponhere~' '
Page 8
08/14/98
30.3 .'
4.intzoduction"iof >,visuaJ..i'",i. audible, ,.c,or 'other
. '.:,a tmOsph~r.iC:i;"el~enta,~.whi.ch,\.,al;e ' out',of~cm.;~acter
. " . '. "."'" 12' . ' , ,
, i:WJ.th,~th~pr9~e~N."
,Only a moment of thou,ght is .r.equiredto deteJ:JDinethat
<SunChase';s:th.ird\-lprQject~;d.esc:l:4pt.ion .':wilJ..have1all . of. ...these
;:adY~i-,!,'::i~~c:ts"~i>l)#..'.'tne"ibh~-p~i:}S~I11RPi1il(C'1'~'~0:;'Tl3~';;:c~ns~ction ,of
- a"'.t.en:,s'tory.':office-buildinq"~adjaceiit-':to' 'the"'Ohlone"'ShelJ.JDound
drastieal~y-,changes -,the>'!eJtt1n.g.. ,.;Indee.d,,,,,a.5:c {,pointed 'out ,by :Mr .
.Orozco ,>the,en1;,ir~,;:yalle-y:inwhi.cl1:;,the.;Ql:I:lo~E!,._Shellmound <'.!litsd.s
acultw:al landscape connected to and apart of theOh1one
Shell.mound.. ,.Todestroy :that ,l:U1tura1.J..anciscape is to destroy
the Oh1oneShe11Jnound,.
The,third>pr~j.ect ,descriptioniwou.ld:xesult .in.the isolation
of the .:Ohlone"She11mound.' A.:ten~storY!Q:ffice.buildingwould be
bui1. t,to,its,nor'th;",ahotel,and,otherbuildin,gs would be
constructed )toits south; ,a new"roadwa-ywould.-be'bullt to its
west, and BCiyshore:wgu1d :be elevatedtQits:west.
c. ~
'The,thirci,.iproject ,-desc:r.iption i;would..-signif-i:cantly al terthe
us eof-:the';"Ohl.one :Shellmounci,., OhJ.oI:l,)'cer\emonies~at_,theOhlone
Shell.moUnd'.JIlUst ',;be .;he1d~:in"?prl:vac.:Y~:'" 'The:~~cons:truc,t'iona:round the
Ohlone. .,Shellmound,wi~~:,ce~a~y,pr~cJ.;1idei'~y";o.P~rtun.ity ,for
priv-CI,c.Y l'and,'the.reIore,<~be 'fabi~.ity;"fp:;:;~h,.E!LOhlQne ,;tQ,:continue .to
. 1- . -..., 0"._'_',', '-':' -
pract~cetheir .re .,J;;gc10I:1.."t,;:r'c:~:;",,<.\
The third project d.escription:~llld.dntroduceadverse
visual, audible elements 'whi.chareoutot' character with the
Oh1.on~>:Sh~11mound. ,<'.rhei.ncreased::-noi.~e;from"'i:traffi.candother
human:activity:will:interfere "w.ith :,if"Dotp.r;e,'vent'J'the Ohlone
peop1.e ,fromconductingtheiI;.fcereJDC?mes ,cat Jthe.\OhlODe
She~l.mound.The':,c~truction.,:of_b~~di,;ngsnear~y(.ontop of the
1%.,These . criteriaxor'1ihat-constitutes,an'efIect\oradverse.~~effect on a
significantcultura~"property..'such ...sthet()hl_o~(!I'Shell ;lfound..,',are taken from
the NBPAregulations :foundat36CE'R.~art :.BOO (See 3~CFRSBOO. 9 (b) << (c))
For severa.J.reuons it is particularly appropriate' t;o use these criteria of
effectand.adverse"effecttodetfu::mine.:xfthis"project "willxesul t in.a
subst8Iltialadverse:::~,change \to }the"historic';resource. ..~'FiI:st,' 'CEOA does not
ciefine "substantia1_adveI:s.e,~ge..,TheI:efoI:e.. 'using'the.;NHPA cri teriafor
effect.cand,adverse .effect., . "which ,.are,~clely ,acc,epted,and,ac:iqpted,provides a
reasanable':CiefiD.i.tion-:for'-substantial' adversechanqe ~ . FurtheI:.. 'the state
frequen't:~yadopts'NBPAstatutory ,andregUlatory.'criteria ,:in'it.,OWIl manaqement
. afhis tor~c,:resources.J{ See di! .,9 ..~'. 'iPUblic:ResourcesCode"S 5024~1 (c) & (d),
and~4i.CcR'S4851(a.H~)) ...., ., ,
~. ',' " to ,
13 Commentators also note':th~t1:hetwo projectdescripticms in the Draft EIR
will also have these adverse impacts on the Ohl.one Shellmound. Bowever , no
further cliscussionof these impacts is necessary because ,they are so obvious.
Page 9
08/14/98
"
!
. .... .-' -, '. .' .
Oh~one "iShe'1lmound':;1dI1" drasticU1y~~itei.~~the':~visU:alsettinq' o'f.",
"~the'iOhlone "She1.1D1ound,c~-e'ither::'7for~;'someone' '1ookingat .the Ohl.one
'Shel.lmound, or to an Ohl.one re'ligiouspiact'itioner at the Ohl.one
Shel.lmound .
. ~. i
. :.' ".,' ~,:.tf:~, -);.. f~.:-y.~/.t'.~J".I>I:}:: .,,~ ;"'c.. '.;". -
.~ ....'; '.l..:':~.~.~~.~~' ;t: :~-:7i) . ~\'; (i:~~,~t. :T;7:,"(':),.:':. :.:{:~~-- '. .F<':',~r -.;::. .:~::..'::~:.;;.>
30.4
. - . '. - . - ,. ":, -', .
. '.. . .
:, ",: ',.' "..., :.cum1i~t1.ve ":tmP'act'sla::ffi]"two(of,more. ,inC!ividu.ci'l '
effects which, whenconsidered,togetiher.,';/are':
considerable or 'which cOJQpoundor increase other
.,environmental' 'i:mpacts .\(CEQA'iQ1ide'1!i:rles'S'153S5)
Individua'l:' >e'ffects'maYibechanges ::re'sw. tinq'froma
'single "p-roject:or da"nUJDber to'f'separate "proj ects .
(.CEQA'GUi-delinesi'S d)153'5S;{ 4.') r'Thecumulative'impacts
from ;,severalproj.ectsoisthechangein "the
environment which results pfrom theinc:remental
.iDlpactiofi'the',pzoj ect '1ld1en:',;added"to<"dther~clos'ely
,re'l-atedpast,: ::'pres'ent, .and'i'~~easori:abJ:y "foreseeable
,i':mturecproj;ects.'.,CUJnrfratJ.ve'iJapacts"'Cani":reSw.t'~;f.r.om
. ,,"'~"ind11r.tduaIJ.Y~1II'~orC1buti~col~e'ctivi!'l:Y~"'S:fgriffj;cant .,.';.'..,,
" ,.,'~'proj:ecbs~;;ta'k,Ing:.place;~ovez';a;:7Per:iod.~of :xt.ime.":'('CEOA
GuidelinesS:15355(b))(Emphasis'Jidcli!d)
~t'hasn~be-en ;frU!llid''i:hat'l. ":,<~.;,.",,.,c<: ",.,
'- -, .- ~;'. ,; ... .:: ':. ~...'_.' . "- -. "~,' .
".'..,' ....-,.'.,.,.
. . . . .'
. -" . . " " . .
- ,- - - - ,- - ' .
',' 'A;CUDlliiat'ive"impactanalysfs "whicn'understates'
'ini:o:cna1:;1on"'concerninq 'the'<seye:ri tyand '.'., significance
,or' "cWm.i1ative "!iJDpact's"':imPedes'meaninQfulpUblic", '
.discuss'i.oni':ana ';skewsthe..'decis'ionmaker'sperspecti ve
concerning :the "environmentalconsequences:of,'a
"'project'i;\the'..necessd.tY~for'imitig~tion imt!asuresj"and
;th.:llppropri.tene.s'"O~l'rc)jec:tT.pproval',\ICi~ation]
:,An'inadequate ,ctJmu1.liti ve'~actanalysi's"does:not '
,'.demonstrate~,to", 'an"'apprehensi'V-~' '_cJ.tizenry,:;that..ithe
".'govexnmental,;,deci.s.ioft1n~ke:x,;;has ,;inxfact/%Ully
;analyzed .:and ",consi.dered 'tne.<envi.ronmental
.' ."conseqa~nc'es";!o'r::tts'\~ctl:ori'~".":<Ci:ti%ens'to"'pfe!serie
.the/Oj aiv;"'~BOard-'o:fSupe:rrl.sors <X1SJ,8.~)..17fi, :CAJd
..2,1, ~.4.31i,':quo~~g,,<.~San.iF.J:a.ncilScansfor;:Reasonable '
Growth v.City and County of SanFJ:ancisco('~SFRG
1")(1984151 :CA3d61,79)(Emphasis added)
Page 10
08/14/98
364 J ..'.-:J:n. .Bpi t-e~Dftheic~ea.r ';"r.equir,ementto'conB'ider.;cumu~ati ve .
· impacts,;and the importance of. sodoiDg,the 'Draft'LEIR,-contains
nocli8cussionoftheproject'scumuJ.ativeimpacts'on' she~lmounds
,in ,the:SanJ~ranc1'B,CO,:;aay:.Area ., .:':TlUs:<d.s::mo;re. :..than..,slightly,
;'8urpr.i:sing:-?a~.it-he:iDraft~IR,icontain$otl'le;fOiiowinq"iadmJ:ssion:
': '\:.,,i "j.:,:.\ "".-.
.,
, ,
'....: r
,ec,_. ,<He~rl:y;!':aI1~~'~:~~<~ppro~~~~Y;>4~:5,aa.:t;ge
'shel1mQul1d ~s;it~s,';'recorded',arotmd,ithe:Bay ::Aiea ;:earl;y
',:d;n:::,ithe:2'Ot:h icentu%:y~jhave been;ides,t:r()~:e.cL.OT'g'r~B:tly
':dmlpac't'ed .:bY''natural.~orc:e's,mui.modern\cu~tural '
acti:'Vity:.-.-:,:J1By,ia.gJ3~,.;~urhan,"'expansi.on;/had damaged.,:or
;.destrqyed ~more.,~than _'5D~ifpercent.of<,the:estimatedc,__,
,:numb.eriiOf';;archaeo;l,ogica~:;:s.ites.;~ apP'roximatel;y~,,~61S) .
:in~the .1n!ne /Bay Area,co\1nties., A very..few ',well
:known ..largeshellmounds .~surv.ived,long>,enough to 'be
part of the modern archaeological r.ecord..
d Draft.EIR,p..2 84).
,As,di.:'scus:sedabove,-each of~the three:proj-ect --descriptions
wi~lrestUt ":i.n,7sigriJ:ficant ,adverse impact's. ,on 'the'Ohlone..
:.;Shellmound, .,,~p',toJ,andinc1ucling,:i:t.s. destruet:ion.'iAs .aresul t
:ct:heregion Jand the State:wi~l.loseone ;of1:he.:fewi.,I:emaining
'~Texamples',ofi ts';indigenous,h:istory .:The.'Oh1one.,peop.l:e:willlose
even';more ;,theY'~'1willl:ose ianothex,to:f..therr,.grav'e, and:ceremonial
i:si tes,. ,YetnoWhere.:i.ntheDraf:t::EIRis"the.re."any ;:di:s.cussion of
r.the/proj ect '.s,:cum.uJ.ativ-eimpact,;on the, ,loss'of 'Dhlone
~Shellmounds,in, :\the ;;region.,'..~.,light""Of.,:the' :,pasti,destructio~of
"t:hose:mounds .or ' thei.rreasonablyforeseeab1.e .:future
clestruction ..~4
... . - .
. -;1# .n&:DRAft:BIR .,xSDUtCID'f:cBBCADSE I!':FAn.S,mPROPOSE
'MI'lIGA.'l'IORS:,TBA'l'tIOULD .~'l'BB'PRO.JBC1"SDG'.AC'1'S ,OR' 'TIlE
)OBLORBSBBLIH:iXJRDTOLBSS.'l'BAItSIGHIFlCAlr:lIMPAC'l'S
30.5
": ~-'.: -,' .'
. ....,'u'..,.. _. .
.', '-'dO "-'. ,'-
~. ',...'-.-' "";",..~., ..'.~",..,.,..-,o_: _ -'i.:" .
It is contended in the Draft 'EIR thatH.:the..data .;col1:ection
mitigations proposed .for theOhl.one Shel1m.Ound could reduce the
proj ect 's..im.pacts ,",to..:a~ess__than7'.si;gnificant.,:~e'.Vel':under.CEOA. "
{Draft. .:EI~,p,..,290 ,,&.,2.9.1,JIt.~i:s ,;uso:cs:w:;prisingly<contended in
,.'.the4)raft,:~Entthat;iprQPos-ed ,,.!ILi tigati'01'l,,;':4 ~:.9-~ (bl_:Mil.1: ,;~,e1:.;mi TUtte
conflict witJ:1iNativeAmerican ,concernsforiancestral::cUltural
d~posit, 25..,' and,;})~ia1s_,[and,.. 'is. J..the,:,eny.ironmen, :tallY~7Su..perior
. '..
. .
:1CThe leaclaqenCY1llUStuse .~Iea.sonable ~e~,forts, "to .discover, . disclose, .And
discuss'" related past,:present,"andfuture' .pro) ects. '-(CEQAGuidelinesS
~S130 )'Bere, the lead aqencyappears to have expended no effort at all.
Page 11
08/14/98
. ,', ..." "'~~iPl:ibl:i;C:cparti.ci.pati;oni.~,;.,an', esseirt~aitP~r:t.:~o~ ..:t:tie,"g:.~
':,: . ,proc'ess' ~'::".-::J~:fCBQA:{Gtii:de~ine.s:~::'rs- .~:~152-~On. ).,-.'\"~:-;-::I.n~. ,a~ddi 1:~o~.,.~"t:the '-"~:.;.iead.. .~
agency in . .theEIR .proc:es,s,Js.,requiredto ,~onduct,.areasonab~e
amoUDt:;oI';fori;qinal.'~es'e'arcl1f~:ii:nvest3;gat"i.on;~~: deteDDine 'the
project";s,~;enviro~nt'a~.~ffec:ts.';";f(.cj;ilienS" .;to0P.res:erVe ,the ''OJ ai
v .'C~untyo~~~ent~.aV~:19;85rl "16i~d471~:4 ~:}~",:)cert~inJ.y.such
pub~J.c :partJ.iC'1pat'1OD. ,.1'Dc1udes{,Cali'fo~a '1Nat'J,;ve::iAmer1cans, and
in ;this.rca'S'e".~aiticwzar:l:Y"Oh:lOrieBative ':Ameri,cansr:.' ...,Equally ..as
certainIwotildbe:'::the 'l:equi;rement/':to:';,"ConsU1.t'~;in:idepthwi th .iNati ve
Americans ':and.aqain:.part3.:cu1arJ.:y .::Ohlone: ';Native2bericans on the
proj ect''S ',i1Dpacts.. . .Inspite<of .~these:.,;requ:irements?California
Nati. veAmencansdid'Dot:.participate;inany-:meaningftil way in
thisEIRprQce.s:s... '
.co14d ):be .f1i'rther.from,
., . ~. ~'.' ,:...; .
L I
i
.,.30.5' ~.-';miti.gatiori~<~i;l])raft;i'IIt,}"iP,.',':295~)
. -,' ',. '~he ;;t.,mth',~: "
r
I
"
J
'. I
I
.L
I
..(-
~ " -
.Accordinqto theEIR, "[i] ndividua1.s'andorqanizations were
contacted by letter, and preliminary response to the project and
the potential impacts to CA-SMa-40 waseli.cited. Letters ,and
',tele.phonec,i'c8.~-:ls'Mere'recei.ved':Jf1:om','Some ,of .'the'NativeAmericans
contacted.""i(:Dxa:ft;,;,iEI'R, .,p,...:27,6\), ,(Emphas7i:s: ,?:added) iiUnfortunately
weare',.Snot xou.:d,~'ch:Na:t'ive'fAmerjzcans'~ere~~contacted., '":Wh.ether
G \theY'Mere';Oh1:on-e,\~..theywexetoJ.:d,f'andWhat:~If;an.~inqthe
y :N'ative'~rd:cai1'S'tol.a ,the-:Em..;archaeo];o.q:ist,.'.,: ,'Indeed",'.;:it:::is
doubtfu1.,"thes:e~ifellc;'feontac:ts::':''Could,'inaive:':resti1tied,in':;any'.... c'.,
"sUbstanti,ve'comm:ents..'on'::the'}1EIRbe'Cause,~\['1-q:ndividuals ,:\contacted
forth'i-s'.;'X998,.>SEnthadnot:~tO!itiad \iopporturd t.ies,toreview,the
,documents'this'iJ.9.98 SEIR~:;s:;arehaeo;loqi:st:>independently, :a;eviewed.
Thus,theyr:were'l1ot \8b1.e .to:respondftilly without.\.the'abili ty to
read thesemateri.alsfor themselves ."(Draft 'EIR,"'p~'285,:fn.
2 7 5} Further., the mail is nota recommended or effe.ct~vemeans
~!~~~ei.~!i~~S~E~~~~~r
. Orozco, an important and leading meD1ber of the Oh1.onecommunity.
Ywas<notcontacted.'
,,;AsItan ,,;apparent;::z;esUl:t'ofytheqrosslymcomplet-$'
:inve's.t'iqatj;on ,and'cconsU1tationprQcesses, '.;the ,'Dr&rtTJ:IR "is
::siliplY1JfrODV'.." '~Hi t:iqation~'4 ~"9~:l'.'WiJ.'l';notJel.; 1ft; nate"conflict with
;~Native ZAmexican.s.... That.;;ai:tiqationd,s,;cQnside:reddesecration and
:sacri:1eqe! .~'7~t'Dbein:g::the ';case,~-;jthenicerta"inl.y,coverinq"the
Ohlone Shellmoundwithover,2 0 feet of dirt ( cOllpledwith.data
,recovery}'-wil~notreducetheimpacts';t'o'l:essthansigni:ficant
1eve'ls .It"wi'l~ ~on1y"increiis'e\thelmpacts'! .'
Paqe12
08/14/98
VI. THE ,DRAF'l'EIR ,IS .DBFICIEN'r'SECAtJa .I'1'FAILSTOCORSIDER
:'TBZ '~OBLOD '::SBEt.IiII:)tDlD'S~1a.IGIB'IL"In;"9:'O:"~mHI"~IFORRIA :"RBGISTER
"',./:,'.;;,'. ,,'.<:;,<;~ ,~'.,..c:()F :~BISTQR.IC'.:uSOURC1tS;:;c;:,;;':,>L,;,:.'/"
30.6
As provided ,in state ~aw:
ACal.iforni.aRegiste;z::ofHistoric:al. 'Resources
':Ls'hereby~estab1:i.shed.;>~The,Cuiforni.a "Register is
'an:auehorit:at'i.ve'~gW.de';'-iri, ,.,'CA'li'forida,.tol>e'used by
\state':aY1d ,1.()Cal.,.".,ageDCi:est'priv,,1:e"'grou~sl."and
''CitfzensiH:o'''1cient'ifi;;'tlie d'state~'s';hi.storical,"..', "',.
':resoUrces":and';"toindiCate" whCl1:,~1:()pert.iesare ':to be
,protected "to.:tthe ,;extent.',.prudent.,and ,feasible, . 'from
';subs,tantj:al..adve-rse ,change. ",
PU.b~ic!Resources"Code,S$024 .1(a) (Emphasis added)
Included on the California Register 'of Historic Resources
("Cal.iforniaRegister" )a.reproperties, , whi.chhavebeen
detendnedel.iqib~e tothe'National'ReqisterofHistoric Pl.aces.
(Pub1.ic Resources Code SS024.1(d) (l)JItisconcededinthe
Draft:;EIRthattheOh1oneShelllnoimdi.s'e'l.iqible to the National
Register of Historic Pl.aces. (Dr~;f1::::EIR,p ~"341)
~",'sp.iteofthe apparent:,elcigib:i.l.ity:;of ..the Ohl.one
She'1.1mound,to :the ;CaJ.i:xonda',Reg'i;'Ster,11Owere:in 'the Draft ,EIR
is this, issue'm'scUssed .r-Thi's'i'sa;':si.9n3.fic::ant':omssion,
because properties ellgib~eto the Cal.ifornia'~egister "are to
. beprotected;to itheextent prudentanafeasibl.e, from
substantialadversechanqe. ",
-,'., ,
As discussed above (see ,Section III), ,any 'of the three
project,designs'wil.1zesUJ..~ ,j;n',acS:ubstant~al;adverse change;to
the Ohlone She 1 lmounci . Accordinql.y"the.leadageney:must
consider,~prudentana feasib1e"'protect.ionsforthe ,Ohl.one
Shellmound.1S"None .of ",this analysis'i's'found in the "Draft EIR.
1S Inthis:.reqard,>the lead .agencY shotild:reS'ferto that'ifederal case law
which has intexpreted identical. language in Section'4fof'.the Department of
Transportatien Act, 49 U.S.C.S 1653 (f) .
Page 13
08/14/98
, - ~ .~. , :::...
.';':~I.~':.\~~~~}~~~4i'il':;~~~~;~~i,d~~":~~h~~:fTO'"~PROV:ZDB FOR
. ''CCMPLAIJICB' ';mH'~~l_-r.XODL''''mS1!'OlUC ;'PRESERVA'l'IOR -AC'l
r.-'
. -.' ::;, .;.,:~"'-:_.: _'-',' :_:: " : :.>~, '-=: ",-,'-':,",.. ""-.'7':'; ..:_ :':,:;;i.:; ,;'_' ,'::.;', "~',....,~_; .:j...,._'t.-...~,,_,
30.7
TheNHPA requires that,
;/<:~=;ij;:t~}~;~{h~~~,:-,:;f;,~;y'~1i;~~i~':~t.~g~~~t;:hi~~~~jtiiJ:~ct or
'.indirect ,'.j~isdi.cti,on,ove:r:,~:,])rQP~se<1. "Fed~%:al.oJ:
federal~.Y:"'Clss:isted:~e~a~~n.,g;,in' .~Y~S;atec"a!1d, the
head'of:aDY"i'ecle'ral,' ".C:lep~rtJl!.ent",o%, ,',.'.'independent; ;;.agency
;having--au1:hority ..,to.:licer1s~':;:anyU:D.dertaking..shall,
:prior tothe'approvd.of the'exPenditu:r:e',ot'any
,; 'Federalrunds'on"the 'undertaking,c;orprior"to .:the
issuanceotany license, "as 'the case maybe, take
,..into ,account.theefxect o~_,the.:undez::taking."on.any
. district,site,bui.1ding, ,structure, or object that
in inc.1ud.edin oreligib.1e for inclusion in the
;.Na-;iona:l;:R~gister.
. , ;'~ .:.,
NHPA,S
"", <;; .,....,':;.~' ~". '.-. ....:,;. . . ,
, ,Ini992;;,CongresSamend.ed,;th~L'miJ?A,and add~dastatutory
definition for,an;,unclerta~g.
"Undertaking"". meaJ:Ls;",a, dprp3 ect"activi ~y,or
.pI()ql:am'f:w1c1edi.n,~o~eo~,::,iil,;pal:t"iunder ,th:e.;direct
.:or::i.ndirect.., jur:i.sctiction;O,f a:F~c:lerClJ. ,.aqency.,
, incJ.uc1ing...,~~:"" 0>,...".,,'.." '.-<.:" ,,'
(A) thosecarried,.o:y.t:by--()r:,:on :behalfof :the
agency;
(B) those carried out with Federal financial
'assistance; ,.' ."" (,. ,", '" "''-,;C;;,; :'
"J,;;,~CJ,those 're~r1nq aF.ederal' peJ:mit, .,.~icense,
.,:;~or, approval; and .,'0 ;.
. . ,,+(OJ...those;sub3 ectto "S.tate;or., 1.ocaL,'regu1ation
" "a';;i:" i steredpl:trsuant,~tOya ',delegatipn.:.or 'approval ,by
. . .. _ " . ..':,. _' _. . '" , . -' '. < " . '.' . ,.' _ .'. ..' . f' .. ".. , .', '. ~ . . . . .- .
a'!'edera.lagency. "", " , ,,', '
NHPA, 16U.S.C. S 47Ow(Emphasisadded)
Any of the three project designs for the project
will require FederalpeJ:JDi. tsorlicenses . These include:
ea peJ:mi. t-fromthe lJ. S .A1:myCo~s .of .,Enqineers
"pursuant \to~Sect-i.on,',;404 ,,'o.f.,.the ,:Federal,.Clean
:Wa'ter,Act;
Page 14
08/14/98
. · aper.mit.fromtheU. S.'Fish &Wilcilife Service
"unde~,;,<the"',i!'edera+,,.Bncia.J:l.geJ;'eciSpeci.:es .,Act.-,Habitat ,;."
'.;COnsero:atiop.....:-Plan,..'fp% ,,~an:"Brun9Mountainjfor '.:the
taJd.ng' of endangered' '!Species; ..".
.'.~~\i~;f~;~#16j1:tEi~.~~~.!1~S~~~
..,;...;;:-;{t-.,".
a pexmi.t...from'~the~,'San''Franci:sco.,':Bay~egional '0"
iWater>::(i)Ua1ity..Board ,<approvi:ng:1iheStormwater
iPo'llutiori\<Prevent1on-l.PIan !p1lZ'suant 'to ;Fede:ral
ilaw.U'
Anyone ofthese'pez:m.its,leta1ong a1.1 of them. together,
constituteanunderta'k~g,';as,;definedin theNHPA. Further it
makes no difference whether thesepeDDitsareissued
individually::or <pursuant;to"anationwide';pendt"program.{ See
Vieux~Carre .3.PropertY,:iOnwers v.Brown;:~fS1:h/Cir .'1989) "i87 5~F .'2d'
~53 4'6' A '4'66) ~7, .... ,-
-.. .-' : .~'~. { :'..: .,,-." :",,~-~-,._< . ~'I"'':<''
. ,',' ." ~.. , '
7~'~_.:- .fv;.. <,:;,;;~'-;:.:> :-...~ :).,'; .~:;:\':,\;,;;';'~. ;\-: ~~;..':::-~;'; ~':~\':'l~_;./';;:-.' - .;/
J.6. ,.:It nrema.insuncleart.lhether",poederal.;'fundinq,.'or:a,Federal,7iPermit will be
:required for " construction.()fthec e,xitJ:mgp8.off)Righ~,J.OJ..,~.)~A8 iPOinted.ou t
in~e Preliminary ,Report;" "'it is .notentire.ly"cleartwbere,and..whether
'Federal-Regulations, sti'lloverrlde State procedures," with re,gard t~
construction ,of the "xamps . c(preH'miTlaryReport,'p.i) ..,.., ..'
:~,,' ."".:"-, ,:.(':--;,-;:.-?:\~:t'."-::-:;\~:"'~:', >"~';'-'
1'1 Ili VieuxCarre the c:ourt held that "nationwide pe:cmi tsauthoriziDq~truly
inconsequential activities are not trigqerinq "l.icenses"under.section 470f....
(Viewe Carre, at p.465) '.me cour:tbasedthisholding onthebeliez that
Congress "did not intend to require theCoJ;psto subject suchtruly'\:'"
inconsequential proj ectstotheprocedural complexities of section'470f, 'by
construing the termundertakinq in .5ection4 70f,'aaincludinq,~yt,ype ',of
permit or license regardless of its consequence' (Id.)lIowevei,"VieuxCarre
was decided before the1992NRPA amendments, whic:h"Includedthe-DeJiI,
defini timl of undertakinq ci tedabove . In the .new defini timlConqress
reiterated its clear intent thatNBPASection 470f applied to the issuance,
'without ,qualification, of any Federalpermit or ,license. AccordingJ,y, -,even
.J.thoughVieuxCari:e'adlaiowledqes~~A.applicatio~ ,.to'the~18su~ceof
nationwi.de:permits,iaUthorl.zingc::ons~entiaJ.activ.ities,~suCha8,we "haVe
':.here, Vieuz'.'Carre'isexcepticm"'forDationtdd.e:permits,authoriz'ing "', -,
:'inconsequential. ,activities 'laWit -:now'be:setaaide'iIi'J.ight' of the "'1992 'lIHPA
. amendments.
Paqe1;S'
08/14/98
,"
,
-j ,
,. I
regul;at:L01tj' iat<'3 6';CFRfP2U:t"fi'OO'~;be'fo're\~a:ny: il-t!c:leia::f',pe%:Jllit ,can be
'issued >. for .i ;,the'r.proj ect }J.I, ,,;~Zn ~toth.r',~wrds,~";''be':fore "the ,;proj ectcan
:bebuilt.' ":"""",':"::'.(~:'!:}"~;:"/::'';''':'\c,"c"'';:; ,'; 0""':,/'"'
, ";' ~ . ~
,. ," "". ,~;,' .
. .'.'~ ',:'- .: t. " . -, . !'.~- .c- ~'...
r"
.1
30.8, VI:rI~:.",ODIB);DRAft4.m 'z'I8lmP%CDlft' ~BaCAmD:-I!"-*AIL8!'O ~ LJ)&fta
ftIB .PR&P~%OII"if:fI,"_ ';_v~~~'DIPAC1' .'flA......, ,JlORStaft IfO
-,;"".)rllB'_'.rZCBaL'~'..~>E!'
r
r
,
BEPAappliestotheproj ect,forthe same reason the BHPA
app~iesto.,,~e;proj:ect.:;~e~.:IIuance.);()f':s.'V.e:t:al ,rederal
per;mits#<at~:,;~e ,1II]n" ftl\TIIl, ,,;;fQ2:' tile "proj.ect 'invoke a 'UPAand
requ.ires,,,tae,preparatioD,of :~anf;EnTircmmental ';~actstatement
C"E:ISN). ' lIOwber. in the DraftBIR is their provision for
preparation ofanBIS . This is particularly important for the
proj ect' s . historic preservation :impacts.,'\becauae' under 'I1EPA the
EIS must contaman eval.uation of those impacts .
;,:,:a. \.co1ICLOBZ(If.
'.. .~;',- ~~""-< ~;.:" ;.,
. ,-....._,.:;;,
.The,OhloZ),e,SheJ.lmowid ,-.is.one "of.~the :DIOstsignificant
,lds,tori-eis.itesin,CaJ.:ifortda. ....l:t;isyal~o:one,")o~.~~e 'few
rema.ininqsitesofitskiDd. 'Each" of' the three :pr~ject
descriptions vould:resul.tinthe.Oh!oneShe:Llmound's
,destruction.;'1'i;J.~O&pe%Ddt 'j.ts'fdestl:11C%'ion'\,;~u1d!.:"DCt1-only be
de8ec~ti.on",to the. ~Ohl.-oDe]peQPle:l"€but}al.so;IW01ikl.i,tu:rthererode
whatremainsof,.thisreqion'svisib1.ehisto~ .
r--.
.'.,.,..,.:Commenta.t:or. ;~respectmlly%equest'~t:'1:he Cityof,South '
'san.<rrancisco,;JD&ke"a!1' hi'.t'oric-d.eclsiOli~~:d:ts,~" ,.",anddecide
not..to'.P!~t":theo'cOXlS;~cti.~"o~,:tlU.sproj ect..- '".'~Every ,effort
shotlld 'be':JllAde topreae~the)OhloDe 'ShellmouDd ancl,the,,-alley
in which it sits. We can ,give 'ourfutureqeneratione DOqreater
..J..gacy.....
~
lesK. _~
':;':"'. '..'
;11 "This.,uiCl.inclu.c:teI'amcnq'Oth8r .tlnn.ga" ,:the,uaeasment"of.theeli,gibllity
of ,ul ~h1..to.ricaJ.~Y,JligDificant..pr~rti.awitbin,"the;prc>>ject's 'area:cf
potential'.effect.; ,inCludJ..%1g D-P~ ,.aheJ.bl)unds;".,.the .,cl8teminatiozl,.. of "1Cether
,.acld1t.ioml.l.e11g1ble, .propertie. .tih1cb. ".are .,pre.entl,y "UDlaloNn"are.:preaent, ,within
the : area of potential effect; the retention of aquaJ.1fied ethnographarto
evaluate the eliC1ibi~ity ,aDd reJ.atecl issue., ana a deter:m:ination of the
pJ:'Oject's effects.andacl'V'erse effects em the historicalaignificant
properties.
:Page 16
08/14/98
; ,-
Enclosures
Cc: lIr . Patrick Orozco
Hr .:DavidSc:haoley
. Brian Gaffney ,:Bs~.
CelesteC . Langil.le ,Esq:.
Advisory Council onHistaricPreservati.on
Califo%ni.astateHistoricPreservationOffice
O1ai~,BationalBnvirol11llental'JU8ticeAdvisory Council
.'11.5 .'.BnviroDmentalProtection Agency, Office of
Bnvironmental .JUstice
O'.S . llnvironmenta.l Protection dAgency ,Indian Programs
Office
-Hs .ltarenBiestman, U. S.Bnvironmental Protection Aqency,
Region 9, Indian Programs Office
0'. S . Department of .the Interio:z::,OfficeofAmerican Indian
'T%Ust
11.S.BnvironDLentalProtection Agency, Region 9, Office of
Bnvironmenta.lJu8tice
n.S.Department of the Interior, Keeper of the National
Register
California Native American Heritage Commission
.,'
Page 17
08/14/98
.&xHIBIT ONE
~~\~~~~;';;~]~I~~~,..
. ...
";',:i~:P~~d;~;=;o:~~~~~.~~~t.d;
'I"'~'.. ",' '. ' ," " ,. . ' :.' -, .,,,:~;-' .'.,' ,.' " __ " ., " .. ,,',' '. " <;;",ri;,;~:,);:\%:,:' ,
cam~fnlnl,cthe~~of~CXSl'lIl!ar,'~on5anta~loc:a~;SPUlh<of.w~t;t!,~;~
:..:now'sanJoSe.,l~present -aboat35QitPec>>PIew.ho,Jive.;pri1tWily:inWatsonviJ:l~lnit;~~}:::: .
~"~~~;~lIlate. ;';d:~!{;Y;i;~~",;;;;i;::~;;:;~~:;;;;~;1:iii:~t.. . .
Members ,of our tribe came to thePajaro Valley and settled in the mid l8O(Ys.~.m 1975
a\di$pute~garc:lirl.g,.commerciaI;de:\1.;~o,pment:at~our;LeeRoad,cemetel.YdeC:l:lto ,the
,iormationiof,theOhloneCoundl. Jnorderto~ain:l'eCQgIlitionas :atribatenti~ and
.negotiate.ourisituatio~we'm:garUzedthe;Council~"alocal.branch'ofth~jNorthwest
,]ndianCemetery;frotectiV'eAssociation.~After,;the dispute~ar-diQg ,the~Lee Road
,,;cemetery.was;'8eftled,Jweformed.anorganizationicanedthecOhloneIndian,Cultural
- .Association,withthe .helpof Califomia,Indian,kgalSenrices.Thatotganization
~!Olv~ because ofpoor.leadershiI>.;;.,preBe&lI:.~fitj).aroOhloneJndiaJ;l
~ was formed in 1985.j , , ,
;!';:".'. /...~: <;;. .;~: ~ '. --
' , ,
, ',,' iWi!:form~;'thej:first"lndian,organization:iniorder ;to'Nv.e.,.tribahstatus,in',the
preservationand'protectiOll:of.ll:areas,thatwere'sacred:to.usbut;~the resting
places of our ancestors. At that 'time in 1975 there were few or none who spoke ,up
".,.,'m,.situati()ns"wher:e,{lac::red.Jdtes,wen!in.itheimid.st<of,i~destroyed,or;disturbed.
":~,wasV~.littlt!~tectioni~,as1a!"<asplaW$}gQ,1OIl'b!half,,()f,~th.e';hJ.dian
~le.Tbat!s,stiU.:llowit'is,today.Jh01!gh ,lawson;pr:eserv:ation \yere:ad()pted,
...,..',:these Jawsw:er';not,presewation]aws;for,the,mdian;people;,;1Fhey,were~ws, to
,;~protectpriv~eland,.olrVI\ers~,.",., t.~.
. '.{:<;:..-' ,:';-"~ ~':~~.:.:t: ..~.;
..
. Since then ten or more Indian organizations have been formed, and because of
diHerent policies ,and?~~jn;hand.1iIlg\situations;su,c:has,J:lte.~Bnmo
burialmound, a vicious drc:lehasbeen created among Indian families. .AJ1,Ohlone
Costanoan Indian leaders should mmetogetherin~a;.goodwilYjasonepeople and
work under onepoJicy in pl'~ ~.tion and protection of our sacred Indian sites.
Certain'triba};:grou.ps should,bethe,ones.to ihand1e;,sensitive:situations in the areas
that pertain to them. But the big questionis,.who are those who claim
,responsibilinr",and,arethey..the:rightful;personsdheyrc1aim ,to..,be?Ir,And if they are,
an they show their intentions are good.
We learned of the San Bruno sheD mound through the media, and we were
concemed that there would be disturbance of the graves of our ancestors.'So we
'registered our willingness to assist in the prevention of development on this site.
1
San Bnmo Mo~tail\jt!~.,P~c~. ~tJ~:!@ ~i~,Il&l~al state. Some but not major
. turbance haS.~::theie-mttae" 'aS~..JitwaJkUjg this land, one can see that this
first()fall,~;;pbl~::OfjiH!~~~~qOo~:~tYti(~li~I . found evidence of. FC,fire
acked':rockiwmai~".indiCateS~,that,fthere ,was~,:of;stOnefor eating or cooking. I
found ;chert~thatsholWthere:_was,manufactuli.ng,Df.,arroW.:points~J,saw";.therichness
of midden .which tells me'.that there are burials there. The color of the soil is dark;
th8t's;where;1Od'fmaeYiden~-df,'~ti,.n1~:~$he~finfcR&ea'iOCk'by the
stream'teDs~me~that~they~were~bUmiljgthe':stonesp.ior'sw4!at;l04ge,and"oooking
, ~:(used:iforicOOldDg,:aCorns:or,saJmon)~":lbeWlagewaS:moSt;1ikelylocated
here the Bayshore is today . Butit Diutbitveileen'on1bigher'cground;thenrbecause
'. geswerebuilt o~ high:~4.. ,'.', . ., " ' ,
.:: . . - ,- - '"\_;::\~~\':',!,~,;;:::,;,-,::!:),':/___"_~: ,:::<'\':i:;..;\~'._:,,-\.',-_._\:;~':>:~~i,,~-~:,<-,:,_::,.;..:."}..;: . -',.-..
. "','8R'!.in:my~opirtionjb~'of,:Jmves~.The"erttire!area!sh(JU1a.beleft.in place,
;~ rotecting,a1l"p1antlife'and~th:e;a:nimaThabitat:It:is;ap1aCe where';Indianpeople
.'/~coUld' eventwdlY5pUt 'togethera'replica~ge'and al1'of,what;a'vi11age~ou1d
" ",'contain:~wotbhops;;sudras;:foOdipreparation;q,uketcweaVin.g;':arrowandjbow
;making,:arI'OW ;paintcmanufacturing;as 'weU;asearth;lodges,-Uance'houses,grain
!shelters, danceareaspgranaries:anda'~eplace.'l,would recommend,;that all this
.that.'we.,have'spOken:be'tt8ken'intodeep:conSideration..,':, '
. '
I think of the dtizensof Brisbane who also needa. place for themselves and their
,.-chi1drelvto~c:ome,and<~spend,'.time;therereducatin.g;,ithemsel~esin~the ?traditional ways
'.;'of the';people.that:1ived'here'~~'i:the:Euro~.arri:ved.':
.'.'~WecwoU1dmvolve;~olherJttibeS~'as\'appl-o.Priate;1U\d.needed~iNie'wowd.'i'equest their
,patticipationud 'ccmsUltaticmiundertvarious~CircUmSlances.:1fwe/,need~ help
:!jn:nghling.:thedevelopment,-w:e wou1d;.ddlton:them:~';;Andkif,theproblem&;are
"resOlved.\Yithout~:them;:we\Would~ask~em:to'jOin,usin':our~aii01.lS'actiVities. We
would aSk that they come and celebrate with us, aS~'have.ca1led 'meYtodance
with them in their land.
.'
"thetUihole ;Ii.rea "presen,eil'wifh7lo/co"'i'metCiiil 'development.
:themanagemertttJj'tt'he "IIl71d?be 1superiiised:;byanfOh"loneilndiari
descendant. OT dtscendllnts
r:
)'>i-:~::::;"- _.-~.. ':'.' .". .
'.ro.k...'
- ." . ~ .."..."
';' ," .;' .".'
,,'
2
EXHIBIT '1WO
.r
'T.atlmony on the Terrabay ,Phaae nand .IIEIR
My name is Patrick Orozco. I was given the Indian name of YanaHea, One Who
Yawns. 'I live at 644 Pear Tree Drive, Watsonville, CA. 95076.
J am tribal chairman of thePajaroV aIleyOhlone Indian Council representing 320
,people. Our tnbal affiIiationacc:ordingto records kept at Mission Santa Oara is
Ohlone.Ritocsi,. also known to the early-padres as--the Santa Teresa, Hills people. lam
also registered as a Most Likely Descendant With the Native American Heritage
ConmiissioninSacramento. Although most. of our people died during the Mission
,era, yet some of us'have survived to maintain.andrevi.ve ourcu1ture. ,It was
dangerous to be Indians for many years, 'but at long last we,can speak out for our
identity and ways. Our organization was ,formed. in 1975 in order to protect and
preserve all sacred sites of our ancestors. We rea1izedthat they were being destroyed
at a very alarming rate.
My people and I have served as Indian monitors with archaeologists when there isa
possibility of graves being distwbed. When we served as monitors, we made sure
that all measures were taken for preservation even though most of these sites were
very much disturbed. The San Bruno shell mound is intact, which means very little
disturbance has OCCUlt'ed.there. As I walked the land, I could feel the, presence of the
ancestors that are buried there and the hundreds of graves there. In particular the
,area between the large and small shell mound islike1yto have isolatedburiaIs. In
my experience as a monitor, ~yiso1atedgraves are found outside the main
'impact areas.
Also as I walked the land, I amId see plants that were used by my people, such as
hiyatay (soap'root),plan~ta shu ta ya (buckeye), wiDow, curly dock and rushes, I
would like to see all thispropeclypreserved and protected and even retumedto its
natural state. We are not comfortable ,when we hear that they want to put top soil
or parking lots over the shell mound or surround it with buildings. In the Indian's
eyes, this is disturbance. The entire area should be left intact.
Recently, I read where a state coJlll'es&aaan was ~ MJf they want to dig up our
16th President's coffin to see what relics he was buried with,. what would be his
"answer. He said he would say,~o, Let him rest in peace."
The San Bruno Moutain is sacred. and we ask that you support us inprotectmg it
To disturb it would be a violation afOUl' religious rights as American Indi~. And
we ,ask . that our rights be respected. Many prayers were said over these graves by my
. ancestors and myself.
Res~LIdlly,
'~()~
'Patrick Orozco
EXHIBIT THREE
STATEMENT OFPATlUCKOROZCO, AUGUST ,14,1998
. . , . .. .
:MY:'name ~;;i:-s"Pa:tx1ck.Orozco,'andr am the~i:d.'i:man'of',C'the
'J"~Pajai:oNal;ley:Ofllone"'flncfian' Council~) ,',.~'on 'several';'occa-s:ions:':I
'''have' waJ:ked;"over "the-area.Whj;cli'inc1:udes ,'tbe"San'Bruno"Ohione
Shellmound,"~Which:"I, ~ccill ~the"Oh1'One;;:ShellmOUIia .~; -j.
. >."-".: (.." .,' "'-j,',,.
Based on my experience as anOhlone Native American monitor
at other construction sites andmyknowJ,.edgeofOhl.one culture
itisJIlyopinion thatina1.lprobabili ty ,the;reareD1aIJ.YOhlone
graves outside theOhlone 'Shellmound,and''in "'the"suirounding
valley. For example, it was common for ,'lIiypeopleto'bury an
enemy killed in battle, or a member of another tribe who died in
their village outside the village shellmound.
It isalsoJllyopinion that in all probability the area
aroundtheOhloneShellMound was not only an Ohlone village but
was also used for ceremonial purposes. The Ohlone people pray
andgi ve thanks to nature and the sources of their food and
shelter. Here ,the San Francisco Bay would have been only a few
feet from the Ohlone Shel.lmound. This makes it very l.i.kelythat
the Ohlone inhabitants of the village perfor.med ceremonies near
theOhloneShellmound .in thanks for what they received .fromthe
Bay. Even today I still know and sing atraditional'Ohlonesong
whichgi ves 'thanks to the Bay.
It is probable thatotherOhlone grot:lPS or individuals have
held ceremonies at the Ohlone Shellmoundin the past .several
years .It is doubtful that many would know of these ceremonies
because of the need to keep them private and confidential. I
perfor.med a ceremony three times attheOhlone Shell Mound this
year. On one occasion I reburied Ohlone remains which had been
held at a local museum. in' Brisbane . These remains were buried
in an unmarked grave close to but outside the Ohlone Shel.lmound
in a place I cannot disclose.
As an Oh1one, 'I have been taught that it is desecration to
remove even a flower from a grave . To put fill dirt ,of any
amount overtheOhlone Shel.lm.ound,or dig into the Ohlone
Shel.lmound is considered desecration to my people.
The constrUction of office buildings, 'hotel.sorother
buil.dinqstothenorthandsouthof the Ohlone Shel.lmound is
.wrong. 'Thepresence of such buildings ,andthepeopl.einthem,
would make it impossible for us toperfor.mour ceremonies at the
Ohl.one Shellmound.. The entire valley is part of 'the Ohlone
Page 1
, . '. - .:c..;~. ':',.:;:_~'. '. i~<' i\.~:;i~.~:~:._'... ~;.~. .~..:_:. ,;,;~~~d/:;::-~'>(:l.{~"
Shellmound~Noton~y 'does 'thevaiiey . contain ,. my ancestor' s
graves, but also it is .the place where they lived, and practiced
their ~ceremonies,.;Theva~l.ey ,':aao..contains ,;maD,Y.,plan.tsused for
medic.ineand,food. , . ";The()h1.oneShe~lmOunciiand .,the"vall-ey ,and
the ,she~lmoUI1d ion ;:th~.hil.la.bciy:e:~e:"one.;;s acred;.p1.ac~tc) .~my
peop~e. Any ;de.s.'t:z:uc;;,tioIl-,o~",pne;,,:paJ:t ;..o.f ..,this,:pl.ace. ,-.is. "
, . '_': . :'. .- , ...., .... ,. __ .' '. . .,.' .- , . ''':' ,'.. .,', _' ,0 -"... . ""~~. ...... ..--.
destructionoftheentirep~ace . ' '. .
!
':'.''- ::"~:.' ;;:~, ".r.:. .~ .','
.:Patrick.Orozco,
Au,gust "1.4,#,,1998
Page ,2
&XBIBI~ .
(ADDI!'IOJIAL 8!'A.TDmlfts ,Bt' ,PADICIC (R)ZCO)
-m....
: Patrick Orozco, '<Headm8n:l;'.rp~jiaiC)'VaIJtty ,'Ohlo~~lndl.n'CounCil'"
644'PearTree'Drive, 'WatsO~Yllle,;CAi '85076 ,'ll4CUU72,8-8471 .
. ",;;',"<;".' '",'.:,-' "~''':''':,:;,:' '",: ":',,:,:.',"',.'" ".' ....'..,'::,:,.".,' "'(,':6/1'198
I am PatriCk Orozco,:headnlan of theP~ja#.o'Ya1le,y OhIone'Indian CounciLI regret '
that] am not able tc.fbe;present at:tht? l'JEJ~Ch~riJJg,~rlwoUldlike to~essthe,
deep interest of my ,~le''iri,:the'fUture of,~h~, San, Brun()SheIJ~ounaaJjdour
concern abOut:th~impad:s' ofdevelopmeni" " "u ',' '".,',' ',.'., "., ," .
Although,ourpeqple are located ,at some distance .from .the San Bruno.SheU,
Mound, we have a strOl1g affiriity with:th~\Vhooncelived there' the Slipskin
Ohlone. Lillguistsjn thiscentwysuppliedthe,nam~Ohlonetorefer,to,the :" ,
common language . ~poken -1Jypeoplewho~li\,ed-,between, the Carmel'River. and the
San .Francisco~ydeJta.'Wearewn.ted \VlththeSlipskin Ohlonethrough our
commc>nlanguage,and thioughthe culturaLsilriilarities .that exist amongOhlonean
people.W eJeel aconnection~ith the spirit:,ofour ancestors who Jived there.
When I visinheShe1l'Mouna~'lim~ginethe'"'soqgsand the"prayers, 'the cryin.gand
mourning of our people when'they'buriedthelrCiead',The phloneanpe<ple today
are,like ,,~..fence toprotectAh~!;pU:its,6f ttt~ ~tio';"have,gone.", ' .
, ;,"," .' .... .~ ,.",-, ." . .. .. .'..,.; ~. .. .'.. ,. ;...,.. , ,. ,.""',, '.'~ -:-',_ ..r.,'" .'.'.' ': ,...... ''< ':";',J.;-, '_:,> _." :"".,. ~' .":' -, .'_" ::~ _ :.'_~ ',.,c'" ~":", ',. ,.... :._~ ..'....', .~_ '-'i
'.. - .
We have taken ,astrol'lg stanci on"prot~on ofgra,ve"sites,:My,.;greatgrandfaqter
'Rios repeatedJyadmollishea,u5, to,prOtecf' the:gI'ave;~;of ,the,aricestorS. .'We 'have done
this in the.'WatsonviUe::areaand, at variOus 'Si~'~:5anBenitQ"~onter~ ,.~~ Santa
ClaraCoUnties~"Whenever aeyelo~~n~~~ch 'as'SchOc>ls,,~uilcfu1gs.OI':roads,takes
place,and,~ereare ;~vesites, land IDj';pe(,ple'have'been caned On as consUl,tants.
At times thereHhave"beenmtense conf1ictS~and we have stoocf Our ground and gone
to great measures to protect our graves &om desecration.
Now we musfSpeak upaboutthe:sanBiiuu)'Mountain'ShelIMOUrtd.Uis:the
largest,' oldest: and most intact 'shell mound left m the Bay ,aiea:Slipskin peOple
: lived ,there continuously ,for 'SOOOyears. Our ancestors mus! have found the area
very conducive to life. The more time we spend on the . mound, the more we
understand how this site supported life there for so many centuries. So many other
mounds have been paved over and been obliterated by buildings, that we have not
had such a valuable opportunity to relate to the lives of our ancestors.
San Bruno Mountain isaplace that is still in its natural state. Some but not major
disturbance has occurred there in the past. In walking this land, one can see that this
is first of all, a place of peace. In looking at the terrain, I find evidence of FC, fire
'1
I
cracked. rock, which indicates that there was burning ofstone for eating or cooking. I
'findchert'that showstherewasmanufachJttpg 'of arrow, points. I see the richness of
midden which tells me that there are bWjcl1s'there. The color of the soil is dark;
that's where you find evidence of occupatiOri~oiburiaJs. The fire cracked ,rock by,the
stream tells me that ~ywere,buming the:1s1oncs for sweat lodge and cooking
pu~(~sed !9r,~g<>IO~g ~cprt;t.I!'.~~ ()r~~p"on).TtteviJt~ge. w~s:~ostJik.eJy,
, .locatedwl\ere.~he8~~st\Ore'~'H~gl::tw~y;ist~a,Y:'~l1fit. mu~t .haye"been ,orf,hith.er
, gr99~~theri,beCause :Villages:were'built oo'high ground. ' .' . . . '. . · '. '.
But.r,n~(of ,a~,J .fee.t~$pi!!~lig"t~t i~~ere".~\1se ,tt\eance,s~orsar~still ",,'
there} '!~I.thataqy~~r~pfJheir..~1i9g.plac,es.,'YOOlCi, ~lease;:tlle"sacr~ess
of .the'I1t_~~!8m,.. ~ct JI)~tj!..~C.lI!ld;~(~W~"pegpJe'li~gno~~;~ho .areCQn1lected
to.them 'meritclUy ',andphysicaDy.I' havealw~s ~enan ,measures' t()Fotect and .
':preserve the,graves. .,.."...'.'.,' ",. . '.,,'." .,...
'.', I
~- I
~
,~
~
.'
';, ,.- ""':'_ _'-_",' _', ",' ':',' ._', 'C':::- . ".:__ ,.:,...._......-,:. _." ::"-.:" ,_..,:,_ :.... :.;_ ',' ',C", . _":... :...:
There a~'II1an.Y~:plil.l1tsatthe ShellMoUnd thafhavealw~ysb~importantforus.
andused'by our,pe<?}'leforplanycenturiaThere iss~p root;wruchwehave used
for multi,ple ,pux,poses,such asJood,s~l11~ an~fiShJ)(jjsons' 'The~are,plants
used'for food,s\1Cl.l as'buCkeyes,br<:Jdiaeas ariUhefloweIS seeds of;JX?ppies,lu.pines
and ot!ters.ThereareJ'lants us#1'formedicinessuch as)erbasanta,:yarrow, cur1.y
doCk and J,lantainAtonefll.Ite.:ilieremust:'have beeneriorIIlousres<>urces Jor our
peoplefr~,the',allyear, stream ~~erethat'nowsfrom;the1'n()\Ultairito:thebay.
There are willows still, ..u~byour pe<?plefor ,bilildU)gand for medicine.'".", ,,"" "
Althougtithls"landhas been cattleuazed and ,mal!yof theoriginal,J;lan~,have been
lost, yet it must have sustained' food, m~icines and materials "in great abundance.
There~"il(DiY6P#U()flh~dreas"o~~'~~re'-~tgr~~eS'~t<th~~:Brunb.:Shen..
,Mo1JI1d.'Tt\e e~tire,~r:eash~llld ;}:)e"}eft~j:~laC(!~,P11?t~ aJlJ'lant.1i~earjdthe
aninlaI"f1a1:)itat'Oui:religiouslife,centers on"our-reyerenceJofthe.deaa, and our
rontirlwty~th'tlt~~When.'~e:are;at"th~p1it~ofburiat of'our' an~ors,.'~e.are
connecteawith oUr cUlture and Ow- w~,and~~haveasense :of~ce,,~ accord
with';Ufe:~'c,;">'-''''<':'':'' ", '.:", .,i,'" .,'.; .',;... .. ' ',"';, ;""', '. "i";' ", ..
;-F'
We urge thatfederal1a\Vsbe usedto,save.this land from desecration and to keep it
as a sam site for our people and allpeople.~tlohavereverencefor its'history, life
and spirit. ... ..
2
"
I
l~
'l'BESAlLBRtDJO MOtJRTAIHOBLOHESBELL ,'1I:lORD
sutmi. tteclby
THE PA.J'ARO YALLE'Y:OIlLORE"'J:HD'IAIt .JCOOHCIL
.'And
:~SD }BIWRO.iH:XJNTAIH~WATCB ce'
,;San.;Bruno,Mounram'.'i:s, l.ocated ~ust, south 'of San "Francisco
on SanMateoPeni.nsul.a . The . Mountaini.'stthe biggest ',urban open
space in the United States, containing 3,300 acres of
'undeveloped,open. ,:space.:1'he ).eastcendof';theMountain slopes
'downto';whatwas once the :western<shore<of.:5anFrancisco Bay.
:II .SAH:BRD'NO~lI':OBLONESm:LL'J<<XJHD
,The San. Bruno ,,:Oh1one ,;shel.l )Mound d;,slocated,alonq this .
westexnshore ,at the lJase)o'f:.San Bruno Mount,ain .;Priorto the
European invasion, the Ohl.onewere the principal Native American
language group in the San Francisco Bay area .
The San Bruno She1.l Mound has been dated to about 5000
., years.'agoimaki.nq,i t:tct:he~:o1:dest,;occupiedsJ.te'~et'found on San
,:lIateo ',.Peninsul.a.. ".iBuil.t;.up,:,over:oenturi::es,.",bythe deposit. of
:shelifish,rromthe '. .:San:i'Frano'i'sco. .tBay,.:she1.l~,mounds..we're.used by
.the<0h1onepeop1:e"as.a <.1::oDibinat"i.on'of 1Vi:l'lage.,iOereJllQnzi.a1and
'.burial ;sites . ,,':SuCh:1:s,the:,oas,e "w;ith.:1the;San ,Bxuno'Hountain
"O~one "..ShellMound..
': .Alimitedpstudy of:theShe1.1 :rMound in 19:89 ,by the
. ,.archeologioal ,:fiz:m.of i~Holman,~..Associates ;rev;ea1.ed ~..the 'rem,,; ns
.,of;at .1.eastfifteen:peopl;e,~.r'Thi:s-,fi:nding,aoc.ording, ;to...Holman&
. ,Associates ,was ,&<ce.r:tain'indicatiion 'that ",other Jburi-a.l:sexist at
this site ..Evidence.of.'fires:.:-and:num.erous,.;;ar.tif.acts ;a1so were
found at the Shel.1Mound. Holman & Associates alsodisoovered
,thatthe;Shell,Hound ,maintains :its :ori,ginalintegrity .
.~ere is no question ;thattthe,~'San;aruno rOhlone :ShellMound
.:is <oneof.the ,mos:t!'significant.:Ohl'one <'viJ..':lage,:and ;burial. sites
",in ,,:the, .SanFrancJ,;'scoJBay .,'region. 'Adding..:cto,', ;thesigni,fioance of
this village site is the possibleipresenoe ,.o:f:two iother<.Ohlone
shell. mounds near SanBrunoOhl.one Shell Mound . Today the San
'BrunoOhl.one Shell Mound remains a saored site to the Ohlone
people.
Pagel
L _
~'. ...., '.- ~!:_';:.,::'!"~.~: '.;,. . ".:' ",',.:'.,
.,-'.' .<...._....;.,....,.""__:c ..,.... "
'III. 'TBB";~'PRooBCT
': ~~:~.r:::
:Sterling"iPaci~-;tc-';&riagement'~:s;erVicesof . Phoenix, Arizona
plans a residential and commercial development, called Terrabay,
-around .the eastern base-of San Bruno:Mounta:in. . The commercial
:portionof this development would include three hotels
containing 6 00 rooms ,63,0 0 Osquare~~:fee.t:io'f''CODDIie'rcial space,
parking lats ,and 'constructionofafr,eewilyinterchange ito
'se-rv:ice~thene:w deve1Qpment.;i;'lhi's,"~ro-j:ect'. ,:woul:didestroy the San
,,;,Bruno.-she~l:Hound:;.
,
. L._
:.Based-':on:current-pl.-ans,',-:the _Terrabay,project ,wolUd "result
in"the'cav:er,ing or-,pa:ving ,'over';of mcs,t-Q'f;::the~Shell,Mound. It
is believed that the freeway interchange would also' contribute
to, the destructj;onc,.:oftheShe-ll';Mound~ ._"I'f:Terrabay ,:is"builtas
currently planned possibly the largest, oldest and most
signif-icant'Ohlone'she1a. mound ,and c<sacredsite:in "the San
:FranciscaBay"tarea-iwiJ.1 ,be des.troyed.
IV . FAILURE TOCCMPLY WITBFEDERALLAW
>._ ;1~c .;~~.
'i"Ij:';\Present1y~, "tSterl.ing jilaci:fic~and.tt:he City -of ,South ,'San
:Franci;sco";;ar.e.,;,.prepa~ingj,''fo~'~~i-c''Jcomm.ent~a:l,draft environmental
impact,;~port"il~.E:J:R";.)}:;for,x;:r'the{),~rrabaY;'Proj,ect',s,'~commerciu
dev,e1Lopment"phase;~""":iThe')EI<R.,.,.j;stbeing:~prepared pursuantj~,tQ "the
,Caa:i:foi:ni'ai;EnvironDu!nta~fQual.it'yActjelCBOJl",) i~;.,tCal,."Pub . Res .
Code 5 21000.,-et seq. ) However , there;i"S;noindicat'ion.;thatany
qavernmental agency J.etaJ.onq SterJ.ingPacificintendsto comply
withapplicabl..-e federa1:.1:aw.,.<'Thi'si's:::inspite'''iof .thefact that
",'"zede-ral. .~"wi:1:l,,;certainly,"beusedto. .cons,truct,.the':freeway
,.,:interchanqe.': '~her,i\theArmy~CO'rps~c':of''Engineersmay:be
,::r.equired ',~o"~ssue,''B !C:Lean:.lWa"terlAc,t' ;','Section ;404,~.peJ:JD.:it..:,for ,the
',Terrabay '!cODlDlerci:a:l~l:deve];,opment .
'':,~2i~. (;-,;~;
Cert:airUy,:-:such~':,s i:gnifi-c.ant~:federaJ.;:involvementrequires
campliance with, among other federal statutes and regu1ations,
the ,:Nat:ional"EnvironmentaliPolicy ;Act:(:42 -:U...S.;c.'-:'SS4321ta
. :4370b) ithe;.;Bat'31onaJ.:' '.:tii.:stor~c~Prese%'Vat-ion !Act '3116>D.'S;;C .,5470 f,
. ,.'etseq.<i) , ,and'Section ,.4( f)f,of'the'IDepartmento:f<Transportation
,;Act!,~'4 9\D.. S,..C.:SS-~'J.<6:S:1-S9.l.
Page 2
V .EIWIORNMENTALJOS'1'ICE ,A1U)'1'BEOBLORESBELL N:KJ11D
Environmental justice requires that minority communities be
consul tedregardingproj ects;thatwillimpact them. That
consultation has not occurred here . At no>ti.mehas theOhlone
community beenconsu.lted regarding the Terrabay Project . At no
ti.mehas .the developer or anygovernment.'agencyperfol:llled ,an
ethnographic . and anthropOl.ogical 'study of the 'SanBrunoOhl.one
;ShellMound. At no time has the specific 'impacts of the
TerrabayProject on the Shell Mound and Ohloneculturebeen
studied and evaluated.
The Pajaro'Valley Ohlone Indi.an'Council.,a nonprofit
organization representing 350 people of Ohlone descent, and
supported by San Bruno MOuntain Watch, respectfully requests
that the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council pass an
emergency resolution requesting that the~nm;nistratorofthe
O.S.Environmental Protection Agency investigate the Terrabay
Project and seek ,compliance with all appliCable federal laws.
Mr. Patrick Orozco, Chai~
Pajaro Valley Ohlonelndian Council
Mr . David Schooley, ChaiJ::man
San Bruno Mountain Watch
Page 3
THE SANBRONO MOUNTAINOHLONE SHELLM'OUND
" '" "",.:Subm1tted.:'~y ,'.,
;:The, ';jpalaro)V8.11~,. "'Olil.o~e '<"IDd1ml"CoUncl1
". ..",...." ""<: ';'.... 'and'," ," "..; '",' .' '.'.
;'san'Bruno:}j()pnt8'1ri~Wa~teh
'''':'' '7-~'\, ~" H
San Bruno;Kountain ");",<,,-,,, '~.. .
. ,..',.';",f~e.i1':'\~riiri6.M~uiii~~.,~~~:.."loc'fi'tid:..ij~~~"".~~Jth'iBt"';san Franc isc 0
,on.':the [San \J4ateo~PetiinaUla .-:lt~l"s .~he:':\Dlgges't '~U1"banopen space
.,.,.In'the'"Un1'ted~s.tates.,..:c.o:n1;a1nlIlg;3;;'300.:,Un.deyelop.~'d.acres. The
. "e,st;'~ena,:.ot'~he:~oun1;aln;J:81ope's;downt,o' ':Jth8't;lVa~':onc e the. wes-
"'~:~~~,~~~'?~.~'t~t.i:~.~<l~~~t:s~9.~~-!:~"',,,,:"'",',:"",~.,"., :..',."",~ .
';Ohlohe Y>'She~l1t!C;urid. ~'''''~~.i');'-,
;":r..:{::
, ')C'Tht{:fSan"BrunO'OlUone>:Shell:Mound'ls;locateaonpr1 va te
laridaloli~ ',t'h1s'westernshortt.:atthebaseorcthe:mounta1n and
next/1;o:tn.e-:San ').!a'teo-'S-ta1ieand':Coun t,y iPark.. ",})r,;lor to the
Europesni:nvasio:n,:the"'Ohlonecomprl:sed ''the :pr1nclpalNa t1 ve
:A.me:ricsn";~anR;ua~e;~roup 'lnthe:San "'Eranc:1seo J~ay ..Area.
.,"''l'he "ShelT:Pound 'ha~' J:been.d8tedto".8Dout~,.::r()O,.ears.
". m8.ki:n~"it ''the'o''1.dest'occupled "si'te' .yet:~oun'd,:~on,~hePeninsula.
'BUilt., up 'over"centurlf!Js,~'bY',the 'deposi.t,o~'shelltlsh:rromthe
'Bay;. shell ' ,JIlounds':are .;the. ,':vi'Ilage .,:.c eremoniu..:ud ,:burials i tes
: ,'::,;;0r,':~~be,..)Ohlol1"e'_;~:peo.P1e.-"":' ,c,.'.'" ..,...",..,/; ". ..'.'" " ,'>,. >'~:;"'";.Y,'"., ,.'.','"
",""~":A,:lim:f:'ted;stud'y'otthed.San ;:1~Z;uncj'?)found:1n'~)a:"ge9b,. the .ar-
',.....:'cheolo.glcaI ",tirm, 'ot"llfi)1Dian ":8J1d .',Assoc*..tes'.rttYeal:8,a:~1;he rema1ns
, '\ot,'ert"least ;:l'itt"een;p~p;e':"'';'TJ1is'..rinalng';'J'acc~Q1ng 'to the
';:'-r,irm.~s~;.r.~&~:;f"~C:ert8:1n1Y/~naicat~a ,':uw1dr.eds .,.,ot'1g:'tJ1.'rexisting
i'b1.1riEils. :"'Ev'idence or ':t'lres "and".numerous,""artl'rac"ts",were 'also
round a tthe Shell Mound which . 'HOl.man8Jld,.!ssociatesdeter-
mined I retains i tsstructural in::te~lctt,.~",:::~3S;~';'*',;,:::,~::";:
"",", Glven,thesite'.s 'vast historyanditsJ>>roximitytoa
"smaller-;'8hei~',mo\mcl;l1ear {the;"'Park'boundaTY~'1"t.lsproba ble that
,'tbe':e]l~'ire 'eastern"Ta11e,.':!cQn:tains1,"~mziants"~ot' ::Ohlonesettle-
'ment.;"";i).'here."]:s,,',lns~j;ci'entL:evid.ence"fto;.~s~pOr,t::1ibearcheolo-
:;gl'st'S'.,ib'oun'dar.,.\"deline8tlon,.''tha:t'~cQnrlnes~''the ':-remalns .to- only
'2. 2acres.~u't,.-:'Ot7'the ,,'ya'l1.0Y"smore":tban ,'~3..cres.""';
.Therei,snoquestioll'that<the-''Sa.n:BruDQ]40untainSbell
':~ound:''1s '-'one"'C)t"'<>tbe, 'DlOst-"'Si'Ullticant,.111age'and-burial 'sites
in 'there.v;ion .;~Itis:curren tlyeli~1ble':1'or'nomina tion at the
NationalRe.v:isterot'~H1'8t'oricPlaces .)!oreover; ~i 't remains
> ';88 cred .-:t,().the~;OliloIre:people' .--", ".
'End'a:n~erea"Species'~:'::,.."
.."", ,,_. ,-- .'. ".,. 2:>';~\"~:.f..
. '. ~ .
.. '--.'
. ,', ~he"e8;stern:.1'lanlcot'san;Brwlo'2Mc:n.uita1n~ 'lnc~ludingthe
"Ohlone ;'vfllagesi"t.e;''1sa1.so'home,tQ ,JDa.qy ,plan tS;landanimals,
'ine1.ua.in~ ';'two '-'spec'! e~:or". enaangered''''butterrlies~<the Calippe
Sflverspot,'ana'iMis'Sl'on.'Blue~ ;;'ne":mouritaln'"ecosystem is cur-
'rentl! .-under'tre:I;Dendous ' strain 'rrome.I,l:~()aC?liin~developmen t
',..-,:;
.. ._' c .... .'
aDd"1~8..,:assOci.:t.d~':~l4pabtj', ,-;,par:tlc\llarl,.theinvas1onofexot 1c
.pl'fint"~8pecl;e:.~' ;"WorJ.d.:reDoWDed".rl~omOl;o~lstand .u:pert1Dcon-
aervat1on, :~.1~~qU"..~~Q;"::"1,;s9n.. "JIl,'The 'D1yersi tyofLlfe " h1gh-
lightsSan ~'Bruno'1I01Ul'tain:asone,ore1ghteen brod1 yers1 tl'hot-
apots1ntbeworld,:that.,are"deaervlnglDD1led1ate .a't'tent10n"
'because:,of.tbe1r.precarious "state,a"::;f,::7';,~.~i":;~\':':i"{~;f:';:",':,,, .
In19a2, a Habitat :Conservat'lon.ryp1-an1wa-s'~^approved ,to
&llow .;tbe,,_/d..~~~~pn,.:Qt..*end.-8Jlg~.4.'A.pecj,..~;JDd,-'the1rhab1tat8,
'"lnc'ludlD1:i<Otb.r ,.'pecl;es:Do~::~:~on,,~e:r;..4~'r:t~eatened, " "to.u:e
":qY',.~CJ~:;:r,,.s'ld~tia1:,>c.on.~'t~ctloli,;oJ1';lIaJr.:;Bt:1mC))lIo~tain .'l'he
'~CP",.c,olit~lIled,~.Iik,:':p~o!l,i.pn!l i.~o;:!.~:t>>1:t":t;lt~.s~ry.t10n, orre-
, '-cree. 'tlon":el.ewhere';':"to";'th1s,1~J::.:::-'lle8e;:.(tor,ts;;::baY,etailed and
'themountain'sendaDBereaapecies ';:are.,r.r~1mp.r11.dthu .yer.
The ~beor,.otIaland':Biogeo~'p~",iWell ;osu1te4,'torstudy
o~ thiswholl,.surrounde4, ecosystem.;-:':b,oldS<:;1;ha't':ahabi tat. s
'aref1is.conslsteD~l,.,p~o.p~rtlonal...'to?the:JlUJllberotl ts species.
:ThE{;contlnual ::cU.m1niSbmen~'ot:.,tbe,;'[San.,BruDO)JloUDtaln ecosTstem
'ha:s:)led,to;fithe' ":Btlnctl()nsy,ot'";' sOJDe,2plut:8nd '"anImal:8pecies
'and ';to 'the uangero,us"ly ,reduc8a ,Ylab111~y ,ot maD,y ,others.
"" ".,:~."lYith, all:;th1. 3.n 'heart" and ,JDfrid., ,'tlmther ,destruct1on.
'eyen.';or '~11iiJ:t;hatll1,.,.pparent'l.i::too;marr;1na.lto8upport
.J)arti~cullU"'~;.Pftcie.,;';,.':'1s.c J-earl.Y' :UnW1se ...':,'lRather"icQDslder1ng
't;h8.t':t"e~y.i'te'f:plac,e's .,like :;San1)ruDQ ,''KoUn"ln '"w111.:-be ,letttor
"ourdescend8l1t,. ~u:com1Jlg'-:centurles,..~.t:'a "hl8h '~'1Dleto 'rethink
u-rban;-p1.ami1ni''So ';'tba t ':treasure4,()pen."~pac.8,can..8C tua1ll" fe~
~b,l~~er,. ::~e;>C8.J1.:.11t:te~pt<-~o r.stor.~'so~ca1.led':marg1nalba6i a
and,r..~ntl'()a.uc~':IIpm.e:~'lIj)ec\es~~..aDd:then ';es.tabl,:lsh"Dorridors be-
l;1rtjeri";'~Pen".".p'C'e. ?t():~t.c1l'l1;ate ,,;genetic ,"l!J:cJl1a!l8e>betweenPCJPu-
,,'la:tlons ."~~i:su;;,~'~~o~'ta~n'~'j1'~~'-:_8Jl.Pl~~~',~C()Uld::J)e11nked .'to
..;,:JlcClar-en:Par't::h,~;the.:.'Jlor'tht",aDa. ":tc)::SweeneY"1I :;aidgeln tbe west.
""~'.e';;c:;~e:~r,';.'rc'a'~b', \a':~'~'~,>~,-o"1,.,',':i;"e."~~Io!C". +-:t",:;:',:,':~"~~ '"" ". /. .', "":" .. .," "i;"..,.:'
~J.:U.L :!..~r;l.-: ~ . ':'j-">~':.r'! .-
'. ::;:~;:-'~",.:~'"",:~~i'->~'~::-:':.;"'- '-:<':~-' _-',:::_ .~,_:~ <~1<'~-<, .,' "~,L,~:~/,~,.~i,:\;~,:,~ -->:-:;.. .~-, -', , _,~ ';'> ,'._. :"';:,.' ,.. 'y'.~\';
.,:' .;': "':SUDCbase"G..A:...Ca~l:rorD.la,I":Inc,.:,, . ,Wbose,;:p.rentcompanyis
.' " ,.st,,~r11ng;~clTlc ~1I8.1iagemeJl:tSeri1c.s ,,<of ',:Eboen1X;" ,'Arizona,
'..... ~plans"a,tes,14ent1&~,,~:fU1a/';c01IIIIlerclal.:4ey.lqPIHnt,'caned ,Terrabay
ar,ound ,:;th.'.aOu1aleas'tern:Xbase,..;,ot:SaD..J3r.1UlO,.oun~a1n. ' 'l'hecom-
mercla1..jK)rt'loJl-1iDw.d,ln,c1.ud:e1;br.e !;hote1s""four-restaurants ,
&Jl.d)()the~',:sery1c..~,,!tor ,;a'~otal'::ot 'l1P~ :M3,.'.OOOsquare teet, ot
,c01!lllierc.1.al,';:;a.p.oe",'.,..,plUS"iPU'kig-,1ots,,;and ,.the ',.ooJlstruc't1on ot
_tr..~1.:.:-r~P8f::to.;.e~ce..,,~b8;4e'Y.loJlllent._i:1'h1s . ,;proJ ectwould
;destrq,..'tbe ~SaD ~BruDo ,Bhen"",oun4.:, ,.,' " '" .'
"Based 'oDcurrent '.plan~.,.,:the.,,,~ouna,:1IOuld,be ~apped,. or
coyeredwl thasllUch as:23tee't 01' till ,andthen .turned into
a small ,landscaped ,parksurroUDded.~,.,.aar'Je,.buildings . '!'his
-"ml tl~at1on"woulddesecra tehWIIaD";'burl-als'j:::it'S'resul t~com-
:pactlon1rOul~:,;4~~trQY'.':arcbeo.l.oglcal"r..s,Q~c8s .It 1slikely
.t;hat ,the d.treewv ,.construct-ion :wo111dalso irc,ontributeto:tbe
"1&oUnC\'1:s/4estruct1~'.''':5-/ile,'::::Sj;aDd.,'t.o ;;J.Qse";the,'largeat:. . oldest ,
'aJld:Ji.O~t1,1si~ttlc~;t' 'Oh1one 'sheJ.l r.DlOund'.1'\MII8'" niDR ,inthe""en-
:tire"Ba!.Al'ea:~:.as ,well ~:;as:crl.tica].;.enaangeredllpec1es habitat.
'Environmental just1cerequires ~hat m1nor1 'tycollDllUll1 ties
2
..-
i
i
,--
-
,
;
-
,
'---
be consultedree:ardinEt projects.thatwill impact them. That
consultation has not occurred here. At no time has the Ohlone
communi t.ybeen consulted reQ;ardin~theTerrabayproj ec t . At
'no time ,has the developer or any ,p;overnmentagenc~yperformed
ethnoloe:icalor anthropological studies of. the site, and at
no timehavethespecit'ic :impacts of the project on theOhlone
people :beenevaluated.
San Bruno Mountain Watch and the PajaroValley Oh.lone
Indian Council, anon-profit organization representing 350
peopleofOhlone descent, declare that the proposed project
would severely desecrate a sacred , .ane ient burial site . The
Shell Mound 'sotherfar ranging values, ;aseritieal endangered
species habitat, as open space for Peninsula residents, and as
a cultural, educational, and natural treasure for all, further
dictate that ,preservation of the site as undisturbed open
space .is vital. It is the region'.slastsuchplace.
The old development agreement between the City of South
San Francisco ;and SunChasemustbe reexamined in the context
of what has recently been discovered at theOhlone 'Shell Mound
on San BrunoJKountain. We must take this opportunity to pre-
servethesite,pret'erablybyannexation to the immediately
ad.iacent San Mateo State ,and County Park. We must take
seriously our moral obligation to prevent profit from over-
ridin~themoreendurinp;, imperative values at stake.
P~...~
~~~
Mr. PatrickOroz'co ,Chairman
PajaroValleyOhloneIndian Council
llr. 'David Schooley, Chairman
San Bruno:Moun tainWa tah
;; ,- -. 'iL:
,~LETTER30, ;,PAJAIJO /eVAu..E'{,OHLONE.:/NDIANCOUNCIL.AND,SAN ,BRUNO "MOUNTAIN
"WATCH(CHARLES"MILLER) ,
C " ,_, ,. ~ "_.' '.'" -..' ',' . ,'_ ,_ .,..~ ._' '.., .. ~ . ',' ,~_ '. ..,. _, '"' ."... Q.,"
'.'\--'.'" ''',1.'.''''1,\; ,';,'.!"'"", ,- :,,~,-,-~;,..,<;.;;~ ::~"'.'-'~-"~.":.:,\:,-":-': ;.,'
Fl.esponse 3.0. t ,..Pleasesee!tlaster..R.esPl!ns~'7.3..~:
,.: ,~. ,.:\':' .:' :'-',' ',". .,' ,";.-" '. ~ -'.. .. ,.'-' .' ,::-, .: ' - .-;',.-. ~, ',' '- ,;..,.-' - , ..... ',,:";,J" '..--". " "
'-." . '-"-.- .
Response 30.2 Impact 4.9-1 ("Damage to CA-SMa-40") (DSEIR p;;'g~ 288) presents the analysis of
the"pr, oject" as,proposed ac" co, rdin,g to.the 1998DSEIRPrqject..D.".esc, 7l,1p, 00, ',n of January 1,5, .1998 (DSEIR
;pqge25)'.fieas~also refer to M~r:1!e~~!u~?~..2~gardWgthe..ade~y.ofthe_DSEIR's project
:description,and.:anaJ,ysisin 'Vie!"or.i~~,.pr~ec,t:':SJ><?~or:s;new l'haseJILSite. Mitigation Plan
DevelopmentA~teTnative.. ' ',' - ., , , '
. -- . - --
Mitigation Measure 4.9.J(Q)is ,preceded, Qy,a ,discussion" of the impacts which the, proposed project
would impose on CA.:.SMa-40 (DSEIRpages 286-288). The 1998 DSEIR (DSEIR pages 288-290)
also presents Mitigation Measure 4.9..J{a) ,identified qythe,project,gponsor's .archaeologist.Mitigation
Measure 4.9-1(b) recommended alternative, mitigation because it would erihance, the ' preservation of
the s'ite.
Mitigation Measure 4.9-1(b)contains.recoIIllIlendations for changes in. the Project sponsor's plans in
order to provide the public and decision-makers with variations within the same project description
which not only \Vould, meetCEQA requirements butal~owouldavoidthecompressionand destruction
of CA~SMa-40 cultural..deposits and ,eliminate ,the ,need for mitigation :i,y ,means of extensive
archaeolqgical ~xcavation. '.' '
The project sponsor's Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative is evaluated in Master
"Response :J.3..J~.TheEIR .archaeplogist, didcnot :see,:thealternative .,any,sooner. than,the.commentor
whi".ch was after publication: of the }998 DSEIR. ,'"
. .. ---: ',' ,',- '. -" " ". ,,'- , .- .' ~". ~ "~_' - -. .... ___..-' ,.'_ ," ,-,_" V ..
Response ,30.3 "Pleas9 seeM~terResp(J~e7j-4for,adiscussionof,historicresources.
The, DSEIR doesanaJyze, historif resources:~idelltified .in, and clarified by Master Response 7.3-4.
.,. . .'. . .... -...' - '.. .'.
..' .'
TheEIR archaeolqgisiClid nothave':detiriIedOhione ::iJ1ptttWlnchacconlpaiiiedLetter -30, as 'further
discussed in Response 30.5. 'However, the 1998DSEIR did anticipate strong reaction from, the Ohlone
community regarding the, impacts (and change in significance in the site) as indicated on DSEIR page
292 first paragraph anli page 285 second,.~hi,T#,'!"4JoulJh.paragra.phs. , '
'" .,". '.',',,- " --' -,' ......,.'. -."".-
The project sponsor's new PJuise.1IISite Mi#gation.Plan.Development Altemativewould eliminate all
project construction activities on or within 30. feet of the boundaries of:CA-SMa-40.. The impacts of
development wotildbe totall,yreducecLtoa-less-than-significantJevel and would be,in keeping with
'CEQA's emphasisonpres~rVation of significant cultural resources. Please seeMasterResponse 7.3-1
for the environmental analysis of this31te.gJatiye., ,c, '
:' : "~.'-..' '. :, " . . ." . ':'. . '- -', "; ',', -: . . '. -.': - .',- .' " . : ,"..-
. .... .-. '".'
Response 30.4 The 1998 DSEIR (DSEIR pagtri84) SllmmarizestheuniquenessofCA-SMa-40 as
one oLadiminishing number of extant,.~~e!yundisturbed"prehistoric:;shellmounds;inthe San
'Francisco Bay Area. The oocumentedantiguitr of CA-SMa-40, based on the radiocarbon date of
'5,155 years before the present (BP), suggests that the :sitema.ybethe'~oldest of its ,type" on the
Peninsula and ,perhaps within the San . Francisco 'Bay region. Because of its long prehistoric
occupation (5515BP to 460 BP) and the fact that few such relatively undisturbed shellmounds still
exist in the Bay Area, it certainly is one of the ''best available examples" of theshellmound-type site.
Letlei' 30-1
~Nearly all the approximately 425 large shellmound sites recorded around the Bay Area early in the 20th
century have been destroyed or greatly impacted by natural forces and modem cultural activity. By
.:<:;;;:.t973;(utbanexpanSion had :damagOO,ot.rdestroyed ';morethm~59 perc=cmt'6f}hees~n'HtP.anumber of
,archaeological sites (9 ~675) in the nine Bay Area counties. . Large:Bay2'frontirigshe1lm01in0s have been
,impacted disproportionately aseasilY-filled'shallowB~yf1ats 'have ,been most 'atttactivefor
development. . A very few well-knowri'large' She1hri.oWids';:snm.vea 'long enol1gl(ioif'be part of the
'. modern archaeological rec,ord.
:. --j-::'~.~.~.:~-':;' ,y;...::....'..~
,-
.,..CA.SMa-401s,'''direCtlY';'8.ssoCiated~th.Jl;'scientificany'',iecogn~'iriiportant.'..'prehistoric event"
d'because'it is the'olilest site,.yet'recorded' oIlthe'S'an'FranciSco' PeriinsUla(the initial arrival of people in
'!the ~BayregionbeiDgaD -<<importiDii-prehiStorlc"event'')/'beeRuse it 'contains evidence' of changes in
subsistence sttategyas well as stylistic changes overtime (probabIY'related'to:thebypothesized
replacement of the old . Hokans by the more recent Utians, another important prehistoric, event), and
"'because it possesses 'a'very long c1ilturalsequence co~p~dwithother regional sites.', '
, "
"ShellinoundS'contain;impressive ~arriountSofaata relatecf~to 'the environment and changes in the
'-environment.""Therefore, CA.:SMa-40,'contirinsarecord ofenvrronmental changes as well as how
human inhabitants in the region, adapted to' changing conditions. CA-SMa-40 is the ,oldest site
reported on the Peninsula, contains a record of San Francisco Bay region prehistory? and ties the site to
'theperiod just prior to 'the contact of Eui'opeans and 'Native cultures. '
., ':'" . ;, . . ',...~,
-",'-".".;.;"-
'ImplementatioIlottheprojecf woUld 'restilf iritheloss' of an>exceptioDalexarnpleof tht:{c1assic Bay-
, oriented prehistoricshe1lmound. :Such-an actiOIl would result iri a significant cumulative impact on the
ever-diminishing data bank regarding regional Cultural history, as well as an important;Ohlone cultural
resource.
"':Mitigation;Measure '4:9-1(aY(DSEIR ~page"28~)Hor'MitigitionMe:aSuie4;9l1(b):(DSEIR 'page 290)
would satisfy CEQA requirements for reducing cumulativeimpattsloa less;..than-signmcant level.
Mitigation Measure, 4.9-1(b) would be, the DSEIRpref~rredmeasure because'itvvouldpreserve the
shellmounCl.. "'The"Phasenr'Site ':Mitigation' PlanJ!)evelopm;mt Alternative would eliIriinate all project
activity on and within 30 feet of the b<>,undaries of.CA-SMa-40, resulting in the.preset:vation of the
site. 'The Phase lITSiieMitigation 1'lan'Development Alternative woUld be in keeping with CEQA's
emphasis on , preservation of significant, cultural :resources., ..' The Permanent,Open~pace Alternative
'and the~eauced CommerCial DeVe~pmentAlternativealsowould ,resillt in the ,preservation ,of CA-
"'SMa-40.',.,..q..f' . '.".. ..i"i .,.." .
, .:....,. ',~ .
.'<."- "._,
, ,
. , I.' ,',_ " 0,'_,' ,-' " .
Cumulative impacts 'resUltingfrori:idi.I&t-lunnan::activitY'a1soWill' Occui. "Phase ' mcommercial
developme~twould lead to increased hUman activity .throughout the San Bruno Mountain area and
.< cotild.resUlt"in,cumulative'impaets ,to CA-SMa-40,(and -94). 'Increased,human presence,tends to put
pressureon'the 'landscape as · peo.ple,' ~ Jorevercunous ,.about.theirsurr()undings .anci, 'in ,some cases,
.:'a.re :_abusive toward their sUrroundings;, ','Even lfthe arcbaeolo.gicaI resoUrces, are preserved . in their
':present condition, commercial developmentm theare8 willbringpe()'p1e to the site (as its existe~ce
and location are now common knowledge),and 'the' resourCes will be exposed to long-term trampling,
collecriI!g, and,possibly, deliberate vandalism.
'- , ' " ',.-'-,.'" ."',:: -.' -' .
. . " .."....., _. .'....... 'd.'_., .,',
, ,
"Peri~CI11()mtoiing'oftbe'corid1ti6nof:tlie resomces~oUldsllti~ cEQAa1ilriiti,gation., The use of
'fencing~, sigria,ge, roclCbamers,or othermeans.of redu'cmgaccessmaybe reguirecUn the future to
, discoUrage orprevent~ative'impacts of this nature. "'.,. ,
Letter 30-2
,Response 30.S:It'appears :thatthis:comment 'focuses1>n the:opinion that :inspiteof CEQA
:requirements for ,pUblic, participation, ',California :NativeAmericans -.did ,.;not 'participate in 'any
"meaningful way in this EIR'process. . " '"
. -
The 1998 DSEIR;(DSEIR pages,276 ,and 285 footnote.275):indicatesthai'EIR archaeologist initiated
. contacts with!theiNative. \American.' community and '.-provided !the, City ,withrecords.documenting
,communications.with ;Native ,Americansaboutthe,project.. :These :materials:are :on ,;file with the
;Planning Division as .part'oftheCity",~projectjile and include ,copies of the following,items:
eFebruary 2, 1998 letter to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento
requesting alist of Ohloneorganizations:and individuals.
,eFebruary 5, 1998 response from the NAHC'including a list ofllOhlonecontactswithaddresses
: and telephone :numbers.
e February 9, 19981etters sent "to 'all',llOhlone contacts, including one to .P-atrickOrozco, which
sought, comments .and/recommendationsJromthe local Native American community regarding
the. management ofCA:':SMa-40.
e Copies of two letters of response, including one from Patrick Orozco,
e : Copies of summaries of four telephone conversations.
The comment suggests that the relevant project-related reports and materials were not available to the
Native American community for pre-DSEIR review. Public review.periods'for,EIRs are intended to
give all interested parties the 'same opportunity:toread1lDd,comment,on'report contents and not to give
'preferential:treatmenttoindividuals, groups, :,orrepresentatives::of'organizations. Background
information used to conduct this 1998 SEIR's analyses but not published in the appendix is part of the
public record. Most of that information is on file with and available for public inspection at the
Planning Division, Unlimited public access is restricted to Holman and Associates' .1998 report,
Evaluative Archaedlogicd.llnvestigations at the'San Bruno "Mountain Mound Site,CA-SMa-40, South
San Francisco California, the mainarchaeologicalbaekgroundreport in order 'to safeguard the site's
resource, but certainly would be available for review by Ohlonecommunity members. The report also
is availableattheHistorica1Reso~es Information System, Northwest Information Center at Sonoma
StateUriiversity in' RohnerfPark.
'TheEIRarc:haeologist ,responded:to 'a 'lelephoneiequest 'by 'Ohlone'lndiantribe member Andrew
Galvan and provided information 'from the 1998 Holman and Associates report, The EIR
archaeologist would have providedsiniilar material to others, if requested.
A telephonecommuriicationwith RosemaryCaIlibra,Chairperson,Muwekma ~Indian Tribe, was the
source ,of the 1998 DSEIR 'statement' (DSEIR page' 293 Jifth paragraph) regarding the control of the
archaeological site by the OhIone.
, '
The statements made 'by Patrick Orozco which are attached to Letter 30 as 'Exhibits 'One through Five
are similar in content toMr.Orozco's(February18,19981ettertothe~EIR archaeologist. Nevertheless,
;theywould have been welcome material in assessing the importariceof'CA;;;SMa-40, particularly
Ohlone sensibilities regarding the'culnmiland religious'sigriificanceof'the site.
The comment states -(page'12 last paragraph) 'that the 1998'DSEIR'is"simplywrong";"'mitigation 4.9-
I will not elirninateconflictwith Native Americans". This comntentdoesnotreflect what the 1998
Letter 30-3
DSEIR states. "Mitigation Measure 4"9-1 ( a) was presented by the project.sponsor's'archaeologist,
Holman and Associates,.:.inthat Jirm',soFebroary 1998 ,report. Holman and; Associates calls for
archaeological excavation to mitigate the significant impacts.whichwouldresultfromp1acing as much
.as 20 feet offill on the site -thefillbeing part of the applicant'sproposedproject. Mitigation
'Measure4.9";1(b) recommends "that no more ,tban'two feet 'of fill .bePlaced,on the site-which would
,,'eliminate ,compression of ithe ,cultural ,deposit 'and ,would ',faCilitate.;.preservation of;CA-SMa-40 and
'"whichwouldrtendnot:to:conflictwith "Native American effortS 'to 'preserve 'the : site. . '- While same
archaeologicaL excavation may tbenecessaryat1:he:.peripheryof 'the site ,with' Mitigation Measure 4.9-
1 (b), the main part of the site would remain intact (DSEIR page.293).
The comment voices displeasureeWith..capping":,;the 'jsite with '.anyamount ;offill.Thecomplete
elimination offIll on CA-SMa-40 certainly is compatible with Mitigation Measure 4.9-1(b). The 1998
DSEIR,states.that"variations of Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 (b ) are possible as long as the basic premise
of site preservation is maintained and the need for site destfoyingfillrcompaction-and compression is
eliminated". The Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative would eliminate all
construction .-activitiesonorwithin:30 feet of the ,boundaries ofCA-SMa-40.Impacts of development
would :betotaIly:reducedtoaJess,;;than-significant.:level.ud'wouldbe.in keeping with CEQA' s
emphasis on preservation of significant cultural resources. iPlease see.Master:Response 7.3-1 for a
detailed discussion of the Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative.
-Exhibit One Ulldated comments by Patrick Orozco of the Pajaro Valley Ohlone Indian Council
regarding the San Bruno Mountainshellmound(page.2,1astparagraph).Mr.Orozco summarizes
that '~we would like to see":
c:the.gravesleft .,tnldisturbed'
C," . ,the whole area preserved with ;DO comm.ercialdevelopment
C ,cthemanagementofthe'..}and be supervised,byanOhlone Indiandescendantordescendants
C Mitigation Measure 4.9.,}(~)(withor without. a shallow cap oLfill-,twofeet or_less) would
,preserve,on-site -Native, American burials.
","',',
cThe.1998,DSEIRjDSEIR.,pages 326",32~), presents, the lead ,agency with .' an..enviroiunentally
superior alternative. The report states under archaeology iDSEIR ,page 328) that "[t]he
Permanent Open Space Alternative would be the environmentally superior of all alternatives
"from, an.archaeologica1:pe~pectiveLincludingtheNoDevelopment Alternative and the
-Commercial Development Alternatives "because ,the <site's '. 'cultumI ,resources would be
preserved; and managed .intactin ,anundevelqped,landscape".,
. ';..-.,
C The, 1998 DSEIR also ,presents the lead~gency with ,the ,possibility of management of the site
10cationbyOhlones (see. DSEIRpa,ge. 293,fifthparagraph).
~ ,~,
,C The Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative would eliminate all construction
activities on : or.. within ,30 feet of, theboundaries,ofCA-SMa-40.:Impacts .of :.development
would,be,totaIly .,reducedto ',.aless.,than-significantlevel , and ',would. be :in,keeping with
CEQA' s,emphasis ,on.preservation, of significant cultural resources. .Master Response 7.3-1
'presents a ,detailed .dis~sioIlof ,$e,PhaseJIISite Mitigation,Plan Devel(JpmentAlternative.
-ExhlbltTwo .testimony on the .Terrabay'Phase nand illEIR1:>yPatrick Orozco (undated)
- cExhiblt. Three statement of.Patrick Orozco , August'14,1998
'Letter 30-4
.. '&b/bitFour additional statements of Patrick Orozco;uune 1, ~1998
. Thesethree..narrativesemphasizetb~:.Concem:for.preseryation,ofthe ,.Ohlone,.shellmound, Native
,American burials, andtbe:protectio~of the site settiItg" '
'.:- ;. ~: .,,-. - '
Response The.lead agency should consider these and other Native American concerns in
; determining ,.the ipreferrecLaltemative ~forthe.;project., 'As.stated above, the 199&DSEIR (DSEIR
page 328) offers an environmentally superior alternative which would,preserve':the.site intact in
an undeveloped landscape.
i ~.-:,-; ".'i .
\'. : '0'.;" .;. .'.,>:.~.;~:.""
,As an ,Ohlone .spiritual Jeader, Mr.c0nJzco' s ,statementsregarc:ling the 'potentialJor.off.,.site burials
should ,be given, serious ,consideration.' -TheprojectJlI'Chaeologist' (H01man& Associates) and the
EIR archaeologist (Chavez & Associates) agree that there is not practical way to determine if, in
fact, off-site burials are present, and an archaeological and Native American monitoring program
is recommended for the Terrabay Phase ill project. See Master Response 7.3-6 for additional
discussion.
Response 30.6 The commentorstates that "it is conceded in the Draft EIR that the Ohlone
shellmound is eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)(Draft EIR., page 341)". The
1998 DSEIR summary statement (DSEIR page 341 first paragraph) is incorrect and will be corrected
in the Certified SEIR. It should read:
... The importance of CA-SMa-40 is undisputed, dueto its antiquity, size, location, and contents,
including human remains, such that it appears to meet the criteria for nomination to ~1iaH.fies fer
iftsl1i5i8ft 8ft the National Register of Historic Places. However. CA-SMa-40 has not been
formallv determined to be elilrible for or listed in the National Relrister. and such a determination
is bevond the iurisdiction of the city.
The EIR archaeologist makes this statement on DSEIRpage 282 (first paragraph) to further the
conclusion that CA.;SMa-40 meets CEQA criteria as an important cultural resource.
It is important torea1ize that only the keeper of the NRHP in Washington, D.C., with concurrence
frorn the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), can determine if a cultural resource is eligible for
listing on the NRHP. A nomination form would need to be prepared for SHPO review to begin the
nomination process. No such effort has been undertaken, and NRHP eligibility remains as matter of
professional opinion and not a statement of fact. It is important to realize that the SEIR is not required
to determine if project-related resources are eligible for nomination to the NRHP. Please see Master
Response 7.3-3 fora detailed discussion of the application of the NHP A to CA-SMa-40.
Just as CA-SMa-40 is probably eligible for nomination to the NRHP, it also probably is eligible for
nomination to the California Register, and the Certified SEIR text (DSEIR page 282) will be revised
accordingly, as follows:
It is apparent that the' archaeological research questions posed by Holman and Associates can be
addressed through the analysis of CA-SMa-40 cultural deposits. It is concluded, therefore, that the
site is an important cultural resource under criteria defined by CEQA Section 21083.2, including
in Appendix G, and Appendix K. 'Under Section 21084.1 the site is probablv elilrible for listinl! on
the California Relrister of Historical Resources. It is further believed that the site meets the
criteria for Domination to the,National Register of Historic Places. As an importance resource, any
significant impacts to CA.'sMa-40 would require mitigation under the provisions of CEQA (see
Impacts and Mitigation MellSUFes, below).
Letter 30-5
r-
i
Whether or not theC)hlonecshellmound (CA:-.SMa-40}'is'eligiblefor:listing'on:theCalifornia Register
will not chaJ;lgethe1998 DSEIR~s conclusions regarding impacts and mitigation. The criteria for
eligibility 'essentially 'aretbesame;as 'CEQA'Appendix'K{and Section 21832) criteria for determining
the importance of a cultural resource/'.By :applying"CEQA:criteria,'the;lead,'agency in fact is
-considering "pmdent and feasible" protections for the OhIone shellmound:
;:;,0. i/,>."'
.,- ,'. " -'..
: Retiponse 30.7 'Fcir a discussionregardingcompliance,with.the;National Hist6ric'Preservation Act,
,'see Master ReSponse 7.3-3~ .., " - ,,' ;';,'
, '
Response 30~BTheTerrabayPhase mproject is nota Federal "action" under the National
':'Environmental'Policy'Acr(NEPA), and the . preparation of'an 'environmental impact statement (EIS) is
not required. 'PleaSe see.MasterResponse7.3-3for'further discussion.
Letter 30-6
RECEIVED
Su.6an 'V.ig-U " ,',
:209 Cha.t:tanooga. 'S.tILe.e.t
SanF~c.ol'CA .94714
~UiLJ-9
,:LETTEHir~
,:PLANNING'
MtL.J.imH~h
P L.a.YlII.btgV.i.vLh.io n
Ci..tYPo South San 'fJUUZ.C.-i.6co
375Ma.pL.i'Ave.nu.e. ,..,., .
P.O .:Bot'77 7 '. '
Sou.th San FlU1.nwcol CA 94083
Al.Lgu.6t 14, 1998
Ve.aJLM1t..H~h:
lam ,.gJU1te.Oul '00 OIl. the. oppolLtu.n.Uy to c.omme.n.t on the. '1998$. E. r;R. 00Jt.
PheuuILa.ndIIJol TeIlJU1bay . JamJLe.hponrUng eu a. cilize.n a.nd nughboJL
00 Sanlvu,U1o'MoWLta.i.na.nd. wa.n.t to 'be. c.le.aIL.tha.tJam .nozJt.e.p4e.he.nU.nE my
company ..i.n .thue. comme.nU .FoJt. 'the. leut 6l6te.e.n ye.aJL,6 Iha.ve. woJiR.e.done
bl.ock. .QJIJaJj.6Ilom.the.,pJlopo~e.d Po.i.nt:. ,developme.nt:. I,.i.n..the J lOO,bloc.k.o6
AUtpoJU:. BouL.e.valtd..The Lo4LLe.6.Wh.Wt c.o.nc.eIU1me.'alLe. ,.i.nzhe6 oUow.i.ng
alLe.tU: ,hydAoL.ogYI b.i.oL.ogyand.,all.C.ha.e.oL.ogy. '.. " ,
HYVTWLOGY "." ,", ".' ,', ,,', '.."
31. l' le.t.ube.:p~o,n..the.,lLe.c.oJUI.tfUi:t'the;7JOb:bJ.oc.k. .06 .~OJl;tBou!e.vcwJ. _
e.xpeJci..en.c.e11l.L!lpILe.c.e.d.e.n:te.d..:~looiWLg a.nd..6tWeJLba.c.k -'up.6,.a.otelt ,.thec.ha.nE U
,ma.cle. t.O/Le.rWr.e.c.:t:. :wa.teJL ,6lowi..n 'thebu...i1.rUng 0 6Si..t.ZeJL ,Ci..:ti.uBOu!e.valr..d
.a.ndPhtUe. ,1,Q6 . Jwr.a.bD.Y.. ,il6the:hyclJr.olo gYILe.polr.:t,6 OlL ,:tha.tpILoje.d.ptU.6 e.d.
. YOUll~CJuJ.t:.l.nya.t.the..:Ume. ,oJ,Lt.6.E .1.R . Lwo.u.l.d ..6~gg,e.ht".tha:t"yO.u.d.o
6wu:helt JLue.aJLc.hon the. po~~iblecoMe.c..t.i.onbe..twe.e.n.th.tLt .plLoj e.ct.a.nd
zhe ~ub.6e.qLLe.n.t-' 6L.ooc:Li.ng and. .6ewelt ba.c.h.-up.6 on Ai.Jr.polr.:t Bou!e.vaJr.d.la.nd zo
u.6 ewha.:t IjOLL L.e.CVLn be.60lLe.YOLL -impl;emULt Pwu l1a.nd. HI. In;;U,gh.t '06
wha:tiuJ;6 : happene.d. iheJLe peJLhap.6Uwo.u1.d ,be..plLu.c:J.e.n.;t J;o ,;noz/Lely on .the
,.6ame.hydJLologi4t;. '
31.2
BIOLOGY
.Tne.moWLtatn :..i.;h,kn.cJte.rUblyuc.h..i.n-.bpe.c.i::e.h ,a.nd. :;,e.c.o~ !J.'>Zem6 ,. '.1weu.~ /JJtpJlJ..6 e.d.
t.04t.e.a.d.;'(p. .3:1 57: ).::tha.t .the.:mo n.i:toM.:ngoit.he.plLe.6 e.nc.e'o n.the:c..a.lli;ppe.
c.6.uv~pozbuttVLil!J .ISpe.yeJL.i.a.C/1ll...i;ppe.'c.al.Uppe. I ,.and ma.pp.i.ngon Lt6, ho~z
plaJLt'.IV .i.oia.pe:dwLc.ula.:tt1) :'ha.d..6 e.eme.d.a.c.c.epta.ble. .A6th..a ,.6 pe.ei.u:wa.6
Fe.d.eJLa.l:ty-.ti..;6-ze.d..;eu '~geJt.e.d 'ra.6' oo:1Je.c.embeJL ,;,79 tf7 ,i.t; "would;6e;em . ,'4ppILopJLi.a.:t.e.
,zo ,~zu.d.!J ,.the. fha.b.i:;ta.t ..,.wUl.6'ely'oveJt.a.;peltiod~o6 llJe..aIL6:t.O' ,de.t.eJr.m.i;ne ,,-impa.c.;t
06 development. on .the buttelt6lq. I~~.i.x.mort.tfL6 enou.gh u.me.?
RegaJr.C:U.ngthe.we.:tl.a.nd.6MLt.iga.ti.on Me.tUUIle.6 4..3-7 I a.1 II bl I a.nd Icl'l'my
po~.i.ti.on..fA t:ha:t the. we.:t:i.tzJrd6 ~hould ~t.a.yl 00% i.nt.a.c:t. . Ac.c.olt.rU.ngto
ClvLi..6t.opheIL SwaJL:th IV.iJr.e.dOlL 06 the J u.g Bay We.tl.a.n.r:l.6Sanc.tUiVLY :i..n.MaJtyla.nd I
"The. .6c..i.e.nc.eolL 'aJr.;t' On m.i.:t.i.ga.t..i.on .i..6 .in i..U .i.n6a.n.c.y a.nd.muc.hILemahJ.6 zo
be leaMe.d.. Compe.1l.6a:tolL{/ m.i:U.ga:te.d we.tl.a.nd. ~UUaIle. ~u.ppo~e.dzo 1Le.pla.c.e.
tho~e.,ou.nc..U.On4 :that. aile. lo~t whe.na. we.:t:l.a.nd .fA dUVt.oye.dlbut ma.ny
31.3
. ,
L .~
31.3' .6u..e.n.U..6:t6 qUe.6.u.on whe.theA. :tw .lA Jr..e.aU.ypO.6.6.i.ble.. Some. m.i.:Uga.t.i.on
.6Ue.6 ha.ve. obv.i.OU.6ly 6aA...t.e.d.,xwr.n.iir.g .i.n:t.ola.k.eAOlLupla..nd.6. J no.thelL
c.a.6e.6 , a. mi.ti.ga.:te.d we:tl.a.nd.:ma,y<lo 0 fa ;"t.kk.e. a. na.:twr.a.lwe:tl.a.nd.. :~~bu.t..d.oe..6
:tha.:t mean U.i6 6 u.nc.:t.i.o Yl.i4g '::'15idie.:,~o ne.? F eIA1 .6tudi..eA'.ha.ve. a.ddJr.e..6.6 e.d. th.i..6
quuUon.. rd . Given the. t:U66-i.c.u.U:.y'oiJ ade.qu.a;tel.y 'm.i.U.ga:U.itg 0.1.0.6:(.
we.t.l.a.nd. r:.;;oe.e.t.6:tItDngty that :th.i.6we..tl.and.onPha.oe. .1 II .6..i..te., wh.i.c.h \-
pJr..Ovi.d.e..6 wa.:tVr.",a.ni(hab..i..ta:t6 OlL ma.ny .6 pe.Ue.6 0 opla.n:C6a.nd. a.ni.ma.l..6,
.6houlrL.6:tayX;;;Wac;t.l~Sal.vag.i.ng and lLe.pla.n:Un.g na.t.i.ve. pla.nt6 .lAa. VelLY
31.4 d.i.66.i.c.U.U,j:ob. ,PlLC1PlL9a.:U.ono6na.t.i.ve.pltWA to ,.6u.pplem~.6u.C.h 'an
e.660JCtwoutd:be.-ne.Uted..M a. galr.de.neIL a.nd membeIL 06 'the. 'Ca.U.6oJtn.i.a.,
Na.t.i.ve. Pla.n.t,Soue-ty 1 c.a.natte..6tto :the.t:UQ6.i.c.u.Uy 00 ~pltinU.ng
ma.n.y na.ti.ve.pla.n:U. 1 ,.
ARCHAEOLOGY
31.5' 1 gJLeIA1 up on a.n. .lAla.n.d -i.n:the. Che..6ape.a.k.e.Ba.y. Th.i..6 -iAla.nd. had .6i.x. .ohe.U.
mowtd6 wh..i.c.h WelLe. plLote.c.te.d. by the. ne..i.ghboMood. a.6.6oc.i..a..t-i.on.We.c.hi.i..dlt.e.n
WelLe. notallowe.d.to c.oUe.c.:t alL.ti.oa.c.t6 OlL otheJrW..i..6e. cU..6tUILb tho.6e. .6hal
mowtd6.A pelUJlane.n:t mU4e.umon:the. i..6land. c.oYLttLine.d. aIVLOWhe.a.d.6, po:t6hvr.d.6,
a.nd. othelL t1ILU.6a.c.:tA wh.i.c.h "had.,be.en c.oUe.c.te.d.'Long'be.oolLe. Olwa.6.bolLn.
ThelLe. wa.6tobe.no'bu.U.rU.ngonoJt ne.x.t:to:tho.6e. mowtd6 ,a.6tha.y WeJle. lLe.6-
pe.c.te.d. tU1-emruln.t6 00' a.n.,tzne.-i.e.ntNa.u.ve. ,AmvUc.a.nc.uUUlLe..
'- . ,-' - ,"
The..6e. 'tl'heH 'mouYuuo nPhai'e :cr IJ.6Ue.:aiLe.not:ontye. v.i.d.enc.e.6o~ 5000 ye.aJr.6
b 6 "human -a.c:t..ivay .dTh:iYalle.'tLt.6 o "c.eine-taJUe..6 . " ,.:A.6 , I'woul.d.not co rL6.i.delL
buUc:Li.ng onOlL ne.alLgJU1.ve..6 -.tn -'Cotmci'l:wou.td'e.x.pic.t the. -"CU:.y06Sou.th Sa.n
FJt.a.n.C..i.6c.o toe.x.te.nd. the..6ame.Jt.e..6pe.c.:t60Jr. the. deLic.a.te. lLem~ 06 .the. Oh.tone.
pe.ople.. ,Ha.ve.n'twe. done. enough toth~e. pe.ople.? _..1. can imag.i.n.e. ,~e. ::gUe..6:t6
,06two:huge. ;Jhci:teL6 ;'dkgg.i.flg :tivLough:the.:hhelllllowtd6,;.t.'ooUng'o OlL.6 OUVe.Me1L6 .
;'Ha.vag . two ,;hu:t.el.6...a.nd ?Q. c.o1tpo1ta:te.he.ad:qu.aJl;teJr..6 "'ne.aJiby ',i.J, '.6U1Li!y -no ,'e.nv-Ur.o n-
'ment:~olL .-d.e..6'c.~''06':the:l{e.' ~peopl:e.'t:.ov;aa the.21Ue.to'honolLtheiJr.
anc.e;6tOJL6. "7:fhe. ''''de.veJ;opm'e.n:t-o~:a. ,;paJtk.w.WttaJAJn.6,'ttz.llti4c.ti.p-i.ng,.pe.d.ubUa.n
pa:th.6 ,:a.nd i:n.:t.e.JtpJLe:U.ve.'de.me.n..t6" 'UYil..mO.6t. 'a.60one.rL6.Lve. Ha..6ol.u:V..on-tU
c.a.pp.i.n.gthe mou.n.d.. .
i
. CONCLUSION ", '" ',,' ", ' ", " " "
Give.n..th.e.:,,6 pe.ci.til'o e.a:tUILe.6 -,o~;the.; ;'Pha.6 e~l'Il::.6ae. ,:( we;.t.t.a.Ilt.Lll, < .6h~mou.n.d.6 ,
na.t.i.ve. plfULt6 ,ande.ndJln.geJLe.dbu:UeJLnUe..6 I JbeLi.e.ve...that;tha ,:6it.e.wouLd
be. a.n out.6t.a.n.cU.n.gout.d.o 0Jt. cl.a.6.6Jr..O om6 OIL .6 c.ho oU all oVeILthe.Ba.y Mea..
VolWLte.eIL :teamo .c.ou.ld, eJlI1.l1i..c.a:te. -i.nva.6-i.ve. .6pe.Ue.600 pla.n:C6a.n.dpILopa.ga.:te.
,;a.na 'pla.ri.t .the. W-i.o.t.:a.:pedu.n.c.u:.t.a.:ta.'a.n.d ,0t.heJlko.6t..,pla.ti.U,'06 "a.Uthe. Jlpe.&e..6
00<bu.t.teJl6Lie..6\Wh..i.c.h ':vi.ld.t:, ;.;the. -aIlea..' ,,-rO.theIL .:.t:.eamo ?'c.otil.d. '1te.alr.11to-'lfIori.i.:toJr.
the. we::Ua.ncL6. I ntight .:0 6>.t:.he.i.6.6 uuwhi..c.h:I;:ha.ve..;ou.tli.n.e.d.above. 'fJ.n.d.:the.
i.n.t1ti:n.6ic.';vatue.o6t.he.mount.a.i.n.w.e..t.6 1 \'UJLge..:you :'t.O;;6.ele.c.t.th.e. 'Phcue.lIl
"R-eJUnanULt ~{Ope.n. Spa.c.e.; 'AU:.t:Jr.JUl:t.i.ve.. 'Th.i.6,iA '~JjOuJL ',u.nlque..~oppoJLtu.ni.J;y ;to
; plLU"eJlve.' ,'Q.,;mo~ ii.n.th.e.; 'mi.:d.6:t 06;anWLban'ile..t.t.Utgi60Jr. ~a.U.t.o;e.itj oy a.n.d
Jr.e..6pe.c.t..
lVolWLte.elL 'Monli:.olL, , Voil 0, No 1;. SplLing 1998; EPANtLti..ona.lNeJ.U6le.t:teJl 00
V olWLte.eIL Wa.:teIL QwzLi;ty 'Mon.i.:tolLlng. 'P' 7.
.LETrER31,.SLJ~At:I.VlGIL.
. Response 31.1COIinnent noted. Accm-amg to Richard Harmon'ofthe,City~sEngineering Division,
the 1100 block of Airport Boulevard is in a different watershed than the lands drained by the Terrabay
'Trunk 'Storm Drain (TISD) which was installed along what is now Sister Cities Boulevard.
Moreover, the TISD was installed in its completed formbetore.-Sister Cities Boulevard was
constructed, and the'TISD has enough capacity to accommodate ultimate buildout of Phases I'and"n
of the subdivision. At that, time, only Phase I, was ,under construction. Some flooding could have
occurred along Airport Boulevard just north of the Bayshore Boulevard intersection prior to the
installation (by Caltrans) of the principal box culvert which conveys TISD and other Bayshore and
freeway drainageaCfoss U.S. 101. However, this localized flooding would not have crossed the
watershed boundary into the southern drainage which includes the 1100' block. The area referred to be
the commentoris subject to occasional flooding due to obstructed storm drain inlets and relatively flat
'grades. Sanitary sewer back-ups also occur on occasion due ,to infiltration of rainwater into sewer
pipes which can overload the sanitary sewer, as noted. According to Terry White, the City
Superintendent of Public Works, some remedial measures (such as backflow valves) have been
installed to reduce the frequency of sanitary sewer backup in the commercial district comprising the
1100 block.
Response 31.2 The reference to surveys on DSEIR page 151 pertains to the mapping effort for
larval host plants of the callippe silverspot conducted by the project sponsor's vegetation specialist. A
supplemental peer review of the larval host plant mapping was performed during preparation of the
1998 DSEIR. In defIning an appropriate scope for the biological assessment for the DSEIR, 'the City
and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) monitoring consultant / Plan Operator determined that field
work should focus on the distribution of the larval host plants for ca1lippe silverspot - johnny jump-
up. Attempts to have the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) provide input into the scope of the
field effort were unsuccessful during preparation of the 1998 DSEIR. Comments received from the
USFWS (Letter 12) focus on compliance with the landowner I developer obligations defined in the
HCP and avoiding larval host plants of the callippe silverspot which is recommended by Mitigation
Measure 4.3-2.
Response31.3 The commentor'sconcems about loss of wetlands and importance of preserving
existing habitat are noted. Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(b) calls for preparation ofa detailed wetland
mitigation plan, if complete avoidance of wetland habitat is not feasible. The wetland mitigation plan
would include ,specifIc performance criteria, momtoring provisions, and contingency measures to
ensure success criteria area met, consistent with the mitigation goals of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Refer to Master Response 7.3-8 on wetlands for additional information on the proposed
approach to mitigating potential impacts on wetlands and the need for adequate replacement and
restoration.
Response 31.4 As the commentor notes, salvage and propagation of native plants can be difficult
and require an experienced professional. However, use if collected seed and salvage material is
becoming an important component of restoration work and should be incorporated as part of the
proposed Restoration Plan. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1(b) specifies that salvage be performed during
the optimum period necessary to ensure plant survival.
Response 31.5 The comment addresses the "merits of the project". It does not raise questions
about the adequacy of the 1998 DSEIR analyses but refers to the project's significant environmental
effects analyzed in the DSEIR and expresses a preference for an alternative for the Phase ill site
Letter 3] -]
evaluated in the DSEIR. While no response is required, inclusion in the 1999 FSEIR will make the
commentorS' vie'Wsavailable to City decision-makers. Please see Master Response 7.3-8 and the
DSEIR discussions of wetlands in Impact 4.3-3 (DSEIR pages 160.:.161),cU1tural resources'in Impacts
4.9-1 and 4.9-2 (DSEIR pages 288-297), and special-status plant and animal species in Impact 4.3-2
'(DSEIRpages'158-159).' . _a - '.'
:-
,
, .
Letter 31-2
August 14, 1998
LETTER 32
Michelle Brewer
4141 Cowell Blvd. Apt. 76
Davis, CA 95616
TO: South San Franci5co Planning Commission
RE: Terrabay Phase II and. n, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Members of the Planning Commission:
I am concemecl about the impacts that the Terrabay Phase II and. m projects will have on
the habitat of the endangered insects, the Mission Blue and Callippe silverspot
butterflies.
32. 1 Although. according to the SEIR (p.1SO), provisions allow for "incidental takeH of ,
. endangered species, this is only allowed if the project sponsor provides the US Fish and
Wildlife Service with a conservation plan for the affected specles.Theproject sponsor
must also enter :irito a habitat management agreement with the California Department of
Fish and Game, which defines permitted activities and pmvidesadequate mitigation.
It is my concern thatthis provision has not been adequately followed, as although there
is an attempt at mitigation for the Callippe sllverspot (4.3-2)., this are no similar
mitigation provided for the Mlssion blue butterfly.
,32.2, Mitigation measures fo~the Callippe silverspot are also not adequate as transplanting
adult nectar plants to areas where they are c:urrentlynoUiving is unlikely to work. How
one be certain that the butterflies will find them and decide to reside there? Also, how
can one be certain that the transplanted plants will survive in their new habitat? As a
biologist, I am familiar with the many unknowns that are involved with transplantation
, experi11'Ients, and I feel that there is no guarantee that this mitigation will be effective or
helpful to this species.
The best mitgation is the preservation of habitat where the species currently lives.
Unfortunately, since there is so little habitat left for these species,there is little other land
left to preserve that is not already.somehaw protected. Therefore, it would be difficult
for the developers for this ,project to provide any mitigation measures thatwiU
effectively counteract the negative impact that the planned development would have on
these species.
I urge you to not allow this development project to go forward. The effects of this
development project on the aforementioned species are unknown and' unacceptable.
Sincerely,
~.dtdU..,'~
Michelle Brewer
Master's Degree Candidate in Conservation Biology, San Franc:isc:o State Urdversity
LETTER 32, MICHELLE BREWER
Comment 32.1 The 1998 DSEIR (DSEIR pages 149-152) provides a detailed discussion of the
potential for occurrence of special-status species on the site, including butterfly species of concern. As
indicated on DSEIR page 151, the recent endangered status designation of the callippe silverspotraises
concerns about the potential impacts of the proposed project on this subspecies and the adequacy of
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) provisions to address habitat loss. Refer to the Master Response
7.3.-9 on callippe silverspot for information on the status of the amendment application to allow for
incidental take of this species as part of the HCP. The status of mission blue butterfly has not changed
since completion of the 1996 SEIR, and the provisions of the' HCP and previous EIR were considered
adequate to address this species allowing for incidental take under the Section lOA permit. Attempts
to obtain input from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) during preparation of the 1998
DSEIR were unsuccessful. Comments received from the USFWS (Letter 12) focus on compliance
with landowner /developer obligations defined in the HCP and avoiding larval host plants of the
callippe silverspot which is recommended by Mitigation Measure 4.3-2.
Comment 32.2 Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 provides clear options on treatment of suitable habitat for
the callippe silverspot. A rmal decision has not been reached yet regarding an amendment to the
incidental take permit for the HCP to include the callippe silverspot. As defined in Mitigation
Measure 4.3-2, if an amendment is not obtained, the project must be redesigned to avoid all larval host
plants, with avoidance of the large stand at the northern end of Phase ill recommended regardless of
whether the amendment is secured before development proceeds. Salvage and replacementplantings
of johnny jump-ups to be provided as part of the proposed Restoration Plan for the project was
considered adequate mitigation for the anticipated loss of the smaller scattered stands of johnny jump-
up which may be affected by development. Refer to the Master Response 7.3-9 on ca1lippe silverspot
for additional information on the status of the amendment application for the incidental take permit.
Letter 32-1
R E. l,; to IV Co LJ
AUG 1 It'I~:Jd
PLANNI~G ,'; ':7L~ETJj33 , .
7, " ' ", ',' . " ',", .. ,,-
...~".. ..' ............. .." ....... .........,"" .~,..... .'. "~ ~-?'o7 ~~
_/? "'--?~~,.,
~. ", ;1.. . . .
. " '. ./" '. ...c".'.., " "".',, '
~,./~,.'d~ ~ 7>~~.,pd. '
./
-/i
~~0//.'..~.d/ .
.>4.~>., ??~-4l3.-?FO?C7
0'/7 7t- 799J
7
.,/f /
f'
!
'i I
...
'" .,' r-'
I
33.1a ~ ~~ .... . .11
. ~'. ...........'~.........;/~!
___~/~ .~/-Li. '.. ..i'~~ 'f:
~ ~,~ ,"",." . # ~ ,~~,
~~~5~~~~f
~~ '~,~.' :
33.2a'~~~.~~~5~.
~::z- ". ~~7~
~--a/~~",.", '., ~
.;'. ,..,..',. '., '"',"',, """,.,.','..",' .,""~ :-'
. !~_la- .~ ~'."""~."... ',.
33.1b,..,;/~)~,~ "~, ~.
"'~ ~".~<.".'. ...."',"'~ !.
33.2b~;e:~~~~ ~ .~~
.~-.dn~~_-~Bz- ~.
. ,',' ".,"~."~"A8,,e.
. f
L...~
,11 ;J-
.33.3# c:J~L~;. '. ..........'..2.__. /
.~...~~~~r~
. . --'n. .~. ~--.9~, :~.........~... ~ ~
~ ~.4 ~.r~7
.,_.,,',.,',....,'~~
33.4' ~ ;27~ ~ "". ~ .
.fk/~-~ ~~ 3.~
.~,. n4"~'~,e",.,,...~/~/..~, .', ..~~, ......cL~
...-41 ~....~ ~..~ ~..... .' .~
.. t~-:::..~~ Pf-/6~ .
~ ~.4e,,~ . .~. ...~. .
,,'%' ~~
..0:2.. . ~~ ~.~
,'CL , .' ~" ,/:::X""-<- ,~ .--/~
...3.~~~ ,~~~, ~~
~ .:2.~ ~~~y.~ ". .
:rif:2 ~. ~d~~A....~~ ~
· .' -~ ~~1:i?z6
~..
,f;3 '
,.....-.-
I
,
33.4 '. ,:,~. .3"" f/, " .<, , '.~,.'~,' i .." .~, '~'-f i
~7~~;j:f"'j ,~~
/~~. .~,~.'oZ~.3 ~
~7 ~.~- ........, ..~:..
~~. ~.
:~~,~~
33.5"-8 ..~ ~~
>/7~ ....~~ ..~~,'....' ~/ ;.
~. ......~u ~ ~~ .~-
.i~~~~.~~"
i_'7"~' .....j~~,,~-"-
. ,~,,','~ ~ '.,.
~:~. ",~./dZ~d~ ~,~~
i ......~....~....c:2d.~~'-
. -. ..... . .~~ .~. .~-~
· - . ....... zll ~4.'~.-r "
"~"""J""".""'" , .
~ _.: " _ - : _ - . ,'_ ". _ - _ .' : :".,.;. " -' - . - - . " l
I' .' ,'<., " ,','." '.""'",,. .. ,.' ,', ',' : .
.~ ',. .". ". ',;~ ,..".'..,'!",...,. ..' ~_h'
! ~,~ ,~,~. ~'~.
~~~. .
:
;
i
11~
33.S.l,~,.'~, '. ~ ~""',.",.,.........".,~",,,,',,',/ ','" . ",'. ',','" ~"",.,"). i4~"", ", "
. /?// //f - '_,' _.. // .',"-', ,,'~ ' /
~~~,~ ...-+= ....~ .6zJ
~' -;;r,/ - .". ,',,' '., "', '. "",L, , ", //,
.,",.~,,' ~,"'.~.~
- ""~.,," "',", .
...... ...... ~..;S)~- 'r7!4~
. ~7~ .2'~5!;~
~/..-4 ~~ ,~'~
-~,
~3.; '~'f1 ~."~. ... .. . ..... .
~~'~~'-1'~ .~
~...."..~ ">~'~L""
. '., "", . , ' " : , : - '::-..,"-.
..~..".. . .....~~....
-?~. ~ ..a:.k;:"p ~-
~,'.",",',~" '~,.,,"'" . .<,'.,.,~,,' ..~,....,',', .... a-....,.,.."..~,_~,. ~
~~..~ '.' ... .... .... .......L.7.~
".~ a....~... "'5"'~" "=.~ . .... _
/7/", .,// L~"/.._ ,"1"~.; ",/,
<c7~ .~,~"~, ,
~,"',.".,", "~" ' ,'," ,.,Z"',', ~,,', " '., ';0' . '".. .
-'J"'//1 ,/ '~ ~tn' 7" " ,
/la(MW~'-'L' ~'^'-1. .." ..' . . .
__/J "'-r ~ I ,,' , "," ~'Yl_ /"
. ~-~i' ...... .lL .~.:: .~
~~. ~;~.~.~
'~" ' -Z,' 4L/..,d/', , , ,,',~ _ ~, .~,~
~&0./;~ ~~_
~~.nL~ ~~.-.2c_~ ~.- /~
'. . ~~~~-#
. ZJ7K:r.. .-a ~ ~ ~ ~--.e .
roo-
I
, '
33.7 ~ ". /.>~~, / ......0 ~ .! ,
, ',.., ,,"r,~,-,, ~", _, ,', / ," ',',"'~'" , .."'".',,, ,,"'.,' "," ""A-,....c;,.",. /,/c- ',','"",",--
'.' .A-~."'i ~ -.PtA'~. . i
,~~ '1-" -,' ~~ ~~
"'....."."",'"",~~L"".,., r:
.... . /~ .... . ~ .... .......... ....--ezo::J
~"C?t-(!~ ~ ~.~.
. .^if; ." ~~/ ~/ .~ .......
~ '. '. .,~ ..~ a<' ~ At?~
~.~~?~" .-/~ -4P~:'
~.~ ~/i .~~...~'
.~~ . .... ~~1~ ~
. .~. ~'a/"~ ,
...~.. ..' ..,. . - ~
'.............~.~ '~.z~ ~. CUn<'~
.~-4,!~~ ,."",'" .', .~ .~~:
" ',' '",~. ,~71 ,,;f~41~-2, -'
, ' .' . ." '.' "~ ""~,'..~ - -r " -1'
V.-I.._ .J(.. ' " ' " d"J/ 'Y'A~"
. A~a....' .' .... ......7. .~. ~~
>---
frf .
33.8
-S) ~.-4" ~' AUe. ~
1:2~~ ~~~~
" J '~" ".,~,,7'-'
... , "'9/
. ~
,~~,,", '~~,~~,,'
I , , , " ",
~~ ~/' '.~
~ ~, ...s;)~~
i~~~~ ',~~
/r'~~~.
~
33.9 ~ ~ q...;/~' ~
~ -----a . . ~~ '':7 '
,r <7 , ',~ ,', . ~
~-2;/~~~. .'~
~.~~~~. .'-
lxI~--ge ~c2C/~ /G/'~ ~
~ .,/U.a~ ~ A.~ ~
I
r
!7/~~ /2d /~.
:. . .~-/'. A3~
.' .' ~~'..~~~
~~. C"h- -Z7~.~ '
f17 . ~G..-:d-
, . ~ I / QJ
LETTER 33, JANPONT
. '".\" '
- .~ :.. ", ... , ". ~. .... . -..-:'- ..: _,-n. _ ~ ...
Response 33.1 '-Comment :noteLln ,~Mitigation;measures ; recommended ,in iothei1998 DSEIR are
designed to prevent visible dust clouds from extending beyond construction sites (Mitigation Measure
, ,4.5-1). ,\The most effective ,wllytocontro}, dust, emissions: is.by,,applyingwater ....,arecommendation of
Mitigation Measure 4.5.,.1. This measure also enumerates an extensiveJistof>waysto control dust.
Implementation of those measures would be effective in reducing dust emissions.
,~~,,,,_,,,"'.:"':<" ~~.: .." '.'
Response 33.2 'B]astil)g,occurred,during"cons~~tion:;()fAhe}rerrai)IlY Phase ,l~pr~ject, and no
complaints are known to have been received (DSEIR page 230). If cons~ction of the Phase n and I
or Phase illproject'were.to ,involve any ,blasting:and . resulted in icomplaints;'.the Noise Disturbance
Coordinator,discussedoD: DSEIR,page. 232 w.ould ,take ,steps{suchas.scheduling vv.orkand notifying
.nearby.residents) to alleviate the;problem. The,location(s) ,where; blasting could,be ,required cannot be
, determined,untilgradingand.excavation.
Response 33.3 CaItrans approved the Southbound Off-Ramp Flyover C"flyover") in 1990 as part of
the ,Oyster. J~oint Interchange at which time.thatagency ,[conducted corresponding 'environmental
:review.of,the Oyster Point Interchange', project-as, presented in its ,Project Report. ,Because the flyover
.is :not : part of the project covered ibythis 1998 DSEIR, it:onlyjs illustrated on Exhibit .4.4-2 which
'. ,shows:the locations ofintersectio~,;freeway,ramp, '. and main line ,freeway ,analysis (see item 3 on the
.thirdpanelDSEIR page.] 67). ,
,Response;33A ',' . iThe,comment";expressesi;opinions about:design;features.,oLhousing\units which
,.;represent, .aspectsofthe' project. as .proposed. : Thus, the', comment addresses the "~meritsof,the project",
.'~,andBOresponse4srequired.,However,jJlclusion In'thed 999 FSEIR\wilhnake':the commentor's views
".available itO City. decision,..makers. ';'Please'see:'Master,Response7~3..11~-rRegardingnoise,;duringfinal
,/design, 'the,applicant,woul&.:J1ave:to 'submit.plans,demanstrating' ithat,the..State~hui1ding code
.:requirements for noise insulation.wou1d ~ be~met"prior >to'issuance' ;of"a.building'permit.,Regarding
traffic, the 1998 DSEIR discusses on.,site parking supply for residential uses (DSEIR page 201), as
well as potential parking supply shortfalls for commercial uses {DSEIR pages 202-203). Mitigation
Measure 4.4-9, requiring revisions to the Precise Plan to provide six to eight overflowparking spaces
within each residential neighborhood, would reduce the severity of impact to a less-than-significant
level. In addltion, Mitigation Measure 4.4-10 requires the project sponsor or individual subsequent
developers to submit parking plans to demonstrate compliance with City requirements. This would
reduce Impact 4.4-10 to a less-than-significant level.
Response 33.5 The 1998 DSEIRaddresses turnarounds (Impact 4.4-7 on DSEIR page 197),
overflow parking (Impact 4.4-9 on DSEIR page 201),' and pedestrian and bicycle access and trailhead
.access and parking (Impact 4.4-11 on DSEIR page 203) (also see Response 14.4 regarding trailhead
parking). The commentor's statement of opinion concerning parking" emergency vehicle access and
sidewalks on both sides of the streets is noted. The City does not require provision of bicycle lanes' on
private residential streets.
Response 33.6 The 1998 DSEIR estimated the number of school.,age children expected to attend
local schools as a result. of the Phase IT site and ill projects using the student-generation rates of the
respective'school districts. These numbers are summarized below and described in more detail in 4.7
Public Services:
Letter 33-1
r"
. About 85-88 Brisbane School District students from the Phase II Point and Commons
"neighborhoods ~d from Phase ill site development (Impact 4.9-7)
,-About 21 Jefferson Union High' School District stndents from the Phase II Point and Commons
":~n,~~~borh?o~:andfromPhas~msite develop~~~~act~;~-8) . " ' "
. ",'?:.: C;.:}i,~-~.j.';:~ -(! >{..',.~-;;~':' -.,.;'.-.::.~~:;'fY:__\; :.':.:"" 7~":.~:'1 :o/:'1~~_: ,_:,-...:.~ 7..~ -.,...;..t'....r .(-~ .\-<" '..~f._~,~-':..~;...-:.;:,', .'i..' i. ~., -"~> ":,; 7:
;,.' "';;About45-61SotItb'San!Francisco :?Unified:School DistrictstuCle:mts 'from -the'Phas~nW oods
"neighborhood' ,,'," . .', ,.,
. - "" ~ .', ::'.!~ '.'.''..
The .1998,. DSEIR focuses. solely on estimating stndent . generation. The 1996 SEIRaddressed
transportatioIl' of studentsto::school for'tbe'Brisbane School District only .
Response 33.7/Asthe:commentoriDotes, '.manY'speCies'ofwildlife'(suchasgroUIld' squirrel and
'raccoon) ".'have:':become -adapted.to,;subUrban habitat1lDd'are' nowcommon:in 'the'neighborhoods
'surroundingthesite.:AstheI998 DSEIR acknowledged (DSEIRpage 154),these other species (in
addition to special-status species) may be eliminated ordisplaced,:fromparts of'the 'site proposed for
development. 1998 DSEIR mitigation measures wOuld,address thecommentor's concerns adequately.
Response33~BThe'comment'addresses the "merits of the project", including use of project site
water resources, project 'site planning; and ,housing affordability. iItdoesnot raise questions about the
. adequacy ,of the 1998 ,DSEIR'analysesbut:refersto .theproject' s:significant environmental effects
:analyzed :in :,the SEI&"'Wbile;no responseis'required,inc1usion, in'the 1999" FSEIRwill make the
commentor's views available to City decision-makers. Please :seeMasterResponse7.3-11. '
, .
Response'33.9'uCommentnoted;;:Thisidocument includes: anassessmentof.the ~project sponsor's
mew ,:Phase III Site ;Mitigation'PlamDevelopment/Alternative. ,('Please " see 'Master Response 7.3-.1.
':AlSO,1lS discussed in :MasterResponse, 7.3-2; ! project 'sponsors ; often revise " ofomodify 'their projects
,~during the'plamiing,(arid ';" environmental'review':process. '.", Theyjdo):fuis .<,to'incorporate mitigation
:measuresdirectlydnto ;,their;projects'or 'to ,::aIterthe .projects 'to avoid "causing significant impacts
identifiediIiEIRs and through public review. and comment: .
Letter 33-2
RE C EI VED
AUG14 1998
PlANNING
..1M. ~{./~LETTER34 .' . .f:l7:!llft/rr~
.'Pli:Jjj!biY;S;hl..<.... '.' '.
Ofr1.-s~ {-"'Fr~J'~.'
.:~rf,"B~x7/1-' ,....., ,.~",~, \ -.' .
J.se~1i~:S-.Fr-.c-i])Q)en5!rC83 ; ....;. . ". .
.t
. ..\ ."" .-"",.. '.,. - .'~"",.';'~J- r . . .,_~' :. _' ,.
. '--. . . 1 ' .....\ - '1
' 'C-' "7'. '. ~/.......J.-I-:.. " ," t
~. " " . ':Jr'171't, ~ .,;'pa~:.J n ~ ,~ ,';; .'=,.r\, ~, ,.,'~,..' 'I
.' , ~ . ;.-. '~if)'J.,';W'..~.~ .71=. '~'" . "; ,~_-.
t,. ,'./ .
- .'~ ..:~", :-;;;;~~.t'. . '. 1I~ ..lA-....?W;-t( " :':', ".
, .;:>~ ,1 ).. 1 "', .
,. "l:. ':' '. '. ',' - ~ " ~.' .', , , . _ t,) .r.\" .
..-v ,".,", ...... .", r..,~ .' i). -f."'., ._ '_'_<< l. .~t.
-~_ i5<~ J;~ ::C'C~'-~-<1Jt1f '1fJ18.7~bj ,kr ...l:m
7~ :~ :L:'.. ~'.'~i~s.':h~><,Wftt,i:.-.('~44-.~ O~bL
:i,. ~ . '<~i'~P: ~<c' .l17f(Ji'f;::~tti~:l1s';::;r
',- ',: ~",',"," . ,.,','.)} ",', - -', ,,',~ ,.", . ',.-...." , '," '.,',... " ',':-,', ~. r" ~ ..-i.-~, .~- '.'1'" / 1\ ,.JJ,' '-
;$- ,..,,,:,,,..;' "7k..t. c. ',' .... -'"'~tI('~f.' - . "kid-(. '11>\...L
....,0 ", ""-,' ~. d, . - . "".t'" . -,',..,. , . ",,-~,+fI; -,~,_ :10"".","'.,. ","',' ,!& >,;,j'L -" ^' - )c"A,..
.} ~';~fr~~,~k'~~~!: ~
- J;:;~5dl ~-..' -' . ....'.. .."'. """, .
. .-. ,.. ~ , .- -.. ..: '" "
. - . 7tL~;;' '~'(~7n~" hi. nPIAM~I5
.. - ...~~4L ~~.~iGJ'
~O-~~~..
.. ..J . ~~
I
-
. ,
'., .. ,. ,-' '.': -. .
. ,.~ .
. .- ..
...~. -o/~w:'~ '~;IAH4-. ..
o.N~ ~ ~ ~"~"~"'~
. Fo-u-j-1i.L ~ .~~:~ .........., ...
:~t4il~~~!~ ..t~~.~ - ..
~.~ ~~~~:Wi~..
, ~ ..~~.,~;f.~~
~::t2 j;,~.. ;.;1l/ ;~. ~~.
-~ ~, ':", ,Jj;~~.,~.j#r~Jt... i'
t ILL . '
.; ....,.. ~,..' E --
, . :'~, ~..". 'r: . ,\)i'.~'-t~:~ ~.L
.;...).4. ~,,' '}'"&;L '-~'~ ;T'~. . ,";l~. ~ ~
-' -:t~~~.:. -(~--,~ ~ ;~~ ;.
:.~"~.:k ,,' ...~.,fL..
. .... .. . ,. '"':j .~. J-~;l ". )'1; (.J. ~
! .~-M .W\.t -rt..6-t ~cLul~~4 h, .-fL, SE:I.(
. ,. .>.:J .._.~...~.j'~..GLLQd1.~ ~, c.
, ,-'._:I'~.:':;.:,. -,..~,,~~~:~_,rEff!( Q :
i-i:~.-~I. .", ~ . .,...;-.:7-' <,. '.,- ~ - ,', "'_ _." ..' ~. - .'.':_.,'~ , :".~
-
.
i
f
. . ."-
! .
- e' _.:';", ~_ ._.__~:,-..,_'~._;-:,: ,.:_.:_'. .. .
.,
& ..,.;,'. -. --. .'--,"; " 'r .... .._-.~~~~.~..~.
\','-
+. .
;of
Ii ,..--.._ .' _ .__.'. e ,-. ...
,
,
I
,
.. _.." .. - . -
. .
'j :. 'j' ~
_. ..' '"10";' -_ _.. ..
...
-
~
.
.
;._ I
o-
f;
-
34.1;W~..8h.,,~ V' . ... ....._~uf ·
. ~....,:.;~~:. ... J ...." ;~., . ..../} ~;\I : J .' :
.. .\;J..l.'~~~ .IJ!,c( .. _ . '."t. ..~ .
fJn~~A4J'4:.'~'A., . ...~ ·
i'o;j.;.afJ1:~:.;~:t"w . ...- .' f1 '
, ,;'Jf!'<~, r;J1:i-IL#fr~ .
. r.... . .;< ...... " .-'~;,~,., '. .'.: .~,.ClJ\.U.....
'., " .., .".!,~,."..,l., .,"."l--"',.,'""."""",'",,,,' ,.', '.','.,',.f. " .,'""1,.",,.,.,.,,- ", :".,.".".,..",'"",...,'",.."" ..", ,.,,',',' ',".',-'J~"i," ',T .,,-::,1'.,','.. .. ",',."..",', ,,',,' ,,;~, .' .,'~,'".., ',' ., '",.J- .,., f,~ j
..;SG:.,~ i~.:.~: ~,.', .' .'..~ ~c! ....
J .;'.fJ-~:~.:1)~l<~~t~:~.. cl-'.' .... .' .....
~- '. fJ;:j-.d.~,iJ[~:.~ ;~:' :... ','
0'. _.~'.,.:c.fol,^~~~_... ~~i~'.."~ . n~t\~'. ,~,"n(Ii' \,' ';
.2~~~~.;-~~_~O.~,.
~: .~~.~ .-..-~~.' ".'. . ....~.(~;,~ N- ..~
.-I~.~trif;~r~~i:J:;~~itt. .'(~ .
. ..~.~~~~.~~.~J~.L:qJ~ irtlLJ, '
, ',;.{ . _ J
'. -, "0.-. ,..-.. -...... _...!~' -'.." .:-.....~ ....'..-. ''',-_:-: t .,... "'-. '.t.'... ,").__
~
-
('
. ih,.."., :F;M'~,.'.,..,~":"".,'~~~J",~,~.~~~,,.,.'.,.(.:'~~.~.::- ,.:tEf'" .
7~ '~' ',.,~"',..~~.~,.:r~....~:.J:v-~'.,'-r
~,~.TG"Yd - .... -~\btl, '..''-' "-"- ._-~ '- - ~
' ,',$, ,.I,;y."" .,....... "~",,,,' ',',! ',;<'.9~,'i ~,:,3L,':l i,'..tf"..,._,.....,..JkJ, ',..,:,:'.'.,'-~,~"';. ...., ~ . ...(.d, ;~,:,~".." .,',', .~, ~ -~.
-..~.:'iW~A~l...~~.~7.rt.~._#k._. ."
~~.tl::fA(w:f
,.' · n'.."l<:'!~xl-i~rIJJtiJ;~~ k ~ ~
. ",/ ,..,;\:';;'~..,.":"i~<y'";;:.;;:,:.';~~.::;~'c,!l{~;'f,~~;tjr.X7iT)'~'"'' ' ',,' -, '
'11 "L n,j'5.,rL'>'i:fh';""iJ.;.n'lI':'.1' "'+:,ft'.;". .,', AU' _/- J ~ I
~ ri.~~~;~{:.&~~~ :."'.' ,j?,:..; ~ 7 " ~ I ~ ,',
~.~-~.. .. '.' ~ ~
i't ~... ""'" . . ", ., ; ". '. ,.~;...,',," .'.. ";'-a
: . '. re~;*'~f;f~:1iV\:'::l~i:~!b1tk~"", . .
,..... .' _.;--'<L.."-',"t.~'-':- .-... ';:1
. - -- -
, I '.
'..., .J
,I 'f
'::;'.- -"-. '..
". _ ..~. .. ..~,J_.J
-
"
", ---
#
..
,.... _'. i .
: ,,"J.' .. 2;. ".~,.
- .''J ~ , '.~_. ,( _
1'.'.".: :-
. '
'.1 ...f.
.. ,.,
'..\ "#""
"', :.:~-
, -
" " L-
. . .'-. -i' .
.-It
~. _.l_" '0
,.
- .. ';.< ~ ::.';-,~". ~.\..., -,
.' f
\
-
i. ,
,j';' ..
I
l
. .. .' .-.
... :---;.. -
. ,.' '.',..'
:~""~~\ .,.; .;..... -." ~
~
''0
.--,
,
;
'&l.wJ '~,..... . ~
'. '. .. . ....: . - .
wJJ::1'.~j.k;.~.~, .0. '.~',~
":IJ'~' . ;~ .4),,~~>A,,-\";;"_i"'-'" "i,.,; _lj L~i~;,.;",_., ,.-*':',.,., ','.1
J "i~,'~r.~d ,~'" "'^~~d,.;
04 l-:bi~i-;':"'jl;.-;""J.J',;":":>!lz .' '", "" ..-
"'J ....~~"~.~~-~J;r "
"i~B/A';JiJr~~if~i;~'"
.;.. .. ,. ,', . " " ",~,;, .....; ~. ~:;.~:'vA;i.j~J .,'. .". ...,. .~", '
. .(
, ...',.
; .
.-.
" . ,:.a ,
l
"
- . . '&..flIt ..... . __, --
..._;1 '.'
( ,
.,+
..J~. .~.
\
-- ~--~r,~'<<~,~~,,;~~ v{~.J!- r
IW;Ji" .' , ".,'fL4.. , "" ,,'r~ e\.W~
;.~ .~J~s.." "-L...S~'~;
i:JI~. 'ft~~UW ~:;f~ I
.~ .,;vJ.uu ',AL-\~ ~ ~ J_u.
'/
-
. . >' '; :,,' ,-,:/~-;.' .
() , , ..' '"~'Y''' .~'n.&,''F(OOt:-
" .... ').~.i'(Jl1ii.81;~)i'~'PdllJ.,'h--r.
,..::.,...p,'lMl~ ..,.>.'f~}w<::-I-:. ~""~'J'\',ri:Jc~,"""..;t.. _'., ,1 ,
,r ". ..... ." '...'.. '. ",) '" ',' . ., ~J""2:<1~,.n',MJ Tk-t-
. ...::...... .... "."n ....' . '.' -' . ........ '_"__,
>ilR. . ....... '....'W.. ". tLt.. -. . .~; ,.,~. ........,...L.. \ k
.... ...." · .' "".'. ..... '.', . ~. ""'." ':' '. A "~'_~.'" .;.'
~ . ..._~ "', ',.. - "V .', . '- , . \A.;""~
.~,i4'.d-s.f)'~~~-~t~~,~ '...
"';'" '; ':. _' ',t.:. ~_. .".::' -". 2~ '.'~'" .;; '-.-:r"
,P .. ..~i' .... s~~ ....~. ~4tl...~, . .b-&.-
''''~'7" ,._.'",'.1....,. ~"'.,.'. '..... '.... .'. -.:' ...,..;~.7i..".J.,.: :.~.'....,......,T./J. ~,<'<~'."#.''''. "n,:""'.',~..'-'" ':~.. .-. ,.~.' rv
'?T~'" ',. .'. "-'~if'~"I_.'" ,. ,...,. ~ ..,. . ,'1 Jr-
. .' :'i" .............. .... ....~.:~~jS,..~.. .....'fU-.. ,+
...~,.W<<4.~ '~'-ft..t..>~ itr
"'~'~l.'...'J'..'. ....~-"'... ..,.... '_', ..:.."..... ~~~". ........,.. ..~l.-'...cr .' .~~',\:.~~..;..~.~\:1l""-'. . .~ ....},;....~. . .',:,""',.'~.A ":~':.:_"".'."':'."'...":..'~ "..c..' ~4., ~.'
,: ~~".'...>-.~"~-"-'.'.4-]' .......'~"...;. \\/_1 ;~1",;'-::"'~'.'~ · (~. -
'.! '..... ... .' ""-~-,A\~cL';!(t;Q,,.:,., "'ttn4. ' ~S'
.:- .'., "". ,.~.~ "".. .' ',.,' ,)
. rPoJ."""':' ...,.....;' ""! ......~.-.-.... ,J.' .~...,-..*..~..,J...
.' ..-'O"'.~~~~~r~J~,:'~~ .
· ~.;r~-=~:?sI~~~:t~.faL
~ W~~ ~ cJj~
-
~
)
: w;J~. ;.iJ~.,;~ ; .c.'(;~,.I4.sl-.{ -
, ....~ '..~.' ....i),..;i~.,~ .<~, .... ," . "';"~~\~"~ 'f;;
;~,">"i.';.'.. c.;:>__,,:,. ....'.--.....:,;'..".('f:.l.......~'j ~:"';"""":"""""""'v. ,H..... ... -:. ,:'imi,- ,..' _ '.:":' "
' '." .~ . . ..'.. ~,..~~:.t.
! tL.~~~.lpf...-~~'(~~~~,~ ,
I ';:)' j<:~" r,~ ~"" .~
.! ~.L '''?~i?~" jt).1I.t~'E.(:iI", .u)~ .
'l' <'~:., .... "oj... . .,."1iIf4 .. .witl~
i '. ..l.....1),.,.. ..fJ .... .M_
""I . '. ..--"' ....-.'.-._.~ '. ...." ,,",,~'T~ .
i~~~~j:d!-~~.
. ..,.I>M~~-'l.;~~;jl4..~.~:.:...~~:7~i;-~..,.-. ." ." ('
....t~.:._'. ...... ....~.'..'.._-...._-:. '"fA. ...... .... '.':l.cJ~c;'.~.A,.""'..>,T':I,.:J: ..,_L./_. '.~j" . .... . ,',
. ., . ...~~ - '.' ......... '.. .,r~,...~ __ _, ._. ._
: -.'" '.' - . "....- - I'". ·
... -. . i . - . '. _, '" _,~ ..' ~.1 , .'; ',...
.,'!:---. - ..ik. 4-~4'~~~~-~.
. - .. ~ ~1-.1IlL wM'ET.tJ- ~ ~ -/vt--
....................................~..~~............~.............
.... ""L / . ,- ...... . ". . .' '. . ;ti.(f, , .... ,., ." .' . .' ;.' . . .. . . . '. '.. . . . · ..
----,~!iid.!-! .;~ . ....L~.w. '_.".' '. "":'_'
. -~ '. ~, . .;.'; -.- . ~_....,)"".:.: 'i--:.~.."J
. .
...... ..-,,&,.. .;.-'" .... -."
,
. -.'"
" ..... ,........-... . - ..._-'... -
c..,.
~. -... .'. ..... ..
, .
,
I
I
. .
,') ... ._":~... ... -.. ~'.~.-! _. ,- -' ..
,.
---: '"...." - - -. ,,-
. -
. .. .
... -'-. ,'. ..... .'---...
. -
,--'
\. -
~l
-
~"" ...t.
.' . " "'.^'.. . . '"
. '~041iWLi,.\.r7I1},~~~<-.., ,'~ A:l.
. .......,;J~.. '1' ""'~"" :.,...~" .' "',.' , ..".~.~... .~
'.1'1".. -- .~." .'" ".'" '-" 'iJ\J"" "'. ..,..,,,... ." . .
~n:" / ....~.. ...... '':',<~~~' .', ....,.......\ ....' ':.'<.. -....,. .....,~ .... '..,t
. . . .. . .
. "-'. , . " . .' '. . .... . _.-. - .... .,.
~.,~21V~.~.~."F.1-
.w....:I-..n - " .-l......:l,;,n;.-...........A:,l,}. .,.',-";)ltu:,_._,,J:,~,;_. '.:
. .~:{~:,o.e~,~.. "., ._..'.
. . -. - "~-':: ..~;~~-::~,~~:l:s::::,,,s+~i:~~{:s;.,,::::;.;.,: ...
I ,
..~
\
,'+'-\:o:'~:;;;'
--r.....-;.....-........'.~..'~...{~...'...~'..; ;.'.....a......:-:..-IJ.1rJ-~..-.')i. ...~.. 0,' ....: · ..'...... '~itJ' /JV:.~- .... _.' ../.... '.' ...J.".... , ........JJ1 ~ ~
,lit). . .'.. "... >",> ...... . ....... .~...,~ '. '1~
-V ,1 '. ,. ..... '" ',. ...." .... ..... ,'. ":,,,..' . . . " .'. .
l~Mp.t-~ ." '. . j. '. ^.IJ.,....._"w~_' ",nA, '. " . ....._
- '..~ ..-iI"I;..)(i....;~~-~~'h~,btf-.V,3 :/~
'~.A. .... <.. ,: '.';'f\- ...,.}k" · . sJ2J.. . .. "~'J
~,~",., ..."..,.,....'~ J ..,~
..''P~.,&~.; 7J!J~7J>' .., .'. .
'. ...~. '................~..... ....,..... ...... '.."W.. j.:~?n. .'....~..... .'...,...'........ >.1' ...... ....~...... 'ii'7J. '~..'. . ..If. .... Lc..L..
~..~......;.. "Ikl/~kt~~
~J~"'<!-~" . 7~/<<4I..lyc4"'+ki' .... .
:/1. (';L ,"A I.' .JI..^ - .1fi'> ... 0 t.. '1:::.11 I .-r=;,_
....~.7-&~~;JJikt_..~
.Qlu_V~ '1r7t?1i~/S~ nM ,FJ;"~_
1(,(
.--
l
t
r I
~-
:A 7k,~,'. . '.'~.'~ ...~. ~ ;-
. :.(f r}fi .~ <:, . ~':~"h.':~~kk ,--ik "
. ~S!f'::P. Wtf'/f;. ...... ~
!:~lii~~~1t-1fi~;'~1!~ [
i ..,.' ,.".;t,,,,",,, ":~~"-"':~l'J.- .:l",:;!fJ!,,:' -~J ,. _ '* '
j itL.r.;~~i;'~j;S"~"tf/1.:.~!:iJ;~" ill{ .\~
I '. .,.... ..'_.."....,.~. ""',,,, ..... ',," . """";-"~'''''''''' +- ~
I ~~~Lli;~,~,,:~~:~~?},;i""fS;;"m:C!~2;~~'~;i;t~~1;/:~T:;'.~~ L -'?<"~-'
I ~i?l~_,:c~i: ,;/}B:~';~:;.;:;:~~',:',":~..::;';~~~1\lii~ ,"'il/:o/",-rS .~ ~
~.",j ."ij"-'~'"'''' """""'~l f..t..
'\':: ,~j., . .. ~~~if;t~~~I;~~:~.,t~~I~~;~~~':~~~
. t. ~~~ . rW;: ,", "'iil'fS'f1.I;'f#"t!DV3'/~~
l:l:a'-~'~~{~ '" ","ft~~t~:tt:!t{B;Ji-~~~~;t'~~t)J~r::~h~"_A ,".f -I:
, ..":2 ,_ J, ' .. . .. ... . ...,.. '!) f '~',
.D ".. ' A" ," - .. _ ~'
.1 :.~:~\~};~;It.";JJfl:1:tiu;~=
r "'fJ.4J4'~} ~.~..~,J.~ ~ fu .
',~._~'~k.~tJ;j!W;4:!~~~.;~ ~ .
.. -'~. --~.,~ ~ '~i.~ '~ ~
--' ; :..'~"'" ~#,:s.'~ ~...~,~
-t';..~i ""';,~ "'~ ~lAJ~.,V:~
. '~;:'1~'~"~'.!"A~.I'~~~\~,~~~\'){:<2J 3~'" ;_c
, ':,~~~~:;~iiri:~i..~:.?;iitL~L
. .-tkt~~l~ilbi~.~:;L1'Ih-.t;~'~t.. ~[ .'!u. .~ .
'I
-
,;- ....{;,.:':,.:.'. ,
. .
. . . , - . ,
. ~ "'\ " ....~. :
~ -. .
-' "~,, ~_:. ,," .:-. ~
.; "-".'-':.-'.,"
',' \.,'- :.,,',;.:. ,....',_-:,,'.~'.;.~..rq :~__._.:;.-__~, .,:..
- - . , .
.' ,. <....,:..: ;~ -';'i.~'; -i;."- "~__:'L:_ _':~';.> '; +.:.~.' ;'";.' .. .
;', ; :, ..:.: -, ,'-:--' ~':v.: :.':; .
(
,", : .\'., .' ; '-::.<':-'-.-"~
'.' - <. ,;
. ,
. -."
~'. ',' >- "_ ': ':: :,::: ',<- ';:. "1<>._,:',:" :-..:-';';':~~'-:.'.: _'. - .-':'::.':.;': _;:_~~;., ~ :: ',,- :;......,.:'<.:... ~ \- .-_.>.".~:~-.. .":~. -.'.".
,~ " C , .,',. .' " , - S7J' ,
. .., . T[~ '~..~.~. ",'..,", '~i(f-
"f,
'~ '.. ,c.:'"' :. .,'.:' . '~i _. ',"
34.2b, '.. ..... .fi;aJ;t., .(~.~ .~;~~i,".~~~~~~~
,/30 '. . ...... . s:... .,'. . .....>: .i':,<0'
, ..........~..,................................................. ............ '.... 0 ~...... '.'~.' ...~k.i1. i.)...::,;jf.......'....';'..'...'b'~.............,..'............?:....".'.... ..'...~....".j..........."'~,b-...'."....
'., ,..' dJ';"':;'l;;L;f .~' : 1'3-jl;,'-~jp"~"'-,;'.:Jl;'~.~'_..~_5c:r~:,,'~,;e.~'fif'':'. ",,'
'""J ~:'11~~ ";-1 , : ..' .' ), ~{," ":';"""'."'; :"~,C,..'3..,;...;e"'...,:;: ~'."~"'"'' '. "."" . ',....
i:'{tu.q-f~v,~",-"~' fit'$; ~"l'P-'''t(y,
'. . ":~~;~'~";.:' ..':~~~'.......i',...."iv:~.~ ..... '.
... .'."r ..':u:,;~:,:.~...-~~~::8';.'...,,:,:~~~~~
..~p;~~..:...~.<~Ir:.1i~;iL770...;.
, ,,~~,\~ "?:!"~,;Ei~f' <~, .:" - "'("'fTj~ ." '" ", $; ~I~'-..;"~ ,;/ ~~;J"';;:'-";<:i'^'" ,..,t:_~,:'i " "
, ." "'~~' <J.e' ' :$ . ~ ~ ".~'
~ ^ ,Y'{ ,"': : .,il". W':~II{'t , . ~.~
"-' -. .'-"~~"J ~fc' '. .. . (
" ?tup~~ ~I'" .,.
. f"
PRfMER............, ,.aw.cterize . ,My c:umnt leilure waIb only
One ci,..,~that ha inaaledthe ,natural, nil- ,lCIatdlthe..n.ceo(thewalth
importance of wetlands . theirnpid and .twbed wed8Dds' , .0( KCiYity and interconnected-
'utmlive ..... Since the mivaI 0('Emu- ro aerve _ mode.. . tv .'. ..' ,_0( tbiI wetland complex. s,. r':'
. 'pc:ans. wetland. have been drained. dredaed. -far the IeKOmtion 0( diI- . ,: ." moairormc. .1 will Jet to know a few! ,
Rlled,leveled. ~ fIoadedto the point, curbed ~ . ; i thiapabout my local enYilonment in depch.' i
;;where the c:andnenml US bas _ half".. DetenlUDe whether 01' nouratored". '1 Beca.e.lwil1 need to make reeuIar obser- ~-
'the.edaDdu:hauid_dberein~ 1700a. ""~iaauly:meetiactheioalaOf- '. yaiaalohbae,..edanda..1 will vilit them:
.. , .. !t ' .... . ~
We are now lamm, _ tbiI ba eX wet- IeStorBtian plan 01' permit '. .' 'more often. and develop a keener IeIIIe of \
lands bas leduced.ftbiud'~~Caia-., '. .:>,;;. \ .,/ ~::;'~~. . f"'<" .:i,~ hOir;tbe .sCQI ,iabebavinl. I believe
mophic'~~;~:~"_ '~:=-:~O:::-::"'tbiit'tbae'~'~ 'Iqular obIerva-
.quamiI:r'md~JJ, ~c;riDat1filiF~ ,.ilhbu.ilIinr,to,iDvest ame.-.,efteqy, 'md '..",~,1riIl.~~:a,...ter undemandine ':
wildlifebabi~ .-haft 81l,n=suIuid. pUrly ~ in wetland prorecDan or ratozation and COIIIIIlw;um with my valley. This is the
=a1~;~~~'r~:'~~:~'~~'~'~\" . ':,..;,'.:'J'.~.~, ',~.of'~:.'1""~~';'~
, .... ~~-;....::a.;.lDODitored """"Some,~;~:
-'~J COwUdin.L.M..et al. 1979, ClassiJiauion.
'~(~Umibutes)o( .of,Wedands_,~&birms a/ ~
'~'canprovide u.enainfonDation m';~ S~i;!U.s,'Deputment oCthe lme- ,
policy-makers and Iand-use deciaion_mak_nar,W~ DC. (FWSJOBS-79J31)
en. ~ that have been monitored by'Miacb."W.)"mdJ.G.Gouelink. 1986.
volunteers are:Wedands.Van . Namand Reinbold. New
WaterlevelaYork, NY,
..,Dominantveaetation typeiSmith.'R.D., et al.l99S.An 'Apf1rotJcJafor ,:
VqetaLioD cover .. .. Aua.1inC.v__ Funaions UJinc H,dro-
,.':Exotic:',pl8nt,1peCia ~ )i~~'iRlfermc:e\Veddnds.
</~(e.a-, bteedin81UrVeJ1) ,ad &mcdonaIlndica. US. Army Corp eX, .
':~M8cioinvertebrateli', . :j~:W~;DC.
A)'.;;,Pb,sicablld~i~l;wuerquality "+mer~.'IWph'Wo'l_Ja SeCIn:ft Ofs.-np.
ii;;ot~~ .,..Jand:~~~~..~U:illdGuide. ' '
m,,' ....".,.... . ,..'.... ..'.. . . .' ". ~~PIaa,Pilcamway,N).
.~~t-~~~..d.tjtZ'~/~:;~~~~;>:'f,.. :~,~~,~';$awJ.. 1997 as G_
iltoheJp' ", 8Dd1elbJle;_fimctiom,,;,"'~~(II1,:~,,~),'~~:~~F....,;jOr die 'CPA \Va- i
..aId valU:::~,oft'er.~tl.n,mDni::"';"f;,~~.,extemo'and ""+i!1ariils~cnanuedlais...,.,4S G."'- "~'
. do mia1 ~~~ '"'fOOtPrW (throuIhphoros or mapI},-]IIow/ur jw:IiJiiisiGn.?His cunaluoIeis ID
':=rioa ~%hcJ..r ..-r~'j~ " ,-:",~':,":"'-'- . , .y .~,>,,' ".' '{fJnJIIII*..dand 1BGlI"~o& ill New Enefand, '
,bow they.. C:bqiDc,'aad hDw,cbey;~ . .'A pl~ for aettiDg to ~ow,~~I.nd. .,...<< ~..~ olV<<mIOIIC. Coru:c: ,',
a<<ecudbybimUUl~&tiviDis. :n;,:~~ ';~41" teUOIIed ~tlOD Of ~y;wel~j'}?O;".U4S,~, VT0Sf62; 8021 " '
inloraaationabout-'--- in wam:ievek. ,.~ ~ ~buatmd,my theyneeCI ~\878-675~~~'L.;+'--'
."':' .' .,.', " ',,~,.' ."', .",.,~"be.IDOIUturid.-crbeanawerfor,wb.,:tolDOlU~".~,,,",,"" ..;~..."..",J':',;~"::';;";",,:>,,,,' .....
"(hydrOlojic: 'fluctuatioai) can ~ evaluale 'tor wedaads.~er, ~ PardY" ..""", .. " ...... "',
tbeeft"ec:aof~~,ad~ . taida~ ~publicpolicyrealm.' '~i
land ,UIeS''ODawedalld.,::rbis iIliixmatkm"We 'humam lift'in iai' ~7
can be~.toJUid.e,public ~,such,as :qlyebuman-developea..environ-',
land-ule,~tionsoriwatelibedplam._ .aa",- such, wean loie"
, ..... ,Mooi~daalC::m _be ~to:, ....,UJUCh wirhtbe ;aaanl.environ~ ;\
,.' :.RMIi~"in wedaadWhh<.....u..;.,.. ment that.u.taiDl...1 ~~~
ment OI'~). 'in order'_~iare .~waIb 111 ,the 'heaver-createdj
~~:be;iaade ...ama. belotirmj'bOUIein Ver....';;
.. Caaelate,Wedaaa rnndi..... withJaad...,.. 'DIODC, _dam pleasure lIIld ..y,'
.....:praa'ica"to.determiDe.if... ,. tbae '. ~"~\ImIn't:hae.outinIs- :~TbiI '}
pnaices oeedto bemodi&ed added ',year,bowe"u, lam raolved to ','I
· Pmvide.evideDcelhat"."pmicuIar?Wet~,~,IDDIlitDr-,_ auributacd!Ibae'<:,
land ha imponaDt valua to.lOCietylllld . ~,primarilyto,.tmlmow"';~ . .
should Ihcrdorebeplouaea'~.abem!beaer.",.;' '.\.,' ,;......tfc:.l~ff!1IIi~'r'i...
. ~.--~
Function Socictill villLlC
~mc,.,:c'
_ ~~~~':T
~~:,T,BSi:'~ .
~ ,'.,'ill li~, I ':"~_~,-,,--_""'.
t~t:~?~~i1J
(~~.l(
.-~;",: '~~~.; -:<._'-~...;-_:
~-,,".... .' ,:<;..'" ( .J:t..:"
~~r.- -~; "--'~-_~~100~~_~~,,:,~~'
:'-'~'-<~~)~
i:.1"-4)(~]~~1 -
~~'.':T;~~mrit~,'" ,
d~,~"
;~"_~~~s:~:~'~~~~ -~
"'--'
,u
4 I YOLU~ .ONITO. ....-...
7' ''-.Ao''WedaiidsPliiiier''
!". . h. '.: .; '"
&, MauIIew Wium
'Wbat'. special about wedandsfor alilnificant portion of the year. .above miaht'be ailed I "'Iow-padienr allu-
Wetlands occur on COlIStI,next to riven . One way to tell whether or not the lOilvialRoodplain" wetland under the HGM
&ad lakes, in ,Iaeial depressions, intbe; has, been saturated is to look at the color classification scheme.
-1..:-....' L._ L-'II":'-" f1--:.f..;.I-:-:'.,_:':'~ :=-...i ..... -L..L.:........:".. U 1--_' _.L_t1_",;,;',:':.,,"'::" . ' ";'
. .,jf""UIUi"~ 1UR:R1lUuu-, an . . ~.........~., ~,'.<IIIKI a:ructureUl U1C._Jaeu~,....,,,,y RUlIKIUlJ . ." ; "" ':\i..:" '" ", .
'in lIIlIIlyorherlllaL They oCcur ': in ,an a..';,8Ie f;JpicaUy ~tedwith~~',,;{i~if ~,~lVedan~ important to us? "
t.aniIbine variety oftypet . ~~.},,}..',,\.;,;.tiI', ":;$*;~;ij';;;;'f~t;:;'5;;:~' ',.~~i*~~~~~;',,~:,t~iMany ..wedaDda are c:onnec:ted
a adIr swamp to alily~'--:1 ".~"''''''' '-,~..~ '. ",., ~ to othenurface watm ("'twa-
tbatmaybearlitderaembllncec ... ' . -~'ba""rivm. md lakes), and
to GiCh<<her."What me,have" ...those than.coat are otten con,
. in common is the feature of~~.~;;~.:;:~nected;m JIDUDIIwater, Because
"TDeIL " . '!",; of dlis connecIiaft, wetlands of-
8ecausetbey coa1bine several,. '"amlerve tbe:fimaioa of filter-
"hiIh1Y"bmefacial aunbutesof .'~ 'inlledimeot,nai:riena,1nd pol_
taresaial and aquaticecCly5- ; . lutantl , from water before it
tem.wedandsaie'lOIDeoHhe:;(: 'auen rheir aiI;accnt WIlter bod-
1IIOIt. productive and useful eco-;;: ies. (That ii Why they are some--
IJIICIIII on earth. Where land : . .times called the kidneys of the
aad wamcoovefFinme same '. I eaJIyIteID.)
,place, the landconaibutes Yeg' . 'Wetlands that are adjacent to
etatift cover and hi8h availabil- ~.lakeaand riYen alto act u
'.iIJ of DUUiena,(&om nmolfand S ..... or W8Ier c:ol1ection I.-
...............tion of orpnic matc,A.New'EnIfaM",;,. .." . .... ..'. .>i.. ainuhatpln'alr8ooc:linaby lib-
rials) while tMwacerpmvidesltabilitJ <<:\IoOk;,b~aipmC.,dqairi"(parOrmuac),"'~aorbiae onetairiinellOllll waren DId hiah
~,and ~ ofJame~~fiIb,.which,8CCUIDulate on tbeaoil~under ':~ ~ ';, . :.. ..... '
-.phi., andotherlllJllatic;animaIa.,w:ry.,~condltiona.'c;,C",,'i'i" ",.,'/":,.Moit~~t:larMk,,1i'bed.CII' DOt they are
ADd.G(~planis 'ana arWaala inaAnother_y to 1elI:~'to -.tlftfttt the".ronnectedlOcxber~ bodies, ptOYide
..l.a.;J,JuwereaclYiaccesato thatnecasitJ '~::&sed;Oll;~;,of-ifteJd;'ie-i.,,,_~~wiIdlife:'IUibita.. Tbmerhat ate
0..-'.... . '"..,' c.., '. ,-. _,.., .;_.__ '. _ r' _ .. ,,_"_"_"_':~'.. ,'_,'. _ ..,.,; "". _ '., _." , ~
far.'" water. . 'd', .., .~ ;,1eaKb:,\llioqisU'have catgorizedplanta, ,iIoIatedfmm.OIberIUtfilce wateII offer to
~reiUlt 01 this combination'o{ ~::'~Jnro ".... tbat'&tendtJ;)\Pnr,m1liedands .,.Ilora andDuna'~~ ofan aquatic:
,lIIId laIesttiaI,iapuD,ill communitj with r'l~iQe they uIually"pow in saturatr.d habitaUlltidst _laatar.p.u..~.
unique.~Wedmd .'IOiJs.be- ..soiIs)8I1d..thoee,tbat;tend ,.toimw~-"Man'-iwet~,,~, ", '
cauIe theyue',UIU8Ily or often....ted,whCle:W~ ecoloJisa caa'look auoila landfunc-,
dneIopchemic:al pmpetties differem from . "aDd:J>>lams OIl'a sinl1e,Yilit to a'lite"anCI 'use tions, provide .,~'
renesai8laoiIs.;wbicb'are'more aeIuea.'bu:ObIervationslUXl '1JestptOlellioaa1 critical ,.ei~\
Wetland planadiaplay QlUtionI-~. .,' ,jucfpDau"todeterlllinu/~ether or not the .' ."v.ices-tOf.~~~'~
iac ill these.turared'IOiJI-for'.eumPle; '>1area\6ts,ihe defiffitionOfafti:Jalla' "mansoCif:t'y:;,
.....tbat can pump oxypn,to.theirmoa .... '":"" ". ..' ; .1 m p ro ve d,;
ducuatuheirscems.or;lIlOIIeIthat caalive .lBow alewetlaridSdauified?drinkinlwa.'!
in Ihehich1, acidic conditions found in Unfortunately, there is nota sinIle. uni-terquallr:y (as:
.... :wetlandL'iCenain anitn8li. in :.tum.vena1l,'aCCepted c1aslificatioo achemefor,"a":Teaailt 00
..depend antbe unique veaeamve md by, wetlanda..The ,1DOIt widely used in' thewedands' :fil~,:V~,"'"
~ c:bamcteristicl#wedandL}dmy Unit_~'isthe~-.lJYIEeIIl'de- '''teriD.(aip.c.5~~~ '.
hinlsauike..ofthe copious pima that veIopedbpthe US Oepanment of Fish.;jJ;f) 8Dd'miti"'r,' . ..... ..
cmeqe from IIIlUSbes. and use wetlands. and Wildlife; it isbasedlaqel, on veaera,;.,'Ptioo'u~ire:l1IOcimelllOltobviOUl
"'-"'ations-clurinemipationLAm, . don types. An example of a wetlaadtype examples. A. poc:kea ofhiadiv~J' wet,
pbibiaaa lay their cas in wedanda, which under tbeCowmlin .aystem is -atuarinelands can be the babiat o{'.....&om
..,aft'u1llOlesbelterfmmdimubacund 'intenidalIolested/ahrub- wetland. whicbmedicines are demed. Filbprovide
predaaootbllftlKesorrivmdo. . :An~.,lDedaltemativecla.ifi.,;pmtein forlllllllY hum.. OIl the.pIanet.
....>. ,. .', . "cuioo' ~, the U'.:s,'A.nn,t::Oq. cimd IDDItU thae JUb would be unable to
What ue wedaada? ';En8ineea'~~~- (HOM)das- ::reproducewithout tbep.~ ofwedands.
There -.eaeYel1il'ileRDitioaa.ofWedands,ai&c:atiaa.'focuIeslaqelyontheabiotic:fea, Some of the 1OCietal.... that cone-
hut in lay terma,. wetlands are ..a. where tureI of wetlands Ind catepiza wedands spond .witb.YlIrious ,wetbad lunctions are
tbe IDiIa are IlItUrated at or near the IUrCace bp tbeirimctions. The same wetland named ihown in the box an the Dat ....
canaa..I_ M:II JNIp
VOL.urnaa.1ION1TOII ..._..., a
,l2~-
.-
,..,.:.
';.;..-
". I <,~1.:'.,,'~.':;.~.'
~ -.: .~
"", :..... ;
. .;,;.,';....~"
:.:: --~ ':;;
",
34.2b
.
t
...~~.
.......-....;.., ',..i'.
, ~ . ,. ..... ''i'ii~ .
:~:~~~~:J-;~J~~B'~~'
.; '-
:_~:r:-..:""~~'"--',;'" :,:4
. :..",:, '", ,l~ i;. .,;:,", ~~ '" r,'
'.,;'~ TPfDl~- ":'JJ';~Wl~ -I'~JI ~::'~.Jfj;
...,. . ,; ~'CM..( ,Q.iltt:'t:.:d. ..j:"~. ,,~....., '
'!,.'~" ,1J-" "..., ....~ ~. ' .,~
\_-
<.t
.~
, .;ow......
.~..~ ,.. '
".~.' ~. !.af,~ .....ti~~. s~.:7;;:~.-H:~:'.;.i""
:P'Ss;Jk. . ".,~l.[I^.L,~' ,
.,' . C',:-' .' " ..' "
13
-
'..~4j~~~
, ,.... ,-
~(~'~~~~k~
: -'~ .~),~,~ 7[[.1~~';fI';l~;
, '- :~' .~, -fft. "'~ ~ St ir--' .'Wy,n-..
,,','Pd~~-; ", ~Jf~~tI~-idYtw.J
, ,,-wl1ls~ f~ S~;,f~bklw,;~.
...",,': 74"-,~~;~J~~ ".,
- ',-~.~.!..," ;'.'0~,..."~,".fJ:iJ..~....,..'....~.:. '.... .. '12.., ~ 'C.~4,..,...'..' , '~,--"" ,-~'j,y-<.
",;'.~f,~~.,~.",~ ~~~~'A,.J) ~
;.2.,1. 'f ",;,.~,~;l_J..~ .".-'- .....,,; ....-r;/'.., .'CT~~.,)~r.. --__ /
84.;;S.~",:.,'I.),~.":..,....:': d.,~,i~'...../.;'. :~"~. ,; i~:.'.,,>.~~. ::" '; . . ". '. i,......, ":.J :,.;-".. -,~
,_)..l --~,'..A". .~.,.' ....,/. .'..' l~
>~ ~"~Y' ,.,~i::~<:~ d e;.
. .~. ~1.1>s:}'s~r~!:,~.~ .
"'~ L/.SF,tw:J'~'fJi&,,).' ..~o,'II?.p '.r-e~
84.4 '~,"."~' ',,:," ',' '4..,1-: ,'MJ~1,~~ S:;Pt
'. 1../ ., , .'.,......~,. '. '.'. ' ,
'+C> l'"M..c.., ,-...- _ "i'" - ->.".,'..' ,:,',
wi
.!.-:1 ,.-
,
'.
.... 1;) J I . #- '. \ / 1 in u-.:z.h.
." )''T~ ~ ,.' 'f.P' -) .
.~~ ._ " ..,' ..jt.J-, dd ~J ·
j IJJJ. .. - ~~~. ,:~ ~(tJA. ' '
346 J_,_~~"TO"-- ~ lA,.L~f" ~"I-1..
. !::':J~~;JU ~,'A.. Y~,.J'W~',. CLt!d ~ ~.;
.~""~lt~)~;~\'; ..l~J
",.~,'t:~4"~;'~~t'~"~.,'
. '11;'~.~ ':k.~.{:ei:/::;;.f;,; ......P..~....-. (
~ ~ ~ '..,..." j .tff'1.
:i'd,';./>'.'" .<;'., <, ..' rs~
~.....- '.".-.ol'... ....,.',;;:"..,. ..,'...,.. .,." ,~.fi{.' ...~;;......".,".~.~.'.......,. ,:".'../1..". .~.. .'.......,.::J:,i~.,lt', .'
Ci I . .,' -' ,>'.. ':'if;,' '7-pLJ
""1 ' , . /,:- )'...., ,.... ..' ",,:1-. ,: .' ,..... " ~:~. " '''1
'*. .' i;;;/lfffIJ&;b _~ ~i~;
, ~_.. n'
o ,~
I
1
I
t'_ -
.
. . ~
I .
!
i
!
I
I .; IlL
(
34.7- , ..~ :12, '~.,.'.' L ......''''''. .7L.'J.... ')",'44. ,.1 OAJJ..J. ,..;;". .......}I1 ilAA.: ~., ...~,
'0 ......'111_:f~./. d2' I! --_.:-',1f:'~.~r~:j ." ht
'. .AIl.....' '. "~.', .>> . . ';:'f'Z. '...::s1.'.() (JlJ"'.. "),<, .' .... '. '.. ,.:', : ..' .
.' ...,'., '<"5"'" / ""'. ",'. '.' . ..C!. '.1 ...,.'. . ',..' .', ", . .'
... ..;ksiJ,.. - .f1' .,... .' ~~.fy~~l~
,.4,.,rIQ'/I...- '. ,'. '. .,A .1Jt. ...';..~ J
'..'( .,.~.,,'.:l,.".I"/"."'~l'.:J~"~".. I ",' ."..;~......" .......'.:., ,..,',..... '.'.,...",.'...',... ...., ..,' ..,. '..k..' .......'....'...~... ...', :,,"..'...'..',':,...~,..~.... .'.
.... " ',.. .' , -; " ' . .,": ", ,- ".
· '\. .. ........ >, >!il .<i ~
,~4H~<~~-~.,,~,
,f2,~5~;tr!~~~~ '. Alf2/1
.'..',...'..~,.....,..... "'... ., ........"'.c. '~."""',"". '.'/."~. ,.", '. :.':1/).',.'.....,_....'. .~ .I,.'....,'....',.....,',.,..,....'.. ...~"...'..,..' ,:~~i.'.;Z....',...".~.'..'......,.. J'i..'._
~ .~,.ttfLt.. Lv'- ;~.' .. ... )/" ~
'.' ~w..fl. . .SJtII.l7' .' ,P:l.r- ....., .... .. :"."" /- .,1_ \.c
i ...'y.~ ,.., ,...r", . '.,' .. .,..", ~,~
'.' . .
'. .
. ~ .. ~ . .
. " ',.,'
... .
., -
. - - " -.'
',- - . . .
.. . . . " ,-
.\,.,f:~r~~;~7::~~, jjl~, br
. ,'.JJ...t/'" $W$ ,~"~ &S/J. ...,.. . 1'117.
j~~ti~S~~+~.." ,....~' M
"~"'~"".' . ...~"" ..~,., .:,.,'.s,.,.,. ..
:'..'(".".....,...""...,.,...."~....,..'..:',:.......'...,.
:' .. ,'... ',.. . ' . .' ..' , .. .'.. 'Co,..... '.'
. . . - -". .,. ,
. -', - " " .
,li:~. dL.. " .... . ,...,.i : ..'P,.4i-lf'~ .l.M.iii{
, .....~.....~. ", S." .' .,),/' '. i.J;i;d..~/f~,'./61 .ft...c..
,', . . .. '~d 'Il~~!~~ .~
''')w ",. 'b'.s:wu.1f' . 'A0'.J-' .' ~' ';. elf-
. . . -, - .
' '...', ..' ,..- ..:,. .' " ,."-" .' '. ,.' ."., ,;,' .,... .. ~
. .:;t:;~,sd~L,i>J~
, 34.8 ~ #eT> ,:9V'-t~ '~.h ~ ~~
. ~ r~. u,s:.(., 1::{<t4f..f)bI~USF/().5'rWiW
<L4 . Ph- ~~~W l/-C.P,/~~
~,~h~~+f~6,(~/
\.
.(;,~
<-:-
.t
,...-
3409; ,,',". ,,-;f,tf,to:!!:ttf~f'3),~,~ ,.'. .
i,lt"?'," ....,....d2r-~~cd.~~-.d.~.J4, -
, -s.~, ,'/{; ,,' <~,;dt,~,'1:l~. .~.
:'. .J.'.'...'.- ',.'" '''.~'''. . ...',..., :,",'..' ".::' .... "
.Cftt.J'/ l~' r:tf..t"!:f~", " , " :",.
S 1N6.d,'yl, ._~.. -7Z4Sb"<:!M.fl..~,/11 ,~, '
'~~..~,A}~~o"~~ ...,:'7PJcs ~~ "
..,:,:,.'.:" .'.: ,,;,':-..". j!.,:~iT.~:,,'-.,i.,v: ,,\:;,":_:~>"::)/ i " ....) , , 41 ,,--
''''\i\" ';';~",""';' ", ',': ... . "~:'" ",,~:<<,'f ". '. " . \.
..!'~.' , · '. ,,'d1ti~~~)f5~11 ~ .
. ,:.~ '1I'lj':' ,; " ...~,. ;:.fJifti'Vlq oJ< . ,'.. . . .'
=~ ~ ~~: ,x '{ij.; "f/j'.: , .Jf.f~- e v;,~"1J' ,..~ -- tfPWJ IJ '-
,-. .. " . , r .
..~ '('. \ ,. .' , " ' " ; . , ' ., " -=., '
;~~/1.f".:;Q,,"'{.~ Ju... '~"1MI!f./1J ' ;'
. ,~"o.. "'i}'L.~<:V if.W'.!~x~ "E7h>.'.'.',"~ ~'.e. '.
'- L.~, .:. 'i'.' ~; ,:.~ ':')''':'< . '~'):/.;,,; ,,:,:;." '" L,~ .J,::".:: _
- .. . .... -- ~ - -... ..
. I ~ ' ..~'.t ;
. . "\
. ,: ":-... ',~' ,~.;~.t - "'..<:"'" .,1 :~-:::' ..' " -"'.') .. '_,
......-.- ". ,,:.
\.. 1.- :..:-'t~ ' ': ': . '-':':"". . .-. ._'~ ~ .,::..-~~r: ":':'- ~,\ 00 "I". .~,
i \
'1"
. '. .-..;'::':;:
(0
...., ;l, . f
(-
1 ,
~
~
,(
34.14,,; .,... ..,..UY'4~.&~~'~ ~.L
,,(: ~ r If ' .~' d~rl1_'_,:_ :L ~I f
",.:-_~.~.\.t~ ,'.~f'J'<'i ," ,~lJ~~:";(a~', "',.' .f',
;. ~~~~,~~~:,.' '.' .,' ,
., ....". _'. ", . ,- '_d' ,',",' .. . -, - -:- ,'- !- .. -',' :-- -....."
~ .
, ' -. -
. ! . -'.,' ,. '.-,
. -'0.;"...,~J - ' .. :fli--"1 '.,":' ,~,--'JjJt:~'lifr.,;, ":'. ' ",~1 . I
, , " r-q-~,. ~1t1, ,II.. ,
, . ' _,~, f/':I\L _
, ' 2 ~ 't-
. .,':. . '...v.. . ," _ ' ., ~ -' '." .. ,it ,':,
, -
',.".].." .,t.,...'"" :1,. ::"d .'~." ,...fj1-.~" ."...' "!ft~r~...,~{4,,......~ ~,.c:.' <~'r4.,.
7 f"~:r _~,:J:N.r~..~ ," .,.' .
.! ' j.,: ).. :.. ",.,' ; . '. ',/~ v. ......." ,'- ';. '.
34:15. _ ..,.",...<A4N',1.!fftr'tclh .~'.,~., c
. ,'7141i .:...,S1l,~.,:,f;~, ~:. ,
.~'- ~.'~j'tf r.,. ,." ~
,.~.w-I/( ..jk. "fAIK- :>tIY-i"y" ,,' .~-
34.16", 1C ~';~f41:JI". '. '
i_W'~P:l~""" ~.~ ~ '. .'1-- ~-
· - . ,.,' ',',::' ' ~. ::;;',' ,'.'i>"~ Y . '
5<'.1-'';;'' '~&~. ..
. ~~S sU-l t~)~~i~ ~.
tJ(..V
"
,.
34.17" .'~]J[.LM.~ w
, ,',,' '" " ,,', , e::tR. .
. ')u,.J ..,. .. . ..' .... ~ ~Ctr~
Ii 4fe .,' . 'k /UAli&v~ .' .
~ ~21Jii;! S'J · t,'c S. ;(~
04".l ~ ' Il ' ;z~ ~ ..J{..,.
. ~" """n,'l.~", ..... 1)M 1tD" " ' "IfiI,"U '-" . J
' ~ b..L~ r~ TIt: a/{
..f'~+~. ~~J. ~
$do7h7Hel ~ . ....~ b;pl ..'
- ~~/~nSuJ~,~ ~
.' c.tiv".',. s.' h,~, '.".. -~, ...r.,',J;-,'.~', ',.~,.,',-r~ .1,11. ,IA ,
~ '~~ ~1I.._-"L...o..J ~~r~'-
· . ~ '1~7lT ~1-~ : 'r4-~
. V'~ ~ Sf'-d ~ /11
~oj/~~
G)~..~~
8 tY!98
"LETTER 34,DANSHA.T:TVC
'Response34.1The City circulated the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this SEIR to 335 agencies,
organizations"and individuals" .The,sixa.gencies:,and 'organ,izations which respo~de~.t~th~ NOP are
, ,listed.in1.J.EIIiJ!.e.quiremen;t ottl1e ,1998DSEIB.",rrheCih' distributed ;23Q..copies.,of the 1998
DSEIR(includiIl,gthose ,sy.bIQitted ,to.theState,Clearinghouse (seeLetter'.OQ)), circulated a Notice of
Availability of the DSEIR to 345 .~gencies,<:omanizations, andindividuals,and,publisheda.notice of its
availability in the San Mateo County Ximes.The 3Tre~pondents who ,submitted written comments on
'the 1998 DSEIR,are listed ,in.,7.,2. Perso1lS ,;,Commenti"g.of,thi~ .document" dAnother 29 same or
"different, individuals made,commentsauheCity's;public,hearing. on the ;1 998 DSEIR~) ,Among those
sent copies of the 1998.DSEIR ,were ,,,,gencies listed.inthis,comment -CaliforniaBtate Department of
Fish, and" Game..(CDFO), U,S. AnnyCorpsofEngineers,(Corps),;and ,U.S..Fish and . Wildlife Service
(USFWS). The City did not receive responses from the CDFG or Corps. The USFWSsubmitted
comments to the City after thec10se of the 1998 DSEIR public review period Although the City is not
required to respond:to late comments, both ;the agency';s comments and City' sresponsesarepresented
in.this document(Letter,12). ,Distribution.; lists ' are On.file and available for public review at the City
Planning Division.
:Response 34.2 The . numerous 'springs ,'and seepage areas shown on Exhibits 4.1-2 and 4.2-2 are
based on frequent geotechnical inspection of the 'slopes by the ' City's geology consultant during the last
ten years: These wet, areas are very seasonal and present during periods of significant rainfall.
}~dentificationof these areas is ~important{or'slope.stB.bilityano'erosioncontrolof'graded 'slopes. As
;"was ,done in ;Phase I, ,these "intermittent springs' 7 'seepage areas ,shoUld be left natural, whenever
:possible. If grading covers such an area andrequiresstibsuiface:drainage"control, drains"should be
:brought back to the surface to discharge water for use by the flora and fauna
~ ~ ~:. .: -" ' ."~ ':
,-;::,
"The 'seeps and 'springsin'the 'geology 'section are identified because of 'their'1mpact :.()ngeologic
~'conditions which is 'a;Qifferentanalysis'than'identifying'jurisdictional'wetlandswhich 'have some
'biological value. , The 'seeps, and springs ;indicate 'thepresence'ofgroundwater' and, surface' seepage,
most of which do not'persistintothegrowmg season once niinfaIlstops.This factgenenillyprecludes
,establishment. of wetland 'vegetationnecessary;for ,consideration 'as potential jurisdiction31 wetlands
,indicated;inExhibit 43-'1~-While: several of:the 'smaner '>areasmapl'edaspotentialjurisdictional
wetlands in Exhibit 43-1 are technically freshwater marshes associated with hillside seeps, only the
perennial' spring'hassufficientflows duringcriticaI 'summer months to 'be identified as 'perennial in a
'biological context. '
"The project sponsor's 'biologist determined'1hat 'the"oetenti6n:basins referred to by' this comment were
man-made 'features 'exe:mptfrom,Corps jurisdiction, Therefore, the acreage 'occupied by these seasonal
-features wasnot,inc1uded:in .the"total'acre8 ,6fjurisdictionalwetlands 'and other waterson the site.
Refer to Master Response 73-8;on'wetlands for additional information on verification conducted by
.,theCorpsllI1d the'proposedapproaeh to. mitigation.
Response 34.3 The land dedication requirements under the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for
the Terrabay project are the same "as the 'original agreement,which'theUSFWSapproved as ,part of the
HCP.Thecommentor's concerns are noted about the need to provide adequate land area for
'replacement hilbitat,.1f cOniplete :avoidanceofsensitive resources is not feasible. "This':inCludes ,larval
host plants 'for' the callippe'silverspotbutterfly "aDd jurisdictional wetlands. The '1998 DSEIR' s
mitigation measures specify preservation 'of specific areas on 'the Phase -'msite(such as the perennial
spring and large stand of larval ,hostplants'forcallippesilverspot). 'Additional land area for
, Lencr 34-1
replacement habitat also may be necessary depending on the degree to which the project is revised to
protect sensitive resources. Refer to Master Response 7.3-1 for an analysis of the proposed Phase III
Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative and the degree:tcHwhich,.tbis :proposea..alternative
addreSS~~. ~rotection of s~tiv~~~~~?~cal and wetlan~~~~~s,
. Response '34.4 "The"1998![)SElR7,(DSEIRpages ':149-152)'provides'a ~deWleddiscussion of the
'potential for oCCurreDceOf sPeclal"stams'~pecies'on 'the 'site,'indudi!ig'butteifly sjJeciesof concern. As
'indicated on DSEIRpage1J51 ,'the recent-endangered status designation of ,the callippe silverspot raises
concernsllbout'the 'potential:impacts,ofthet>roposed project on this . Slibspecies,')However ,the status
~oftheiIrissiori'bluebutterlly~has'noh::hangedsince completionofthe1996SEIR,and the provisions in
the HCPandpreViousEIRwereconSidered:adequ8.te'lO address this.:species:'.,AnemptSto obtain input
,from the USFWS, 'during preparation :oftbe DSEIR'werenot'successful,':Comments 'received from the
USFWS(Letter1'2) focus,on compliance ,with the 'landowner I developer '.obligations defined in the
HCPandavoirlinglarval host plants of-the callippesilverspot as recommended/by/Mitigation Measure
4.3-2,
Response 34.5 The '1998 DSEIR presents focusedanalyses'oftheproject's:effectsonprovision of
'. police serVices and schools. 'Theintroductionto 4.7 Public'Services'explainsthat the 1998DSElR:
.. .focuses on two issues related primarily to the proposed intensity of development on the site.
'. police protection and schools , ... Itupdates the '1996 :SEIRfor.the' issues addressed, but otherwise
,jncorporates.the 1996 SEIRby reference for other aspects of.theseand other, public seryices.,
The:commentor;also ;is;referredto1.0Jntroductionfor.-a"discussion,of ,bow",the..City<identified the
.focus of the J998 DSEIR .{1.1, ElR ;Requirement),and,:infonnationincorporated J;>Yreference in the
. . :..report.{1.31"fo17lUlt:ion~Use.d:to,.p,,-epare4~JE1R), ,
", :.':-:-'. "." - ";~-.-'. ",. ~
Response34.6.Envii-omDent31.documentsassessprojects' significant or 'P()kntiallysignificant
pl!ysicaLimpacts" 'They..do,..noLaddresssocial-or;economis:effectsunless,such ,effects would lead to a
<direc~ !physicalimpact, Lead,agenciescobtain iinfonnation;on)projects' ,.socialor,~economic effects
separateJromthe,environmentaLreview?:process,,)FheCity ,required the fProject;~ponsor to fund
preparation ,of a.fiscaLan~ysisfyVhich ;was, conducted .by:a.differentCity. consultant and separate from
this .5EIR.As,withall project materials which ,are part of the public record, the ,fiscal ,analysis on the
\pendingpIl;lject.i~ ,on file with and,available for public.review-at the; City's Planning Division,
..~;. _.- -
'." 't'
,,'Response 34.7 ,.,nUs co~ntrefers,i:o.. the, Phase ,1;prQject,' ,not..the, subject. Qf.the d998DSEIR (the
Phase n andID projects). According to the section on Su"ounding Land;Uses.,(DSEIR"page 19), 130
Phase I units had been completed and occupied, and 156 were under construction or yet to be built as
of,December1997.(the ~;selected,.fof:,consistency".with, traffic: ,counts ,taken for :.the ,,1998 DSEIR).
,Construction has ,continued,since,that;'time, but. the information has,cnot,been,updated.,since it is not
,relevant ,to this documenL..Buildout,ultimatelywill ;result"in 293:housing.units,on.thePhase I site
IDSEIRpqge,..l Q), ",Questions ,re.garding., City , di~position ,of fees,.asking,or., selling,:prices.of housing
units, and other economic ,information re1ateito;the '~merits,;;of;thelpr9ject':"not :its. environmental
effects. See the iminediately preceding response.
,Response34~B .:Comment.noted, ,Refer to Re~ponse '34.4.
., .:Re,ponse 34_9. "The 1998IJSEIR"does :no~;provide.additiona1infonnation,and elaboration about the
Southbound Off-Ramp Flyover("flyover")because jt is :,noLpart,:of;the :project,covered by the
. document. Theflyoverisidentified..as a planned ,transportation ,project rDSEIRpage 23 ),asnoted by
the comment,because;of.its,proximi~,to the project site, because. of its relationship to, the hook ramps,
Letter 34-2
Bayshore "Boulevard. ,and overall Oyster. Point , Boulevard Interchange improvements, 'and because:.the
traffic '. analysis assumes 'that this facility ,would be in operationin;.jdentifying ,impacts. attributable; tq
the '. project .:(DSEIRpq.ge,;o162).:It . is jllustraied'OD,Exbibit4:+2 ;which show~ ;,the,;}ocationsof"
intersection,' freeway ramp, and main line freeway analysis (see-item 3,on:the third panel DSEIRpage,
167). ' .
Environmental'doCuments'asessimpactsof projects,uncJerexistin,g,ancl:future':cUmulative.conditions,
Cumulative, conditions include'l'rojects'UDcJer,cansttuctiOD;but.not .occupied;projects ,approved,butnot
built, or 'reasonably Joreseeablei'projects.(such.as those, pending;anddikelyi.to " be;approved),;The ,
Oyster ,PointiBoUlevard:lnterchange,,;EIR\was, ,prepared cin ,;199.0and~addressed;thexenvironmental .
, ' ,
impacts of the flyover, The City had approvedresidentiahdevelopment,ofthe'PhaseU;Pointjn 1982,
although none of the Terrabay project had been implemented when the Oyster Point Boulevard
InterchangeEIR was prepared. Thus, the Terrabay'project'represented an approved :but yet-to-be:built
project Jor,consideration dn, the, :Oyster ,Point BoUlevard interchange EIR,. .,'Nevertheless,the 1998
DSEIRevaluatedthe TerrabayPhaseU andm project in the context of,t:ra.fflc"airquaIity, and noise
conditions expected to be ,prevailing in. the future withcompletioniof the transportation improvements
identified.
..-- . .
, ,
~I~_,,,,-,-.::,, ~ .... , :....--.~.':>f.<".:-~
When .identified for analysis as a . significant or ,potentially ,significant impact, environmental
documents. assess wisualandaestheticimpactsofprojectsand,howthe :proposed . action would change
the visual character ,of;a site' orsurrounding.area.Suchanalyses idonotevaluate . v.iews;offuture
residents 'of 'housing,projects.or'tenantsofoffice"developments.'Such :considerations . are not
;environmental:impactsoLprojectsbut,aremarketing ,andhor project cUlerits matters outside the
~:!'Purview,()f EIRs,'
)Response,34.10 The comment addresses',the '~meritsofthe:,project"andexpresses the writer's views
:aboutaspectsofthe proposed:siteplan. Hnclusioninthe 1999PSEIRwilL make these views available
~to City decision-makers. Please seeMasterResponse7.3-11.,:
tF.lesponse34.11 The ,commentor's interpretation fOftheDnShaky :Groundmap is incorrect. The map
:this comment refers to 'islhe, Geologic:Ma.terials, .Shak:iIJ.g Amplification map. The estimated shaking
amplification. is notHIGHtoEXTREMELYHIGHfor,theproject:areabut. is Righfor the valley areas
and LOW iorthe rock:areas; ,';A,bettermap to use for planning purposes is .the:Shak:iIJ.g Intensity,. map,
which assumes a Magnitude3,.'1,earthquakeon,the mearbyPeninsulaSegmenL:oLtheSanAndreas
Fault. The anticipated shaking from this magnitude earthquake is Modified Mercalli Vll-Moderate for
thevall~ysand VI-Objects ,Fall,for the rock :sites,
,Although the ,project site' sseismicity was, covered ,in more detail in the 1982.EIRand1996 SEIR, :the
1998'vSEIR,also'addressed ,:this,topic ,(Impact 4.1-6 Secondary : Effects of Seismic ,Shaking).
Nevertheless. no dama.geto buildings on the Terrabay. sitejsestimated Jroma 7,1 ,earthquake nearby
(seehttp://www.abag.cagov..,ealeqmaps/docJmmLhtmI),
: - ...: j -' ~
Response 34.12 Fill placed in the approved soil disposal area was approved by the :City, and fill
control was inspected by both the project sponsor's geotechnical consultant and City's geologic
consultant. As the 1998 DSEIR states, the disposal site received excess material from grading during
Phase land repair of the Area D landslide in 1996. Since 1996, the disposal site has received
materials from the foundation excavations forPhase I under pennit with the City. Some construction
debris (wood,concrete,jdastic, etc.) and organic material (mairily~pentba1esfrom winterization)have
been placed at the sitetempOI'al"ijyand.periodically removedl>.Y a.subcontractor (Union ,Pacific
Consttuction)on behalfofCentexHomes,...Gradingproposed.for,Phasellwouldremoveand replace
all fill placed there since 19%.
Letter 34-3
Response,34.13,Reducing'development'from .'the,;amount ~proposed'Was identified,.as,a; mitigation
measure in 'order to 'present City ,decision-makers'\Vith.one41pproach:toreduciIJgpl'Qject, impacts below
City-approved",'sigDificance criteria ,1evels,,":The:1998 ,.DSEIR'.81so Jists'other<potential:mitigation
measures (such ,as 'widening .freeway'rramps;'OI' ;,the ,~regional:freeway,:netwofk),towards :whichthe
project would be required to provide a fair share contribution. :However, as stated, it is not known if
Caltrans . would, approve these improvements or whether the remairiing required funding could be
acquired. ;However,'considerarlons:::regaromg'the"amaunt)of on~site:.development;andthe :availability
of off-site Iriitigation measures;applicable;:iD :partotothe'project ultimately:mustbe weighed'inrelation
to the.'projectsponsor';s,objectives cidentified 'in :,the, -1998 LDSEIRX DSEIR:;page '26) ,which;would
modify;thegoais:and".objectives'ofithetTeiTabaj.Specijic iRlanSpreviously.-adopted,inU982 'and \1996
and inviewoiotherpoliCies,of the-City contained:in:the,Gener.al':Rlan.:'
Response :34.14 . The ;project,sponsorior"the; PhaseU;and ,mprojects;:'SunChase Q,A.CalifomiaL
Inc., was. sponsor ofcthe.Phaseldevelopment. ~.Thedeveloperimplementing, the Phase 1 project and
planningto;build proposecLdetached housing units in the Woods neighborhood isCentexHomes. A
separatedeveloper,SunStream. not presently ,involved ' in,.the,.Phase I. project, would build attached
housing proposed in the Commons and Point , neighborhoods (DSEIR page 25).
Irrespective of the experience of thesefirms,:the,City:of South San Francisco would be responsible Jor
reviewing and:approving alLplans:and pennitsforsite preparation :and,constructionof the project, ,as it
is for, developmentthroughouLSouth San:Francisco, in order;to:ensure that all requirements are met,
whether : routine 'City .', codestandards,c,,;speciaI.conditions of. approval :imposed,specificallyonithis
project oranaspect.oftheproject,ormi~gation1Deasuresenumerated.in the 1999 FSEIR . and\this
SEIR's Mitigation Monitoring Program, 'The, City also is 'responsible for, inspecting development
projects periodically during construction and for ,granting occupancy pennits once ,complete.
Mechanisms'available-:tothe :City;to ensure;compliance:mClude;delaymg 'granting. of site alteration or
constIUction' penIlits{suchas'forph8seddevelopment or:at~ecified :locationson,a site).or .delayiIig
issuing occupancy pennits until all requirements' are fulfilled,",'
In this context, 'Citystaffand"consultantsi.contiJlue.:to"nionitofllSpects ", of.:the :Phase ..ldevelopmentin
order toensurethat.code standards, "conditioDSQf,approval,. development,agreement-provisions, and
required >mitigation . -measures;are 'satisfied, ,These '-activities inClude " oveniigbt,ofslopestabilization
(landslide repair), debris'basinperformance,andHCPtland restoration 'success. :ThePhase'lprojectis
not completely ,implemented; ;and,' thus;;tbe'CitY':s:resP,ODSibilities :are-.not ,complete~
Response 34.15 It is not clear whether this comment isreferringito'the'PhaseJ(notcovered 'by'this
1998 SEIR) or Uprojects (part oithe focus of this 1998 SEIR). ,In determining the scope of the 1998
SEIR. ,tneCity ifocused'housing 'out ofthe'aDalysis;~based 'on -'thefinding;of:the 1996~SEIR ,which
concludedo;tbat "'no'significant'additiona!:adverseenvironmental impacts have 'been identified" and
furthertbaf"no additional mitigation meaSures are req1iired",d 1.1 ElR'RequiTement'and '6.4 Effects
of No Significance describe the process the City used to 'identify'sigriificant andpotentiaIlysignificant
impacts for analysis and dismiss effects of no sigIlificance from further consideration in the 1998
SEIR,''';'
Draft Supplemental Environment~ Impact ReportJor the T ;;;:ab~ S;e~fic Plan ~ Development Agreement Extension
(1996 SElRJ,"Wagstaff and Associates.'JanuaryI996.ACcotding to the 1996 SEIR,the 1982 ElRcontilined no measures
to Jriitiguchousing impactS. 'The 1996SEIR reported 1hat the asking prices of proposecihouSing units to ranged from
$200.000 to '$400.000 (in 1995dollars);estimarcc:tthe approximate, annualhousehold'income'required"to buy proposed
units. and discussed the City's fair share allocation of affordable housing identified by the Association of Bay Area
Government's (ABAO's) 1989 Housing Needs Determination.
l.euer 34-4
The City does not have an.inclusionary housing ordinance which requires a percentage of new housing
units to be affordable to buyers or renters with specified household income levels. The Terrabay
Specific Plan similarly does not require provision ofa certain number or percentage of units to be
affordable by persons with very low, low, or moderate incomes, Therefore, the Phase I project was
not required to provide affordable units, and the Phase, IT project currently proposes none. The
combination ,of .housing unit "types and .sizes inevitably would "provide some (if limited) price
differential, even if all units were marketrate housing (defined as affordable to households with 120
percent of median income or higher),
Response 34.16 The Precise Plans for the proposed Phase n project include site plans, elevations for
each housing type, and describe building and landscape design details, The application materials also
contained large sheets of scaled elevations which illustrated architectural characteristics of the
different residential building types as designed and proposed at the time of those submittals. Those
materials are part of the public record for the project and can be examined at the City Planning
Division. The 1998 DSEIRincluded Precise Plan site plans (Exhibits 2.3.,2c and 2.3-2d) and
summarized all proposed lot and housing unit development details (Exhibit 2.3-4). However, the
DSEIR omitted detailed plans and, elevations illustrating the architectural design. This is because
aspects of the project were in flux and were ,continuing to be refined during preparation of the 1998
DSEIR and 1999 FSEIR. Ongoing refinements include site planning changes which affect
architectural design, thus the appearance. of proposed building fa9ades. Consequently, report size
graphics showing elevations are not available from the project sponsor's and residential developers'
architect for inclusion in the 1999 FSEIR.
Response 34.17 ,No development can proceed on the Phase ill site - whether implementation of the
pending project or an alternative - before the City approves a Precise Plan and grants necessary site
alteration and construction pennits and before other jurisdictional agencies take the appropriate actions
within, their respective' authority. A Phase ill site development concept different from that described
in the Terrabay Specific Plan, amended as of 1996 (the concept analyzed in the 1982 EIR and 1996
SEIR) , would require a Specific Plan Amendment. The pending project requests such an amendment.
Also see Master Responses 7.3-1 and 7.3-2.
Response 34.18 Comment noted. It addresses the '.merits of the project" and makes suggestions
about City actions. It does not raise questions in addition to those addressed above about the adequacy
of the 1998 DSEIR analyses, and. thus, no response is required. Nevertheless, inclusion in the 1999
FSEIR will make the commentor's views available to City decision-makers. Please see Master
Response 7.3-11.
Leacr 34-5
35. 1 a
35.2a
35.3
Sa nGrEgorioEnvironmen till Resource Center
Ie. 49. S- GrEgoria. CA 94014,1ao- &sonU49'l f. 650.126.2686
LETTER 35
AUJust 13, 1998
Planning Division
City of South San Frandsco
400 Gr.md Avenue
'South San Francisco. CA 94080
RE eEl VE 0
AUI~,l 7 ":f~~
,PLANNING
To: 1bcSoath San FIaIICism PIa.aniDJ Division
From: The San GRJOrio EDviRmmemal Resowc:e Ceater
Rc: ComJnm~,OA SER tor Phase, 3 oftbe Teuabay Projec:r
We wouId.1ike to iDcIude tile f'oIlowiDa IS commems to the SuppIClDCDCal Draft fsMrcmmcnWlmpact
,S~r for Pbase 3 ,o!tbeTenabayPruject.Thc SID Grqario EnWuIUl1ell&ll Resource Center is a San
Mateo Coum1 basal Pftm.~pred speCies advocacy poop, wiIh over 1000 mr.mbefs ill tbc county,
in~hllfi.. over 30 in the ciJy ofSoath San FraDCisco, We bold the position that the cxttcmc1y rare aDd
threalCDCd habitat of San Bruno ,MOUmaiD sbould be preserw:d for the sake of the endangered species that
live on it.JWC also feel that the CUJDUlative impacu of CM:I'-clevelopmcDt in Saa ~ County will
ultimately bun our ability to protect what little Ne habitat is ponIlI;,nlll&. simply because Ibr: will be roo
much ln~ to deYelop rhose rmnmftu.g areu for rccrcatioD.j
- This projc:cl is 10catcd on San Bnmo MOUDtain, the Iarpst urban open space IRa in the countr)', This
DmUDtain is home to several eoc1aDgered spcciC$. iDcludiDg seYer'II endemic buDafly species, the CaJippe
Si.lvm:pot and the Mission Blue. We ,believe lbat 1JIc jJroposed degelopmalt sir.e is c:anently used as
babiw by Ie'Yeral ~ species. includiog the two previously menlicmed. We feel that eadanpred species
babitat will be destroyed. causiq 1he project to constihJte a '"take", UDder Scc:tiOD 9 of the Endanaered
,'., Spcc:ies Act. '
31: ~""),' -The CUIIlIIIatiw impact of the dcvc1opmeD.t must be aSRSSed by the SEIR. SanBruoo Mountai.o. bas lost
".&.1.1; mud:1 habitat in die Jut Ionyyears. mostly fiomwbaa cIcvelopmentCl'CeJlinl aIoDgtbc fJaoks of the
\ ridge. An hemal iDveatoJy aftbl: an:a's biDloJical di~ (mcludiog abuDdaDce aad laJIIC,informatiOD)
, ud III ~oftlle loq.nnaeviability of tale species (usiag the bestar.Wab1e COD5ll:lV8Iion
, ," bioloIY) sbauIdbe made bc:!ore coDlinlIO a coa.dusiOll about the cumuIatM: i.mpIct of Iddiog -just one
; mare" project OIIIQ the SDOIIIltain.
· An imponanl dement ottba SaDBnmo MOUDtaiD ecological system is m. Alas aear lheploposcd
cIe\odopment site have burned in die last 2 years. Has an a55CSSIDCIIt bc:cn m8dc 011 how thc,projcct will
affect ,Ihe fire J'Cgi.me OIl the MouaIain7 ADd how will tbc changes in fire rqimes affect important plant
species disuibuti007
35.5 ~. It hasbeeD obscnal tbar all of tile olher dewlopmellls on San Bnmo MounIaiD haw brought exotic
plaDt species iDlo areas which'llreJe ~ DltiWlplant babitats. The iJD.portaDcz aCtbe oatM pJaole
basal habitats are tbat seYeftl of the ~ aDima1 species clcpeDd OIl thae plallfs for 1'omF and
rqnduction. 'I1Usproject, IS III otbas bas doac. will make il easy for exotic pIaols fa Set a foothold OIl
die astemflaDk oftbe mov~ill
35.4,
35.1 b
Because this pmjcctis saddled with so JIIlUly problems which willlcac1 to Ibis loss afbiodiversity, we ask
tbal tile Pbasc m PermaDcal Open Space AllenJatM be Idopted. San Bnmo Moantain is a priceless
tre8SUre which caD DeYU be n:pJac:cd. PIeD= coasidct tbese QJ~". and iDclude them ill the vnincD
m:oni. We request DOtific3IioD. many otbcr opportunities to c:om~t Thank)'Oll for your c:oosidetation.
LETTER 35, SAN GREGORIO ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE CENTER
Response 35.1 The comment addresSes the "merits of the project". It does not raise questions
about the adequacy of the 1998 DSEIR analyses but refers to the project's significant environmental
effects analyzed in the DSEIR, specifically impacts on special-status plant and animal species
discussed on DSEIRpages149-152 and 158-159. While no response is required, inclusion in the 1999
FSEIR will make the commentor's views available to City decision-makers. Please see Master
'Response 7.3-11.
Response 35.2 The commentor's concerns about threats to the special-status species associated
with San Bruno Mountain and the cumulative impacts of development on the unique biological
resources of the county are noted, The 1998 DSE1R biology analysis provides a detailed assessment of
the potential impacts of the project on resources associated with the site and adjacent open, space lands
of San Bruno Mountain. It briefly discusses the cumulative impacts of development on sensitive
biological and wetland resources (DSEIR page 335) and refers to the cumulative analyses in the
previousEIRs for the project site and the EIR / EA prepared for the San Bruno'Mowzrain Habitat
Const!rvation Plan (HCP).
Response 35.3 The 1998 DSEIR (DSE1R page 149-152) provides a detailed discussion of the
potential for occurrence of, special-status species on the site, including butterlly species of concern.
Refer to the Master Response 7.3-9 on callippe silverspot for additional information on the status of
the amendment application to allow for incidental take of this species.
Response 35.4 A detailed assessment of fire-induced changes in habitat on the site was not
,conducted forthe 1998 DSE1R. The City focused this topic out of the 1998 DSE1R scope based on the
'impacts, and mitigation measures identified by the 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR which addressed wildland
fire hazards on San Bruno Mountain adequately. ,In addition, not only does the City of South San
Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD) continue to review proposed plans for site development, but also
SSFFD Station 5 has been built and put into operation on the Phase I site since completion of those
prior environmental documents, thus improving the City's fire fighting capability in the vicinity of the
Phase n and Phase ill site.
The project would provide some firebreaks around the perimeter of the proposed development area.
although access to, upper elevations of the mountain still could concern fire fighting agencies. It is
likely that occasional grassland fires would continue to, burn the open space areas to be dedicated as
public lands under the HCP, as well as other open space lands on the mountain, and no significant
change in the effects of fire or fire suppression on existing habitat would be anticipated as a result of
the' project.
Response 35.5 The 1998 DSEIR describes concerns raised over the adequacy of the proposed
Restoration Plan for the project and its relationship to the HCP ,as part of the background discussion
on DSEIR page 147, The 1998 DSEIR also reviews the adequacy of the proposed Restoration Plan on
DSEIR pages 156-157 and recommends revisions in Mitigation Measure 4.3-l(b).As the 1998 DSEIR
concludes (DESEIR page 156), provisions in the proposed Restoration Plan related to eradication of
perennial weeds arid calling for establishment of minimum success criteria for native cover should
address problems previously experienced with restoration efforts of the Phase I site.
Letter 35-1
Jim Hamish
'Planning Division
City Of South San Francisco ~
. P.O.Sox 711 ~
South San Francisco, CA 94083
August 14, 1998
LETTER 36
Re: T erraBay Phase II and I.
RECEIVED
.AUG 19 .~,:~I
PLANNING
Dear Mr. Hamish:
J6.1 a' The alternative that was chosen to resemble the · JulY' altemativeis not possible to analyze
unless the draft SEIR,with the alternative fully described and analyzed, is nH:irculated. It
means , nothing without the fuR,description. The ,differences including type and scale of use,
parking and circulation requirements are impossible to analyze. These differences are offered
as mitigation for impacts on the wetland and archeological and biological reSources although
there has been nO,public review to see if the mitigations are proper.
16.2 Discussion of mitigation meaSures are very weak and do not speak to the impacts 'and feasibility
of such measures themselveS.. CEQA Guidelines require that mitigations be fully described,
detennined to be feasible, and if likely to cause significant impact, those impacts must be
reviewed.
If,a modified Reduced Residential and the Open Space Alternative choice were chosen as the
project alternatives, there w~be less, need for the additional detail. ;
t "
' ;'18 CEQA depends on a consistdt and fully desaibed project with, adequate pcjbiicreview. I do not
expect ,that a new ,altema~ will be developed at the review period ,from information, generated
during the review. .
.36.3 7The section on Alternatives needs to be completely re-writtenfor da~
1~ 4 ~e discussion about the impacts on the springs' is not sufficiently detailed and how will another
u. 'spring be created. Where? Will it produce? '
16 '5 C If there is no amendment to the 'HCP'the site surrounding the Commons would have to be avoided
· because of larval hoist plants that would need protecting. When would the amendment on the
HCP be made? It should not be assumed that the amendmentwil be made. Therefor the project
should be redesigned. :
16.6' The Reduced Residential and Permanent Open Space Alternatives are best because they avoid
impacts rather than mitigate impacts.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincere~, ~_
s~egory
'41 Madison Ave.
'San Bruno, CA 94066
,LETTER. 36"",SYL VIAGREGClfl, '.r,
.", .,....
. ...' , .' ",.' "", ..,', '," ,."- , .. . , ....., ,." " ,,'
Response 36.1 "'Master Re~pon.re";7_3-2"disCusses the.re.asons itiS not necessary to,~irCuIate an
expanded 1998pSElR, which 'asseSse~ thtf Prtlject~ponsor~s'fhas(!.llIMitigationPIan Develi?j,inent,
Alternative: 'and Miiite~ResjiOnse-7.3';'1:presenis' an assessment of the 8iternative~ "TIre envliolmieiltal
evaluations contained in the1996SEIR, and 1998 DSEIR cover the different development concepts for
the Phase. m site referred to b.y thecomO:1ent.~y'elopers frequently revise or modify their projects in
response to EIR fuidings arid publicconnnen,ts'in order to obtain ,ilPProval. Therefore, it is not unusual
. for the project sponsor tosubmifareViged o{aiternative"developmentconcept at this stage' of the
planning and environmental reView process.JThis does notprevent public disclosUre or review. The
City Council will be responsible for determining that this SEIR 'is adequate to cover the project and
EIR alternatives before certifying the 1999 FSElR as complete. This is because the Council has the
authority to approve the project or aD alternative, ' , .
Response36.2 As discussed in ResjJonse28.1" the 1998 DSEIR's rmtIgation measures were
designed from the ,outset 'lobe effective and capable."both, of implementation and of aChieving
performance standards ;identified to reduce impaCts to less-than-significant.levels.The measures also
are designed to disclose secondary .effects Cuany) of implementing them. The effectiveness of each
1998 DSElR mitigation measure is discussed .immediately' following the description of the measure
itself. The reason for doing this is'toavoid;11Iiintended secondary environmental effects or to reveal
tradeoffs amongmeasures.'Therefore,the'J998 DSEIR identifies,andcharaeterizes the significance of
secondary 'impacts likely to result from implementing all Of ,part ofa mitigation measure. The City
Council ultimately wilt: beresponSiblefof .deterniiningtheir feaSibility ,Developmentalternatives
assessed in 'the 1998 DSEIR asstrmed ~corpofcttionofrelevantlnitigation lIle8S11res identified in
. Chapter 4.0 of the report. " ,
Response 36:3 ... Asdiscussedin'Responsii i83, 5.0 A'ltenumvestotheProposeaPr(Jject describes a
sequence of tasks conducted to fulf"tll CEQA. beginning, by ,discussing the reasons for analyzing
alternatives and summarizing how the individual alternatives were fonnulatedfof evaluation in the
1998 DSEIR, The 1998 DSElRthen metbodicanypresents atqpic;;by-topic discussion of each
alternative compared With the effectsofthe,~ecLaspr9Posed,The1998DSEIR identifies the
Environmentally Superior Alte17Ultive, according' to CEQA.and also describes and 'illustrates a
variation of the environmentally superior development alternative - the Environmentally Preferred
Alternative. Without elaboration by the commentor about issues requiring clarification, it would be
speculative to respond further. ,Due to the similarity to Comment 28.3, the commentor is referred to
Response 28.3.
Response 36.4 As the 1998 DSEIR discusses (DSEIR page 156), the project as currently proposed
would eliminate all the native freshwater marsh and riparian vegetation on the site. This is why
Mitigation Measures 4.3-1(a) and 4.3-3 were included in the report, These mitigation measures call
for preservation of areas of native freshwater, marsh and riparian habitat and creation of replacement
habitat where avoidance is not possible. The 1998 DSEIR (DSEIRpage 160) discussion of potential
impacts on wetlands also acknowledges that modifications to wetlands and other waterson the site
would be subject to jurisdictional review and approval by the V,S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps),
'the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board
. (RWQCB).
Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(b) requires preparation of a wetland mitigation plan, if complete avoidance
of ,wetland habitat is not feasible, and specifies that the plan must be reviewed and approved by
Leacr 36-1
jurisdictional agencies before issuance of any grading or building permit for the project. This
requirement would 'serve to ensure that the concemsof jmisdictional a,gencies,bayebeen ,fu~Y.",
addressed before any disturbance to wetland habitat occurs. 'The permitting process under Section 404 "
oftheCl~Water Act is separate from the City's 'envir~mental anq projectreyiew~process,andit,
typically ,~$DuItaneou~ O!.~bsequ~nttoiDitiaiJ?roject ~pit)VaI ~y'~'joc~,agenI:Y: ,'To()many~ '.'."
variableSlli',tbe"deslgn'8rid"potenii~:'inWaCi . ()fthe,piQjecf!D1y' c~;;ge~ as"ih~'enVircmment8IreV1ew" ,."
process,pi~forthe. pr~ject spoI1s~r 'to ~,,'expeCted to:secuie ,'a..pemrlt:,from' the 'CorpS and other
agencies at this ,tini(However,thej)rovi~o~forPerfo~ce. staJ;1daids" monitoring re~ments,.
andcontingenc:Y<nreas~(called,:for.,' iIJ.:~iti,gatic)]iJ~Meast#',1~.37.3(~)woul~e~surC? ".susc~ssfu1.
establishment of any replacement wetlands.:"Refer:to )Vaster1le~onse73~80n. wetlands 'for a
summary of th'e 8deqU8cy ofthe,c:onceptwu mitigation,phlDprop~seiiRY the'project sponsor's wetland
consultant~d optionsaYailable ~,~ meet apparent deficiencies. .
Response 36.5 Mitiga110ifMeasure 4.3-2 proVides'for clear options on treatD1entof sttitablehabitat
for the caIlippe silverspot butterfly. A fmal decision has not been reaChed yet regarding an
amendment to the ,incidental take permit for ,the San Bruno Mountain Habitat ConservationPlan
(HCP) to inc1udethe caIlippe silverspot.As defmedin:MjtigarlonMeasure 43':2,if an amendmenfis
not obtained. the project 'must be redesigned .,to ,avoid all,'larvalhostplants,inc1uding the, stands
encountered in ,the p1"()posed Commons neighborhood and other 10cationson the site. ,Due to their
relatively small nu~ber cOID.paredwith the larger stang o.D the northern end of the Phase ill site ,and
other largerpopulations,onthemoUDtaID, the 1998 DSEIR ,:bicilogy analysis did not consider
preservation~f the stands in the Commons neighborhoo(Lsigriificantif the amen'dment is secmed froIIl
the U .S.FIshamf Wlldlife~Service,'(USFWS).'The1998 DSEIRconsidered salvage and replacement
plantingsofjohnnyjunip-llPs,as :pm, ofth,epr()posed'B.estoration 'PlanJor the,PI9jeet to,.be, adequate
mitigation Ior, .,the.antiCiPate(f loss,:o~ approXimately '400 ,plants' 'IU .,th,e. ,Commons ';neighbomood.
However,comments received fromthe'USFWS (Letter 12) 'indicate that the Service would ,prefer to
see the host plant populations in the Commons neighborhood preserved as well. ~RefertoMizste,.
Response l.3-R ," on, c;alljPP~\ silve:rsP<>t JOf "additiopal.infom:mtlon, on ,the", status of the amendment
application,,' , ' ' '. "
Response '36.6 "The conunent eiptesses a .preferencefor ..a1tematives.assessedin ',the ,,1998, DSEIR.
While no .re~poIlseis ,required, jnclusioD;iIl,the 199~"FS~R, will make the commentor) views
available to Cin'decision-:-J:Dillcers, Please see Master Response7~3-11. '
:... -;"_' _'''.'..-<:-;:' c",.:_,.-.. -.,'_ .:1 ',"_"'.";- ..-, ~". ",---,:- ;.'.;,- ;_-"
Letter 36-2
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO )
PLANNING COMMISSION, )
)
July 23, 1998 )
)
(
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
South San Francisco, California
'Thursday, JulY,23, 1998
.(
Reported by:
DAWN A. STARK
CSRNo. 7847
JOB No. 3082
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
SOUTH ,SAN ~CISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION,
)
)
)
)
)
5
July 23, 1998
6
7
8
9
.Transcript'.ofproceedings, taken
at 33iArroyo,.Drive, '~"SouthSan
Francisco, 'California,' beginning at
7: 32p. In. ,and ending at 10: 03 p.m., on
Thursday, July ,23, 1998, before DAWN A.
STARK, Certified Shorthand Reporter ,No.
7847.
2
(
(
15
23
(
1 APPEARANCES:
2
3 Planning Commission:
4
CHRISTOPHER BARNETT, Chairman
ROBERT MASUDA
WILLIAM ROMERO
JULIE BALDOCCHI
~ITH HONAN
EUGENE S IM
5
6
7
Representing the Planning Division:
8
9
JIM HARNISH, Chief Planner
ALLISON KNAPP WOLLAM, Consulting Planner
ADAM U. LINDGREN, Attorney at Law
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
3
(
1 INDEX ('Continued)
2 Public Comment:
3 . DAVID SCHMIDT
4 DAVID GRACE
5 ELLIOT GOLIGER
6 ALBERT LANNON
7 MARC BATCHELDER
8 FRED ANDRES
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PAGE
78
82
88
91
94
95
(
5
1
2
South San Francisco ,California',
3
Thursday, July 23, :1998
4
7:32 p.m. - 10:03 p.m.
5
6
THE CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen,
:--' .... .-., ",.
7 welcome to tonight IS special meeting ~.thept1b'lic
8 hearing on the Terrabay supplemental environmental
9 impact report for Terrabay Phase II and III.
10 The purpose of tonight's meeting is to
11 have the public render comments on the draft EIR so
12 they can be put into the final EIR.
13 Any questions that we have will be
14 addressed in thefinalEIR --answered in the final
15 EIR.
16 It'sbasically not much of an interaction
17 meeting, as far as the planning commission goes or as
18 the staff goes . Basically, we're just up here to
19 accept testimony from the public.
20 :Withthat, Jim, do you have any
21 additional comments?
22
MR.. HARNISH: Yes.
23
You might mention
orI can just
24 mention it, that's sufficient, for people to give me
25 speaker cards and I'll bring them up to you.
6
~
Then ,at the end of the meeting, if
(
,
2
somebody 'has riot 'filled a speaker card out but wishes
3 to speak, they can go ahead and testify.
4 You and I talked : about it ,'but I just
5 want to mention that when you do speak, for the
6 benefit of the court reporter, if you could, spell
7 your last 'name, j ustso we make sure we have :i t
8 correct 'for the record.
9 We I drecommend that we begin the meeting
10 with Dennis Breen,who:representsthe project
11 applicant, who has some testimony to provide related
12 to some mitigati"on measures that the applicant is
(
13
proposingal'ready, in response to 'impacts by the
14 environmental document.
15
THE CHAIRMAN: I" d also like to add, as
16 far asthetimingoft'heenvironment'al impact report
1 7 goes, 'this 'supplementalenvironmenEal'irnpact report
18 was made available 'for public 'review on Julyl,J:998,
19 and the 45-day review period will end on August 14 ,
20 1998.
21 After the public review period closes, a
22 draft final supplemental environmental impact report
23willbeproduced,which 'incorporates responses to
(
24 verbal comments received during the public hearing and
25
written comments received during the'p'ublicreview
7
period.
;-. ~ .'-
Because:.i t i.sdynamic""thefinal'plans
submitted ,in ,May.i1i1co~orated,;:into .them some solutions
to maJ::1yof ,the.design.and "environmental issues that
have .beenraisedin the "EIRitself.
8
c
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
,; 14
15
16
,.
1 ,The solutions ,that were agreed ;;tobetween"
:2 our ,conSultants ,and .the...:citystaff ',and 'then
3 i~corporated "i~ ,those plans;do ;not:always i,matchthe
4 solutions proposed by the SEIR consultants,nor;do
5 they\have to.
There are 'many solutions 'to ,various
problems, 'but <:we ,do .believe":the solutions reached
represent solid, reasonable judgment by ourselves and
the,city:staff.
,The details on ,all - -onwhat is in the
plans, the final plans, ,will "be reviewed in detail in
August. I think there's two meetings <scheduled, ,for
August ,13th ,and,the27th,;todobothi ,August 13th on
Phase IIandcAugust ..2nth,onPhase ,1: IIi:'however",even
the :final,plansstillhavesorne environmental impacts,
and likeanydevelopment"youcan '"t,:havea development
17 without:some.j;mpacts.
18 .Tonight"what ,I'wanted:toitryand
19 highlight was some additional ,:environmental impacts
20 that )wemaYJbeabl,e,toavoid Jif .can\alternative plan
21 that we ',ret~ing.to '-'-:.thato:wewilIJJe,;submi tting ,.in
22 a :sense, .asa r.esponseto:the :EIR'toctryand deal:wi th
23 the ;,environmentalissues "that have been brought up 'if
(
24
25
that EIRisadopted by ,the "ci,ty.
We I ve been trying hard . We've been
9
J.strugglin.g :to:dothis ,~to :;figure ,'out what kind of a
2 plan works,;what .~kind )ofa ,design' works, and:.how,to
3 put a development>,together;,that meets a lot ,of
,4 different interests. '
5
6
7
8
9
c--.
The city has requirements that, 'provide
10
1 their 'interests, and the 'historical society and their
(
2
-c. '~
interests, 'environmental groups; Native 'American
3 groups, businesses, homeownersiso there's alotef
4 different interests that are there.
5 What'we'retryingtodoisput,those'
6 togetherina'planandina 'design that,balances
7 those. I know it doesn't' ever satisfy each interest,
8 everything that ,they would 'l'ike, but I ,think we have a
9 good plan that can 'work.
10 I fwe don I t have any - - if we don I tmake
11 those things 'balance, 'then we either don I t get any
12 profit or'wedon't-have a 'plan that gets approved or
(
13
we have a plan that gets delayed too 'long or we don't
14 have a good ~pl'an .A.l.lofthose'thi'ngsI'd like to try
15 and 'bring together.
16 'Tonight , I 'wanted to 'present ,to you and
17 show to you what is 'up 'here, 'apoten~ialalternate.
18 The city staff really has:nothad'anOpportunity
19 this 'is'aweek-and-a-balf'old,twoweeksold.
20 We have 'identified a buyer who can make
21 it work under this plan, but the city.has real1.y'not
22 had a chance to "go through it and see 'the engineering
23 and the grading, a lot of areas that need 'to ,be 'looked
24
at. They" haven J t ,had thatopportuni tyyet,becausewe
(,
25
are presenting it as an alternate 'under the EIR.
11
,: -,. ',' . .' ".<~. ":<"':'~"~". . _ ..~.. .,. , ~~, ,-. .'. _~ :'.. ',:._~.: ,;,-''' .'....,.. '.1.'- ~ "_' -,. .:.~. ',:;
-; ~-, ,..,....'..'\'".-:-.. ..-. ..,',-.'- - - .
,', ,:~~,' ~hink .;'- ,W~,:believe that.it",illmeet
the criteria,tha; ,j"~,needec:l,, ,but ,that still has to be
checked.out.
The major :env.ironmentalconcerns",. ,I."
think"that areident=.i:f.ied.,inthe,EIRweregeology,
hydrology,biology,arc~aeologyandtraffic.This
plan deals 'with all of ,them.
.,What I I m referring to now ,is specifically
on the commercial site, and that's ,the ,large one
that's up there.
On geology ,under ,that plan, the graded
areas from the plans that.have been submitted to the
cityalready,are,reduceci 'from37acresto;about
20-acres,.We 'v~;gonefrom sevenpads~tes, to three.
In the hydrology, the "E;eeps..and,springs
that were -of ,co~cernto.peQple were .,left untouched and
- -,aswell as more of the wetlands.
,The ,graded areas " ,fro""m ab, iol",o,gy"
.. -' ". - , .'
standpoint, are."reduced, "and ',',~ ..largeconcentrationof
the Viola, ,which is .up:inthe.north;part, is also left
untouched.
,From,thetraf fic"stand.point,wh.~t:we.are
,proposing ,to ' bl.1:i1.d'on "this is on the no;th.::Parce1,.
which ,is the .oneto ,the,.right,an o,ffice,tower that
would ,be 10 .to .12 .,stories. That ,tower .haseven --
12
1 helps from the traffic standpoint, because you ,can
3
have a lot of smaller buildings, which was under the
i
I
I
'I
(
2
have ,TSMsthatactually ,work as. opposed to when you
4 original,:plan~
5 !;lealso...have, -with.thisplan,a buyer,
6 which will allow us to have funds to pay for some.of
7 the mitigations that are needed by the city.
8 I thinkwhatwecan..accomplish in here is
9 to avoid most.ofthe environmental issues that were
10 brought~pinthe ,EIR,not all of them.
11 The archaeology site, which is of great
12 concern to everybody , is left ,compl,etelyuntouched, as
c
13
.well ~asthe <threeor~oursprings ,and seeps that were
14 identified on the prop~rty.
15 Those ,are --that'sourresponse to the
16 EIR - - the.SEIR, . and ,we will be .,wri ting that~p in a
17 fullmannf::!rand ,identifying each of the areas where we
18 thinkthisalterna~eplanmitigates those issues.
19 Ithankyo~,.
20
.THE ,CHAIRMAN : Thank you, .,Mr. Breen.
21
MR. ,MASUDA : Mr. Chairman?
22
THECHAIRJ.o!AN: . Yes?
23
MR.MASUDA:Can.I just ask a question?
24
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes" you ,can.
(,
25
MR. . MASUDA : You said there was going to
13
1 be a 10:"'story'building .
2 Is:t.hat the only 'bui'ldirig 'iri '!the "nort.hern
3 lot? .
4
MR. BREEN: Yes -- well, not't.he only
5 building. There LSa second'bui'idingthatwould be a
6 parking structure . 'That wotildbetheonlybuilding
7 with offices.
8
MR . MASUDA: 'Thank you.
9
MR. HARNISH: Mr. Chairman, before we
10 move onto other testimony, just so :t.hecommission
11 understands how the 'proposal:t.hat:: just 'was put before
12 you 1s gofrig to be addressed, "we 'are going to analyze
13 that Just 'as' 'though ':":"';a.s'a "comment to 1:: he draftEIR,
14 address the issues that it ra'ises~
15 : You notice 'in the :alterriatives that we've
16 discussed or tha-ehave "beendiscussedin'theEIR,
17thereisCkirid 'of an . envelopeorparameter~thatwould
18 kind o'f'includethatal,ternativethatavoids
19 development on the archaeological site, not quite this
20 exact manner, but 'we'believethat.we -can address this
21 within the context of the 'EIRthat's already been
,. .. ~.. r..' .'
. ,. -. -
22 prepared and comparei'ttotheother alternatives_
23:',Wewill be 'able to discuss and analyze
.- .. '-, "".. .
24 ,it, just like we do other parts of the project and the
25 other alternatives. We will be coming forward with a
.14
(
(
10
11
12
13
14
1 detailed "analysis ::of',thi's:for you.
2 ,';Oneissue',:that I 'wantedcto,clari'fy:is
3 that therehavebeen"asMr.,Breen::pointed-:out ,:some
4 modifications to the ,~proposed .plan for'Phases!.I .,and
S III from the Januar.y'plan ,tobeused,t,o <"evaluate -(for
6 the EIR purposes.
7 Those :changes:have.not'been formally
8 agreedtoby'staff. We,areevalua'ting :some.Some
9 have not ,been :submitted.tous.
There have :'been :discussions back and
forth, but those will be treated as proposed
mitigation measures by ,the applicant that are intended
to address the impacts.
We '.11 ,lay all of 'this:out:for:you in
lS responsestoconunentsinourst.af f ,:report , ,so you 'see
16 how the progression moves from ,the January-plansto
17 the plans that care ;.currently'proposed"up to and
18 including this\onethat\was just described tonight.
19 There may,be.subsequent~proposed:changes
20 as a result of.further discussions,but:thos.ewillall
21 be laid out for you in the staff report.
221 just.wantedto ';clarify how the
23 progression is occurring.
c
24
25
We had to settle on a .fixed:plan for the
purposes of a 'project cdescription and analysis in the
15
1 EIR in order to do ,all 'of the ~"traffi-c:~lys'isand
2 othert'hings:; ':otherwise, :if t:we ';,kept 'changing the EIR
3' as the:plans ::-changed,:"we ,could:nev.er publish ,a '
4 document,. \W,e had ,to :kee.p',:revi's:ing;" 'so that~ s,.the
5 purpose,. <lj ust "wantedto cl'arifY".that.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay . Thank you .
7 -,We'i.llgo tto:our'second ,'Card now, and may
8 Ir,emind you that 'when you .come up 'to 'speak, please
9 step up, state your name, spell your:lastname'for the
10 courtreporter,:anda.lso:state your address for the
11 record.
12 DanShattuc" please.
13 Mr. Shattuc?
14'2;O'MR .'SHATTUC-: ;Good ':evening. My name is
15 'Dan Shattuc.,S-h-a..;'t-t....u-c. "I live at ',907 West
16 CardinalCDrive in Sunnyvale.
17:What::I'd :like -:'to 'inform you of is 'that I
18 have he en fol'lowing this Terrabay proj ect;pret ty'much
19from.:~the,!,'beginning .' ',"Id'vetopposed ,thetproj ect ,since
2 Ot'he,beginning ,and :I:opposet'his'Proj ectatthis
21 point.
22 'Ithinkthisproject'iswayoverdone and
23 overdeve1.oped for the land, ,t'hat it""s,tryingl,to ~create
24 all ',of ,these ,things .
25I'msurprisedithat we're:hearing,about
r -
16
(
(
(
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 new 'proposa1.stonight -I:guess !that"swell ~nd good,
2 but I mean, ''! 'd'like to':hav~;firstpage-- .~to;beable
3' to lookati t"as 'well "as ,everybody 'else .
4 I guess I 1m defending everybody that" s
5herethat;hasn't' received"t'his dnformation. I think.
6 it's appropriate that we do, so ,that we ,can understand
7 it and see it ,changes 'the complexity of what I s
8 proposed.
9 You know , 'this is a very , I think.,
10 speculative and risky development, in terms of the
11 site that we'reon,the land conditions, its history
12
13
14
of slides and slippages ,and erosion problems and
earthquake -,potential 'problems .
Wehave,situations:thatare 'no more than
15 seven or eight miles from here, in the Pacifica area,
Daly City area. TheY're still having slippage over in
the East Bay 'somewhere.
,Alot;of thesehomeshave'beenbuil tfor
many years . They'renotj ustnewhomes . You think
they'd be fairly stable, probably, in the first few
years , because" they 'are really scrutinized and
:everything 'is probably done right, ::but<when you have
the significant development.that'you'haveihere --in
the beginning , ,they 'were :talking ,about "towrihouses dand
condominiums :attherate of about six units per acre.
17
~You 'reoffering ,us six ',units per ,acre,
2but,theseuni ts.arenow'<i~plexes stacked ,on .top 'of
3 each other. I,guess;three-:-plexesare the ones that
4 are on,\top of.eachother,.
sYouthave }d~plexes ..and ,three-:.plexes i which
6 are 'running "approximatelY\l.pto3 ,,000 ,square feet ,
7 four andf,i;vebedrooms., :have,limited,access,ino.terms
8 of thedri vewaysand the streets being narrow. The
9 fire truck has to turn around :three'times before it
10 can get there.
11
I was talking 'to my sister tonight. I
~2 said, "iWell, ,all :'of,these people are going to . have to
13 bring in new furniture and :allofthei'rpossessionsto
~4 move into a .:four-:or'five-bedroom(home. That's a lot
~s of goods . n
~ 6 ~Well,i t IS going 'to .take some "of these
17 vans from the various moving companies .to--andI
\
18thirikthey Ire .;bigger,and~ongerandwider than 'your
1.9 firet'rucks, and ,_-: you know"that"swhat you'.re
20 looking at.
2~You I re 1ooking. at ,properties ,there that
22 are very inaccessible , ,.subj ecttopossibly.firesfrom
23 thehill,,~:frompeople;that:might':miss the turnoff as
24 they ,take ',the' first: or second 'street up ,they ,end up
25 onthef.ourth :one"anditheyl vegotto icomehackdown,
18
{
(
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(
1
2
3
something like that . 1 "mean, it I:S ,go.ing'to ,be
confusing.
I ,ask ,:al'so, ;what'doesithisdoto.the
4 community? :-We've:seen:a 'lot .of:confusion,a~ot of
congestion, ;a lot <,of ;:traf'ficpr.obl:ems"a lot of
demands on the city staff on 'what.,.s been '.developed so
far" but we Ire :going.'to:develop^far more~here, oi:n
terms of what 'sleftto'be developed.
The traffic problems, as you see on
Highway 101, are already at ,conditionF. I.mean,
they're not,goingtobuild.any.more freeways, and
overrampsand offrampsare;goingto "cost the 'city a
lot of ,money . It's going to.co.stthe developer a lot
of money,.
tonight.
Thisisa.significant piece ,of ground,
:and ,it actually affects .:all.ofus;"from ,the,heri tage
and the history.
You know , I could go 'on and on . There's
19
1 700 ,pagesinthis:.thing t,o .~lookat .:anddi,gest,,,and
2 comment on, and I don't ,have any more time, but ,I
3
would.definitely "encourage '-:a 'strong ';lookat no
,---.
f
4 developmentor.'signif:icantly less "development.
S . This 'dsn":t':a ;traf.fic :'study,thatyou
6 should':reduce <the development lby:8S:percentto..'e.quate
7 to traIfic,'~to :be 'within ;,the:boundaries,of:the,traffic
8 concerns i and then:in ~the:housing:rightthere" you"ve
9 tripled the housingbylooking,at:whatyou have, three
10 times:greater ,:at,least :in \terms;of:.units than ,what
11 you initially':had.Y,ou:have ,a lot ,:more'people.
12 You're :not going 'to ,'have ,enough 'parking space,.
13 "We used to get something - -and"that ',S
14 also kind of interesting -- what I would call;a,module'
lS description ,of:a:ll,of,thisstuff.Howdoes it fit
16 into the Tittle valleys:and the 'hillside'? How high
17 are :thingsandwhat/does'it,looklike, in 'terms 'of
; -.
18 built to,scaleso\that<,;we :can"visually :see ,this
19 development? 'All';'we Jsee '",'ispaper,.
20 Itlooks\okay, I guess, but ,we don't know
21 what color it' s going to be .We don't knowhow thigh
22 it 's ,going'to'be.We,:don',t ..know how..many people have
23 to go:down "this "street and .that.kind'ofs'tuff.:.tI'hat" s
24 all useful information.
2S
'I thirik the door remains open .We need
20
(
1
:2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(
.(
tOhaveathorough:hearing "on .thisand lkeepeverybody
informed.""
Think about it, because you.guys;arec'the
key decisi:on ,makers :in . the process ;.;that'9oes forward,
your recommendation to the city council. Listen to
the public and respond accordingly.
'Thank -you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you,Mr.Shattuc.
MR.. HARNISH :'Mr . Chairman, can I make a
comment?
THE CHAIRMAN : Sure.
MR.. HARNISH: I would urge the folks
testifying 'to, as 'much as possible, address your views
on the adequacy of the environmental document.
That 'stheprimarypurposeoftoni:ght'.s
meeting,tofindout if we have ,fully and
comprehensively ,covered your areas .:ofconcernwithin
the EIR, if it's accurate. If you feel that there are
some ,things ~missing ,please'tell us,. ',That 's the
primary purpose.
You' recwelcome ,to ,;comment,'On :theproj ect,
but we will have ::subsequenthearings,that deal wi th
tbereal;:meat <of theproj.ec,tanddeciding.what "aspects
to ,approve "or.at ,least., the 'commission ;and,the
councilwill~
21
1
,I~.,wouldu%'ge, :you ,to focus,;on,:the EIR in
2
your comments tonight. Thatls theprimarypu~ose of
1---
i
3
tonightl,s;,mef!ting.
4
".',THE ,CHAIRMAN:
The next ;card ,is "Betsy
5 Burr.
63.DMs. BURR : Good .evening,. ", My d,name .is
7 Betsy Burr, B-u-r-,r. I live at, 9,:CanterburyWay,
8 Morristown, New Jersey 07960.
9I'm..herethis~eveningas a ,visitor and
10 someone who has been enjoying San Bruno Mountain ,and
11 this area for a long time as a visitor ;several times a
12 year.
13 . When I used to fly intoSan,F.rancisco
14 Airport , I twas very much .., struck 'by, the phenomenon. of ,a
15 mountain;here in ,the ,middl,e, o,fthiscrowdedpeninsula,
16 still in grassland and scrub, as it "should be . As "a
17 fifth-generation native San;Franciscan,I'vereally
18 appreciated .,seeing that very, very ,much.
19
I 1wanttospeak "about ;the ishellmound. I
20 understand that plans seem to be evolving, as far as
21 touching the ,shellmound is ~oncerned.
22I,;was;here,atthe,meet.ingon July 9th,
,23 and:.I:understood, ',at "that time"that there ,was ;a':plan
24 to cover the :she11moundwithfill ,and parking lots and
25 so forth, so that is why 1: have come to speak against
2.2
1 it.
(
2
3.1
I also
when I prepared my remarks, I
"
3 did not specifically address the adequacy of the
4 environmental impact report, but in thinking back over
5 the parts of it which concern the shellmound, I felt
6 that it did not sufficiently address the impact on the
7 people who will be denied with the loss of the
8, shellmound, denied the ability to learn about 5,000
9 years of the past here in SouthSanFrancisc~
10 I think that would be a terrible loss for
11 you and for generations to come.
12 Preserving thisshellmound as it is,
(
13
perhaps with a nearby reconstruction of the Native
14
American village with interpretivesignage, could be
15 an exciting step for South San Francisco.
16 We have such an interpretive site near my
17 home, the Leni Lanape Indian Village at Waterloo
18 Village in the ~ooded hills of northwestern New
19 Jersey. I have taken many groups of children from a
20 summer camp I founded to visit this reconstruction of
21 a Native American settlement.
22 They react with curiosity, wonder and
23 delight at discovering the ancient, self~sustaining
24
society preceding the world they know.
.(
25
Think of it. There has been a human
23
1 communi~y in South San Francisco since the pharaohs
2 buil tthe ,pyramids. I don' tknow any other place that
.i-".-"::'"
3 can boast of such a large and ,long-term settlement in
4
the
I believe people would be fascinated to
5 discover this site.
6 Would we permit its destruction if these
7 were, quote, "our ancestors"'? You have before you an
8 opportunity to,pre~erve a precious piece of the past.
9 Development of a nearby interpretive
10 site, if it's impractical at this time, wouldn't have
11 to be done now, or even in our lifetimes, but future
12 generations may understand the shellmound as "our"
.
13 heritage, not "theirs," and value it more highly.
14 once 20 or 30 feet of fill and pavement
lS have been added to it, the shellmound and the world
16 that it so poignantly represents will be lost to human
17 awareness. South San Francisco has a chance to do
18 better.
~9 I urge you to give yourselves this
20 chance.
24
THE CHAIRMAN,: David Schooley.
4.0 MR. SCHOOLEY: David School~y, San Bruno
Mountain Watch.
..
THE CHAIRMAN : Spell your last name,
"
please, sir, for the record.
21
22
23
2S
24
1
'2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
~2
"". 13
~4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
(, 25
MR. SCHOOLEY: David, D-a-v-i-d,
S-c-h-o-o-l-e-y.
We are submitting a seatem~nt about this
on the shellmound and the EIR. Our first step --
we're doing a careful ,study, and this will come out
very soon, a detailed effort on the EIR about the
shellmound. There's much more to do.
I was going to ask you -- pass out that
first, and then, also, did you all receive the
"Terrain" magazine, by any chance?
No, okay . Let me pass these to you.
This is our statement. There should be
enough for you. Within "Terrain, "-as well, is our
response.
We're so grateful that the shellmound
maybe can be saved. We hayen'tseen complete
information about, _it, written or prepared efforts,
. ._, .'
what it will really be, but that move is areal move
in the right direction for all of us.
.."..-
4.1s, But ,in a way, we should make it clear
that, from the very beginning, the shellmound is two
shellmounds and a valley, .and that full valley had a
living use ~or5,ooo years.lsee~stte~21.19
Qurstance remains for that valley, which
is right connected to the state and county park -- for
25
1
us,
it's a sacred area, a prehistoric center.place for
2 all of us.
-', -, 0"'" ". .,
3We are all facing oUrselves .now,forthe
,4 Bay Area , what are we doing to - - wha"tl~''''hatppened here
5
- .' - .
from the last';tiili~n yearswit:hrare'andeIldangered
r-
. ' .'.' ;
6 species, for wildlife and for 5,000 years of human
7 activity, it 'ssomething'that our young people 'in the
8 future shotildunderstand.
9 For me, I grew up not knowing anything
10 about native habitat or the Indians . 'Now, with hikes
11 and activities on San Bruno Mountain, young people are
12 beginning to understand the meaning and the ,center of
13 that place.
14 The best thing I can do right now for the
15 EIR -- because there will be a much more detailed
16 statement from us, but right now, it can be said very
u
17 clearly that the Sil verspot butterflies'are pointed
<,
18 way over to the edge right there (indi'catiIlg) .
-
-"'-.' ,-: ',":... ':"~' -' -:', .~~.
19
4.2
See Letter 21.4
20 photographed.and clear, that the Silverspot
.,- .. ',', -." "- ,...,
'..' '. .,-,.'
21 butterflies are right along the road, because above
22 the 'shellmound and justbelowthe'uppef shellmound,
23 that means -- ,with eggs,~and"weseethe Mission "Blue
.' ".-'. ,- .",.:."-.:....."
24 eggs right above thclt are'a. They re not marked, so
, '
: ,'" '-"
25 there's a great deal more understanding about 'two rare
26
{ .
4.2 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
(
species right ther~'( indicat:lngL]
. .__...c.. ..' _,. _. "
No.2 is that the area between the two
,..-', ,
shellmounds isa somewhat disturbed area. 'There's ,an
"
immense water area that's for cows, so ,there's a lot
"
of cows that moved over that area for many years. The
roads went over that area, too, in the last 100 years.
When they made the 1880, '90 waterline
going to San Francisco, going over the ridge, they cut
through the hill and they took out
all the result
is right on top of that valley. It's'still there, a
pile of rock and stuff.
-
4.1b These areas are disturbed, extremely
disturbed, and then comes 101 and the Old Bayshore.
14 That makes a second quest'ionabout: Is it just two,
-. . . ,
..... .
15 or is there a third 'shellmound.underneath.,101 and the
16 Old Bayshore?
17 Our request is an extremely careful study
18 of the two shellmounds, the upper shellmound and the
19 space between them for that valley where the cows and
20 other activities have happened there, because,
21 obviously, the people lived there for thousands of
22 years. They're identified by trails, by activities,
23 by movement to the bay, to the ridges, for the canyons
(
24 which have buckeyes and oak trees, what they used for
25
food.
-
27
:.':"_~..~:'d, .:
1 It's a living, flowing activity, and I'm
2 sure that when the Spaniards came" as well ,they cut
3 down the oaks, they cut down the native habitat, and
r-
!
4 something is ,so gone now that could' be returned.
5 'Thank you.
6
THE CHAIRMAN : Thank you.
7
Julia Bott.
8
5.0 MS. BOTT :My name is Julia Bott , See Letter28
9 B-o-t-t. I represent the Lorna Prieta chapter of the
10 Sierra Club with over 120 members in South San
11 Francisco.
12 .Wewillbe submitting detailed written
13 comments.
14 This document,generally does a good job
15 of identifying the impacts, and they are significant;
-
16 however, we believe that there isn't sufficient 5.1 See Letler28.1
17 justification for determining that the mitigations
18 will 'reduce the .impacts to less than significant.
19 In many cases , the mitigations are too
20 vague. It is unclear whether they could even be
21 successful.Whil~ the party responsible for
'22 monitoring these mitigations is identified in the
23 document, the ,. protocol for determining the success is
24 not detailed in this document.
25 Further, there isn't any contingenc:;y
28
(
5.1 1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
~5
16
17
18
~9
20
21
22
23
24
2S
(
\
plans identified in the documeIlt.Wedon't know'what
we're going to do if, indeed, these mitigations fail.
. - '.- .".....
We really don' tknowwhether' 'they 'll-be':s1.iccessfuland
don It know what we 'lldowhen theY'renotsuc::cessful~:
'However, all of 'this would be moot, and
the significant impacts avoided, .by choosing some of
the alternatives that are identified in the document,
specifically the Phase II reduced residential
developmental alternative and the Phase III permanent
open-space alternative.
You would, therefore, be able to avoid
impacts, and under CEQA, you should first try to avoid
impacts, then you should minimize the 'impacts, then
you should mitigate if there's no alternative, but you
_do have an alternative 'here. "You can avoid the
impacts.
Thank you.
My name is Perry Matlock. It'sM-a-t-l-o,,",c-k. I'm
born and raised in San 'Francisco.
.! 'm a volunteer with the-International
Ind.ian 'CommUnity Council, \;lhichi~-' ~ - non9overri.tri~ntcil
organization and has an observer-status seat in the
United Nations. They have officesin:San Francisco,
29
\.....:,,-'_;.,...~.~~ .~..~::',-. ''':<.'' ',.i~ ',' :: ,.:,~_..-~r_:"._. ,..
. ..' . . ~.
,. r- ... ~
''''., .'.- . ';'!-
.;,'.'.'.7':'';: :':~';~'-, _.;:....,...-'....:~~: :~.~:
, '
1 inAla~k~,andHalso ,in,Geneva.
'd .-': '" .);,.,... ;'. '. ':, ,1- "",,'~' ~':;'.;"',~ c. '1.(' ".", :;":'_._.' ... . .~. ..
2 T~t!,y 'wC):r;~,..iinthe United Nations ,to
~.;~~'.:::.~:~ _ .. ,;,~.~:),~ ~.:!"~,:'!:'t;r." : ,'..:......; :'. .
3preserve.~nd~genouspe?ple'scultur~, lan.gu~ges, .to
;':'. 7' .j ...:.....-, .., 7'.:,,:',/:~~":!!1 "'-::"'-'~,;_/"'_,..', -,'~' - ~";,,:-;.:',,:" :. -'~ ",'.. --,"~'~, ! -,',"'- '.. -~ ..~-
4 preserveburial.sites,andtoenforce treaty rights.
/ ~,:~.,-,.-:':~:,D__':_~":;i>-::";'-:" "-,:."'"'rf'~'J,.....;.,;,:~:_""','-:f_;:':'<~"';;,~\ :"--: :....;.:.;...'.~.,..:: '-:' " '-, ':: -: . .
5 Unfortunately, in California, a lot of
6 the indigeno~~(i>eop~edonot have federally recognized
7 treaties.
S The Mission period, which happened about
9 200, lS0years ago" did a great deal. of genocide and
10 devastation to a lot of Bay Area native cultures, and
11 today, we still do have a lot of the native people
12 with us.
13~.1,o1 1. iwC!n:e~, to _point out that in the
14 aJ:'chaeologysect;on of the ~EIR,it sCiys,"An
15 estimated200,:plus .Native Americans of
16 Costanoan/Ohlone ancestry currently reside in the
17 greater San Francisco Bay Area."
lsActually,that nurnber,iswell over 2,000.
19 There'S,more than 20q Ohloneances,tors.
20 I wanted to just quickly read off ,to you:
21 The Amah Band of OhloneICo~tanoans,theCostanoan Band
22 of Carmel Mission Indians, the Indian Canyon Band of
23 Costanoan!MutsUIl Indians" ,:and also the Muwekma Ohlone
24 Tribe.
25 Those are four differentOhlone ,groups
30
(-
6.1,1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
,(
seekingfedera.l recognition, so ,by no means are the
Ohlone only at 200 or are they gone. They're here
forever. "
'These'shellmounds--Imentionedbefore
at these "other meetings that they used to line the
coastal 'shores of the Bay Area, of San Francisco,
Monterey. There were probably thousands, maybe 2,000
of them, prior to the Spanish missionary invasions.
Today, there's only a handful.
As we pointed out, in Coyote Hills
Regional Park, one of these shell mounds is referred to
by archaeologists as an Alameda 328 or 'the Patterson
mound .Tot~eOhlone , i t'scal1ed II Tuibun .'11
This ,shellmoundisintact"although,
around it, there .havebeenexcavations'ofover500
remains. It's inside a park. It's preserved.
That one shellmound .if we look around
the bay, we really don"t see -any other native sites
that are preserved.
We ,do have, ',on 'Ring Mountain in Marin
County ,aboulderwithpetroglyphs ,on it . Those have
been destroyed by souvenir hunters, and there's not
much left of:those~petroglyphs.
~We do 'havetheshellmound at 'Coyote
Hills, and we also have :ashellmound,here in South San
31
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
this to our own ancestors.
I 'ask .youto,thinkof--- under'a
Christmas tree, ,a little ,toy church, maybe,a.little
toy cemetery, and then ;all.ofa iSl,ldden"thecat jumps
up and'knocks over,thep~ant. All the "soil covers the
toy cemeteryfand ,.thechurch. ,That ,may be somewhat
equivalent to ,putting a cap ,or landfill over these
shellmounds.
,-
:Something ,that really 'needs, to be
stressed is that the people in these,shellmounds are
thegreat-great-great-grandparentsofthe Ohlone
today. They I re ,still 'oalive,.Thisi'sailiving
shellmound.
I j ustwishthat ,;,weall,thinkof cthi.s ,'as
-- it,l'snot a war,;' 'We;aren'I"t,atwar 'with the Ohlone
25 people. There l's'no,reasonforthis"areato'be
32
("
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
.16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(
..-
desecrated.
'THE '.'CHAIRMAN:
7.0MS . THOMPSON:
;,MaryThompson.
'Hello . My name is Mary
Hill Thompson, T-h-o-,m-p-s-o-n. I'vebeen,aresident
of South San E'rancisco for 30 years;now.
I guess I' m i'here:,to :talk .about ':the
environmental impact on a human resource , and :'that"s
our children.
I'm here tonight:to:voicemyfervent
interest :in preserv:ing'theSouthSan'FranciscoNative
American site i.n its totality and express what ,could
be ,of such importance educationally and
developmentallyto'ourchildren.
33
1 Everyone ,who went through the fourth
2 grade ~in,California ,remembersthe..models',madeof
3 California "missions ,:,and. ,<a:lso~studied ,the ,..lives and
4 cultures ,.,of o,theNativ~Americanpeoples ; "We learned
5 from books, : ,and :ourimaginationsand interests ;were
6 ignited.
7 What. ,a ;wonderful "si'ght 'it could be to see
8 our school buses ,full,\of.excited children from our
9 schools disernbarking and ,walking on the land that had
10 been inhabited by;Native American peoples for
11 thousands of yearsand~to':beguided'throughthe site
12 by a li vingancestorof the Tand whocan,:tellthe
13 stories and the history of their people.
14 How/can'weca-lculate.in'moneythe
15 arnazementour,childrenwillexperien'ce when, _they see
16 the archaeologists ,working and :removing artifacts
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hundreds and hundreds,oof years'old?>Maybe,itwill
inspire.some ,of:our.,children'.tobecomearchaeologists
themselves..
There's not much left for our 'children,
open spaces rand places 'of 'wonder. We :must show our
children;that ,weidocare .about:themandwe:care:about
their 'future .
I urge ,you'cto ,-showthechildrenof South
San Francisco that they are important to us, ,'and 'save
34
-
1 this irreplaceable site.
2 Thank YO\1vezy much.
3
4
THE ~IRMAN: ,Okay . Patrick Orozco.
MS,. --ROBIN: I know_I don I tlook~ike
5 Patrick Orozco, but ,I have a ,statement from him. I'm
6 Lois Robin.
7 Patrick Orozco wished he could be here
8 tonight, but he is ,working and could not get off of
9 work.
10
11 he wrote.
He is an Ohlonedescendant. Thisiswhat
(
12
13
8.0 liMy name is Patrick Orozco. I was ,given See Letter 18
the Indian name of YanaHea, One Who Yawns. I live at
.(
14 644 Pear Tree Drive,Watsonville,California.9S076.
15 "I ,am tribal chairman of "the paj aro
16 Valley Ohlone Indian Council r~presenting 320 people.
17 Our tribal ,affiliation,iaccording to records kept at
18 Mission Santa Clara, is OhloneRitocsi,also known to
19 the early padres as the Santa Theresa Hills people.
20 "I am also registered as a Most Likely
21 Descendant with the Native American Heritage
22 Commission in Sacramento.
23 "Although most of our ,people died durin.g
24 the Mission era, yet some of us have survived to
25
maintain and revive our culture. It was dangerous to
35
1be :Indiansfor ,many years, but <at' long 'last w.ecan
2
speak out for ouridentitymd'ways.
-.:.' . "...": - . '--'-
3 '"Our 'organization wcls'formed in 1975 in
4 order to protect a.ndpreseIve all sacred sites of our
5 ancestors .we"real'i'zea.'that ,they were being' destroyed
6 at a very alarming rate.
7 '"My people and I have served as Indian
8 monitors with archaeologists when t.here is ~a
9 possibility of graves being disturbed. When we served
10 as monitors, we made sure that all measures were taken
11 for preservation, even though most of these sites were
'12 very much disturbed.
13 '"The ':SanBrunosheTlmound is':i.ntact,
14 which means very'litt.le disturbance has occurred
"
15 there. As I walked the 'land, I could feel the
16 presence of the ancestors that are buried there and
-
17 the hundreds of graves 'there. Inpartictilar, the area 8.1
18 betweent.hetargeand'<small shellmound 'is likely t6
19 have 'isolated burials. In myexperienceasamorii tor,
20 many isolated graves are found outside the main impact
21 areas.
22 "Also as I walked "the 'lana, I 'could see
. ." ..
23 plants that were used 'by my people ,such as hiyatay,
24 soap root; plantain;'ta shu'ta ya,buckeye; willow;
25 curly dock and rushes.
36
( .
1
2
3
4
5
"I wotildlike ,to see all this,property
preservedand,protected,andeven returned to its
naturals.tate. ,We(~,re .,not ,comfortablewhen.we "hear
that they want topU:ttopsoil',orparking lots over;the
shellmound or.surroundit ,with ,buildin.gs. In the
6 Indian'se.yes, ,this ,is disturbance. The entire area
7 should .be left intact.
8 "Recently, I ,readwhere..astate
9 congressman was asked, if they want to dig up our 16th
10 Pres.ident I s coffin .tosee what relics he was buried
11 with, what would:behisanswer. He said he would say,
( ,-
12
13
14
15
'No, let him rest ion . peace . I
,"The .San Bruno.Mountain is sacred and we
ask that you support us in protecting it. To. disturb
it would be a violation of our religious rights as
16 American Indians, and, we .ask that our rights be
17 respected. Many ,prayers were said over these graves
18.by trtyancestorsandmyself ,."
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.. You',ve .got
(
20
21
22
.23
24
25
another card ,up here.
Do you want ,to continue?
MS. ROBIN.: Yes., one ,for, myself.
THE CHAIRMAN .:Please.proceed,.
9.0 MS. ROBIN: Okay.
II.m Lois Robin.. I live at 607 Burns
37
1 Avenuein:Aptos~'Cali'fo'rnia.
2 ;I"-'In 'a."'writer anaphotographe'r "'a.ndhave'
, ,
3 ,spent ,'muchof;thelast '10 ye'ars liocumenting:the
4 revivalof'Cal'i'fornia 'Indianctilture. ,
5 I 'havegiven'a 'grea't:deal -6fth6ught to
6 theproposed~developmentat ';SanBruno'Mounea'in and
7 have visited it on many occasions ~':I "vesaton'the
8 mountain and allowed 'i,ts history to awaken before my
9 eyes.
10 I'fthesi te 'were covered with commercial
11 buildings, including a 10-'storybuilding'oneither
12 side of the shellmound, I would have much more
13 difficultyenvi'sioning'tlle life df"SO'Centuries of
16 when we 'talk 'about 'the 'EIRand "What" srnis'sing ,itl s 'a
17 visionithatgoesbeyondthe'shellmound'itselfto what
18 the area could mean historically. "That1s what I would
19 like 't6try,to express.
20 Unlike some great architectural
21 historical monuments that have 'been preserved for all
22 to see ,thisshellmourid is 'scarcely' 'visible . Only
..........,. '-.'
23 scattered shell's 'mark'ilts place, yet when experienced
24 as ,part of a larger ,site, it comes 'alive historically.
25 one can 'see its proximity to the bay, the
38
(
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
lS
16
17
(,
18 circumstance.
19 While 90 percent of the coastal "Indians
20 weredeadby:the ;end of ,the Missioniera,somesurvived
21 and ,are 'reviving their 'cultures.
22 During -this period, 'it 'isa slap in their
23 face to cover, once more, with development the
(
24
2S
remaining site "of ,their ancestors. It has happened to
the survivors over and over, until 'they are fatigued
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
from:trying'to:protect:their sites in an ,appa:re!1t1y,
dielinterested :society.
'This shellmound"is one o,f,the few
remaining cultural sites ".of its kind "and of excellent
quality. "If we cover it ,with immense commercial
buildings, we condemn ~i't "as a resource for ,;al1:the
people of the state, ,as well asthe,local,.community,
and ,even thinking intermsofdtheglobalcommunity.
When 'other countries have a ,site ,of
antiquity, most of them just say no . They don't do
any further development,and:then we go to those
countries andlook,atthesemarveloussitesof
antiguity,andwe ,marvel.
,/Now1those people ifrom'othercountries
come,here;landthey'reveryinterestedin our
, ,
indigenous ,populations,; ,and I think ,that they 'will be
very interested in visiting 'theshellmound.
I see the shellmound as more than '.,the
shel1mound"butas --the'.entire ~site,a's 'a place for
reflection, ,for learning. ' :Everytime:I''9oto",the
shellmound, just being there ,and the whole 'experience
gives me ,new understandings ,of:the way that the native
people live.
I also --,before I 'stop, I also want to
say that <ifthisplaniscarriedout-,-and'we'don 't
40
1 really know ,too ,much ,about ;thisplan . We' rehaving ,~-
2 it's not as one of the major alternatives.
3
,If that, area is preserved
the
4 shellmound,is,preserved,we',would ;have to :thi'nkabout
5 all the underground plumbing ,and infrastructure that
6 would go on. 'It would 'be almost impossible to avoid
7 it withsome;of ~,the,infrastructure.
8 ;9.1\A1SO, 'there's no :mention of who --no
9 di,scussion of who would ,be in charge of that land. .I
10 would certainly think that it should be given to an
11 archaeological ,conservancy or tocsomeother public
12 body rather than --;where it:can ,be .properly-- it can
(
13
be properly watched_4ndmonitored~
14
Thank you.
15
THE ,CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
16
0urnext:cardis for Dana Dillworth.
17
10.0 MS. DILLWORTH: ;Hello.I'mDana
18Dillworth,D~i-l~1-w-o~r...t~h.
19 I'm president of .theBayArea ,Mountain
20 Watch, which is distinctly 'separate:from::SanBruno
21 Mountain Watch, but we ihave ;similar ,goals., ;soIknow
22 many ,people get us ;mistaken.
23 .Oneofourmissions (,that is ddentifiedin
. (
24 our:goal 'statement .is .topreserve ,and ,protect the $an
25
Francisco wilderness., and therefore, San Bruno
41
'1 Mountain '?hasamaj or .focus'in,environmentalwork that
2 we do .
3 :We I've 'identifiedt-wo main areas of
4 conc.ern"whichtend "to ,escape 'paidc.constiltants.
5
1 O.1.aOneistheprotect:ion of ,natural
6 watershedsasa "whole,'whi'ch includesstreamsi creeks,;
7 weeps , as it's described in .,thefloraof:San'Bruno
8 Mountain; t~e wet areas iandwetlands ;:and.secondly,
9 maintaining habitat:corridorsifrom'the,mountain to ,the
10 bay.
11 Increasingly, ,there ":arefewer ,:and fewer
12 opportunitiesas~development proposals all around the
13 fringe of San BrunoMount'ain:pop~~p.
14 I had the honor of working ,wi th Cal Trans
15 to vegetate a wetland:thatthey,worked:on east of this
16 project,:butwestof the sheer wat'er property,
17 Anyway ,we .:knowfhatjusteast;of this
18 site, there I s a lot - -there ','s:alotofwisi tationby
19 --it~csjustian,incredible .amount:of.wildlife. Every
20 time we go there, 'the 'egretsiaresca tteringandthe
21 herons are:scatteringand:allkinds .ofcrittersrun.
22 It LS not justthe:butterflies,butit's
23 foxes ,;andraccoons ,andal'l.the'way Jdowntothe
2 4 smallest .of'microorganisms:that ineedto'be'considered
25asa whole in,order.topreserve'the 'environment --\
42
,-
1
:to.2 ;',I,will;provide comments at ,a later date,
I
I
I
I
2
or .,:prior:totheclose>of ,this "comment period . Iwould
3
think, cwiththenew,alternative" that .this would be
n~ed:to<be recirculated.(
JO.3~, It '.smy"undE!rstandingthat the habitat
4
5
6 conservation .planforSanBruno Mountainreguires
7 waiting periods for phases betweendevelqpments.
8 The purpose of that is to allow the
9 disturbed habitat.that ,gets disturbed during
10 construction to somewhat repair itself, and it's been
11 my observation, and I would presume that of others,
12 that we haven't seen any habitat restored in any of
t
13
the projects. Nothing in PointPac,ifica, to the side
14 of the mountain.
15 As.such" ,.Iwillmost.likely be making a
16 declaration that your ,cumulative impacts analysis is
17 inadeguate,because .there are~otsof impacts that are
.18 happening over:time.
19 ,We have 1:hegrading habitat thathasn'_t
20 yet been rest.ored. There I saIl the erosion that's
21 occurred thisyeari three fairly large fires in this
22 immediate vicinity within thelast:two years i loss of
23 habitat due to invasivespecies".which .hasnot been
24 controlledonthis.sideof the mountain, or in this
(
25
areaidisturbancesdduring construction.
43
1
'10.3
....,.
~So interms'of:;determining cunnil:a ti ve
, , '
2 impacts , I 'think 'you really :need"t6 'look' at all ';the
3
projects .asa.i,wholethat.are,goingon:i-n'the';vicini ty ,
,
4 and you know , I want - -I, tm an 'accountant, " :actually,
5 and IwaIlt'to see 'it 'quanti'fiea as 'to ,-:"atwhat point
6 we will reach acrit'ical mas:s ';:in-development.on\t'his
7mountaiIl,'where the u;"_ you know ,the 'species just
8 can' thandle it anymore .l
9 10. 1b 1 To take a wet seep area that attracts
10 species of all kinds and surround it by buildings is
11 not an insignificant 'impact , ''These speCies' .-,-all
12 this' destruction 'i'sirreparable, and I'llmcike.1nore
13 comments to that effect . ,'I
14 Thank you.
15
THE CHAIRMAN: 'Thank you.
16
Our next card:isJudy Talaugon.
17
11 :'0 MS. 'TALAUGON:MY:Ilamei'sJudy Talaugon.
18 Iam the northern state representati ve'forCalifornia
19 Indians 'forCUltliral;.and'Environmental 'Protection.
20
'MR. HARNISH: Could you spell your :last
21 name, please?
22
:MS. ,TALAUGON: 'T-a~'l-a'-u-g-o-n.
23
MR. "HARNISH:' 'Thaiiks.'<:
24
MS .'TALAUGON: 'OUrorgan'izationis an
25 affiliate project "'Of iSeventh Generation 'Fund and 'also
44
1
a par,tner;organization'ofithe Indigenous Environmental
I,
,I
2 Network. "I t':savery "broad ,network.
3
.,1 ',vejust:passedou~~ to the board their
,
I
4
,an :invi tationto our.:next confer,ence. .,Thetheme;is
5 "HonoringSacredPlaces.',ft .It I,sgoing:to be an
6 international ',gathering .
7.:Part ,of ~,what I wanted to - - I could kind
8 of make ,a lot of statements regarding "the study .-
9 There I.S some particular and peculiar ;situationswith
10 the Native California tribes and their history here.
11 Without being federally recognized, a lot of.times, :we
12 just get completely ignored when projects are to be
(,
13
proposed.,
,14 Some of :what.>wedois ,provide "the public
15 with - - inform our,tribeswithrega-rds.tothesekinds
16 of projects that are threatening cultural resources,
17 watershed andgatheringspaces,.places for our people .
18 'Part of ,what we :dois ,also educate the
19 ,:public>to :therealit:;y"that we have living "culture,
20 living traditions. You ,disrupt thos~traditions" you
21 dis~pt a complete universe of :people,.
22 I think that it I s just --,part,;;of why I
23 listed those organizations is,thatqllm;going to attend
24 that conference ,and ;I - will, at. that cpoint, :be
c,
25
addressing various ,workshops.andfolks,thatare
45
l~spec.ial'ist's'Hin,;cul tural 'Tesources:and:\tradi tional
2 ' knowledge ,andprotectionof<those:various:issues.
3 ."':,'.'~<We,1 rego'ing "t-o :collect~ettersofsupport
4 opposing ,this.project.' "OUr~etworki's-'J.nternatiorial,
- "--.
5 focus ing ,on the'West'ern Hemisphere/incl uding ~the
6 Pacific Rim, onenvironmental;just'ice'.issues.
1 I think ,that you ;are 'blessed and should
8
feelble'ssed 'that .you 'have;the 'history and legacy and
9 ; evidenceof,an;ancient'cul'turethat is 'still, again,
10 l'ivingtraditionsand lifeways thatarequi,te alive
11 ,:and'vital.
12
I "just also wanted to let you 'know 'that
13 there is a special restoration agenda .on behalf-of
14 indigenous-peoples ithroughout 'theworla~ and federal
, ,
15 agencies; 'including the Utii tedStates, . are 'beginning
16 to take ,:on' someofthe'se . 'ideas ; 'some of these
17 concepts I that ,have 'allowed'indigerious peoples to 'live
18 for ,hundreds and 'thousands Qf"'years in One place with
19 living .--,sustainableaiving'practices, 'the freedom;of
20 religion, protection of ,their children, arid providing
21 these " cultural resources throughout history ; 'since
22 time 'immemorial.
23 ':1 "oppose 'these 'proj ects~ " 'I 'rrlg'6ingto
24 work very hard. "iliproviding a written statement from
25 the variousorgaIdzationsI've'mentioned, opposed to
46
1 this project~
2
1,1.1
I ,jus; want to make sure that -- the
3 dis%"4-ptionofthis a:r:~,abla,~antly violates the May
4 1996Presidential,Executi ve Order to protect :the
S physical .integrit;yof sacred lands and native
6 spiri tualpractices. ,It makes a mockery of this
.--, -
9 complete Bay AreaJshouldfeelblessed that we have a
~o special place for our future generations, that the
11 area should remain completely untouched.
12 Probably,j:;)efore I leave, the one thing
~c
13
that I wanted to say -- I hate to get on the mike and
14 start to school.peo.ple"teach,people what I think you
lS probably should learn ,outside of hearings and outside
16 of thesekindsofgathering.s, 'but I do ,want to say
17 that the Ohlonepeoplearereadyto align themselves
18 with the community and other California native peoples
19 in o.ppositionto this project.
20 We are prepared, as an organization,
21 California Indians for Cultural and Environmental
22 Protection, to do what we do, upload data on our
23websiteand our database on the ,history and practices
(
24 of the project, the organizations or the companies
2S
that are coming in and theirfunders, and to research
47
1 and inform the community on these projects.
2
"."
I just feel
j usi one more thing.
3 I just feel like , again, all land and
4 terra, 'flora, fauna, is sacred to the .'indigenous
5 peoples, and we 'have 'and willcontinuetoputotir
6 lives on the line to protect these areas and that
7 please remember -.- and with the' speakers.thatcame up
8 to address t.he question of children and the question
90f watershed, these are allinterliriked.
10 The question of development is all
11 interlinked to 'human rigbts and to religious freedom
12 and to sacred cultural resources . These need to be
13 protected. Without "tne protection of 'these, without
14t'he acknowledgment of 'the '"interconnectedness of these ,
15 we are onour~ay'tolocal devastation.
16 Please joinint:he giobaldiscussion to
17 reconcile ourselves spiritually with the earth. It's
18 happening, and I 'invite the board and this community
19 to join the -- join in this agenda to restore areas
20 and to project cultural and religious sacred sites of
21 indigenous people.
22Tharik you.
23
THE CHAIRMAN: OUr next card is Will Two
24 Bears.
25
12.0 'MR.. . TWO BEARs: My name is Will Two
See Letter 23
48
:(
(
, ,\
'1 the Honorable ;Mr,. ;Gene ,Mullin. ".
2 He also sent ,me '. a letter and asked me ,to
3getahold of Mr. .Gene,Mullin, sol did, and I spoke to
4 him on the phone and made an appointment 'to go see
5 him. I went and saw him ~yesterday. '
6 .,Hetoldmethat ,the building on the
7 she 1 lmound is a long ways off ,and he says he.doesn 't
8 thinkthat.they will 'build ;on ,the mound, but he's
9 concerned about tall buildings .on both sides of the
10 mound --that helsworriedabout~
11 When people come to -visit the 1Ilound,
12 they'll visit the village 'that I 'mplannin.gmightbe
13 built there, that they would see these 'two buildings
14 and. it ,would ,shoo "them off.
15 He said ,that he had talked to;Mr.Dennis
16 (sic) here about building a little bit further to ,the
17 right of i tand ;further to.,thel,eftof,it on the
18 corner of Twin 'City. ,Boulevard.
19 If he 'does t;hat,.thenthatwould .be
2 0 great. He I d be 'a great.man 'in.tqyceyes. 'Then:myd.ream
21 would come true, but being a normal man and him,:being
22 an honorable man --,wh-ichl I,m "a "good judge of
,23 character,:I Ican tell:thatthe;is., "but I I,d ,still.like
24 to ..seeit:i.n 'writing and have.i.tnotarized..
25 ,Thank you .
50
1
'THE~CHAIRMAN :Ournext-card is~eleste
2
Langille.
,13.0 ,"MS .I.IANGILLE: Good 'evening .
3
4
My name ,isCelestecLangille~ 'My last
5 name isspelled'L-a-n-g-i-l-'l-e.
613.1 Ilm an attorney with San Bruno Mountain
7 Watch, and iti-s :difficult,if,not impossible, to make
8 comments on an SEIR 'whose proj ectdescription ";keeps
9 shifting ,so I don I t have a lot to say. I haven I,t~had
10 a lot of time to review theSEIR yet, but we will be
11 making our comments inwrit'ing.
12 An integral element ofanEIRunderCEQA
(
13
is an adequate and sufficient project description, and
14 that isn't, obviously, 'the case 'here .J
15 'Regardless o'f 'the just-proposed potential
16 alternative, the 'significant impacts on ,the biological
17 resources at the Phase!! and'III.;sites,will,notbe
18 adequately mitigated under this SEIR.
1913.2] 'Theill'egal --change of <the~Callippe
20 Silverspot butterfly, "which was just recently listed
21 :back ;in December,anddestruction,-ofits suitable
22 habitat and foodplansis;stillgoingto'occur,:even
23 by looking at ,(this c\drawing, '"whichI:,.naven 't had any
(
24 chance 'to figure out exactly ,where it :is in location
25
to any of :the',biologicalresources.
51
10
11
12
13
14
15
;1
13.2; <,
.I,.don ',t,;kno~;how';~y,)peqple here are
2
aware that areas of 'Phase III were once part ofa
3
propos'edcri tical ",habitatfor:,the"Calli"ppe,S;l verspot
4
back~:intheear~y;;\~O,S .,.The,;cri tical :habitatwas
5
firstpropo!!Sed and never came about, 'but it ,.is
6
obvious~yextreme~y important ,to this.species.
7
,Since the time that it was originally
8
proposed back in ,the \80s, ;thespecies has declined
,rapidly. ,I
13.3 . Other ;.speciesof concern, which are
9
listed in the SEIR, will be adversely affected by any
development, <'also .l
13.4],;one .aspect of the EIR:that I ,found
grossly inadequate ,was the cumulative :impact.s
analysis, 'especially in light of. 'impending development
16 on, the ",east .'sideof ,the 101~Iknow .it'srecent, but
1 7 I know <there';s ;several hotels and 'a. lot of development
18 going on there.
19
'The'wetlands,on Phase;III'iare ,extremely
20 important.;There's other :wetlandsonthe east .sideof
21 101 that 'will be ~impacted,and the cumulative :impacts
22 analysis ;d6esn' t~address,thi,;s .
23 ,It:.doesn't .,addressdevelopment,that
24 already has occurred on SanoBruno Mountain, ,Radio
25 Ridge, NortheastRidge,already developed parts of
S2
1
Phase I and Phase II ,sol need to figure out wha.t's
(
2
going on with this new potential a'lternative, whatever
'3 exactly thatmean~.J
4 'I urge you to strongly consider the Phase
5 III permanentopen~spacea:lternative and the Phase II
6 reduced-development alternative, regardless of this
7 new potentialal ternative . '
8 'Thank you.
9 'THE CHAIRMAN: "Our next card i sRobert
10 Carrillo.
11
14.0 MR . CARRILLO : Good evening. My name is See Letter 16
12 Robert Carrillo. I live at 262 Hampshire Court,Daly
(
13
City, and my last name is C-a-r-r-i-l-l-o.
14
Basically ,I" d like to express my
15 obj ection to any development on 'San Bruno Mountain. 'I
16 realize that this request is probably too much to ask.
17 I do wish it to be considered by any and all who ''have
18 power over'thisaecision.
-
'19 14.1 'I would like to more specifically address
20 the SEIR report, Section 4.9, Archaeology, Terrabay
21 Phase III.
22 I'm very concerned about the shellmound
23 areas . Iifeeltha.t 'any development that is done
24 before a 'thorough archaeological investigation is done
(
25
is 'probably going against some state or federal law or
53
14.11
laws .1
2 There is evidence of ~burials.I believe
3 that this qualifies the area to be'eli,g;,blet;obe
4 p;r:ese,rved. To, cap this, areawoulci. not"pnly destroy
5 it, but be a great loss to our cotnmUIii1:yas ,a., ,national
6 historic place.
7 The possibili tiesto;preserve this area
8 in a respectful way are very encouraging~o me. There
9 could be ,a dedication ,presented ,by the South City
10 Planning Division, along with Terrabay, stating they
11 felt it .was more important to pay respect to ,an
12 ancient culture related to all of us.
13 We are the human race. Let us not forget
14 it . Look into your hearts. You will ,find the answer.
15 ".Oh mitaikoyasin," all my relations.
16 Thank you ,for your time and
17 considerati,on.
18 We could maybe have ,a ,celebration ,of
-19 preservation of lost cultures for our,.future
20 development.
21 Thank you.
22 THE CHAIRMAN,: .Next is ,Kathy Manus.
231.5.0 MS. MANUS : ",.:~My,nameisl<athy ,Manus. Good
24 evening. M-a~n-u-,s. Ilm a .resident of;DalyCity.
25 ,.1 1m president of the . Friends of San Bruno
54
E
1 Mountain. We are a volunteer park support group
2 approved by San Mateo County Parks and "Recreation. We
3 have '50 dues ",:,paying members who give many hours caring
4 for habitats and teaching the young in the San 'Bruno
5 Mountain 'State and County Park.
6 -It is !probablynot a surprise that 'we
7 would oppose extensive construction near the
8 she1.lmound. In 'our reading , ,'to cap and drain th..:: area
9 is the equivalent of crush and dissolve.
10 We would like this culturalreso.lrceto
11 be turned overto'theproperentity,wheth:r it is our
12 park, the county park - -weare willingtcdothat.
13 We have the energy, the people. We will have the
14 funding.
15 We would like to 'preserve this area as a
16 resource 'in the park, and we would like to enlist the
17 help of local Native 'American people.
18Wedon'tparticularly'like the latest
19 idea of makingasandwich:of the ushellmound.Inour
20 'mind, 'the 1'0-story'officebuilding is 'a mighty big
21 piece of bread, incredibly disrespectful in the minds
22 of mariy'people.
23 'We are here '1:0 support 'the wishes 'of the
24 Native American 'people and our basic agreement with
25 Julia Bott of the <Sierra Club in her 'analysis of the
55
(
1 SEIR.
2 ,Thank ,you.
3
,THE CHAIRMAN: ,OUr next cardia Michele
4 Salmon.
S 16.0 MS. SALMON :"~My :name is .Michele.salmon,
6 S - a.; l-:m...o-n. ,..I,1i veonSierra -point Road in Brisbane,
7 California.
(} I grew up ,there. ,Mymothermovedthere
9 I when she was three" My grandparents lived herein
10 South San, Francisco.
11 Howmany.,peoplehaveactua1ly hiked this
12 area, have.actually walked on it?
13 It',sa --San,BrunoMountain .isa jewel
14 in the crown of the peninsula. When is the
lS -devel,opment igoing,to;stop?
16 When I\was three years old, Iswam.at
17 Sandy Beach. Most ,of you ,people ,don '.tknow where
18 Sandy Beach,is,:because ,it ',snow .underneath the
19 Industrial,Park:out here , ,east of ,Grand ,Avenue. ..The
2 obaywas;still,c:'ean enough to swim ,.in,when I ,was three
I '
21 years <:old., I '..m:only 44.
22 San Bruno Mountain --the .changes--
23 Brisbane':made ,a,.horriblecompromiseonthe Rich
24 development"to.gettheSan.Bruno.Mountain.Park.
2S
:Wheredoes ;it.stop? :Where,doesit stop,
56
1 folks?
(
'.
2
-'.You know , ,qthis lsthe. generation 'that's
3 going to make a di'fference. HoW'much ~are you willing
4 to sell your soul for? How much are yoti willing to
5 sell~ourchildren and "the' next generat:ion and the
6 generation afterthatfoI'?'How much are youwi11ing
7 to :sell yoursotil for?
8 This is the ,last open space in the North
9 ,Peninsula. The only way that this environmental
10 impact report is going to protect the shellmound is if
11 you cover it with all the copies that have been
12 printed.
(
13
The environmental 'impact' report didn't
14 protect the ridge. You should see it . Did you go up
15 and'look at it 'this 'winter, the'erosion? Do you see
16 any frogs living up there? Do you see any habitat
17 restoration?
18
It just goes on and on. "When is it going
19 to stop?
20 It's almost a curse to 'live in 'the town
21 that yougrew:up in, 'to see this kind of destruction
22 continuing and 'continuing. My grandparents are 'a part
23 of the ':IndustrialCityof South San 'Francisco . 'My
(
24 grandfather worked at Swift&: Compariy ,'packing meat.
25
Where does it stop, folks? I mean, it's
57
1-
.~ Up to you guys . We have to make ,it stop sometime . .
2 Does. it stop 'af;er ,=YQu .,:folks.have.made,your money on
3 Terrabay? , ;I mean,..,when do we "put "a halt to it? When
,
:4 do we say, '~Enough isenoughn?
5I,work in "enlo ;Park. . There are it.' s
6 22 ,miles from Brisbane to Menlo Park, an hour . and a
7 half to get home, traffic. I don't .,see anyplace to
8 widen the ~01.
9
I mean, where does it stop, folks? It
10 should stop right here, right now .
11 This ,environmental impact .report, I'll
12 read it, but it says the same old bullshit.
13
That 'sallI.have to ,say. Thank you for
14 lis.tening.
15
THE ,CHAIRMAN: Our next card ,is ,Leland
16 Behan.
17
17.0 MR. BEHAN: My name is Leland Behan,
18 B-e-h-a-n. I live at ,~86 H\JD.tington Drive, Daly City.
19 I don't have much to say , but I would
20 like to ,share ..some .of,theculture.
21 :,For:instance, .Thanksgi ving,wasoriginated
22 ,by Native.Americ~. :,~en ,the :'Pilgrimscame, ,'they
23 barely survived ..one;win,.;er., The Nati ve,.Americans
24 taught themhow.tosurvi ve.
25 What I'm saying .is: ,Share ,the culture.
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Honor ,was "gained ~bYc:what =you.gave, L~oursel f .
,
,
I
J
Everybodyshared,:and;these ,:shellmounds - -,we'can
share ,them with your:children.and :ourchildren'and--the
whole ,world. ' ',c'We lIe ,not ':going i:to,shaxetheseprofits.
HowmanyexamPles:-:- ,I 'was taught -- :I
was;bornand "raised on !a,reservation,andwe're .taught
not to disturb grave sites, sacred places.
::I wish .:thatwe".dstop'andexarnine what I s
in the future. ,Do you 'Want..to look at San Bruno
Mountain or the development?
I,I vebeenemployedfor 30- some years wi th
United Airlines. They have anID card with San Bruno
(
13 " Mountain, on it . They' repr.etty .proudof it . They
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
( 2S
could have chosen theGo~denGate:orsorneotherplace,
but they chose San Bruno;Mountain.
.Mostofwhat ;I wanted to say was covered.
I think what I'mtryingto sayls that we need to
share this with everyone.
Thank you very much .
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank. you.
our next.,card is David Toms ovi c .
18.0 MR.. TOMSOVIC : Good evening .
See Letter 11
:Mynameis David ,Tomsovic. ~I ,live ;at ,183
Flournoy Street, Daly .City..Mylastnameisspelled
T-o-m-s-o-v-i-,c.
S9
,.,.. ,"'" "..-<~.. ..........":'
18. 1 1
~2
3
sensitive natural co~i ty ,;FxPes.'~
What would happen if ,someone went in and
saidl"Let's fill in two acres of the San Francisco
4 Bay," or "Let's fill in two acres of another creek of
5 another habitat"?
6 I donI t know, howm~y of you remember
7 when there was the ,proposal to expand the landfill in
8 San Mateo County a couple years ago, Ox Mountain.
9 There was fill material placed in that, and that had
10 to really go through many, many hurdles to avoid
11 placing the fill material.
('
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(
Here, in the 75-acre project, I do not
understand, looking through this impact documentation,
how you can allow filling in two acres of wetlands.
Is there not some way toreconfigureyour
project, redesign yourprojectJreduce your project,
shape and reshape the proj ec.t , such that you do not
fill in the two acres of the wetlands?
Anybody who says, "Well, let '.s fill in
two acres of the San Francisco Bay" or two acres of
any of the creeks in San Mateo County or Santa Clara
County,or wherever it.might be, is going to run into
a hell of a lot of opposition.
Furthermore, you're not in compliance
with the Clean Water Act. You haven' t,clearly
61
demonstrated -- :the document
8.1 1
says 'that. :it will
. ,... .
2eiiniinateallwetiancis on'theprojectsite. That is
3 not ,consistent with the'Un.i.ted States Clean Water Act
4 as passed byt.he' Congress 'Of the United S'tEi;t:es more
5 than 20 years ago.
6 Additionally, there are a number of spots
7 in the document ,editorial comments ~ re:lating to that
a very instance, where it says that project approval
9 must be secured from the Army Corps of Engineers,
10 California Department of Fish and Game, and the
~1 Regional Water Quality Control Board.
12 There1s absolutely no reference made to
13 'theUIiit:ed States Fish and 'Wildlife Service , which
,
14 needs to grant approval for any _place for fill
15 materials, particularly as it relates to endangered
16 species, and the endangered species are very
1 7 frequently in the wetlands; nor 'is there any reference
1ato the Environmental Protection Agency, the United
19 States Environmental Protection Agency, and its role
20 in the wetland protection issues under Section 404 of
21 the Clean Water Act."
22 In that regard, . 'this document is very,
23 very deficient and in need of quite a bit of
24 modification in order to avoid those very "significant
25 and adverse impacts.
62
1
Thank you.
,.
(
2
THE ,CHAIRMAN: Thank ",you very much.
3
I think we'll take a short break. Why
4 don't we reconvene precisely at 5 after 9:00.
5 (Recess~)
6
THE CHAIRMAN: Let'sreconvene.
7
Our next speaker is ,Jan Pont.
19.0 MS. PONT: I'd like to submit some photos See Letter 33
8
9 to yOU. That will be one of the topics that ,I'll be
10 talking about.
11 I would like these ,photos back.
12
MR. HARNISH: If you submit the photos as
(
13
part of the testimony, then we have to keep them as
14 part of the record.'
15
MS. PONT: That's fine, as long as I get
16 them back at, a later time.
17
MR. HARNISH: They'll stay part of the
18 permanent record.
19
THE CHAIRMAN: Forever?
20
MR. HARNISH: We can make photocopies for
21 you, and you can comeback and get them, but if you
22 submit them, we have to keep them as part of the
23 record.
24
MS. PONT: That I sfine, because they've
(
25
once been submitted to the city council. They have
63
"
~ seen them.
2
MR. .HARm:SH :w~:iIl' ~ecolor copies of
3
them, if you 'like .
4
MS. ':PONT: :Okay. -Fine.
5 Gosh, as you see, this 'book is so huge.
6 I don't know if we all gottoreadi t all, but
7
'THE CHAIRMAN (Could you spell your last
8 name, please?
9
19.0 MS. PONT: My name is Jan Pont, P-o-n-t.
~o I live at 111 Belmont Avenue, South San Francisco.
~1 I don't 'know where to start .
. ~2Thephotosthat you see in front of you
~3 - - ! guess! shou.ld go from there ,because' those are
~4 showing possible wetlands that were on Phase "I ,but
_..;...-;'
~5 now, it's really in Terra Woods West, I believe it is,
~6 near Drake Avenue, what used to be --in that area.
~ 7 This is one of the wetlands, with all
~8 this waterfalls, that was taken. It shows there isa
~9 tremendous amount of water and seepage in this area.
20
'I live on Belmont . During the winter, I
21 have a flooded'backyard,' and it's due to a lot of this
22 moisture coming down off of . the hili.
23 I would like to see that, possibly, some
24
ofthiswateroe'captured, reused or either
for
25 landscaping use' or inaking fountains, use it on your
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
,8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
. C_ 25
linear parkways ,;because there 'is a 'tremendous amount
of water that comes from there during the ,winter.
Also,eventonight, when I was 'coming
along Randolph Street -- 'I don't know where this
water's coming from, but It's along that same little
linearfront,seepageacrossPthestreet, so there is a
tremendous amount of water that should be recycled,
reused, sold, 'given'to -- give us a chance to reuse
that water somewhere along the development.
No.2,I was concerned about landfill.
You can see that some of those ravines --there's a
lot of erosion problem,s. There I s going to be a lot of
landfill.
I have- -Idon' tthink 'Istibmi tted it,
but there was, at 'one point, cement retaining walls,
particularly in this one area around 'Drake Street,
that probably got buried 'with landfill, which I don't
think it should 'be-a-permanent resident. I would like
to see that hauled away.
Who knows what else was brought in in
that particular area "of Bay West,east, and in the
commerce areas, where they've been continually filling
in all "this last summer and early spring.
Last year 'at this time ,Ithirik a lot of SeeLetter33,l
you knew that Ihadcabsolutely no voice, because of
65
1 the dust. I ',m,hq.pingma,ybeit'snotthe dust" or I'm
2 j usttryingto lose ,~"voiceagain,but..Ihada
3 tremendous:problem,withall the.dirt fill, so whatever
4 they decideto.dowith ,this ,ar,ea,please make,.sure
5 that the ,residents are "protected ,properly ,for - - you
6 know,ke~ping .thedust down., "I . know ,that 'sa little
7 further downstream.
8 Also" ,parking --I am concerned about
9 parking with some of these streets. ,I, don't think the
10 width is properly wide .enough for emergency vehicles
11 to go up. I see no bike lanes or no :two.sidewalks. See Letter 33,5
12 I mean, you have . maybe ,one ,.sidewalkon
13 the one area, but not two, and I think that we should
~4 make the width. of ,these streets ,a little wider and
15 have siciewalks on both sides of the ,street.
16 The homes that have triplexes, where one
See Letter 33.4
17 house is ,built c:m top of two housesor.,two .units,built
18 over one unit, IW.onderwhat.,thedistance cbetweenthe
19 buildings are and how much soundproofing is ,put into
20 thesebuildi~gs.
21 ,I mean, if I ,paid ,:to .be.the;,guy
22 downstairs" .andthere' s a bunch of Jdds upstairs on
23
either one of these two units -- .,and ,how.many ,people
24willbeli vi~gin.these ,five-.bedroomhomes? Howmany
25 families? Are 'they:selling to one .family? --Is it
66
(,-
(
1 going to be 'five':faniilies in that one ;house?;Who
2 knows how many people are going to:live in 'one unit.
3 . There isanother;concernabout the' 'impact
4 of how many cars 'are goi.ng to be there . You're going
S to give me 'atwo-car~arage or you're going to give me
See Letter 33,5
6 a three-'car garage,butheYJ you've got 'a five-bedroom
7 house. How do you'know"they'renot five 'teenagers and
8 they all have a car, and you only have three parking
9 spaces? Ithirikparkingis going to be a real
10 problem.
,19.1 'In 'regards to ,the 'emergency vehicles
11
See Lettsr 33,3
12
being able to go up and :around,this, I notice on
I
13
didn' tf'indtoo much information on the flyway.
14 On page 23, ~theredoesn' t'seemtobe
lS enough information here 'for us 'to really ,accept that
16 in regards to the traffic,;howhighit'sgoing to be,
1 7 the noise 'level, polluti'on. These are all things 'that
18 have.to,be,taken into consideration .
19 I mean, 'carbon monoxide from all this
20 excess traffic 'is not 'going"to 'be toogood, and I
21 certainly wouldn't be 'enjoying something like-- ~well,
22 I bought 'this property , ->andthenI look out ,-10 years
23 later ,oh, we've got a "flyway over here . I didn't buy
24 -- I thought I was going to have a :beauti'ful ;view,of
2S
the bay, andallofasudden, I 'got all ,this out in
67
1 front of ,me, "so ,there should ;pe,more ,information in
2 regards, ,:to,the'flyway.
3 '.19.21.AlS~, 'cabout .thescissor..,hookramps, it
4 sounds like it's more like what ;we ,already.have at
5 Oyster ,Point, ,if.I tmno,t--is,it-going .tobe
6 somethin.gs imilar.tothat, . or ,i.s "thetraf fie ,going :to
7 kind of .,meJ:'ge,down,crisscrossinbetweenlanes ,going
8 to Highway 101? I 'mnottooclear about that. I
9
-Oh,how'rnany . affordable homes are going
10 to be built? You know, originally in Phase I, people
1~ were asking .for ,affordable homes. It,doesn ':t:sound
12 like there ',S 'too much affordable housing for "anyboc.y
13 -- for senior citizens to:comein.What ,type of
14 allotment ,are ;theydoin,gon .,that?,
15Inr~gardstothe,homes ,that <the.y
16 supposedly "cut back on the homes, ;but as it was 'stated
17 earlier,thewholenumberiwas reduced, but ,the size
18 was much larger,lessqpencspace.,less parks, less
19 walkways, less planting, ,no fountains~
20 You know , ,can ,we ,utilize ,the water some
2~ way andwatertheplants,whic;h ,should be ,more:plants,
22 even on Phase I?I don 't:see too manYq, on "ElhaseI.
23
OUr habitat,is,beiD.glost.I :thinkthe
24 shellmoundshouldbe saved.
25 There'. stoornanythingstothink. about,
68
, .-
("
,
(
. (,
1 and of 'course, ":tonight, "you Ire ',trying "to ','sortout
2
PhaseI- -'not 'Phase I, PhaseTIandIII ,.and itl s a
3 lot of reading to think 'about.
4 Thank you.
5 'THE ';CHAIRMAN: ,Thank 'you.
6 ',Our ,next "card;isGail "Mallimson.
7
20.0 ,MS. 'MALL IMS ON : -My 'name is Gail
S Mallimson, M-a-l-l-i-m-s-o-n.I live in San
9 Francisco. I work with the San ,Bruno Mountain Watch.
10 I'lmgoing to;trynot to repeat a lot of
,11 the things that people:havesaid.
12 It does seem clear to me that this
13
community is ,not for .thisdevelopment"and it I s -- it
14 seems a shame 'that we I:re all here ,. .rspeaking against
15 'it, when the community doesn ",twant 'it. It seems like
16 the developer ,shouldbede'fending it instead of us
17 def~nding our 'point of view~
lS,Every .ftimeI .,cometoone,of -.these
19 meetings, they change their plans, ~andIfeellike
20 itl sa real waste ;of ,'all ,of ;;:ourtime.
-
21c20.1 I do 'not understand how anYbody 'can
22 assess :the environmental "':impact ':when.we'donl,t know
23 what they Ire planning , ,;and;to,showa;lO-story
24 building, tome, 'is :a,significantdifferencefrom a
25
two- or three-story building,and:as isomebodysaid to
69
,,: .'. ';" ':"'_'1>-, '.'~
'.1 2
me during th~:break,,:if,':for ;,no,other ,.reason",than it IS
,2 ugly ..It just ,seems_to:me,~;hatit just'i'makes ,that
3 400- or SOO-pagebook null-and ',void.!
4 They seem to be changing :their plans with
5 some sort of consideration "'to the ':shellmound,but they
6 haven't beenl,isteningto ,the ,..e~erts,whoallsay
7 that the entire valley ,that contai:ns,the:shellmound
8 has to be left undeveloped.
9 As it was :said be'fore , the ,sacredness of
20 this site lies .in ,its value ,as ,a site. ,It's not an
r--'
11 object that is buried under the ,ground,. It.is the
12 entire site~
13
20.2
I.alsothink'.that~.theplanning;.commissi:on
14 should ,take intoo<considerati'on the ,:new:p:1ansfor (;the
IS sheer water area across_10l.
16 :From ,what.Iunderstand,:the "developers
1 7 are already applying for permits in Brisbane. !Idon"t
18 know about;SouthCi~y" :'but::they're pl~ng to put up
19 huge hotels ,right.across ,,101.
2 Ol 1m not ,the .planning ,commissioner, 'but it
21 seems to ,me .that,.'ifyou,have .,huge hotelsonei'ther
22 side of ;,a ,highway . ,that ,is ,already:blocke.d ,.atleast
23 10 hours out.of ,~tbe:day"lt I'sj,ust"goingtobe ,.a 'big
24 parking lot, and I ,don It ,see 'how.that "s ,good planning .
25 It 's just not ,going ,to 'work.
70
(
20.2 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
\.
I think that it's important to consider
the projects in conjunction with one another and not
just look at the EIR and the impact of this one
project on the traffic, but to take into consideration
all of the projects that are being proposed right now
in the area.'(
As I said, I think it's clear that the
community is against the project, and I ask you, as
representatives of our community, to protect our
precious natural and cultural resources and to please
recommend to the city council to take the open space
alternative and to make it into a park.
Thanks.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Our next card is MishwaLee.
21.0 MS. LEE: Hello. Ilm Mishwa Lee, L-e-e. SeeLetter22
I am a .resident of San Francisco. Ilm a lifelong
resident of the Bay Area, and I teach at Gloria Davis
Middle School in southeast San Francisco.
I have an opportunity to talk with our
youth who will, some day, hopefullYJ be our new
leaders in the positions that you now hold, and some
of the questions that they ask me remind me of the
direction that we need to be going in, in regards to
the Terrabay development and the shellmound.
71
. ""'.'
,',', .-'.'.
1
They 'rev~rycurious . They want to know:
2 What was it like here 1,000 years ago? What was it
3 like 5,000 years ago? What was it like 200 years ago?
4 They can see bits and,pieces of undisturbed Bay Area
"
5 and wonder why it's come to ,what it's come to.
6 This is a great treasure, San Bruno
7 Mountain. The shellmound is a-- it is a jewel. It
8 is a sacred place for our youth and for our future
9 generations.,
10 There is so little left, and you here --
11 you commissioners have a momentous decision to make
12 regarding this and regarding the future generations.
13 The woman that came up here and said,
14 "When are we going to stop, III think that she had
lS something very significant to remind us, that we do
16 need to stop and think about the direction we I ve been
17 going in.
18 The reason that we have this beautiful
~9mountain still somewhat intact is because the
/..'.;.
20 indigenous people lived a way of life that protected
21 the land. To them, when they left this earth, it was
22 an honor to leave nothing behind, to leave very little
23 trace, to leave the earth as they had found it.
24 We live in a culture that leaves, you
25 know, dumps and waste, and we don't take care of what
" ..~
72
"
c"
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
<-
24
25
1
:2
3
we.have.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
was dependent on the watershed, on the valley, so it
wasn't just that one .spotwhere they lived, just as
our conununitiesaren't just the one house that we live
in. It's what surrounds us that: makes our community
special, ,sol think it's really important to keep that
in mind. That whole valley needsto.beprotected.
Also, I hear almost everyone here
speaki~gfor the least develo.pment.possible.,to make
sure that the integrity of the mountain and the
shellmound and the community that was once there is
protected and, h9pefu+ly, restored some d~y.
This is the community ~peaking to you,
and I hope that you will take our words and the words
of the descendants of the indigenous ,people that left
this place to us.
73
1I hope you'll take our words with as 'Much
2 meri t as the words 6f'the"peoplewhO'havesomuch
3 ,money whoseem'tohavesornuch'morepower thimthe
4 community.
5'Thankyouv~ry lliuch.
6
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
7
Our next card is Michelle Brewer.
8
22~OMS . BREWER: Hi. 'My name is Michelle
See Letter 32
9 Brewer,B-r-e-w-e-r. I'm actually currently a
10 resident of Davis, California; 'however, I grew up here
11 in South San Franc~sco.
12 I'm currently finishing up my master's
13 degree at San Francisco State .Uni versity . in
~ -- ,
14 conservation biology, where I studied endangered
15 insects.
16 San Bruno Mountain is a very special
17 place tome. 'The mountain is an island in a sea of
.-....:.'... .::....,.':.-....:.
18 urban development, and 'I believe that this ,landshotild
19 be protected. ~
. )
20 It contains a habitat for unique species
21 that have adapted to this microclimate and that 'live
22 nowhere else in the word 'but the San Francisco Bay
23 Area.
"
24 I'm especially concerned about the
25 endangered Mission Blue butterfly and the Callippe
74
,..~
.-
1 Silverspot.
(
2
'Loss of habi tat.is,a ,.greatconcernto"me .
3 Although :thisisonlya "portion 'of one 'population "that
4 is said to be developed, many species are 'lost by 'the
5 slow, piecemeal,project-by-proj:ectdegradation of
6 their habitat, primarily by ,human disturbance.
7 ':I 'study another endangered insect , the
8 San Francisco Foothill damselfly, and over 'the last
9 few years, the populations,onebyone,havebeen
10 disappearing along the San Francisco Bay.
11 It's just very disturbing tome that __
12 it's just so easy to 10sethese5populations.TheY're
(
13
small populations, and it's so difficult sometimes --
14 when there's so 'much urban development in 'between:the
15 populations, it's very difficult for 'them 'to
16 recolonize the other populations, and they're just
17 slowly lost.
18 Population persistence .isin jeopardy
19 when 'thehabi.tat is reduced to !.a,critical point, and
20 we just don't know what that .;pointis.
21 Insects are important, ,as well as
22 beautiful creatures, and ,they're 'necessary to the
23 properfunc,tioning<oftheecosystem.
-
24
22. 1 I'm concerned :that.thesupplemental
See Let1er32.2
,(
25
environmental impact ,report .does not address
75
..,
2.1 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
lS
16
17
18
19
20
21
,22
23
mitigation measures for this land destruction..;I
believe ,there',sno,realway :to,mitigate,the loss of
the, ;habitat'for,o,this~pecies ,becaus,e ;,therel,sso
little habitatleft..,(
;,Even.though ..thereare"other ,populations
in other places;in.the :B~y[Area,there,aresofew
populations "that,i.f,something . 'caused one population to
become.extinct, ,it 'sunlikely,:giventhe distance
between,thepopulations, that they're going to be able
to bounce back.
22.2'We need ''to rtry 'to save ,all the
populat.ions so - -.,to ensure the persistence of this
species '..in ;,the long <term. ,This proj ect'may.not'do
themin.,.::perise ,but"theocumulative ,ef fects >of future
development,will,and1we-need to stop the development
now./
I'm not against shopping centers,perse,
but I,su.ggest ,that you build ,'somewhere 'else , and
please li:stento.the Jpeople,thatoppose.this project.
Thank~youvery'much.
'THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Our ;next;,cardisHeather .Gi.lbert .
23.0 MS. GILBERT: l'Hi. 'iMyname ,::is .Heather
24 e,Gilbert . ThatlsG-.i-;l..;;b-e-r-t.
25
II m,a nati ve:San ,Franciscan. :I',ve,spent
76
(
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(
. (,
many years in many other places; and I find that!
always comeback to San Francisco,because! value the
cultural awareness that I find 'here arid I value what
we learned
school. "
you know, the things I learned in high
I remember my teachers in the San
Francisco history class taught me about Ohlone people
first, before they taught me about the explorers,
before they taught me about the 4gers, and I've
incorporated that into my lifestyle, learning by these
different cultures.
I think that it is a disservice to the
people of, the Bay Area to go against this type of
awareness, by going ahead and building on something
that we could use to teach our future generations.
I also would like to mention a story.
When I was younger, I used to spend a "lot of time in
Redding with my grandfather, who lived up there. We
used to go for walks, and we used to find spearheads
and other artifacts on the ground that had been
churned up by the nearby development.
'My grandfather --Iwould get very
indignant. I would say , 'nWhy are these just thrown
around? How could they be so disrespectful?n
My grandfather used to just kind of sigh
77
.-,.' "..' -' .... ... "' .~..'. ..,. - . .. -,', -"':'~"~--'" '-
.-:.
1 and say, 'nYouknow , ,Heather, they didn' tknow. They
2
were j,gnorant. .,,~()u 'vegot ,to,.forgiye.them. .We' re
. ' .. ". ._:'.'-, .. ,.'
3 doing thil1gs diff~rentJ,Y now. n
4 Well, 20 years later, I think that we
S know and we're not ignorant, so perhaps we should try
6 to start doing things differently.
7Thankyo~ very .nlUch.
8
THE CHAIRMAN: Our next card is David
9 Schmidt.
10
24.0 MR. SCHMIDT: Hi .My name is Dave
11 Schmidt, and I'm a resident of San Francisco.
12 I work at the Environmental Protection
13 Agency in San Franc i sc<:) , but I'm not hereto speak for
14 EPAtoda,y.. I'm just spt;!aking on my own as an
15 individual.
16 I have a degree in history from the
17 University of Santa Clara, and I've alwa:r:s retained my
18 interest in history over the 20 ,years since I
19 graduated ,there.
20 It seems tome that we have a
21 tremendously valuable,historic, educational resource
22 herein San Bruno Mountain. This isa 5" OOO-year-old
23 community .contin":louslyinhabited for. most of those
24 5, 000 years.
2SIn terms .of other historic sites of
78
(
1
2
3
4
.sj;milar value, 'you:could ,talk about .,Jericho in Israel
or ,Damascus, Iwhich, were inhabited for that amount of
.time . Thereweren ',tmanysi tes in ,the entire world
that were inhabited continuously for that <amount of
5 time.
6 Stonehenge .in England and the pyramids in
7 Egypt are very .importantto those countries ,~here
8 those .sitesare. They were not inhabited as long and
9 continuously as this shellmound site. Ancient Rome
10 was not inhabited half as long as this shellmound
(
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
site.
This is .a tremendously important site, a
tremendously valuable isi.te, and it also should be
retained in its natural context with its wetlands, its
wildlife and surrounding parkland.
I believe that it is tremendously
valuable as an educational resourceto.teach the
18 people of the Bay Area., as well as visitors from out
19 of town or out of is tate or out ofthiscountry"that
.20 we have a respect for our history, too, ,and the
21 histo~ o,f.thosewhocamebeforeus.
22 When I was a kid growing up in_San
23 Francisco ,there was ,no ,mention;,o.:f the California
24 Indians who .had lived.'on,this land .for thousands of
(,
25
years before my ancestors got here in 1873.
79
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1 These 'people'hadbeen1:iV'ing .;on theJ:and
2 for' '40 'times ,;caslong:as' mylfamily had:been,,':andO:yet.,
3 there:wasnomention .of them,iexcept:f:or;the;:fact that
4 they died'whenthe'missionscamein.
5 We have these fourorfi ve missions
around the 'Bay Area. :They're .all.carefully preserved,
carefullyprotected,carefully'restored,:great
.educationalsites ,butveryli ttle in the way of <any
attention to the Ohlone'people ';whowere herefor'S ,000
years 'befor~ 'the ~panish.
I just think that it would be a tragedy
.to let this site be destroyed like all :the other 400
Indi'ansi tesaroundthe;Bay:Areathatused ':,to be here
100 years ago. 4'00 were mapped "early'inthe ~20th -
century, 1909, 1910.,"'40'0 'of';thesesitesweremapped.
Today, .they1realmost all gone . 'There is only one
protected; and 'that 'sat Coyote 'Hi'lls Regional Park.
'Ij ust 'want'ed ,to add my voice to those
calling ifor,protection,ofthe.entireshellmoundisite
and the ,wetland .and '.thehi"llsidecont'iguous 'to the
state park. Thereare..some wi1.dl'if'e impacts that I
believe would happen.
I 'vebeen,on.that 'shellmound site .'I"ve.
,-
24 seen hawks and owls and other ,wildlife 'on that site,
25 and they are-dependeIit on the 'wetland and the water in
80
('
1 that:site#event:houghthey,:may _spend part_ofitheir
2 life upin-the;'hill, inside,'the;.park:-boundary, they
3 also spend part of their life in the wetland. ~Those
4 need .to;,bekepttogether.
5 Finally, 'I think that one of the things
6 that has ,to be considered .in this .site decision is
7 whether ::.there 'are,any,practicable ialte'rnati ves.
8 That's actually some language from the regulations in
9 the Clean Water Act about destruction of wetlands.
10 If a wetland is going to be destroyed,
11 the alternatives --and specifically, .isthere,a
12 practical al,ternativetodestroying this :wetland. I
13 think, very clearly ,there is. That's just in legal
14 terms~
15 There are . other places 'to ""put ,this
16 development, but in terms of alternat'ives, 'it's
17 amazing tome that we've.got thousands. and thousands
18 of hotel rooms,hundredsand'hundreds of commercial
1.9 s i tesin a1 0 -mile radi us"buthow,many5 ,000 ...year-old
:2 0 ,Indian village si tesare,there .in the ,entire ;Bay ,Area?
21 I thinkt:his is it. This ,is the ,one.
.22 You :onlygetone-chance.
23 Thank you.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Our next card is David
25 Grace.
(',"
(
81
82
1 order.
(
2
MR. HARNISH: Okay .
3
MR. GRACE: This is different 'than a
4 debate in ,a public forum.
5 I'm talking Clbout whether or not the city
6 is contending that a design -- which, hypothetica.lly,
7 there are going to be architects andan'EIR'developed
8 for, essentially, a doubling of the square footage of
q this 'plan, and that if --essentially, this plan ;has
10 been doubled, and that s.imply is viewed as a 'comment,
1~ that seems, Lto me, that that is not a valid scenario
12 for public disclosure, and that the notice --proper
(
13
notice has not been given that this guy has doubled
14 his plan.
15 I personally contend that this hearing is
16 'invalid, because he has not gone through the proper
17 notice.
18 'The secondp6intof 'order --I see the
19 developers have finally returned, but 'I thought that
20 that was pretty inappropriate for 'them to disappear
21 for a good portion of. this hearing. It's
22 inappropriate, and I 'think it 'may be improper for them
23 to disappear.
-
24 25.1 Now , specifically, the fact that the
(
25
shellmound is .inthecenter of :thetwoparcels or is
83
'5.1 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in the center of the three parcels, I wonder about. ,the
utility ties. Therehay~"got .,t<?:".b~ gas lines , water
lines and "electr.iclines.,What ':s~he anticipation for
running the utilitiesthrou9hth~s~el..lmoU?d?1
.ThatJs.pecificall~ seems a, yiolation of
the whole
it may look good~rom a nice green
picture,.but,the realityis.that if you 're,goingto
put10....story buildings.oneith~r side of it with
thousands of .~people attending daily,. you're going to
have .tohave huge ,power lines, gaslines,utility
se~ices, and it's -- you know, .it t sa mockery to
,thinlcthat the -- that that's going .to be inviolate,.
.Future ownership is also an issue in
this. I wonder -- I was at the historical meeting
Tuesday ,night . I In . thattneeting ,:thedeveloper25.2
mentioned that he was going ,to retain .ownership of the
parcel.
Now ,.intheownership.ofthe parcel
if, for .,exaffi.Ple,he' s..gt:)~ng.,.to put ,ina~O...story
building and he ',sgoing ,to leave a :parcel --he didn't
know the exactdimensiop.s. between ,the two parcels ,. ,qhow
wide he .wasgoing ,toqleave "the she 11 mound , :but,he ,was
speculating that it was ,going to be approximately
300feetA
Now, if you're going .tohave a.couple
84
(
1 thousand people come intothat.a:'rea on 'a' -daily "basis ,
2 whether'it"s'by'hotels, 'whether it 'shy work,at
3 lunchtime, :thesepeopleare 'going to come 'outside.
4 They 'regoing'tohave'their lunch . They 're go.ing "to
5 toss "their1.itter~ 'their cigarette "butt>s.There' S
6 going to be roadtraffic~
7 'Inevitably , ~"with.the!highwindsthat
8 happen in this Bay Area, the ownership of that
9 property is going to be at issue, ;because you're going
10 to end 'up with an enormous amount "of trash that's
11 going to get blown into there, and it's going to look
12 like hell.
(
13
14
Although ,most of the people here in
attendance view that as sacred land and as'something
15 to cher'ish,wh~n'thatplacebecomes'blighted,and
16 blighted in actual 'terms, it will be seen as a ,weed
17 lot. Is the owner going to, onaregularbasis, clean
18 it up?
1925.3l.There'becomes :a . further issue, and that"s
2 0 the native ;grasses . The San Bruno;'Mountain:Watchand
c.
21 many other organizations have been trying t'o make
22 certainthat.thenatural species are able to reclaim
23 their viability, their strength, theirnumbers,their
24 populations.
25
Ifpthisencroachmentofweeds "and of
85
5.3 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
unnatural:plants - -;theY'1:'e going ,to ,have "to do..a
methodofplanting--yo\1;.know ,cplanter .::boxes,.;,the
normal.:shrubbery that '~~goi~g,to ..g,?,al:'ound :a
development.likeithis",and .tho~e ,:arenC)t ,.going to .be
I would. ,expec.t:that,th~y~.re..notgoingto ,,be ."natural
the indigenous plants, thatthe,y ',re',goingto be
plants:from.back,east, "the5,high -~a ter-,necessi ty
plants.
.Those ,plants .. are goi~g to;cast their
seeds into the;shellmoundarea,;.and they'.re going to
further cause a loss .tothe,natural species that
belong there rightly.
There_are.twoproblemsispecificallywith
the ownership of.i t.lsthis developer ,going .,to .cause
al iabi.l i tytoti;atprQper~yby blight. ;.andthen
further, is he going to icause,aliability toit,~ .to
the lack ,of habitat ,.of the natural foods .thatthose
plants and creatures 'require? Are they going to be
wiped out. # ,essentially ,simp~.y :b.y:the,iI1eglect'that
he '.s !creatingnearbYi ,and further, the lease .in,which
- -well,theeasein,whi.ch.,i t can . become ,blighted,
simp.ly .by,neglect, ,simply by allowing this project ,:to
be.in its ':proximity.1
25.4 Next, looking at the quality of "the
roadbed, .in looking at the ,report., you're talking
86
(
25.4 '1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(
(
about csubstantial<grading ,~of'~road"there,. I can't see
that the quality of the ,roadbed:iand~the ,add~gof the
highway ,exit.',ramps:there .,:Lsn "tgoingto,;pretendthat
there is ,going\'to:be\more development up the -hill.
You know,'~:you";can't ;put(entrance 'ramps,'
1 ikethe quali ty of that'roadbed,,';lrlit'hout essentially
acceding that there ',s,goingto.'be "development up
there, whether :it'sin.fiveyears or 50,;y:ears.
There's going,to .be 'more development up that hillside.
Whateverdreamswema,ycomeup,withhere
,to allow the quality of access roads going into there
is with the expectation that that hillside is going to
be developed. I want the --.this ,boqy tO,recognize
that thatisthe^:Plan.\
;Finally, I,come.fromColorado. ,Before I
came from California, I was .in Colorado.. There is a
100-milestretch of .the -Colorado :River Colorado is
very similar "to California .
It::gets,twoirainy seasons "awint'er
season and a late;summer,season, ,and-essentially, ,the
rest of the year is very dry, enormously dry. ,Weeks"
months go by without any rain at ,all.
The .ColpradoRiver;no1r(, ion :one side of
it, has a railroad track for 100 miles, immediately,
20 feetfrom,theedge of the,coloradoRiver.
87
1 ,On;'.tne::other :;side,'-Of :'i t ,~fo,r;'"l.OO',mil:es,
2i's aninterstate~hi9hway ,\':soallofthe 1,speciesfora
3 halfmile,;'fi vemiles,i50'<'miles <on .;either :"side ,ofJthe
4 Colorado:Ri ver,do~notfhave access;,torthe ':~,riverf or
SlO,O\lmiles, ;,a:t',xisk:of 'being':'choppedapart by railroad
6 \trains::or.chopped,apart .::by (,the :interstate "highway.
7:';l '.look',at~the ,{development 'of 'thi's d.n
8 those same "terms . Whenyouputa5,"500-year-old
9cu:Ltureto'bechopped:up'by themachine.of 'economics
10--economic necessity,it"s ~folly.
11 ,Living in 'Colorado , 'there were :boomtoWIis
12;and'then ,there:,were bust towns . 'We 're 'looking a tthe
13 Asian'ieconomyfal1.ingapart:right'now . Five,10 'years
14 from now, we may really regretputt.ing'in a
15 'development"like'this ,1because it 'may just become one
16 more ghost town .
17 'We're 'l06kingat, just up the highway,
18 the idea of putting in that .stadium:that '.sessent-ially
19 a great~folly . ,We've pretty 'much "Put a stop to that
20stadium,andthissounds<like'tl1enextproject'toput
21 ,ai,stop to.
22 Thank you.
23THECHAIRMAN::'0Ur 'next 'card is Elliot
24
25
Gol'iger..
26.o:MR.:OOLIGER':
Hello. "Mynameis 'Elliot
88
(
(
(
1
Goliger,,'G-o-l-;i-g-e-r,.I 'm .a,landscaper. :I,live 'in
. ,
..., .~
2
San Francisco.
3
.Geez"after.everything ;he just said,
4 there's really not that;much ;more:to!say.X
5 completely ;agree with him".and,Itm wondering why there
6 hasn 't.been anyone who'.s pro - development ,here ,tha t's
7 willing to come up ,and speak on. the pro "side of 'this .
8 The reason is because ,there isn't ,anyone who really
9 wants .this.
10 A lot of us here have an emotional
11 attachment here to what ',s going on. I'd like to state
12 that there I s ..moreto it than that. There '.sactual '
13
legal issues, I'm sure, that this gentleman knows
-
14
about. I don't see how we ,;proceed~y,:further'wi thout
26.1
:' 15 a further investigationof'CEQA ;and 'the water 'issues .
16 Also" as ,I understand, t'hisdrawing, in
17 its present state, is just not enough 'information to
18 really makecommentonhowtheshellmoundwouldbe
19 protected.
20 Basically,theamount of grading and
21 things thatare,going on there, ,the slqpe:that we Ire
22 looking at, ,there really needs to ,be some <'conciseplan
23 of ,how ,to not ,screw:,up,what 'sthere.
24 Like he said, \wherearethe underground
25
utilities going and ,what 'sgo,ing on with that? These
89
i.1 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
things 'need to >betdisclosed sowe"Can~makecomment:,on
that, aswe::.J
"I "mean, I just think ,,'there>'s not really
enough information ,for IUS 'toiproceed. Al though I
didn 'treadthe;1..85pages'Or'so'from the:SEIRI' 'but
thedrawing.doesn".,t 'really state" :it <clearly 'enough,
what we can ,expect ,in~ayman".s 'language.
:26.2:\ I 'd liketoalso~saythat?the
environmental impact goes beyond just the existing
site, goes:beyond:thedelineationofa line that's
drawn on the ,land. The 'environmental impact:has
impact:beyond:.that, and if .ariyonehasbeenthere and
taken'notice,:\thereis .a ;significant<wind 'that rolls
right ~uP!that~;canyon,continually~:l
26..3 ]Thereffectof ..construction practices,
such as,rai'sing,o'fdust, ,that 'could have a damaging
effect on the '.butterflypopulations, specificallY-the
Callippe ,and other"butterfly'larvae,'that's also an
issue that needs to be discussed.
:Constructionpractices -~'howarethey
goingto.construct this project ,making 'sure to
preserve:.things'that are ?beyond 'this physical line
drawn on the land? '"It"ls justnot.---'i't"s . not 'enough
significantinformation,at,this'pointfor us toassurne
that:they'regoingto :protect our interests, the
90
(
c.'.".
...
(
1 community's interests, .topreservethislandandthe
2
things ;surro.und~ng 'this;land.
3 ,Ithink.there~has.to,be,really distinct
4 attention paid to how it 'sgoing ,to:be ;.constructed,
5 the utilities"'.the wind, the keeping "down of the dust,
6 because. native .butterflypopulations.in:itbeareahave
7 beendecreasi~g . There "sproofof that. They ',re
8 decreasing, a.nd . these . are endangered but terflies. 'The
9 one specifically, the Callippe, isn't even mentioned
10 in the current .HCP.
11 It really - -thereneedsto be further
12 interest paid to ,thatissue,aside from. Like I say,
13
the ,emotional attachment.; thel~galissues hereof
14 what we're doing, a little cleare~pictureofhow ,that
15 is going to bpppenand construction practices in
16 particular.
17 Thank you.
18
THE CHAIRMAN: ,Okay. That ,was the last
19 of our cards. On ,behalf of the commission, I
20 appreciate your involvement
21
MR.,. LANNON: My . card ,must ,have '_gotten
22 lost.
23
THECHAI~: Itmusti.have,.Why don't
24 you.step ,\J.p.
25
27.0 MR.. ,LANNON: My name is Albert Lannon,
91
'1 L-,a-n-n-o-n. -:I-~iveinSan Francisco~
21 've worked in ',SouthSan~F.ranC"i'sco,:for
3 many years , ;'bothas',an -employee :in:the. Industrial Park
4 and as a union /offici'al.
5 I'spent;a lot of time onSanBruno"
6 Mountain over'those'years, gotten awards 'from San
7 Mateo County for cvolunteerwork.. 1: sit 'on the 'b6ard
8 of the 'Friends ~of San'BrunoMountain,butI~wantto
9 make it "clear:thatI 'm speaking here as an individual
10 today.
111 ,wish,attimes, that I had a magic
12 wand, that I could just >gollpoof" and all the
13 development would disappear and we'd have a pristine,
14 natural~place;aga'in. ~
15 Iwould,notethat"theseal'oftbe 'City of
16 South San Francisco devotes most of ,its space to
17 commercial and industrial development, so there.'s a
18 real world"and !the issue'then::becomes: What kind of
19 development? 'How ,do we 'approach 'development'?
20 For Terrabay III ,.for me,thepreferable
21 choice among 'the 'SEIR ',:salternat'ivesis:t:he one that
22 creates the permanent open space, but the developers
23 here say ,he I s got ":a ~buyer, 'he needs' to turn a profit.
24 I'dbefoolish to think that that didn't have some --
25 won'thavesome.weightin your deli'berations.
92
1
~e;:turIl,then, .totheenyironmenta~ly
(
I
2 preferred 'd~yelQP~ent ,a1.~ernati'\1'einthe,.sE.IR,,~w~ich
3 some1rihat :;p:r;o;~cts theshel1moun4,the,.springs andBome
4 endangered,species:habita.ts.
5 27.1 ..,Iwo~dnotethat .,a.l,thou,ghthe,EIRdid
6 not ,find :aI1Y IFC .inth~SanFranciscored-sided garter
7 snake on San BrunoMCJunt:ain,IIWOUld .,fE!el.betteriabout
8 that. alternative, the environmentally ,preferred
9 development al ternati ve,if ,the ,.building proposed
10 right next to theshellmound were moved further down,
11 maybe .south of the billboard.
12 The sandwich that is bei~g ,proposed today
(
13
by the developer puts the shellmound, which isa
14 burialpl,ace ,acemetery "atrealrisk",and I don't
15 think it should be considered.
16 If a development ,al,ternative is adopted
17 that protects the shellmound"the,springs ,th~
18 wetlands and the endangeredspecieshabitat"then.this
19 issue ,whichmaycome ,back at us,a.gainand again,
20 couldbesettledbyputtiIlg the plan ,north and west of
21 the shel 1 mound area . "and the,shellmoundinto. .the,San
22 Bruno S'tate and County Park, then maybe Will Two
23 Bears I ,proposals.could,.getsome,serious .attention.
(
24 The bottom line for..meinconsideringthe
25
shellmound should be respect for the dead of ,those who
93
1 were:her~""b~fore :'us,respect,o'ftbe';;kindwe would want
2 for ':tbe boiie's:;ofouroWnm6the~s<aria'iathers~'
3
.:.:.,
'I::would 'J' ust . 'itiot'e.itbat . ~a . "c6u't51e "wee.ks"
. ,1.-
4 ago, I was in Los Padres Nati6na:lForest,"mclpping
5 ancient Indian cave sites . It \ias.the joint >effort of
6the:U. S .'ForestService . :andtbe . Salina Indi'ans ,and "i t
7 'wasdone:withsensitivi"tyandrespect .
8 ;'Iwotild 'hopethatwe would 'see ,that level
9 of sens'itivityand respect here .
10 'Thank you.
11
THE CHAIRMAN: 'Thank you. Mr.'Lannon,
12 IJ Ilhave'to:beg your 'forgiveness . I must have
13 misplaced
,14
'~MR . 'BATCHELDER: You "skipped'anot:her
15 card, too, I'm afraid.
16
'THE CHAIRMAN: Yes .
17
28.0lMR, .BA'TCHELDER:Myname is Marc
18 Batchelder , 'B-a--t-c';;h~e-l-d--e-'r.
19
I" ve ~heardalot':of:people"talk. I've
20 been a witness'to:the San Bruno Mountain environmental
21 - - the energy and 'effort made by San 'Bruno 'Mountain
22 Watch.
23 'Ican'appreciaie'thework that has gone
24into'Terrabay, coming 'up with 'these plans and even
25 conceiving ,it.
94
(
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
(
-
Ican:appreciateeven,more 'so ,the effort
of the ,city cto,indulge,thedeveloperwith ,an,SEIR, .but
Icbelievethat,,'jsi.rmply~this isiteisill-chosen.
Given,theissuesof/biodi versity and ,the
native cultural concerns, the need for an SEIR:seems
to be moot, llI!der yourauspices",.as a beautiful open
land, and ..it should ,be ,easy for;you"toprotect it.
Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN : Thank you.
Next is ,PredAndres.
29.0 ,MR. ANDRES: :I.lmFred Andres,
A-n-d~r-e-s,. My address :is .5285 Diamond Heights
Boulevard,SanFrancisco, 94131.
I've been working with San Bruno Mountain
Watch for ,the past four years, and I do plant
16 restorations with SMEW.
,(
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
What we ,are working for on the mountain
is to ,restore. ,the grasslands and the various plant
communities by removing nonnative ,plants ,and I I.mglad
to say that I've enjoyed my outings up there very
much. ,r like fee 1 iIl,g like I 'mhelpingoutanimals and
plants and insects which I:think need my help.
Asa comment tothepresentSEIR, I'd
just .like to say ,that I think that the lO-story
building which has been -- I had no idea that there
95
96
(\:
(
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
thosein,attendanoe;here,areawarelof:thetime and
format'for"the:meeting. .
'.THE 'CHAIRMAN: ,Okay.. .'..'Can!.have:amotion
''',
to close?
MR. ,MASUDA,: 'This.'is ;'fc:ir'the {chair,
before,we.adjourn --
THE CHAIRMAN: :Yes,.
'MR .'MASUDA : Jim, you 'rer,goingto have
all the questions ',that',were raised tonight for us?
MR. HARNISH: That will -'not be available
or ready to .'be'addressed'on"the1.'3 tho
':Theintent 'of <tonight is :to 'take those
issues'~that 'were:addressedto-- ,orthe;comments 'that
were'addressed;to'rhe :EIR~specifically" of which 'there
were relatively 'few .
Most of ,the comments tonight were more
directed at the nature,oftheproj ect ; ,the
desirability:of,generally, the'preservation; the
different;development,style.Those will all. be 'issues
thatyoucertainly:will be considering in your
deliberations, but 'from a formal addressing in theEIR
process, 'we will pick out the comments ' that were
directed to :adequacy:of theEIR,',whet:heriit'went 'far
enough, what issues it mayor ,may 'not 'have addressed.
'We "will"prepare responses .tothose that
98
r'
(
(
1 will be published in the 'form of a final EIR, which
1
2
will come out sometime:after'theclose of the comment
3 period, which:isAugust'14th.
4 If the transcript of tonight's meeting.is
-.-.',' ". - .' .
5 available by the 13th"--in'advance of the 13th, we'll
6 certainly make that available to you for your reading,
7 but it will not be a formal part of our deliberations
S on the 13th.
9
MR.. MASUDA: That was the question I was
10 asking about, what isa concern as to the EIR.
11
MR.. HARNISH: I would anticipate that
12 these comments, along with the written comments we've
13
received, weill do responses, make changes to the EIR
14 as necessary.
15 That will become the :final EIR, and then
.
16 during your deliberations on the project itself, the
17 formal public hearings, one of the several issues
lS you ',11 be dealing with is the mitigation measures in
19 theEIR1 the comments, the issues raised, along with
20 the plan, the specific plan, the precise, plan, so
21 there are a whole series of things.
22
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Can I have a motion
23 to close the public hearing?
24
MR. ROMERO: So moved.
25
MR. MASUDA: Second.
99
-
1
:2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
'THE CHAIRMAN: ,All :in ,favor?
ALL CO~C*L.:.'~,'.. .~:"' A,...y.e.
. . -.. , . '.. --
. -. -', - .. " -
THE CHAIRMAN: , The public hearing is
closed.
If ther~ IS .nothing else, motion to .
adjourn.
MR.. :ROMERO :So moved.
MR.. MASUDA: Second.
(Proceedings adjourned at 10: 03 p.m.)
II
II
,"
100
PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS
Twenty-nine people spoke at the July 23, 1998 City of South San Francisco Planning Commission
public h~g on the 1998 DraftSEIR (1998DSEIR),inc1udingtheapplicantan'd members 1jfthe
public. All remarks were recorded. and a transcript of the hearing was, prepared. The EIR consultant
also took notes at the hearing. In addition, a number 'of speakers Slibmitted -,written comments,
presented in the preceding letters.
Speakers generally made two typesof'comments. . One type 'wasrlirectedtothe adequacy of the
environmental analyses contained in the 1998 DSEIR or questions about the report's findings. These
are "EIR"comments. The other type dealt with speakers' positions about the project, <based on
environmental conditions on or around the project site .or on other factors. These represent comments
on the "merits of the project" . .
TheElR consultant compared the hearing transcript, hearing notes, and written comments in order to
identify the first type of comments (EIR comments) for response below. ,(Master Response 7.3-11
discusses the conunents on the project's merits.) Written and oral comments largely duplicate eacn
other, virtually identically in most cases. In those cases, the commentor is referred to the appropriate
letter response.
Speaker 1,DennisBreen(Applicant) ,See "Letter Comment Responses '13.1 through 13.47.
Speaker 2, Dan Shattuc SeeLetterCo~ent Responses ~.l through 34.16.
Speaker 3, Betsy Bun-Also see Letter Comment Responses 1'7.1 and 17.2.
Response 3.1 The '~onc1iIsiorithaitnesiterrieetsCEQA o,teria as an llnportant cUltural resource,
is based in parton tl.te criterion (DSEIRpage 283) that the site:
Can provide information which is both of demonstrable public interest and ...
A number of Native Americans commented on the 1998 DSEIR in person at the public hearing and in
writing, as did an attoriiey on'behalf ofthe:PajaroValleyOhlone Indian CoUncil and San Bruno
Mountain Watch (Letter 30). . As reiterated in Refponse 30.5, the, EIRarchaeolQgistcontacted
members of the Native American commuriity to obtain their input.
Speaker 4, David Schooley, San Bruno Mountain Watch Also see Letter Comment Responses 21.1
through 21.24.
Response 4.1 See Letter Comment Response 21.19. There is no archaeological evidence ofa
prehistoric cultural deposit to the east of CA,;;SMa-40 under U:S. 101 or Old'Bayshore'Boulevard.For
a discussion regarding the terrain between the two documented sites, see Letter Comment Response
21.20. .
Response 4.2 See Letter Comment Response 21.4.
Speaker 5, Julia Batt, Lama Prieta Chapter,Siema Club See Letter Comment Responses 28.1
through 28.50.
Response 5.1
See Letter Comment Response 28.1.
Speaker 6, . Perry Matlock
Response 6.1 The comment raises a word processing error in the 1998.DSEIR<(DSEIR;page..277
fourth paragraph). The CenifiedSEIRwill be changed to read: ' ,
~: ,J .,
AncstUnatCd ~,2.~plus,~ativeAmeIjcanSof Cost8noanIOhlone.ancestry..... '
Speaker 7, Mary Thompson.See.Master Respome'!.3-11.
Speaker 8, Patrick Orozco, Tribal Chairman, Pajaro Olones Statement read into the record in Mr.
Orozco~ s,absence. 'see Letter,CommentResponses 18.1,18.2, and 30.5~
Speaker 9, Lois Robin
ResponseS.1 See' LetterCommenf Response 30.3. Issues ofownerihip and stewardship of the site
are a matter for the Lead Agency to resolve. At present, the project sponsor owns the property, and it
would be the prefQgative of the Lead Agency to. approve a management plan for the site location .asa
condition of project approval. '
Response 9.2 See,Hearing Comment Response 25.2.
Speaker 10, Dana' Dillworth
Response 10.1 See , Master Response 7.3-08 on wetlands, Letter Comment Response28.25 on
wilcllifecorridors,and'LetterCoIDIIient Response 33.7 on project effects on plant andanimaI speCies
without special-status (the focus ofEIRs analyses). ., '., ',' ... ,',
Response .10.2 See Master Response 7.3-2 regarding reeircu1ationof the 1998 DSEIR.
Response 10.3 See Letter Comment Response 29.2~,~gar~g cumulative bi()logicalirn,pacts.
Speaker 11, July Talall9on, Califomia!ndiansfor.Cultural and Environtnental Protection
. - .. .. .
Response 11. 1 The .1996 Presidential ExecutiveOroer applies to 'FederaJ. 'lands,iFedeially..;funded,
or Federally-permitted projects. .The order would. not apply to .aprojecton . private . land subject to
CEQA compliance.
. .... _' '._'_,' '. .._....,. - 'c' ' _ -
Speaker12,WillTwoBearsCormIJent acknowledged. See Letter CommenfRe~ponse 23.L
Speaker 13, 'Ce/estel.andllle,'SanBruno Mountain'Watch Also see Re~ponses to Letter Comments
29.1 through 29.31.
Response 13.1
Response 13.2
Response 13.3
Response 13.4
S~e Master Response 7.3-2 and'Letter Comment Response 29.3.
See Letter Comment Responses 29.9 and 29.16.
See Letter CommentResponse 29.8.
See Letter' CommentResponses29.21 ,and 29.28.
Speaker14, Robert Carrillo See Letter Comment Responses 16.2 and 30.5 for discussion.
Spesker15, Cathy Manus, Friends of San Bruno Mountain 'See Master Response 7.3-11.
Speaker 16, Michelle Salmon See Master Response 7.3-11.
Speaker 17, Leland Beham See Master Response 7.3-11.
Speaker 18, David Tomsovic See Letter Comment Responses .1l.lthro~gh 11.4.
Response 18. 1 See Master Response 7.3-8 wetlands.
Speaker,19,Jan ,:ont, so~San F,!,nc~sco .See Letter Comment Responses .33.1 through 33.9.
Response.19; 1 'See Letter CommentResponse'33.3.
Response19.2 The existing Southbound U~S.101 Bayshore Off ",Ramp is thescissorsramp(DSEIR
pages 18 and 23 and Exhibit 2.1-3) and the proposed Southbound U.S. 101 BayshoreOff-'andOn-
Ramps are the hook ramps (DSEIRpages 15,23, and 45-46 andExhibit 2.3-8B).
Speaker 20, Gail Mallimson
Response 20.1 See Master Response 7.3-2.
Response 20.2 The Draft 1998 SEIR took current plans for all proposed development in the East
101 area (including the Shearwater project) and in Brisbane into account in determining ambient
background traffic growth analyzed for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020.
Speaker 21, Mishwa Lee See Letter Comment Responses 22.1 through 22.6.
Speaker 22, Michelle Brewer See Letter Comment Responses 32.1 and 32.2.
Response 22.1 See Master Response '7.3-9 on the callippe silverspot and Letter Comment
Response 32.2.
Response22.2 See Letter Comment Response29.28.
Speaker 23, Heather Gilbert See Master Response 7.3-11.
Speaker 24, David Schmidt See Master Response 7.3-11.
Speaker 25, David Grace
Response 25.1 See Letter Comment Responses 13.27.
Response 25.2 See Master Response 7.3-1 which presents an assessment of the new Phase III Site
Mitigation Plan Development Alterruztive and Exhibit 7.3-1. For a discussion of property ownership,
see Hearing Comment Response 9 .1 (above).
Response 25.3 See Letter Comment Response 28.8.
Response 25.4 See Letter Comment Response 24.2.
Speaker 26, . Elliott Goliger
Response 26.1 See Master Response 7.3-8 regarding wetlands, Master Response 7.3-1 on the
Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative. and Letter Comment Responses 13.27.
Response 26.2 Environmental analyses address impacts beyond the site boundaries where relevant,
primarily off-site traffic and air quality impacts. Supplemental and "project" EIRs tend to. focus on
site-specific impacts after initial "program" EIRs have evaluated a combination of on- and off-site
issues, including those of regional consequence. Supplemental EIRs only assess substantial changes
in projects, in environmental conditions, or the feasibility of mitigation or alternatives.
;. t
Response26.3 See Letter Comment Response 29.14.
Speaker 27, Albert Lannon
Response 27. 1 ~As '.summarized:inthe.. Status.report"for'Sanmmcisco,garter lsnake:'and ,California
red':legged frog by Dr. Samuel McGinnis (see DSEIRAppendix" 7.4 ,Biology), suitable habitat
necessary to' support San Francisco garter snake isabsencefrom:theSite.\the""red-sidedgartersnake"
observed by the commentor could have been the coast, garter snake, ,the common terrestrial garter
snake, or the 'California red-sided gartersnake;a1lofwhich exhibit.varying,degreesofconspicuonsred
markings along their sides. ' ,
'.
Speaker 28, Mark Batchelder See Master Response' 7.3-11.
Speaker 29, Fred Andres See Master Response 7.3-11.
...-