Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 147-2000 RESOLUTION NO. 147-2000 CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ADOPT A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE 1998- ! 999 SUPPLE- MENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WITH ADDENDUM FOR TERRABAY, INCLUDING FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN FOR THE REMAINING PARCELS OF PHASE II AND PHASE III OF THE TERRABAY DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the City Council previously approved a development application relating to the Woods area and denied the proposed development relating to the Point and Commons areas, which together with the approvals previously granted, are the "Existing Project;" and, WHEREAS, the Existing Project is divided into three separate phases, the first of which, Phase I, is currently under construction and nearing completion; and, WHEREAS, in October 2000 the Applicant applied to the City to proceed with development of a residential project area and a commercial project area. Applicant applied for: approval of the Final Terrabay Specific Plan; approval of a General Plan Amendment; approval of a Specific Plan Map Amendment; and approval of a Restated and Amended Development Agreement for the Remaining Parcels of Phase II and Phase HI of the Terrabay Development; and, WHEREAS, the Final Project provides for development and disposition of the remaining parcels of Terrabay consisting of commercial, residential and preservation land uses; and, WHEREAS, the entitlements provide for residential development on site of 70 single family attached units and a 17-story 96-unit condominium building plus a 102 space parking garage on the western portion of the site; and, WHEREAS, the Final Project includes development of an "office parcel" which consists of a portion of the commercial area and a portion of what was the Point Area. The proposal is an office tower consisting of 665,000 square feet of commercial office space including, 7,500 square feet of ground floor support retail and a 1,785 space parking garage; and, WHEREAS, the Final Project is a development alternative to the Existing Project analyzed under the 1982 Environmental Impact Report, the 1996 EIR and the 1998-99 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (" 1998-99 SEIR"); and, WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164 permits the use of an Addendum to an existing certified environmental impact report (EIR) under specified circumstances. Based on the analysis contained in the Staff Report and the Final Terrabay Specific Plan, the appropriate CEQA document for the Final Project is the 1998- 99 SEIR and the Addendum to the SEIR (Exhibit E); and, WHEREAS, the Addendum to the SEIR analyzes the impacts of the Final Project in relation to the impacts identified in the 1998-1999 SEIR, the 1996 SEIR and the 1982 EIR; and, WHEREAS, the Addendum addresses the change in development intensity and the reduced impacts associated with preservation of large amounts of open space as part of the Final Project; and, WHEREAS, based on the 1998-99 SEIR, Addendum and other information in the record, there are certain significant and potentially significant environmental impacts of the Final Project which could be mitigated to a level of insignificance, therefore mitigation findings are required pursuant to CEQA §21081 and CEQA Guidelines § 15091 upon Project approval; and, WHEREAS, based on the 1998-99 SEIR, Addendum and other information in the record, there are impacts of the Final Project which are not environmentally significant and which require no findings or mitigation upon Project approval; and, WHEREAS, the 1998-99 SEIR and Addendum, as supplements to the 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR, did not reanalyze impacts of the Final Project which were not significantly different from Project impacts analyzed in the 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR. No further analysis of these impacts was required because the Proposed Project did not present any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects in these areas (Public Resources Code §21166; CEQA Guidelines § 15163). Therefore, mitigation findings pursuant to CEQA §21081 and CEQA Guidelines §15091 are made for each of these impacts previously analyzed in the 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR, and not reanalyzed in the SEIR; and, WHEREAS, based on the 1998-99 SEIR, Addendum and other information in the record, there are significant and potentially significant environmental impacts of the Final Project which could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance, therefore the alternatives to the Existing Project were examined to determine if they would avoid any of the unmitigated significant impacts; and, WHEREAS, based on the 1998-99 SEIR, Addendum and other information in the record, there are significant and potentially significant environmental impacts of the Final Project which could not be reduced to a level of insignificance, therefore a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required upon Project approval; and, WHEREAS, CEQA §21081.6 requires that where mitigation findings are made for significant and potentially significant environmental impacts, a mitigation monitoring and reporting program shall be adopted upon Project approval to ensure compliance with the mitigations during project implementation; and, WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings supporting the City's decision on the entitlements conferred and relating to the 1998-99 SEIR and Addendum is the City of South San Francisco Planning Division, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco; and, WHEREAS, the mitigation measures identified in the 1998-99 SEIR will be applied as conditions of Project approval; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby certifies the 1998-99 SEIR and Addendum thereto and adopts the following relating to the remaining parcels of Phase II and Phase HI of the Terrabay project: The impact and mitigation findings, and mitigation measures identified in Exhibits A and C. The mitigation measures identified in Exhibits A and C are hereby adopted as conditions of Project approval. The Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings Regarding Alternatives in Exhibit B. 3. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan in Exhibit D. The following Exhibits, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated by reference. Exhibit A: Findings Concerning Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures and Less Than Significant Environmental Impacts Exhibit B: Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings Regarding Alternatives Exhibit C: Findings on Impacts and Mitigation Measures From 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR Not Further Analyzed in 1998-99 SEIR Exhibit D: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Exhibit E: Addendum to the 1998-99 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a Special meeting held on the day 21 st of November, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Pedro Gonzalez and Eugene R. Mullin, Mayor Pro Tem Joseph A. Femekes and Mayor Karvl Matsumoto NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman John R. Penna ATTEST: . ,. ,,a. ~ ~,lty Clerk J:\WPDWlnrsw\405\035LRESO\l_findings_Council_final_Nov29.doc EXHIBIT A Terrabay Remaining Parcels Phase II and Phase III Project Approvals Findings Concerning Significant Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Less Than Significant Impacts Pursuant to Public Resources Code {}21081 and CEQA Guidelines {} 15091, the following findings address the Terrabay remaining parcels in Phase II and Phase III ("Final Project") project's significant and potentially significant impacts and means for mitigating those impacts. The Final Project, as proposed by Myers Peninsula Company, L.L.C., allows for development of 70 single family attached dwelling units and a 96 unit condominium building on the remaining lands of Phase II near the Point and a 665,000 gsf office building on the Phase III commercial site and portion on the former Point area. In each case, the appropriate statutory finding is followed by a rationale statement explaining how identified mitigations lessen or avoid the related impact. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 1. Reliance on Record. The findings and determinations contained herein are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Final Project, the recertified 1998-99 SEIR and the Addendum to the 1998-1999 SEIR. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of this City Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. 2. Nature of Findings. Any findings made herein by this City Council shall be deemed made, regardless of where it appears in this document. All of the language included in this document constitutes findings by this City Council, whether or not any particular sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect. This City Council intends that if these findings fail to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other part of these findings, that any finding required or permitted to be made by this City Council with respect to any particular subject matter of the Final Project, shall be deemed made if it appears in any portion of these findings, or findings elsewhere in the record. 3. Limitations. The City Council's analysis and evaluation of the Final Project is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a project of the scope and size of the Final Project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the Final Project is impossible. This practical limitation is acknowledged in CEQA Guidelines Section 15151, which states that "the sufficiency of an 1998-99 SEIR is to be reviewed in light of what is feasible." One of the major limitations on analysis of the Final Project is the City Council's lack of knowledge of future events, particularly those occurring outside the City. In some instances, the City Council's analysis has had to rely on assumptions about such factors as growth and traffic generation in areas outside of the political boundaries of the City. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the Page 1 of 43 000©SG City's ability to solve what are in effect regional, state and national problems and issues. The City must work within the political framework in which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework. 4. Summaries of Facts, Impacts, Mitigation Measures, Alternatives and Other Matters. All summaries of information in the findings to follow are based on the 1998-99 SEIR, the Addendum to the 1998-99 SEIR, the Final Project and/or other evidence in the record as a whole. Such summaries are not intended to be exhaustive recitations of all the facts in the record upon which they are based. Moreover, the summaries of impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives are only summaries. This document includes only as much detail as may be necessary to show the basis for the findings set forth below. Cross references to the 1998-99 SEIR, the Addendum, and other evidence such as City Council resolutions or actions have been made where helpful, and reference should be made directly to the 1998-99 SEIR and other evidence in the record for more precise information regarding the facts on which any summary is based. Conflicting interpretations of the language of the 1998-99 SEIR and the language of mitigation conditions adopted by the City Council shall be resolved in favor of the latter as the most appropriate way to mitigate the impact in question. 5. Adoption of Mitigation Measures. These findings address the mitigation measures recommended in the 1998-99 SEIR and the Addendum to the 1998-99 SEIR for impacts identified as significant or potentially significant. Some of the mitigation measures are implemented by changes incorporated into the Final Project and others by adoption of standards in the Specific Plan Amendment and/or as conditions of approval in the Amended and Restated Development Agreement for the Remaining Parcels of Phase II and Phase III and related exhibits. In its actions approving the Final Project, the City Council adopts those mitigation measures recommended in the 1998-99 SEIR, as revised by the City Council, that have not already been incorporated into the Final Project, except with respect to those that are rejected by the City Council in the specific findings as being infeasible or unnecessary. Where multiple mitigation measures are adopted for a single impact, all of the identified measures are required to support the related mitigation finding, unless otherwise specified (example, if mitigation measures are identified as options or alternatives). This City Council finds that all the Mitigation Measures now or previously incorporated into the Final Project are desirable and feasible and shall be implemented in connection with the implementation of the Final Project in accordance with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 6. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures. The 1998-99 SEIR for the Final Project recommended mitigation measures to reduce most of the significant and potentially significant environmental effects to insignificant levels. The City Council reviewed the 1998-99 SEIR, revised some of the proposed mitigations, and agrees with the 1998-99 SEIR conclusions, as revised. The City Council finds that to the extent any residual impact remains that has not been fully mitigated in those instances where the City Council finds that mitigation has occurred, the residual impact is overridden by the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Page 2 of 43 00O087 7. Findings Related to Remaining Parcels on Phase II and Phase III and Cumulative Impacts of the Remaining Parcels Only. The City Council is considering at this time the Final Project entitlements only. Therefore, these findings relate only to the remaining parcels of Phase II and Phase III impacts and cumulative impacts. The Terrabay Project is a three-phase project. A. Phase I was analyzed in the 1982 EIR and is built and fully occupied. Phase I consists of two residential subdivisions: Village- 161 townhome units and Park-125 single-family detached units. B. Phase II Woods, Commons and Point and Phase III Commercial were analyzed in the 1996 SEIR and the 1998-99 SEIR. In assessing the cumulative impacts of the Final Project, the projects considered include Phase II and Phase III of the Terrabay Project and those projects identified in the cumulative analysis in the 1998-99 SEIR. Phase III was analyzed in the 1998-99 SEIR on a project EIR level as a component of Phases II and III of the Terrabay Project. The level of analysis of Phase III in the 1998-99 SEIR goes beyond the requirements of cumulative impacts under CEQA. For the purposes of these findings, the impacts of Phase III for the cumulative analysis will be evaluated based on the January 1998 Phase III plan analyzed in the 1998-99 SEIR. However, the 1998-99 SEIR includes information to analyze the potential project and cumulative impacts of any of the Phase III alternatives in the document. Based on this informalion and analysis, the City Council may approve any of the alternatives for Phase III in the 1998-99 SEIR, or any Phase III Project as long as the impacts of the project, as mitigated, do not exceed the impacts analyzed in the 1998-99 SEIR. 8. Incorporation and Use of Prior EIRs for Project. The 1998-99 SEIR is a Supplemental EIR to the two prior environmental impact reports prepared for the Terrabay Project: the 1982 Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabay Development Project ("1982 EIR") and the 1996 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension ("1996 SEIR"). The 1998-99 SEIR is a project EIR for both Phase II and III of the Terrabay Project. The 1998-99 SEIR analyzes all potentially significant environmental effects resulting from proposed changes to the development for Phases II and III of the Terrabay Project from the project approved under the 1982 Specific Plan (as amended in 1996) and changes in environmental conditions from those which existed at the time the analysis was performed in the 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR. The 1998-99 SEIR did not re-analyze those impacts of the 1998-99 Project that were not significantly different from the impacts previously analyzed in the 1982 EIR or 1996 SEIR. The 1998-99 SEIR also incorporates by reference the 1982 EIR, 1996 SEIR, and other prior environmental assessments and environmental impacts reports certified for the Project and related activities, such as approval of the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and issuance of the Section 10 A Permit, as set forth in the Draft 1998-99 SEIR (p. 7). The Addendum to the 1998-99 SEIR addresses the changes in land use designations and development intensity as proposed under the Final Project and finds that the development Page 3 of 43 proposed in the Final Project would result in approximately 23 acres less developed land than the 73 acres proposed by the 1998 Project evaluated in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. The Project analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR proposed full development of what is now referred to as the Recreation Parcel. The Project analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR proposed developing all of the Commercial Parcel which is now referred to as the Preservation Parcel and Buffer Parcel. The Final Project would preserve the archaeological site (CA-SMa-40) and its relationship to CA-SMa-92, which is on County lands as well as wetlands and Viola. The Final Project would result in less drainage and hydrology impacts, less grading impacts, less biology impacts, no impacts to archaeology, and the same or slightly less impacts to traffic and circulation, noise, air quality, public service and hazards. Based on the foregoing, the impacts of the Final Project listed below are not significantly different from the Existing Project impacts previously analyzed in the 1982 EIR or 1996 SEIR. No further analysis of these impacts was required in the 1998-99 SEIR because the project analyzed did not present any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects in these areas (Public Resources Code § 21166; CEQA Guidelines § 15091). The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164 permits the use of an Addendum to an existing certified environmental impact report (EIR) under specified circumstances. Based on the analysis contained in the Staff Report and the Final Terrabay Specific Plan, the appropriate CEQA document is an Addendum to the SEIR. The Final Project was reviewed in accordance with CEQA by the preparation of an Addendum to the 1998-99 SEIR ("Addendum") prepared in October 2000. The Addendum to the SEIR analyzes the impacts of the Final Project in relation to the impacts identified in the 1998-1999 SEIR, the 1996 SEIR and the 1982 EIR and addresses the change in development intensity and the reduced impacts associated with preservation of large amounts of open space as part of the Final Project. The following impact analyses, determinations of significance, and mitigations are incorporated by reference from the 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR, to the extent they do not conflict with the analysis and mitigation measures in the 1998-99 SEIR: visual quality (1982 EIR); land use (1982 EIR); community services: water (1982 E1R), wastewater (1982 EIR), solid waste (1982 EIR), gas and electricity (1982 EIR), telephone services (1982 EIR), fire services (1982 EIR); parks and recreation (1982 EIR); recycling program collection services (1996 SEIR); energy (1982 EIR); wind and climate (1982 EIR); and drainage and water quality (1996 SEIR). Attached hereto as Exhibit C are findings relating to these incorporated impacts analysis and mitigation measures in the 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR. 9. Description of the Record. For purposes of CEQA and these findings, the record before this City Council includes, without limitation, the following: Page 4 of 43 O0008g A. All applications for approvals and development entitlements related to the Final Project submitted to the City, including without limitation, applications for the Specific Plan Map Amendment, General Plan Amendment, the Final Terrabay Specific Plan, and the Amended and Restated Development Agreement for the Remaining Parcels of Phase II and Phase III of the Terrabay Development; and, B. The Terrabay Specific Plan (1982), Development Agreement (1988) as amended, Phase I Precise Plan (1989); Woods Only Development Agreement (1999); Woods Only Precise Plan (1999); and the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance; and, C. The 1982 EIR, 1996 SEIR and other environmental reports referred to in the Draft 1998-99 SEIR (p. 7); D. The 1998-99 SEIR as certified by the City Council, consisting of the Draft 1998- 99 SEIR and Final 1998-99 SEIR (the Responses to Comments on the Draft 1998-99 SEIR); and, E. All staff reports on the Project and the 1998-99 SEIR; and, F. All studies conducted for the Project and 1998-99 SEIR including, but not limited to, those contained or referenced in the staff reports or 1998-99 SEIR; G. All studies conducted for the Project and Addendum to the 1998-99 SEIR including, but not limited to, those contained or referenced in the staff reports or the Addendum to the 1998-99 SEIR; and, H. All public reports and documents related to the Project prepared by City staff for the City Council and the Planning Commission; I. All documentary and oral evidence received and reviewed at public heatings and study sessions related to the Project and the 1998-99 SEIR or Addendum to the 1998- 99 SEIR before the Planning Commission and the City Council; J. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the 1998-99 SEIR; and K. All matters of common knowledge to the City Council, including but not limited tO: 1. The City's general plan and zoning and other ordinances; 2. The City's fiscal status; 3. City policies and regulations; 4. Reports, projections and correspondence related to development within and surrounding the City; and Page 5 of 43 O00©go 5. State laws and regulations and publications, including all reports and guidelines published by the California Office of Planning and Research. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY Impact 4.1-2 Slope Stability~ Erosion Cuts greater than ten feet high, cuts in soil for proposed slopes with grades steeper than 2:1 (horizontal: vertical), or cuts with bedrock grades steeper than 1.5:1 could erode until vegetation is re-established. These engineered slopes can erode locally, as experienced in Phase I where substantial grading was completed during a drought and then abandoned during a period of above average rainfall. Proposed cut slopes, especially in soil, need to be protected from erosion before the rainy season. Unless a comprehensive winterization plan is implemented before the onset of winter rains, the erosion from the unvegetated slopes would be significant. Miti~,ation Measure 4.1-2 (a) In order to reduce slope stability impacts to less- than-significant levels, the Final Project's proposed grading plans shall be revised to incorporate the following: Slopes shall be laid back to provide grades no steeper than 2:1 in soil and 1.5:1 in rock except in areas where rock is highly fractured and acts like soils in which case slopes shall be laid back farther, rock bolts shall be installed, or retaining walls shall be constructed. In addition, subsurface drainage shall be installed. · Intermediate benches and accompanying drainage shall be designed at vertical intervals of about 30 feet or as recommended by City Engineer. · Perimeter type A-ditches shall be provided above cut slopes. · Slope and groundwater monitoring instruments (inclinometers, piezometers) shall be installed at the tops of cuts to monitor slope stability. If slopes cannot be laid back without encroaching beyond the 50-foot buffer (and in excess of 10 acres) in the HCP area, alternative mitigation to the above criteria includes revising proposed grading plans to modify site design. Such modifications shall incorporate one or all of the following measures: The location and/or height of retaining walls shall be shifted or raised. Retaining walls higher than ten feet shall not be designed as poured in place structures but shall provide step backs or cribs planted with vegetation and built with rough stone or earth colored materials. The project sponsor shall submit plans for retaining wall design for walls higher than ten feet for City review. Page 6 of 43 00,309 :t Grades of the site streets shall be increased wherever possible to reduce grading into the hill but in no case exceed 15 percent. Grades between 12 and 15 percent shall require approval by the City Engineer, as provided by the Terrabay Specific Plan District. Development shall be limited, to the extent feasible, to lower site elevations to contain grading within development areas, thus reducing the total development area (and amount of development which could be accommodated). (b) As previously stipulated for Phase I, the City shall withhold building permits for development of lots located downhill of cut slopes until the slopes have experienced at least one average winter season (about 20 inches of rain). (c) As automatically required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and City of South San Francisco, all exposed slopes and surfaces (graded pads) shall be winterized before October 15 of the year. The Remaining Parcels of Phase II and Phase III winterization program shall include such measures as: Waddles, hydroseeding, silt fences, straw bales, and berms shall be placed around pads with contained (pipe) discharges. · Streets shall be swept before (and truck access should be limited during) major storms. · Sandbag check dams shall be placed along gutters, and straw mats should be placed over storm inlets. · The grading site(s) shall be inspected prior to and during major storms. Finding:. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Rationale. The Remaining Parcels of Phase II and Phase III of the Final Project impacts from slope stability and erosion have been analyzed by two geotechnical experts: the project sponsor's geologist, Gary Parikh, Parikh & Associates, and Eric McIturon, Ph.D., Geologist, McHuron Geosciences. The project sponsor's geologist prepared a geological report which was reviewed and approved by the City geotechnical consultant. Both of these geologists have extensive experience analyzing and mitigating geologic impacts on San Bruno Mountain and both worked on the geologic plans for Phase I, which have been successfully implemented and performed well during the E1 Nifio storms of the winter of 1997-98. After review of the project consultant's plan and other information on the site's geologic conditions, the City's Page 7 of 43 00009 geotechnical consultant identified revisions which would reduce the slope stability and erosion impacts of the grading plans of the Final Project to less than significant levels. The required revisions are specified in the mitigation measure. Impact 4.1-3 Landsliding and Debris Slides Landslides and debris slides are present within and above site development areas of the Final Project site. Without mitigation, continued movement would have significant impacts on proposed development. Large- scale grading operations likely would be necessary to repair unstable areas. In addition to deep-seated landslides, the site has experienced impacts from shallow debris slides. Landslide repair techniques, similar to those used during Phase I grading, would be necessary during grading proposed for the Final Project site. If mitigation measures, including drainage, removal, deflection and/or retention structures, setbacks, debris basins, etc., are not taken, future debris slides would have a significant impact on proposed development. Mitigation Measure 4.1-3 (a) The Precise Plan and Vesting Tentative Map grading plans shall be revised to incorporate the following: Measures to mitigate active slide areas and to mitigate cuts into active slides shall be incorporated into the project and include removing material, buttressing, and building retaining walls. Locations shall be shown of all deflection and retaining walls as determined necessary by the City's Consulting Geologist. Implementation shall include installation of monitoring instruments (inclinometers, piezometers). Measures shall adhere to the City's grading requirements listed in Impact 4.1-2 and can be achieved by using techniques listed in Mitigation Measure 4.1-2(a), including installation of slope stability monitoring instruments. (b) The Final Project's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall establish and provide for implementation of a Slope Maintenance Plan by the Final Project's Property Owners Associations (Owners Associations). The project sponsor shall provide initial funding for the Slope Management Plan, and the Property Owners Associations shall fund long-term implementation after receiving title to their respective private open space lands. At a minimum, the Slope Maintenance Plan shall provide for monitoring and maintenance of engineered slopes, perimeter drainage, debris slide retention, and deflection structures. Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Page 8 of 43 00.'3093 Project is less than significant. Rationale. The Final Project impacts from landsliding and debris slides have been analyzed by two geotechnical experts: the project sponsor's geologist, Gary Parikh, Parikh & Associates, and Eric McHuron, Ph.D., Geologist, McHuron Geosciences. The project sponsor's geologist prepared a geological report which was reviewed and approved by the City geotechnical consultant. Both of these geologists have extensive experience analyzing and mitigating geologic impacts on San Bruno Mountain and both worked on the geologic plans for Phase I, which have been successfully implemented and performed well during the E1 Nifio storms of the winter of 1997-98. After review of the project consultant's plan and other information on the site's geologic conditions, the City geotechnical consultant identified revisions which would reduce the landslide and debris slide impacts of the grading plans to less than significant levels. The required revisions are specified in the mitigation measure. Imt~act 4.1-4 Rockslides and Rock£alls Past cuts into the sandstone bedrock along the southern end of San Bruno Mountain often initiated major rockslides, such as large historic rockslides present north and northeast of the Phase I/I development area. In addition, rock outcrops on and above the site pose potential hazards from rockfalls, especially if triggered by groundshaking in an earthquake. Mitigation Measure 4.1-4 (a) Project plans shall be revised to incorporate the specific measures identified by the detailed rock slope stability analysis of the orientation and spacing of rock defects and inspection of individual rock outcrops conducted by the project sponsor's geotechnical consultant. The revised plans shall identify individual measures or combinations of measures proposed for each rock slope, outcrop, and source area to mitigate rockslide and rockfall impacts. Among measures for consideration are one or more of the following: Rockslide measures: Flatter slopes shall be graded with benches, drainage ditches, and access for maintenance. Rock anchors shall be installed. Subdrains shall be constructed. Geotechnical mitigation and revegetation shall be coordinated, possibly through design of benched terracettes. Slope monitoring instrumentation shall be installed (inclinometers, piezometers etc.). Rockfall measures: Loose rocks shall be scaled off. Netting shall be placed around features to encapsulate and prevent material from moving. 000094 Page 9 of 43 .... ....... 11 i - ' Simple retention structures (fences) shall be built below outcrops and above cut slopes. (b) The project sponsor shall include annual inspection of outcrops before each rainy season and after significant seismic shaking in the Slope Maintenance Plans (i.e., CC&Rs) identified in Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(b) for implementation by the respective Property Owners Associations. The City shall review, modify as necessary, and approve the CC&Rs. Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Rationale. The Final Project Phase II impacts from rockslides and rockfalls have been analyzed by two geotechnical experts: the project sponsor's geologist, Gary Padkh, Parikh & Associates, and Eric McHuron, Ph.D., Geologist, McHuron Geosciences. The project sponsor's geologist prepared a geological report which was reviewed and approved by the City geotechnical consultant. Both of these geologists have extensive experience analyzing and mitigating geologic impacts on San Bruno Mountain and both worked on the geologic plans for Phase I, which have been successfully implemented and performed well during the El Nifio storms of the winter of 1997-98. After review of the project consultant's plan and other information on the site's geologic conditions, the City geotechnical consultant identified revisions which would reduce the rockslides and rockfalls impacts of the grading plans to less than significant levels and required a detailed rock slope stability analysis to determine where these measures should be implemented. The required revisions are specified in the mitigation measure. Impact 4.1-5 Artificial Fill Differential settlement from placement of deep fill, unconsolidated fill, or artificial fill at variable thicknesses can damage structures, roadways, and utilities developed on or in the fill material. Mitigation Measure 4.1-5 (a) The Precise Plan shall be revised to indicate the measures proposed to mitigate differential settlement impacts expected from development in Terrabay Woods on areas of deep or varied fills. These techniques shall be evaluated and used on a case-by-case basis and, when selected and implemented, shall be monitored to determine their effectiveness. One or a combination of the following approaches shall be incorporated into Final Project plans: · Cuts shall be over-excavated to provide benches in the fill. · Rock fill shall be used in the deepest parts of thefill areas. Page 10 of 43 000095 Fill shall be surcharged with excess material to accelerate settlement or by an alternative method approved by the City's Geotechnical Consultant. · Development of areas most sensitive to settlement shall be postponed for a construction season. The rate of settlement shall be monitored and development (including utilities, curbs, gutters, etc.) delayed until the rate of movement is within acceptable limits of the engineered structures. Structures shall be placed on deep pier foundations. Measures selected shall be evaluated through monitoring of reference points, and development of the site, including roadways and utilities, shall be delayed until the amount of future settlement reaches an acceptable level, approximately one-half inch across a triplex lot. Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Rationale. The Final Project impacts from settlement of artificial fill have been analyzed by two geotechnical experts: the project sponsor's geologist, Gary Pafikh, Parikh & Associates, and Eric McHuron, Ph.D., Geologist, McHuron Geosciences. The project sponsor's geologist prepared a geological report which was reviewed and approved by the City geotechnical consultant. Both of these geologists have extensive experience analyzing and mitigating geologic impacts on San Bruno Mountain and both worked on the geologic plans for Phase I, which have been successfully implemented and performed well during the El Nifio storms of the winter of 1997-98. After review of the project consultant's plan and other information on the site's geologic conditions, the City geotechnical consultant identified revisions which would reduce the impacts of artificial fill proposed under the project sponsor's grading plans to less than significant levels. The required revisions are specified in the mitigation measure. Impact 4.1-6 Secondary E££ects o£ Seismic Shaking Given site geologic conditions, hazards to people or property from groundshaking (including liquefaction, lurching, and lateral spreading) could be mitigated to levels deemed acceptable in a seismically active region through compliance with Uniform Building Code standards and measures required to address other potential impacts on development. Mitigation Measure 4.1-6 Stability analyses shall be conducted on representative slopes based on seismic loading and anticipated groundwater conditions to evaluate the need (if any) for special mitigation measures over and above standard engineering of the slopes in order to mitigate potential impacts on development from seismically induced Page 11 of 43 000096 landsliding and rocksliding. If the stability analysis identifies the need for special mitigation, Mitigation Measures 4.1-3 and 4.1-4 shall be revised to incorporate the additional seismic measures required. These could include one or more of the following: · Keyways for fills shall be placed through soft soils. · Flatter slopes shall be graded with benches. · Rock anchors shall be installed. · Subdrains shall be constructed. · Retaining walls shall be built to minimize fill over sensitive areas. · Buildings shall be designed in conformance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) Zone 4 and City standards. · Rockfalls shall be mitigated by removal, encapsulation, or fences (Mitigation Measure 4.1-4(a)). Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Rationale. The Final Project geologic and soils conditions have been analyzed by two geotechnical experts: the project sponsor's geologist, Gary Parikh, Parikh & Associates, and Eric McHuron, Ph.D., Geologist, McHuron Geosciences. The project sponsor's geologist prepared a geological report which was reviewed and approved by the City geotechnical consultant. Both of these geologists have extensive experience analyzing and mitigating geologic impacts on San Bruno Mountain and both worked on the geologic plans for Phase I, which have been successfully implemented and performed well during the E1 Nifio storms of the winter of 1997-98. Based on review of the project consultant's plan and other information on the site's geologic conditions, the City geotechnical consultant determined that the investigations did not reveal any evidence of soils conditions that may be susceptible to the secondary effect of seismic shaking. However, further stability analysis of proposed slopes is required to determine if any special mitigation measures are needed. The mitigation measure identifies measures which would reduce any impact to less than significant levels. Geological Impacts and Miti~:ation Measures from 1982 EIR The 1982 EIR studied the geologic conditions of the Final Project development area and the impacts and required mitigations for the Final Project plan under the 1982 Specific Plan. Similar to the 1998-99 SEIR, the 1982 EIR identified the following Page 12 of 43 000097 impacts: erosion due to removal of vegetation and soils condition; rock cuts; cut slopes; landslides; and settlement of fill. The 1982 EIR identified mitigation measures to address each of these impacts. To the extent these mitigation measures do not conflict with the measures under the 1998-99 SEIR, they are incorporated herein. The southern part of the Phase III site would be almost entirely on fill. A deep landslide is uphill from the site on the west side of the ravine. Numerous small shallow slides line the east side of the ravine. Some settlement is expected in the fill areas. 1982 Mitiylation Measures The project sponsor has included the following mitigation measures in the Terrabay Development Specific Plan which directly or indirectly relate to geographic and hydrologic impacts. The development plan would implement, where feasible, the recommendations of the Phase II Geotechnical Study already completed (Appendix D of this EIR) and of those proposed to be completed prior to the Final Project design plan. An erosion control plan would be incorporated in the Final Project design which would include on-site siltation basins to prevent downstream sedimentation and construction techniques to prevent soil loss. · The construction period would be kept as brief as possible and phased to reduce the duration of unprotected soil exposure and to minimize vegetation removal. · The graded areas which would not be permanently disturbed would be hydromulched prior to the rainy season to further reduce soil exposure. · Sharp changes in slope would be reduced to eliminate areas where erosion could begin. · Limits of temporary and permanent grading would be clearly delineated during construction to prevent encroachment into areas to be left undisturbed. · Pedestrian and bicycle paths would be constructed to reduce the effects of indiscriminate travel across the Final Project site and adjacent upslope areas. b. Mitigation Measures Recommended by EIR Consultant. The following mitigation measures are specifically directed toward the development of the steeply sloping Final Project area at Terrabay. Many of them reiterate sound practices which would be required by City regulations or followed by responsible engineers and builders. They are recommended by the EIR consultant to assist the City and the project sponsor in creating a development which would be sensitive to the special conditions posed by the Terrabay site. Page 13 of 43 000O93 The preliminary design criteria for each proposed development area provided in the geotechnical feasibility study and general geotechnical summary should be used as a guideline for planning. Detailed geotechnical investigation for each specific Final Project site should be conducted to provide design recommendations for each area. The grading plans should be evaluated after detailed geotechnical information is obtained from the investigation of each project development area. All grading and site preparation should be done under the direct supervision of the soil engineer in accordance with the guide specifications for engineered fill supplied by the geotechnical consultant. · Weak or unstable soils should be over-excavated and replaced with sound material properly keyed and compacted. Fill slopes and cut slopes should be inclined no greater than 2:1 unless specifically reviewed and approved by a qualified soils engineer. Subdrainage and surface drainage should be installed to prevent sloughing or raveling of slopes. Cut slopes should be designed on an individual basis and approved by the City/County. High fill slopes should be overfilled and graded back to obtain stable surfaces. All fill slopes must be compacted to City/County specifications with no loose outer slopes. · Cut and fill slopes should be planted to reduce erosion. Cut slopes should be terraces between benches for silt retention where appropriate. · Storm drainage and subdrainage should be installed and maintained to prevent erosion of fill. · Retaining walls should be subdrained. All retaining walls should be designed to resist pressures appropriate to the size of the backslope. After building sites are graded they should be inspected by a qualified engineer and treated where necessary by over-excavation and backfilling. Moisture prevention treatment should be used beneath building slabs where necessary. Landslides should be repaired by over-excavation, installation of subdrains and engineered backfilling or by the installation of retaining walls or by some other appropriate method. · Disturbed areas should be stabilized as quickly as possible either by vegetation or mechanical methods. · During construction, limits of grading should be defined by fencing. Page 14 of 43 000099 · Both temporary and permanent erosion control measure should be employed. · Slope lengths and gradients should be kept to a minimum. · Runoff should be kept away from disturbed areas using water bars during construction. · Construction sediment should be trapped before it leaves the site. Adherence to grading principles and recommendations to reduce geologic and hydrologic impacts should be made a condition of approval of the Final Project. It should be'the responsibility of the City/County to see that the recommendations are carried out. Grading, drainage and erosion control plans should be submitted to, and reviewed by the City/County for each final subdivision during the phased development of the site. Site-specific soils and foundation studies for each neighborhood would be necessary to complete these plans. · All landslides and areas of weak soil in or near proposed development should be repaired. Although all faults on the site are considered inactive, the maps for each final subdivision located along a suspected fault trace should include verification of inactivity. Setbacks should be provided as necessary. The project sponsor should investigate the availability of landslide insurance programs. Liability for the cost of damage from future landslides on the site to on- site property or adjacent property, should be clarified. · Construction on hillsides should be designed to avoid areas of potential landslide or erosion problems. · Cut and fill should be balanced within each Final Project site, to the extent feasible. · Whenever possible, grading activities during the rainy season should be avoided. Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1982 EIR and 1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Rationale. The Phase II and IH Project geologic and soils conditions were analyzed in the 1982 EIR. Part of this analysis was relied on by the City geotechnical consultant, Eric McHuron, in analyzing geological conditions and proposing mitigation measures for addressing geologic impacts. To the extent the mitigation measures in the 1982 EIR do not conflict with those in the 1998-99 SEIR, they are incorporated herein Page 15 of 43 00 3i00 and will further address and mitigate the geologic impacts of the Final Project to a less than significant level. HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE Impact 4.2-6: Erosion and Sedimentation Higher velocity flows from steep concrete- lined channels into earth-lined ditches would erode and could exceed the capacity of the downstream earthen reach. This would be a significant impact. 4.2.6 Mitigation: The Final Project Precise Plans shall ensure, to the extent required by the development proposed, that no benched earthen channel segments are permitted. The applicant's engineer shall ensure channels shall are rock or concrete-lined. Additionally, the Final Project Precise Plan shall reflect a channel designed with a higher capacity than that of the 1998 project to accommodate some entrained sediments and rocky debris conveyed from the upstream concrete segment. Finding: As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1996 SEIR and 1998-99 SEIR. Additionally, it is unknown at this time whether the impact identified will exist in the Final Project Precise Plan. However, to the extent the impact exists, with the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Rationale: The Phase II and III Project hydrologic conditions were analyzed in the 1998-99 SEll*,. The Project Sponsor's civil engineer, Brian Kangas Faulk, designed the storm drainage facilities for Terrabay Phase II and Phase III. Design criteria for both the storm drain system and debris basins were based on previously established standards cited in documentation by the prior civil engineering consultant. This documentation was appended to the Brian Kangas Faulk report and relied upon by the 1998 SEIR hydrologist. Final Project development will not be known until the Project Sponsor submits a Precise Plan. It is possible that the impact identified herein may not exist in the Final Project as a result of modifications to the Final Project through Precise Plan review. However, if the impact exists, the above mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Precise Plan and conditions of approval. To the extent the mitigation measures in the 1982 EIR do not conflict with those in the 1998-99 SEIR, they are incorporated herein and will further address and mitigate the hydrologic impacts of the Final Project to a less than significant level. Impact 4.2-8: Erosion and Sedimentation Regraded Commons neighborhood roadways left unpaved after project implementation could erode and generate downstream sedimentation. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation 4.2.8: To the extent the identified impact exists in the developed proposed in the Final Project Precise Plan, the project sponsor shall ensure that the Precise Plan reflects that the existing dirt roads located entirely within the limits of the OOOlO1 Page 16 of 43 proposed grading are removed. In addition, where no regrading is proposed, the project sponsor shall restore the original hillslope topography with no installation of artificial drainage facilities. The Final Project shall also be amended to allow for roadway elimination within the proposed slope regrading area. All regraded and restored hillslope areas shall be subjected to appropriate erosion control measures in conformance with an approved Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), as previously required by the 1996 SEIR. Finding: As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1996 SEIR and 1998-99 SEIR. Additionally, it is unknown at this time whether the impact identified will exist in the Final Project Precise Plan. However, to the extent the impact exists, with the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Rationale: The Phase II and III Project hydrologic conditions were analyzed in the 1998-99 SEIR. The Project Sponsor's civil engineer, Brian Kangas Faulk, designed the storm drainage facilities for Terrabay Phase II and Phase III. Design criteria for both the storm drain system and debris basins were based on previously established standards cited in documentation by the prior civil engineering consultant. This documentation was appended to the Brian Kangas Faulk report and relied upon by the 1998 SEIR hydrologist. Final Project development will not be known until the Project Sponsor submits a Precise Plan. It is possible that the impact identified herein may not exist in the Final Project as a result of modifications to the Final Project through Precise Plan review. However, if the impact exists, the above mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Precise Plan and conditions of approval. To the extent the mitigation measures in the 1982 EIR do not conflict with those in the 1998-99 SEIR, they are incorporated herein and will further address and mitigate the hydrologic impacts of the Final Project to a less than significant level. Impact 4.2-9: Erosion and Sedimentation Retaining unprotected roadways in the Point neighborhood after project implementation could yield substantial sediment volumes. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation 4,2.9: The Project Sponsor shall adopt one of two options for mitigating the identified impact. The Precise Plans for the Final Project shall reflect the removal of the entire length of any roadway within the proposed limits of project grading or winterize the roadway to County standards to be used as a fire road by the California Department of Forestry. Said removal or winterization shall be done with the approval of the San Bruno Mountain HCP coordinator and San Mateo County Department of Parks and Recreation and subject to monitoring thereafter by those entities. Project Sponsor must also restore the original hillslope topography, revegetate the restored slopes using native species and implement erosion control methods. Page 17 of 43 000102 In the alternative, the Precise Plans shall reflect that the existing unpaved roadways are regraded to protect them against erosion and Project Sponsor shall be required to maintain the regraded roadways as a condition of approval. Erosion protection shall be accomplished by using fortified shoulder drainage ditches and frequent water bar construction. The City shall require long-term monitoring by the entity overseeing debris basin performance. Finding: As described in the above mitigation measures, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1996 SEIR and 1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Rationale: The Phase II and III Project hydrologic conditions were analyzed in the 1998-99 SEIR. The Project Sponsor's civil engineer, Brian Kangas Faulk, designed the storm drainage facilities for Terrabay Phase II and Phase III. Design criteria for both the storm drain system and debris basins were based on previously established standards cited in documentation by the prior civil engineering consultant. This documentation was appended to the Brian Kangas Faulk report and relied upon by the 1998 SEIR hydrologist. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Additionally, to the extent the mitigation measures in the 1982 EIR do not conflict with those in the 1998-99 SEIR, they are incorporated herein and will further address and mitigate the hydrologic impacts of the Final Project to a less than significant level. Impact 4.2.10: Erosion and Sedimentation Drainage facility connections omitted from 17 lots proposed in the Point neighborhood could result in localized erosion and downstream sedimentation if left unprotected. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation 4.2.10: To the extent the identified impact exists in the developed proposed in the Final Project Precise Plan, the Vesting Tentative Map and Preliminary Grading Plan sheets 15 and 16 shall be revised to add transitional storm drain links between outlet drains from proposed Point Lots 167B-175B to line A. Finding: As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1996 SEIR and 1998-99 SEIR. Additionally, it is unknown at this time whether the impact identified will exist in the Final Project Precise Plan. However, to the extent the impact exists, with the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Rationale: The Phase II and III Project hydrologic conditions were analyzed in the 1998-99 SEIR. The Project Sponsor's civil engineer, Brian Kangas Faulk, designed the storm drainage facilities for Terrabay Phase II and Phase III. Design criteria for both the storm drain system and debris basins were based on previously established standards Page 18 of 43 00,3,103 cited in documentation by the prior civil engineering consultant. This documentation was appended to the Brian Kangas Faulk report and relied upon by the 1998 SEIR hydrologist. Final Project development will not be known until the Project Sponsor submits a Precise Plan. It is possible that the impact identified herein may not exist in the Final Project as a result of modifications to the Final Project through Precise Plan review. However, if the impact exists, the above mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Precise Plan and conditions of approval. To the extent the mitigation measures in the 1982 EIR do not conflict with those in the 1998-99 SEIR, they are incorporated herein and will further address and mitigate the hydrologic impacts of the Final Project to a less than significant level. Impact 4.2-11: Erosion and Sedimentation Design of the southern Phase HI debris basin and its diversion swale could result in significant deposition of sedimentation which would reroute water discharge around or over the deposited material and trigger downslope erosion. This would be a potentially significant impact. Miti~:ation 4.2.11: The Project Sponsor shall ensure that the Final Project Precise Plan provides for installation of a third debris basin at the base of the steep reach of the middle channel. Project Sponsor shall redesign the retaining wall proposed as part of the project to extend north and south to the adjacent debris basins to accommodate debris and water overflow from the new central basin. Inclusion of the third basin would reduce the collective long term costs of sediment / debris basin maintenance at the three sites through its more hydraulically efficient delivery characteristics. It is unknown whether the impact identified will exist in the Final Project as identified in the Precise Plan. However, to the extent the impact exists, Project Sponsor shall incorporate the mitigation measures referenced herein as a condition of approval for the Precise Plan. Finding:: As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1996 SEIR and 1998-99 SEIR. Additionally, it is unknown at this time whether the impact identified will exist in the Final Project Precise Plan. However, to the extent the impact exists, with the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Rationale: The Phase II and III Project hydrologic conditions were analyzed in the 1998-99 SEIR. The Project Sponsor's civil engineer, Brian Kangas Faulk, designed the storm drainage facilities for Terrabay Phase II and Phase III. Design criteria for both the storm drain system and debris basins were based on previously established standards cited in documentation by the prior civil engineering consultant. This documentation was appended to the Brian Kangas Faulk report and relied upon by the 1998 SEIR hydrologist. Final Project development will not be known until the Project Sponsor submits a Precise Plan. It is possible that the impact identified herein may not exist in the Final Project as a result of modifications to the Final Project through Precise Plan review. However, if the impact exists, the above mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Precise Plan and conditions of approval. To the extent the mitigation measures in the 1982 EIR do not conflict with those in the 1998-99 SEIR, they are incorporated herein Page 19 of 43 000104 and will further address and mitigate the hydrologic impacts of the Final Project to a less than significant level. 1996 SEIR Supplemental Impact D-2 Stormwater Regulations. City adoption of a "Stormwater Management and Discharge Control" program as Chapter 14.04 of the Municipal Code suggests a revision to water quality related mitigation measures recommended in the 1982 EIR. If these mitigation standards are not met, the Final Project could result in a potentially significant water quality impact. Mitigation Measure D-2 Stormwater Regulations. In addition to the measures recommended in the 1982 EIR for water quality impacts (see Table 21), require the Final Project applicant to: (1) Comply with all applicable provisions of the City of South San Francisco "Storm Water Management and Discharge Control" program (Chapter 14.04 of the Municipal Code) and five year management plan: (2) As required for projects involving construction on sites of more than five acres, file a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board, in order to be covered by the city's general NPDES permit; or apply to the State Water Resources Control Board for an individual NPDES permit; (3) Prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for city approval and filing with the NPDES permit, detailing construction activities that could cause pollutants and describing measures/practices that will be undertaken to ,control the pollutants. The SWPPP should, at a minimum, include activities that will: stabilize areas denuded due to constructions with temporary or permanent seeding, mulching, vegetative buffer strips, plastic covering, and/or other measures; · address the use of sediment controls and filtration measures; protect adjacent properties and storm drains by use of vegetative buffer strips, sediment bamers or filters, mulching, and other appropriate measures; · address the use of proper construction material and construction waste storage, handling, and disposal practices; and include detailed Post Construction Treatment Controls Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect the storm drains and water quality after construction is completed. Page 20 of 43 000105 Finding,. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1996 SEIR and 1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Rationale. Both the City and State regulate stormwater management and discharge to ensure no adverse effect on water quality. The Final Project will result in no significant adverse impact with the implementation of the water quality control measures in the 1982 EIR and the following measures: compliance with local and state regulations including Chapter 14.04 of the City Municipal Code; compliance with the NPDES permit requirements; and the preparation and city approval of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan with the controls and measures specified in the above mitigation measure. BIOLOGY Impact 4.3-1 Vegetation Removal, Wildlife Habitat Loss, and Landscape Compatibility Grading associated with Final Project implementation would require removal of existing vegetation and associated wildlife habitat in areas proposed for development. Loss of non-native grassland would not be considered significant, but impacts on native freshwater marsh and riparian habitat (see Impact and Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 below) and remnant stands of native grasslands would be significant. Proposed landscaping and restoration of graded slopes appear to be compatible with open space designations on parts of the site, but without a salvage component to the proposed restoration plan anticipated impacts would continue to be significant. Miti~:ation Measure 4.3-1 (a) Preservation and in-kind replacement of these wetland-related habitat types shall be considered as part of the mitigation plan called for in Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(a). If preservation is determined to be infeasible, any replacement mitigation shall provide for creation of a permanent spring which replicates the flows from the perennial spring on the site. The replacement spring shall be located adjacent to the County open space lands to ensure accessibility to terrestrial wildlife populations on San Bruno Mountain. The project sponsor shall be required to fulfill the landowner developer obligations identified by the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan with respect to the site. The proposed Restoration Plan for the Final Project shall be revised to include an additional component which provides for the selective use of native plant material that otherwise would be eliminated as a result of grading and development. The scope of the salvage effort shall be determined by the project sponsor's vegetation specialist responsible for implementing the Restoration Plan and shall consider proven success rates and availability from other sources in targeting specific species. Methods of plant material salvage may include transplanting, seed collection and propagation, and use of cutting from on-site vegetation. Transplanting shall be performed during the optimum period necessary to ensure plant survival, generally in the fall and early spring months, with salvage material stored in a temporary growing area if necessary and eventually Page 21 of 43 000106 transplanted onto slopes where restoration is to occur following final grading and soil preparation. Any plant salvage operation and seed collection shall be restricted to the limits of final grading to prevent the further loss of native species in permanent open space areas. (b) Any pedestrian trails linking the site with the open space lands of San Bruno Mountain preferably shall follow the alignment of existing fire trails to minimize disturbance to vegetative cover and shall avoid areas of native grasslands, freshwater seeps, and larval host plants for callippe silverspot butterfly. Final pedestrian trail alignments shall be approved by the Habitat Conservation Plan coordinator. Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Rationale. This impact only addresses the removal of existing vegetation and native grasslands and plants that are not special status species. The impacts on special status species (which include only the callippe silverspot butterfly and Mission Blue butterfly), and the impact on jurisdictional wetland habitats are addressed below in Impact and Mitigation Measures 4.3-2 and 4.3-3, respectively. The loss of native, non- special status species plant and grasslands is only a potentially significant impact due to the preservation, dedication and restoration requirements of the HCP, which will mitigate the impacts of grading on the Final Project site. Although the implementation of the HCP would likely mitigate this impact to less than significant, the 1998-99 SEIR also recommends a revision to the Final Project Restoration Plan to add an additional component for selective use of native plant material that otherwise would be eliminated as a result of grading and development. The Final Project contains less grading and as a result less native grasslands would be removed from the site. Habitat would be preserved on the Preservation Parcel and the Recreation Parcel. Additionally, the HCP fence boundary has been moved to include the habitat within the HCP area. The mitigation measures contained in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR still apply to any development proposed by the Final Project. The perennial spring is proposed to be retained as a part of the Final Project. The Final Project would result in less biological impacts than what is identified and analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. The Final Project incorporates this mitigation measure and therefore the impact from grading and development on these biological resources is less than significant. Impact 4.3-2 Impacts on Special-Status Species: Except for callippe silverspot butterfly and mission blue butterfly, no impacts on populations of other special-status plant and animal species are anticipated. While the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) fully addresses potential impacts of anticipated development on mission blue, amendments to the HCP would be necessary for the recently listed callippe silverspot. Further loss of suitable habitat for callippe silverspot on the site would be a significant Page 22 of 43 000107 impact. It is important to note that the Final Project has been designed to avoid any take of Viola. The HCP fence has been relocated on the Commons Parcel to add 1.74 acres containing Viola to the HCP areas. Additionally the Preservation Parcel, which contains Viola, will be preserved in Open Space. Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 The project sponsor shall be required to fulfill the landowner developer obligations identified by the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan with respect to the site. If San Mateo County and the cities of South San Francisco, Brisbane and Daly City (co-applicants) do not obtain an amended incidental take permit which includes callippe silverspot butterfly, the Final Project must be redesigned to avoid any take, as defined in the federal Endangered Species Act, of the callippe silverspot or its habitat, including avoiding all larval host plants. If the permit is amended to include the callippe silverspot, the landowner shall incorporate any new permit conditions into the Final Project. The following measures also shall be implemented to further minimize potential impacts of the Final Project on the callippe silverspot: · If an amendment to the incidental take permit to include the callippe silverspot butterfly is not obtained: 1. Final Project development shall not result in the "take" (as defined in the federal Endangered Species Act) of the callippe silverspot butterfly or its habitat, including redesign of the Final Project plans to avoid disturbance to and development of areas supporting populations of the larval host plant (Viola pedunculata). 2. A supplemental survey shall be conducted in spring 1999 to verify the presence or absence of any larval host plants (viola pedunculata) on the Final Project site. 3. If permitted under the federal Endangered Species Act, the proposed Restoration Plan shall be revised to include a component to salvage and transplant existing adult nectar plants (especially natives such as Monardella) which otherwise would be lost due to grading and development in accordance with Mitigation Measure 4.3-1(b). Salvage material shall be used as part of a propagation program to reestablish adult nectar plants on restored slopes and in additional grassland habitat where they currently are absent. 4. All stands of larval host plant which are to be preserved on the Final Project site should be adequately protected from construction-related disturbance. These locations should be identified as a "no disturbance zone" on all grading plans. The perimeter of stands of larval host plants within 100 feet of proposed grading and construction should be fenced prior to initiating of grading to prevent possible damage and loss. Page 23 of 43 0001O8 5. Signs shall be prepared, in cooperation with the San Mateo County Parks Development and HCP coordinator, and installed along trails and other appropriate locations warning park users against illegal activities (such as poaching). 6. Appropriate dust control measures shall be implemented as a component of the Final Project's sedimentation and erosion control plans in order to minimize construction-generated dust (as required by Mitigation Measures 4.1-2(c) and 4.5-1). Measures shall include frequent watering of graded area, equipment, and haul roads to minimize dust and control its dispersal. If an amendment to the incidental take permit to include the callippe silverspot butterfly is obtained, the landowner/developer shall comply with all the conditions of the incidental take permit amendment, and mitigation measures 3, 5 and 6 above to the extent they do not conflict with conditions to the amended incidental take permit. Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Rationale. As set forth in the County of San Mateo application for an amendment to the incidental take permit issued under the HCP, the callippe silverspot butterfly was a species of concern under the HCP which included extensive mitigations to limit impacts on this butterfly and its habitat. Since the callippe silverspot butterfly was designated a species of concern under the HCP, it receives protections equal to those provided for the Mission Blue butterfly under the HCP. Since the callippe butterfly was not listed as a federally threatened or endangered species at the time of the adoption of the HCP and issuance of the incidental take permit, it was not included in the incidental take permit. If the incidental take permit is amended to include the callippe silverspot butterfly, taking of the butterfly or its habitat would be authorized under the law, subject to the permit conditions, including compliance with the protection policies of the HCP. Therefore, impacts of the Final Project on the callippe silverspot or its habitat would be less than significant. If the incidental take permit is not amended, the Final Project grading and development may not result in the "take" of callippe silverspot or its habitat. Therefore, the mitigation measure mandates no "take" (as defined in the federal Endangered Species Act) including avoidance of all larval host plants. The Final Project has been revised from that contained in the 1998-99 SEIR to include enhanced protection for the callippe silverspot and its habitat. The 1998-99 SEIR biologist has reviewed the modifications and stated that the additional mitigation in the Final Project will result in a less than significant impact. Page 24 of 43 oooloa Impact 4.3-3 Loss of Jurisdictional Wetland Habitat Implementation of the Final Project would eliminate approximately 1/10 of an acre of streams on the Phase III commercial site. Only 0.088 acres of streams are located on the Final Project site. Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 (a) The Final Project was redesigned to avoid jurisdictional wetland habitat. (b) If complete avoidance of jurisdictional wetlands is not feasible, a wetland mitigation plan shall be prepared by the project sponsor's wetland consultant to provide for their replacement. The plan shall include the following details: · All plantings to be used as part of any replacement mitigation shall be restricted to native wetland, riparian, and adjacent upland species. Site preparation and revegetation procedures, planting design, implementation schedule, and funding sources shall be defined to ensure long-term management of the overall wetland mitigation plan. Performance criteria, maintenance and long-term management responsibilities, monitoring requirements, and contingency measures, if performance standards and mitigation goals are not met, shall be specified. Replacement habitat shall be monitored for a minimum of five years until all success criteria are met. Before issuance of any grading or building permit for the Final Project, the mitigation plan shall be reviewed and approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game, and Regional Water Quality Control Board subject to their authority under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code, and Section 401 Certification, respectively. c) A detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be prepared and implemented during construction of the site. The plan shall contain detailed measures to control erosion of stockpiled earth and exposed soil, minimize construction-generated dust, provide for revegetation of graded slopes before the first rainy season following construction, and specify procedures for monitoring of the plan' s effectiveness. The revegetation component of the plan shall be consistent with the revised Restoration Plan. Finding. As described above, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified modifications to the Final Project and mitigation measures, the impact is less than significant. Rationale. For wetlands, the 1998-99 SEIR identified the Phase II and Ill impact as a potentially significant for the Final Project and cumulative impact. Under the 0001i0 Page 25 of 43 significance criteria for wetlands impacts under the Draft EIR "cumulative adverse effect of seemingly minor changes to wetlands ... are a potentially significant effect ... [because] wetlands are recognized as important features on a regional and national level". Since the impact on wetlands is identified as a potentially significant cumulative impact and a significant Final Project impact, the mitigation and project modifications would result in no net loss of wetlands due to the Final Project. In the Final Project, more wetlands and perennial springs are preserved as a result of the Preservation Parcel being held in undisturbed open space. As a point of comparison, the Certified 1998-99 SEIR (Figure 4.3-1 and the text on page 153) identifies 2.026 acres of wetlands on the Phase II and III site (the majority being on the Phase III-commercial site). Impact 4.3-3 states that the 1998 Project would eliminate all the remaining wetlands on the site. The Final Project implements mitigation measure 4.3-3(a). The office building proposed by the Final Terrabay Specific Plan would affect a portion of the perennial spring (approximately 0.10 of an acre see page 11-33 of the Proposed Final Terrabay Specific Plan) near the Point area. The City's hook ramp project would affect approximately 0.86 acre of wetlands. The proposed mitigation plan is a 2:1 replacement on site in the Preservation Parcel area. Under the mitigation measure and project modifications, the requirement of avoidance and/or replacement will result in no net loss of wetlands due to the Final Project and no Final Project cumulative impact, The mitigation measure sets forth the required elements of the wetland mitigation plan which is subject to review and approval by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish & Game, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. With the project modifications, avoidance and/or replacement as part of a wetland mitigation plan, the loss of wetlands is mitigated and the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. 1996 SEIR Biological Impacts. Development of the Terrabay Project would have a number of biological impacts varying in significance. The most noteworthy of these impacts is the elimination of the habitat currently used by a federally-listed endangered species (Mission Blue Butterfly) as well as the Callippe Silverspot butterfly. Elimination of 126 acres of annual grassland will also have an impact on those other wildlife species that occasionally use or are dependent upon that habitat. In particular, the amount of raptor foraging habitat would be reduced. Other carnivores such as grey fox would experience a similar modification in available hunting territory, especially due to increased human and potential domestic animal activity. 1996 SEIR Mitigation Measures. The Final Project shall comply with the Habitat Conservation Plan which provides explicit guidelines for mitigating the adverse biological impacts of the Final Project, particularly those on species of concern. In addition, the Final Project must comply with the conditions of the Section 10A Permit which authorizes the taking of certain endangered species. Impacts on vegetation and wildlife are also mitigated by clearly delineating the limits of temporary and permanent grading during construction to prevent encroachment into areas that are required to remain undisturbed under the Habitat Conservation Plan. Page 26 of 43 00011i Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1982 EIR and 1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Specifically, the Final Project includes mitigation measures to substantially lessen the loss of protected habitat be designating areas of habitat as open space. Additionally, the Final Project includes a restoration of lands program as a condition of approval. Rationale. The 1982 EIR and 1998-99 SEIR analyzed the general impacts of development of the Final Project area on biology. In addition to those mitigation measures required under the 1998-99 SEIR, the primary mitigation in the 1982 EIR is compliance with the Habitat Conservation Plan which includes a series of measures to reduce biological impacts to less than significant, including, but not limited to, the dedication of over 132 acres of permanent open space for habitat protection and conservation. The Final Project incorporates compliance with the Habitat Conservation Plan and the dedication of open space containing protected habitat as conditions of approval. Therefore, this impact is reduced to less than significant. TRAFFIC Impact 4.4-1 Year 2000 Base Case plus Phases H + III Freeway Impacts Phase 11 and III traffic combined would increase volumes by more than one percent on segments of U.S. 101 freeway already operating unacceptably at LOS F. Southbound: north of the off-ramp to Bayshore Boulevard (AM = 1.25 percent/PM 2.43 percent increases) from the new Bayshore Boulevard on-ramp to the Dubuque on-ramp (PM = 2.45 percent increase) and south of the Dubuque on-ramp (AM = 1.66 percent increase) (Segments 1, 3 and 4 in Exhibit 4.4-2). Northbound: from the Grand Avenue on-ramp to the Dubuque off-ramp (AM = 1.71 percent/PM = 2.76 percent increases), from the Oyster Point on-ramp to the Bayshore Boulevard off-ramp (PM -- 1.60 percent increase) and north of the Bayshore Boulevard off-ramp (AM = 1.65 percent/PM = 1.75 percent increases) (Segments 5, 7 and 8 in Exhibit 4.4-2). Phase II and III traffic would change operation from LOS E to an unacceptable LOS F: · Northbound: from the Oyster Point northbound on-ramp to the Bayshore Boulevard northbound off-ramp during the AM peak period (Segment 7 in Exhibit 4.4-2). · Southbound: from the Oyster Point southbound on-ramp to the Grand Avenue interchange during the PM peak period (Segment 4 in Exhibit 4.4-2). Mitieation Measure 4.4-1 The 1998-99 SEIR proposes .the following mitigation measures: the project sponsor shall reduce the amounts of development proposed within 000112 Page 27 of 43 the Phase II and Phase III sites and/or shall assist with funding for regional circulation system improvements. The 1998-99 SEIR states that, based upon the freeway segments receiving the biggest significant impact due to the Proposed Project, Phase 1/+ III trip generation would need to be reduced at least 64 percent. On May 12, 1999, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Exhibit B, finding that the 1998-99 SEIR mitigation measures are infeasible. However, the Final Project includes the following mitigation measures to reduce these freeway impacts: 1) A Transportation Demand Management Program ("TDM Program"); 2) a bus stop and shelter to encourage transit use; and 3) bicycle lanes. Finding. Even with the above described mitigation measures, the significant impact of Phase II and cumulative development, including Phase III, on the US 101 freeway segments identified above likely will not be reduced to a less than significant level. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, as set forth in Exhibit B, must be adopted upon approval of the Final Project. Rationale. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the 1998- 99 SEIR mitigation measures are infeasible. Caltrans has no plans to widen this segment of the freeway and widening is infeasible. A 64% or greater reduction in units for the Final Project is also infeasible. The Final Project's TDM Program, bus stop/shelter and bicycle lanes will have the potential to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips. Nevertheless, even with this reduction in peak hour period automobile use (as explained above), it is unlikely that this measure would improve operations along these freeway segments to acceptable levels. Imtmct 4.4-2 Year 2010 Base Case tvlus Phases H +III Intersection Impact AM peak hour Base Case operation plus Proposed Project traffic would change operation from an unacceptable LOS E to an acceptable LOS D at the Sister Cities Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Oyster Point Boulevard Intersection (a beneficial impact), but acceptable LOS D PM peak hour operation would change to an unacceptable LOS F. Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 The project sponsor shall provide a fair share contribution towards restripping the Westbound (Oyster Point Blvd.) intersection approach (to provide a single left-turn lane, two exclusive through-lanes, and a shared through/right-turn lane). A contribution also would be needed towards a third westbound departure lane (on Sister Cities Blvd.) which then would merge into the two existing departure lanes just west of the intersection. In addition, although not strictly needed as a mitigation measure for capacity reasons, restripping is also recommended for the southbound (Bayshore Boulevard) intersection approach (to provide an exclusive right, a shared through/fight, a through, and two left-turn lanes). Based upon total traffic growth to 2010, the Proposed Project's fair share contribution would be 21 percent of the improvement costs. Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1998-99 SEIR. Page 28 of 43 000113 With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Rationale. Based on the traffic analysis in the 1998-99 SEIR, full implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 would result in PM peak hour LOS D operation, which is acceptable level of service under City standards, and would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Impact 4.4-3 Year 2010 Base Case plus Phases H + III Intersection Impact Proposed Project Phase II + III traffic would change 2010 AM peak hour operation at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp Intersection from an unacceptable LOS E to an acceptable LOS D (a beneficial impact) but would change acceptable PM peak hour LOS D operation to an unacceptable LOS F. Mitigation Measure 4.4-3 The project sponsor shall provide a fair share contribution towards construction of a second exclusive right-turn lane on the westbound (Oyster Point Boulevard) approach and a second exclusive left-turn lane on the northbound (Dubuque Avenue) intersection approach. Both measures would require widening existing structures. Based upon total traffic growth to 2010, the Proposed Project's fair share contribution would be five percent of the improvement costs. Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Rationale. Based on the traffic analysis in the 1998-99 SEIR, full implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-3 would result in PM Peak Hour LOS D operation and would reduce the impact of the Final Project to a less than significant level. Impact 4.4-4 Year 2010 Base Case plus Phases H and III Freeway Impact Phase II and III Proposed Project traffic combined would increase Base Case volumes by more than one percent on U.S. 101 freeway segments already operating unacceptably at LOS F. Southbound: north of the off-ramp to Bayshore Boulevard (AM - 1.10 percent/PM = 2.09 percent increases), from the new Bayshore Boulevard hook on-ramp to the Dubuque on-ramp (PM = 2.19 percent increase) and south of the Dubuque on-ramp (AM -- 1.48 percent/PM = 2.00 percent increases) (Segments 1, 3 and 4 in Exhibit 4.4-2) Northbound: from the Grand Avenue on-ramp to the Dubuque off-ramp (AM = 1.50 percent/PM = 2.41 percent increases) from the Oyster Point on-ramp to the Bayshore Boulevard off-ramp (AM = 1.34 percent/PM =1.39 percent increases) and north of the Bayshore Boulevard off-ramp (AM =1.46 percent/PM = 1.51 percent increases) (Segments 5.7 and 8 in Exhibit 4.4-2). Page 29 of 43 000114 Mitigation Measure 4.4-4 The project sponsors shall reduce the amounts of development proposed within the Phase II and Phase 1II sites and/or shall assist with funding for regional circulation system improvements. The 1998-99 SEIR states that, based upon the freeway segment receiving the biggest significant impact due to the Proposed project, Phase II + III trip generation would need to be reduced at least 59 percent. For the reasons set forth in Exhibit B, Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council finds that these mitigation measures are infeasible. However, the Final Project includes the following mitigation measures to reduce these freeway impacts: the project sponsor has included as part of the Final Project, measures to reduce the number of single-occupancy vehicle trips by promoting and facilitating the use of alternative modes of transportation. For the Final Project measures include a bus stop and shelter to encourage transit use and bicycle lanes. Finding. The Final Project proposes less residential development than the project analyzed in the 1998-99 SEIR. Even with the reduction in residential units and the implementation of a TDM Program, bus stop/shelter and bicycle lane, the significant impact of the Final Project and cumulative development, including Phase III, on the US 101 freeway segments identified above likely will not be reduced to a less than significant level. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, as set forth in Exhibit B, must be adopted upon approval of the Final Project. Rationale. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the 1998- 99 SEIR mitigation measures are infeasible. Caltrans has no plans to widen this segment of the freeway and widening is infeasible. A 59% or greater reduction in units from the Proposed Project is also infeasible. However, the bus stop and shelter, and bicycle lanes incorporated into the Final Project will reduce impacts. The Final Project's TDM Program, bus stop and shelter and bicycle lanes will have the potential to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips. Nevertheless, even with this reduction in peak hour period automobile use (as explained above), it is unlikely that this measure would improve operations along these freeway segments to acceptable levels. Impact 4.4-5 Year 2010 Base Case plus Phase H + III Ramp Impacts Proposed Project combined traffic would increase PM peak hour Base Case over-capacity operation by 6.8 percent on the Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard. Mitigation Measure 4.4-5 The project sponsor shall reduce Phase II and III development trip generation. Approximately an 85 percent reduction in Terrabay trip generation would be required to reduce the project traffic impact to less than a 1 percent increase. Alternatively, the sponsor shall provide a fair share contribution towards construction of a second on-ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 freeway. Based upon total traffic growth to 2010, the Proposed Project's fair share contribution would be 12 percent of the improvement costs. For the reasons set forth in Exhibit B, Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council finds that these mitigation measures are infeasible. However, the Final Project includes the following mitigation measures to reduce these impacts: the project sponsor has included as part of the Final Project, 000115 Page 30 of 43 measures to reduce the number of single-occupancy vehicle trips by promoting and facilitating the use of alternative modes of transportation. For the Final Project, measures include a TDM Program, bus stop and shelter to encourage transit use and bicycle lanes. Findinl~, Even with the inclusion of a bus stop and shelter and bicycle lanes, the significant impact of thc Final Project and cumulative development, including Phase III, on the freeway on-ramp identified above likely will not be reduced to a less than significant level. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, as set forth in Exhibit B, must be adopted upon approval of the Final Project. Rationale. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the 1998- 99 SEIR mitigation measures are infeasible. Caltrans has no plans to widen the freeway on-ramp and widening is infeasible. A 85% or greater reduction in units for the Final Project is also infeasible. However, the TDM Program, bus stop and shelter and bicycle lanes incorporated into the Final Project will reduce impacts by potentially reducing single occupancy vehicle trips. Nevertheless, even with this reduction in peak hour period automobile use (as explained above), it is unlikely that this measure would improve operations on the on-ramp to acceptable levels. lmt~act 4.4-12 Potential Storage Distance Deficiencies Between Intersections Queues may potentially exceed available storage capacity at three to six intersections at buildout of the Final Project, depending on analysis methodology. Mitigation 4.4-12 Interconnected and coordinated signal operation and flow between these four closely spaced intersections along Bayshore Boulevard shall be provided in order to preclude storage deficiencies. Due to right-of-way limitations along Bayshore Boulevard, provision of dual left-turn lanes is not considered feasible on the northbound approaches to the Terrabay Phase III site driveways or on the southbound approach to the U.S. 101 southbound hook on-ramp. Also the northbound left-turn lane on the approach to the Terrabay North Access could not be lengthened without shortening the southbound left-turn lane on the approach to the U.S. 101 southbound on- ramp. Traffic volumes and queues shall be monitored at these intersections as development occurs on the Terrabay site to determine if the turn lane lengths and signal timing should be adjusted. Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Rationale. Based on the most conservative methodology for analyzing potential storage deficiency impacts, the 1998-99 SEIR concludes that there is a potential for storage deficiency impacts at certain intersections. However, the significance of that impact will not be able to be determined until full implementation of the project. Therefore, the Mitigation Measure requires monitoring of those identified intersections Page 31 of 43 000116 upon build-out of the Final Project and proposes specific types of mitigation measures that can be implemented to address this potentially significant impact. The Final Project includes a TDM Program, targeted marketing of the residential units to employees of the commercial tenant, bicycle lanes and a bus stop/shelter. Because the Final Project incorporates monitoring of these intersections upon full Project implementation and the identification of specific mitigation measures to address the impact if found significant, the impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. Impact 4.4-13 Year 2020 Impacts o£ Construction o£ Hook Ramps to Address Cumulative Impacts o£ Phase H on Freeway Mainline To the extent the hook ramps construction is, in part, necessary to address impacts of Final Project and cumulative development, including Phase III, the impacts of the construction of the hook ramps are addressed below. Traffic from the new on-ramp would increase AM and PM peak hour volumes by more than one percent on the U.S. 101 Freeway Southbound Mainline from the new southbound buttonhook on-ramp to the southbound on-ramp from Dubuque Avenue, a segment about 3,500 feet long that would already be experiencing unacceptable LOS F operation. This is a significant unavoidable impact. Mitigation Measure 4.4-13 No mitigation is feasible other than not constructing the hook ramps. Finding. There is no feasible mitigation measure to reduce the impacts of the traffic from the hook ramps to less than significant. Therefore, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations on May 12, 1999. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was adopted by the City Council for the Hook Ramps project on October 11, 2000, Resolution # 00-123. Therefore, no further analysis is required of this impact. Impact 4.4-14 Year 2020 Impacts of Construction of Hook Ramps to Address Cumulative Impacts of Phase H on Freeway Ramps To the extent the hook ramps construction is, in part, necessary to address impacts of Final Project and cumulative development, including Phase III, the impacts of the construction of the hook ramps are addressed below. Increased traffic due to the hook ramp project would increase AM peak hour off-ramp volumes by more than one percent at the diverge of the Southbound U.S. 101 Freeway Off-Ramp to Bayshore Boulevard where diverge traffic flow operation would already be an unacceptable LOS F. This is a significant unavoidable impact. Mitigation Measure 4.4-14. No mitigation is feasible other than not constructing the hook ramps. Finding. There is no feasible mitigation measure to reduce the impacts of the traffic from the hook ramps to less than significant. Therefore, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations on May 12, 1999. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was adopted by the City Council for the Hook Ramps project on October 11, 2000, Resolution # 00-123. Therefore, no further analysis is required of this impact. Page 32 of 43 000117 Supplemental Mitigation Measure T-17. Year 2010 - Phases H and III: Hillside Boulcvard/Serramonte Boulevard. Require that Project Phases H and/or III provide a reasonable fair share contribution towards improvements needed at this intersection by 2010 if it is operating unacceptably during the peak hour. The contribution should be in proportion to the volume of project traffic passing through the intersection in relation to the total traffic volume. In addition, any major new development projects in the town of Colma located along or in close proximity to Hillside Boulevard should be required to provide their fair share contribution towards needed improvements along Hillside Boulevard in South San Francisco. Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1996 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Rationale. Although the Existing Project will contribute a 3-4% increase in traffic volumes at the identified intersection, the impact is only potentially significant due to the current acceptable level of service at the intersection. The mitigation measure requires monitoring of the intersection to see if it is operating at unacceptable levels in the year 2010. If it is, the Final Project shall pay its fair share of the cost of improvements of the intersection to make the level of service acceptable. AIR OUALITY Impact 4.5-1 Short-Term Construction Impacts Dust generated during construction periods could result in both health and nuisance effects. Although temporary, this would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) recommends the following measures for large construction areas located near sensitive receptors. The BAAQMD typically determines the level of significance based on the control measures implemented. These measures constitute all feasible control measures, with the addition of a disturbance coordinator to monitor compliance with the control measures and respond to neighborhood complaints. The disturbance coordinator shall be retained by the City and paid for by the project sponsor. The following controls shall be implemented throughout the construction area: All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily and more often when conditions warrant. This measure would reduce emissions by at least 50 percent. All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials shall be covered, or all trucks shall be required to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. Page 33 of 43 000118 All unpaved access roads and parking areas at construction sites shall be paved, watered three times daily, or treated with (non-toxic) soil stabilizers. All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites shall be swept daily (with water sweepers). Streets shall be swept daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. Inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more) shall be hydroseeded or treated with (non-toxic) soil stabilizers. Exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) shall be enclosed, covered, watered twice daily, or treated with (non-toxic) soil binders. Traffic speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph), Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. Disturbed areas shall be replanted with vegetation as quickly as possible (within one month of the disturbance). Wheel washers shall be installed for all exiting trucks, or the tires or tracks shall be washed off all trucks and equipment leaving the site. Excavation and grading activity shall be suspended when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph and cause visible clouds to extend beyond the construction site. Activities shall be suspended until the disturbance coordinator decides that the emissions from construction activities would be controlled (such as through additional watering or installation of wind fences). This measure could reduce dust emissions by up to 80 percent. Wind breaks shall be installed, or trees / vegetative wind breaks shall be plant on windward sides(s) of construction areas, if conditions warrant, to prevent visible dust clouds from extending beyond the site. The area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity shall be limited at any one time. A disturbance coordinator, retained by the City and paid for by the project sponsor, shall be designated to be responsible for monitoring compliance with dust control measures and to respond to neighborhood concerns regarding air pollutant emissions (primarily dust) during construction. The project sponsor and coordinator shall be responsible for operating a neighborhood "hotline" for neighbors to voice complaints regarding air Page 34 of 43 000119 quality during construction. Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Rationale. The BAAQMD established standard dust control measures to mitigate the effects of dust generated from large construction projects, which is only a temporary project impact limited to certain types of construction activities. The BAAQMD has determined that the implementation of these mitigation measures will result in a reduction in impacts to a level of less than significant. The Mitigation Measure requires the implementation of all feasible control measures, plus the addition of a disturbance coordinator to monitor compliance with the control measures and respond to neighborhood complaints. Pursuant to BAAQMD standards, the implementation of the Mitigation Measure will result in a less than significant impact. Impact 4.5-3 Changes in Regional Long-Term Air Ouali~ Direct and indirect emissions of air pollutants associated with full buildout of the Terrabay Project could interfere with the efforts within the region to attain ozone and PM10 air quality standards. Thus, while the incremental change between the currently and previously proposed Phase II and III projects would be less-than-significant, the cumulative impact of full Terrabay Project development (Phases I, II, and III) would exceed standards tightened since examination in the 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR. Mitigation Measure 4.5-3. Air pollutant emissions which would be regionally significant could be reduced from motor vehicles through a reduction in vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, and reduced traffic congestion. The following measures either are included in the Terrabay Project design or shall be implemented by the project sponsor to reduce regionally significant air pollutant emissions. Coordinated traffic signals shall be installed to provide more efficient levels-of- service at intersections significantly impacted by Final Project traffic. The project includes roadway improvements to Sister Cities Boulevard which have already been constructed. Additional intersection improvements are proposed along Bayshore Boulevard. This measure could reduce total year 2000 project emissions by ten (10) pounds per day of ROG, seven (7) pounds per day of NOx, and one (1) pound per day of PM10. The project sponsor shall pay a fee established in the Restated and Amended Development Agreement for the Remaining Parcels of Phase II and Phase III of the Terrabay Development to be used for the construction by the City of the U.S. 101 southbound freeway off ramp and a new U.S. 101 on ramp (the "hook ramps"). This measure would allow direct access on to the freeway, eliminating emissions associated with congestion at local intersections which provide access 000120 Page 35 of 43 to southbound U.S. 101. This measure could reduce total year 2000 project emissions by five (5) pounds per day of ROG, six (6) pounds per day of NOx, and seven (7) pounds per day of PM10. Bus shelters, easy pedestrian access, and bicycle lanes shall be provided in the Final Project design to facilitate alternative modes of transportation. This measure would reduce year 2000 Project emissions by ten (10) pounds per day of ROG, by 12 pounds per day of NOx , and by 11 pounds per day of PM10. Fireplaces shall be equipped with certified wood burning fireplace inserts which meet Federal emission standards. It is difficult to assess the overall effectiveness of this measure due to the infrequent use of fireplaces. However, the measure would reduce PM10 emissions from fireplaces by up to 90 percent. Installation of natural gas fireplaces is encouraged to further reduce particulate emissions. The applicant proposes to include outdoor electrical outlets and natural gas stubs to avoid the use of gasoline-powered landscape equipment. This would provide a minor reduction in overall emissions of ozone precursor air pollutants. Finding. The mitigation measures present the available feasible measures to reduce Final Project impacts on long-term regional air quality. However, even with these mitigations, the long-term regional air quality impacts of the Final Project and cummulative development of the Terrabay Project on ROG, NOx and PM10 likely will not be reduced to a less than significant level. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, as set forth in Exhibit B, must be adopted upon approval of the Final Project. Rationale. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce emissions of regional air pollutants by 5-15 percent. This reduction will not be sufficient to reduce emissions of these pollutants to below the BAAQMD significance threshold of 80 pounds per day. NOISE Imtmct 4.6-1 Construction Noise Impacts During construction periods, noise levels would be elevated outside existing homes located across Hillside Boulevard and Sister Cities Boulevard from the Phase II residential development. This would constitute a significant short-term impact. Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 The following measures shall be required to reduce the Final Project's short-term construction noise impacts to a less-than-significant level: Construction Scheduling. Noise-generating construction activities, including truck traffic going to and from the site for any purpose, and maintenance and servicing activities for construction equipment, shall be limited to the hours Page 36 of 43 000121 stipulated by the City's Noise Ordinance which are 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays, 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Saturdays, and 10:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Sundays. Mufflers and Maintenance. All equipment used on the Final Project site shall be adequately muffled and maintained. All internal combustion engine-driven equipment shall be fitted with intake and exhaust mufflers which are in good condition. Use of good mufflers with quieted compressors on all non-impact tools should result in a maximum noise level of 85 dBA when measured at a distance of 50 feet. Idling Prohibitions. Powered construction equipment shall be turned off when not in use. Equipment Location and Shielding. Stationary noise-generating construction equipment shall be located as far as possible from nearby residences. Noise Disturbance Coordinator. A project construction supervisor shall be designated as a "noise disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise (as was done for Phase I site development). The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaints (such as starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall require implementation of reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. The telephone number of the disturbance coordinator also shall be posted conspicuously at the construction site. Findin~. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Rationale. Mitigation measures are identified to address different sources and types of noise from temporary construction activities on the site. The noise impacts from any construction activities are temporary. Implementation of the mitigation measures and compliance with the standards under the City Noise Ordinance would result in a less than significant impact. Since the nearest non-Terrabay residences to Phase II and Phase III construction activities would be at least 300 feet away, the noise level would be reduced at least 15 decimals below the on-site noise levels shown in the 1998-99 SEIR based on distance alone. Impact 4.6-2 Land Use Compatibility Imtmct Proposed uses in the Final Project would be exposed to noise levels which would exceed those considered satisfactory for the intended uses. Page 37 of 43 0001',° Mitigation Measure 4.6-2 In order to reduce potential noise and land use compatibility impacts to a less than-significant-level, the project sponsor shall retain a qualified Acoustical Engineer to prepare a detailed acoustical analysis and mitigation plan pursuant to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. The report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval before issuance of building permits. The report shall include a detailed acoustical analysis of noise reduction requirements and specifications for the Final Project, in accordance with land use / noise level compatibility standards established by the State and set forth in the City's Noise Element. The identified noise reduction requirements and specifications then shall be included in the siting or design of individual housing units: Noise levels in backyards of homes proposed adjacent to and overlooking the Sister Cities Boulevard-Hillside Boulevard corridor intersection shall be mitigated with a noise barrier. The proposed upsloping geometry to a graded building pad would provide an excellent opportunity to mitigate with a property line barrier. To be effective, the barrier must be constructed airtight over its face and at the base and have a minimum surface weight of three pounds per square foot. Suitable materials include wood, masonry block, precast masonry, or precast concrete panels. If the barrier is constructed of wood, a post and panel or board and batten construction method should be used to eliminate sound leaks. Forced air mechanical ventilation shall be provided pursuant to residential building sound insulation requirements so windows may be kept closed at the discretion of building occupants to control noise. The interior CNEL shall be reduced to a level of 45 dB or less to conform with City General Plan and State Building Code requirements. The noise analysis also shall include adequate consideration of aircraft noise to achieve the FAA's recommended maximum single-event noise level of 55 dBA in bedrooms of housing units. Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Rationale. The mitigation measures will insure that specific noise reduction requirements and specifications are identified and implemented as needed to insure compliance with City and state noise level standards. The mitigation measure requires incorporation of the identified noise reduction requirements into the Final Project building site design. Furthermore, since standard California construction standards with the windows closed would be expected to provide at least 20 dBA of noise reduction, additional noise reduction measures would only be required for those homes where the exterior noise is greater than 65 dB CNEL. Page 38 of 43 000123 1982 EIR Noise Impact - Extension of Hillside Boulevard. Along the extension of Hillside Boulevard, traffic noise levels would increase. Due to the continuous nature of traffic noise as opposed to the sporadic nature of aircraft noise, the extension of Hillside Boulevard might still annoy some of the homeowners in this area even though contribution of aircraft noise results in existing noise levels of 60-65 dba. The resulting noise levels due to traffic on the extension of Hillside Boulevard will be high enough to occasionally interfere with speech outdoors. Miti~:ation Measure. Increased traffic noises along Hillside extension could be mitigated by the erection of a sound barrier on the south side of the extension. Detailed studies during the engineering of the road would determine the required height and location of this barrier. The purpose of this barrier would be to maintain traffic noise levels at their existing levels in the absence of aircraft noise. Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Rationale. The construction of a sound barrier on the south side of the Hillside Boulevard extension would mitigate any significant noise impacts resulting from traffic along Hillside extension. Although the noise environment of the areas along the Hillside extension are currently impacted by noise from aircraft and the addition of this traffic noise would not significantly change the overall noise environment, this mitigation measure is required to reduce noise added by traffic from the Hillside extension. With the implementation of the mitigation measure, the noise impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The City Council finds that all other impacts of the Final Project are not environmentally significant as documented in the 1998-99 SEIR and/or supported by evidence elsewhere in the record as a whole. In some cases, the 1998-99 SEIR has suggested mitigations for impacts that are less than significant even without mitigation. CEQA does not require mitigation for less than significant impacts, nor does it require findings for mitigation measures proposed for less than significant impacts. Therefore, no findings are made with respect to such mitigation measures. Some of the less than significant impacts identified below are impacts that the 1998-99 SEIR identified as potentially significant or significant and recommended mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. However, subsequent to preparation of the Draft 1998-99 SEIR, based on further review by City staff and experts and further review of plans and evidence, the impacts were determined to be less than significant, for the reasons discussed below and those described in the Final 1998-99 SEIR. 003124 Page 39 of 43 Impact 4.1-1 Grading Construction of the Final Project would require excavation of 34 additional acres of natural lands. This grading would expose areas to erosion, decrease the stability of the bedrock and sediment cover, and cause differential settlement in fills over drainages, which are addressed in Impacts and Mitigation Measures 4.1-2, 4.1-3, 4.1-4, 4.1-5, and 4.1-6. The impact of grading of new areas could not be avoided without redesigning the Final Project and reducing the size of development areas. Grading as proposed without Mitigation Measures 4.1-2, 4.1-3, 4.1-4, 4.1-5 and 4.1-6 would result in significant erosion, slope instability, differential settlement, and secondary impacts. The general impact on land due to grading is less than significant. No mitigation measures would be required for overall grading per se within previously graded parts of Final Project development areas, except for compliance with the San Bruno Mountain Area Habitat Conservation Plan, Agreement with Respect to the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan, and Terrabay Specific Plan District Ordinance. Moreover, grading which would not extend beyond the 50-foot minor boundary adjustment limit and the total adjustment increase of 10 acres would comply with the Agreement with respect to the San Bruno Mountain Area Habitat Conservation Plan, as required by the Final Terrabay Specific Plan, and, therefore, would not necessitate additional mitigation. In order for the Final Project to be deemed in compliance and to constitute a less-than-significant impact: All grading plans and operations in the Terrabay Specific Plan District shall be in compliance with the provisions of the San Bruno Mountain Area Habitat Conservation Plan (Title 20 of the South San Francisco Zoning Code Section 20.63.020). In order to meet this requirement, disturbed land within any minor boundary adjustment limit shall be replaced through in-kind restoration. No development proposal which requires a permit or an approval of any sort to be issued by any local, State, or Federal agency may be approved by the City until proof of such other permit, license, or approval is on file in the Department of Community Development (Title 20 of the South San Francisco Zoning Code Section 20.63.250). Reducing the extent of grading involved in Final Project implementation, although not required, would help balance cut and fill operations and the need to export excess fill material for disposal (or reuse) at another location. Measures to mitigate direct erosion, slope stability, and differential settlement impacts are presented below (see Mitigation Measures 4.1-2 through 4.1-6), and measures to mitigate indirect traffic, air quality, and noise impacts are presented in their respective analyses below. The effects of grading for Phase II and Phase III has been analyzed in the 1982 EIR, 1996 SEIR, 1998-99 SEIR, Addendum to the 1998-99 SEIR and the 1982 EA/EIS. The Page 40 of 43 000125 amount of grading required for the development of the Final Project is reduced from that approved under the 1982 Specific Plan. Impacts of grading are mitigated by the requirements under the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) to dedicate and preserve over 140 acres of the Terrabay Project site for habitat conservation, including the requirements to restore any disturbed land which will be dedicated to the County under the HCP. Further, impacts of grading are mitigated by the regulations under the City Code and the Terrabay Specific Plan District Ordinance (Chapter 20.63 of the City Code). Impact 4.2-1 Stormwater Drainage Patterns and Flooding No impact associated with the Final Project. No mitigation required. Impact 4.2-2 Stormwater Drainage and Floodin~ No impact associated with the Final Project. No mitigation required. Impact 4.4-7 Turnarounds No impact associated with the Final Project. No mitigation required. Impact 4.5-2 Changes in Local Long-Term Air Oualitv Carbon monoxide levels attributable to traffic substantially affected by the Final Project would be below State and Federal ambient air quality standards. This would be a less-than-significant impact and no mitigation is required. Impact 4.6-3 Traffic Noise Impacts Traffic-generated noise would not increase ambient noise levels measurably on existing neighborhood streets or roadways which would provide access to the Final Project site. This impact would be less-than-significant, and no mitigation is required. Impact 4.7-1 Impact of Residential Development on Police Services This was a Less Than Significant Impact under the 1998-99 SEIR. The Final Project proposes fewer units than were analyzed under the 1998-99 SEIR. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required. Impact 4.7-3 Combined Proiect Impact on Police Services: This was a Less Than Significant Impact under the 1998-99 SEIR. The Final Project proposes fewer units than were analyzed under the 1998-99 SEIR. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required. Impact 4. 7-5 Traffic Impact on Police Response Times: This was a Less Than Significant Impact under the 1998-99 SEIR. The Final Project proposes fewer units than were analyzed under the 1998-99 SEIR. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required. Impact 4. 7-6 Police Impact from Cumulative Development No additional mitigation would be required of the Final Project than identified in the 1982 E1R / 1996 SEIR. The prior EIRs required funding provision of a separate new fully-staffed beat (1982 EIR) to consist of three officer positions and one new patrol vehicle (1996 SEIR). 000126 Page 41 of 43 Impact 4.7-7 Impact on Brisbane School District Development analyzed in the 1998- 99 SEIR of 213 duplex and triplex units in the Terrabay Phase II Point and Commons neighborhoods and creation of an estimated 720-780 jobs on the Phase III site would add less than 85-88 new students to Brisbane School District (BSD) schools. This number would be fewer than the 90 students previously estimated to be generated by the Terrabay project. Since the Final Project has 15 fewer housing units there will be fewer residents with children within the Final Project. As such, there is no significant impact. Impact 4. 7-8 Impact on Jefferson Union High School District Fewer but larger units proposed by the Project analyzed in the 1998-99 SEIR would generate virtually the same number of students to Jefferson Union High School District schools (less than 21 students) as estimated from more but smaller units previously proposed by the Final Project. Since the residential development is substantially less than that analyzed in the 1998-99 SEIR, there is no significant impact. Impact 4. 7-9 Impact on South San Francisco Unified School District: Development in the Final Project will result in the same school impacts as those identified and analyzed in the 1998-99 SEIR. School impacts were identified as less than significant in the 1998- 99 SEIR. The analysis was based on 135 new sing-family units in the Woods neighborhood, 213 new units in the Commons and Point areas and the commercial development. The Final Project proposes 166 residential units as opposed to 213. Assuming all 166 units proposed by the Final Project contain three-bedrooms for a total of 498 bedrooms. The 1998 Project proposed 837 bedrooms. In summary, because the Final Project results in less residential area and fewer bedrooms available for residents of school age than that which was proposed in the 1998 Project, it is a less than significant impact. Impact 4.7-10 Cumulative Impacts Schools Planned development within the South San Francisco Unified School District has been taken into account by district plans for elementary school enrollments. This is a less than significant environmental impact because the students from the Final Project and cummulative development of the Terrabay Project would not require a significant expansion of school facilities beyond what is already expected in current District plans and no further mitigation is required from that contained in the 1996 SEIR, including payment of school fees under state law. Impact 4.8-2 Effect of EMF on Future Residents Residential development of the Final Project would not expose residents to unusual magnetic field levels or, in the absence of California State or Federal standards, levels which government entitles outside California regulate. Therefore, the proximity of electric power lines to proposed housing units would not result in significant impacts requiring mitigation. In any event, no development of the Commons under the Proposed Project was approved. Page 42 of 43 0001'> ,.7 Archaeolo£ical Impacts The 1998-99 Certified Terrabay SEIR required mitigation of differential settlement on the archaeological site. This impact does not exist within the Final Project as the archaeological site is included within a 26-acre parcel that shall not include any development. The parcel, known as the Preservation Parcel' is designated as open space and pursuant to the Settlement Agreement entered into by Myers Development Company, Mountain Watch, Center for Biological Diversity and the City, shall remain in open space. Therefore, development of the Final Project will have a less than significant impact on archeological resources and no mitigation is required. C:\WINDOWS'~DES KTOP~CEQAEXA_kajNov 16_fal.doc 0001'> ,.8 Page 43 of 43 EXHIBIT B STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES 1. General Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21081 and CEQA Guidelines § 15093, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations relating to its recommendation of approval of the entitlements for the remaining parcels of Phase II and Phase III of the Terrabay Project (hereinafter, "Final Project" or "Project"). There is no significant unavoidable impact from the Final Project alone. Significant unavoidable cumulative impacts arise only from development of the Final Project in conjunction with other cumulative development projects, including Phase II Woods East and West and Phase I residential, identified in the Draft SEIR. The 1998-1999 SEIR analyzed Phase III impacts on a project EIR level which is a much greater level than required for cumulative impacts under CEQA. The cumulative impacts which arise from the buildout of the Final Project in conjunction with other cumulative development projects identified in the Draft SEIR, hereinafter referred to as, "Final Project Cumulative Impacts." The City Council has balanced the benefits of the Final Project to the City against the six adverse impacts identified in the SEIR as significant which have not been eliminated or mitigated to a level of insignificance: (1) Impact 4.4-1 Year 2000 Base Case plus Phases II + III Freeway Impacts; (2) Impact 4.4-4 Year 2010 Base Case plus Phases II and III Freeway Impact; (3) Impact 4.4-5 Year 2010 Base Case plus Phase II + III Ramp Impacts; (4) Impact 4.5-3 Changes in Regional Long-Term Air Quality; (5) Impact 4.4-13 Year 2020 Impacts of Construction of Hook Ramps to Address Cumulative Impacts of the Final Project on Freeway Main Line; and (6) Impact 4.4-14 Year 2020 Impacts of Construction of Hook Ramps to Address Cumulative Impacts of the Final Project on Freeway Ramps. The City Council has carefully considered each environmental impact identified in the SEIR in reaching its decision to approve the Final Project. The Project sponsor has made reasonable and good faith efforts to mitigate all potential impacts resulting from the Final Project. The City Council has imposed mitigation measures identified in the SEIR as conditions of approval to eliminate or mitigate to a level of insignificance potential impacts. Although the City Council believes that the six unavoidable environmental impacts identified in the SEIR will be substantially lessened by the mitigation measures identified in the SEIR and incorporated into the Final Project as conditions of approval, it recognizes that the implementation of the Final Project carries with it these six potentially unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. With regard to each of the six significant unavoidable impacts, the City Council specifically makes the following findings to the extent that the identified adverse impacts have not been mitigated to a level of insignificance: (1) specific economic, social or Page I of 10 other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the SEIR which may reduce the significant unavoidable impacts to less than significant; and (2) there are specific economic, social, environmental, legal, land use and other benefits of the Project which outweigh the six significant unavoidable effects' on the environment. The City Council further finds that any one of the overriding considerations identified hereinafter in subsection 4 is a sufficient basis to approve the Final Project. 2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts and Required Mitigation Measures The following are unavoidable significant Final Project Cumulative Impacts. These impacts cannot be fully mitigated by changes or alterations to the Project or the imposition of further mitigation measures. IMPACT 4.4-1 YEAR 2000 BASE CASE PLUS PHASES II + III FREEWAY IMPACTS As described above in Exhibit A and in the SEIR, the existing proposed development of Phase II and III in the Year 2000 would cause a significant cumulative adverse impact on certain segments of the US 101 freeway by either increasing traffic volumes by more than 1% or changing the level of service from LOS E to LOS F. Six of the identified eight impacted freeway segments are already operating at LOS F in the year 2000 without the Proposed Project. However, Phase II and III Cumulative Impacts will result in an increase of vehicle trips along those segments of U.S. 101 of approximately 1.25% to 2.76%. For roadways operating at a level of service F, the SEIR established a standard that an increase in peak direction traffic on the roadway of one percent (1%) or more due to the Project would be considered a significant impact. Although the impact of the Final Project will almost certainly be less than that of the Proposed Project since the Proposed Project potentially will contribute over a 1% increase in peak direction traffic on these segments of U.S. 101, the Final Project Cumulative Impact in 2000 is considered significant. The primary changes incorporated into the Final Project to reduce these freeway impacts are the inclusion of a bus stop and shelter, Transportation Demand Management Program; marketing of the residential units to the commercial tenant, on-site recreational facilities and bicycle lanes. As described below in Section 3, the SEIR proposed mitigations of funding regional improvements (i.e., widening of the freeway) and reducing the Final Project trip generation by 64 % are infeasible. The Final Project has been reduced from the development approved under the 1982 Specific Plan. The Final Project incorporates changes described above which will reduce the Final Project impacts on the U.S. 101 Freeway. However, even with these incorporated changes, the Final Project Cumulative Impacts in 2000 may still increase peak direction traffic by more than one percent (1%) on the identified U.S. 101 freeway segments. Page 2 of 10 IMPACT 4.4-4 YEAR 2010 BASE CASE PLUS PHASES II AND III FREEWAY IMPACT As described above in Exhibit A and in the SEIR, development of Phase II and III in the Year 2010 would cause a significant adverse cumulative impact on certain segments of the US 101 freeway by increasing traffic volumes by more than 1% on segments already operating at unacceptable LOS F without the Final Project. Phase II and III Cumulative Impacts will result in an increase of vehicle trips along those segments of U.S. 101 of approximately 1.10% to 2.41%. For roadways operating at a level of service F, the SEIR established a standard that an increase in peak direction traffic on the roadway of one percent (1%) or more due to the Project would be considered a significant impact. Although the impact of the Final Project will almost certainly be less than that analyzed in the 1998-99 SEIR, since the Final Project cumulative impacts will potentially contribute over a 1% increase in peak direction traffic on these segments of U.S. 101, buildout of the Final Project Cumulative Impact in 2010 is considered a significant impact. The primary changes incorporated into the Final Project to reduce these freeway impacts are the inclusion of a bus stop and shelter, a Transportation Demand Management Program ("TDM Program") and bicycle lanes. As described below in Section 3, the SEIR proposed mitigations of funding regional improvements (i.e., widening of the freeway) and reducing the Final Project trip generation by 59 % are infeasible. The Final Project has already been reduced from the development approved under the 1982 Specific Plan. The mitigation measures incorporated into the Final Project will reduce the impacts on the U.S. 101 Freeway. However, even with these measures, buildout of the Final Project Cumulative Impact in 2000 may still increase peak direction traffic by more than one percent (1%) on the identified U.S. 101 Freeway segments. IMPACT 4.4-5 YEAR 2010 BASE CASE PLUS PHASE II + III RAMP IMPACTS As described above in Exhibit A and in the SEIR, development of Phase II and III in the Year 2010 would cause a significant adverse cumulative impact on the PM peak hour operation on the Northbound US 101 On-ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard. This on- ramp would already be operating at over-capacity and unacceptable levels in 2010 without the Project. Phase II and III Cumulative Impacts will result in an increase of vehicle trips by approximately 6.8% on this on-ramp. For freeway ramps operating at over-capacity conditions, the SEIR established a standard that an increase in peak direction traffic on the on-ramp of one percent (1%) or more due to the Project would be considered a significant impact. Although the impact of the Final Project will almost certainly be less then that of the Proposed Project, since the buildout of the Final Project Cumulative Impacts will potentially contribute over a 1% increase in peak direction traffic on the northbound On-ramp, the impact of buildout of the Final Project in 2010 is considered significant. Page 3 of 10 The primary changes incorporated into the Final Project to reduce the on-ramp impact are the inclusion of a bus stop and shelter and bicycle lanes. The Final Project also includes a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management Program ("TDM Program") and a focused marketing plan that encourages employees of the commercial tenant, employees of businesses in the East of 101 Plan Area and employees of businesses and governmental agencies within the City to acquire the on-site residential units. As described below in Section 3, the SEIR proposed mitigations of reducing the Final Project trip generation by 85% or providing a fair share contribution towards the costs of a second on-ramp are infeasible. The Final Project has been reduced from the development approved under the 1982 Specific Plan and the Project sponsor has, or will, contribute five million dollars ($5,000,000) towards the construction of traffic improvements to U.S. 101. The mitigation measures incorporated into the Final Project will reduce the Final Project impacts on the U.S. 101 on-ramp. However, even with these measures, the Final Project Cumulative Impacts in 2010 may still increase peak direction traffic by more than one percent (1%) on the identified U.S. 101 Northbound On-ramp. IMPACT 4.5-3 CHANGES IN REGIONAL LONG-TERM AIR QUALITY. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has established a significance threshold for analyzing the impact of a project on regional air quality. The BAAQMD defines a significant impact as an increase in emissions of reactive organic gasses (ROG), oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and particulate matters (PM10) from the Project of 80 pounds per day or greater. Phase I, II and III Cumulative Impacts would generate new regional emissions of ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and PM10 exceeding 80 pounds per day. Therefore, the impact of the Final Project Cumulative Impacts on regional emissions of ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and PM10 would be significant under the BAAQMD standard. The 80 pounds per day standard is the most stringent standard under Federal law which only applies to areas in non-attainment for ozone. The BAAQMD adopted this new more stringent standard because of the history of non- attainment for ozone in the Bay Area. Although the impact of the Final Project Cumulative Impacts would be significant, the Final Project will reduce emissions of ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and PM10 from the levels identified from buildout of the Woods Project approved under the 1982 Specific Plan (SEIR, Exhibit 4.5-4). The SEIR proposes extensive mitigation measures that will reduce vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled and traffic congestion (see Mitigation Measure 4.5-3 in Exhibit A above). These represent the maximum feasible mitigation measures to address this regional air quality impact. These measures would reduce the Final Project emissions by approximately 5 to 15 percent. However, the reduced emissions would still exceed the BAAQMD standard of eighty pounds. The mitigation measures under the SEIR are the maximum feasible mitigation measures that may be imposed on the Final Project. Page 4 of 10 IMPACT 4.4-13 YEAR 2020 IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOOK RAMPS TO ADDRESS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF PHASE II AND III ON FREEWAY MAIN LINE As described above in Exhibit A and in the SEIR, construction of the hook ramps would cause a significant adverse cumulative impact on certain segments of the U.S. 101 Freeway by increasing traffic volumes by more than 1% on segments already operating at unacceptable LOS F without the hook ramps. To the extent the hook ramps construction is, in part, necessary to address Final Project Cumulative Impacts, the City Council makes findings on the significant unavoidable impact of the hook ramps on certain segments of U.S. 101. The SEIR states that there is no feasible mitigation other than not constructing the hook ramps. The only other possible mitigation measure would be widening the freeway, which is infeasible for the reasons described in Section 3 below. The hook ramps will have a beneficial impact on the operation of intersections in the Oyster Point Interchange. Since the hook ramps will contribute over a 1% increase in peak direction traffic on the identified U.S. 101 segment, construction of the hook ramps is considered a significant impact. IMPACT 4.4-14 YEAR 2020 IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOOK RAMPS TO ADDRESS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF PHASE II AND III ON FREEWAY RAMPS As described above in Exhibit A and in the SEIR, construction of the hook ramps would cause a significant adverse cumulative impact on certain segments of the U.S. 101 Freeway by increasing the off-ramp volumes by more than 1% at the diverge of the southbound off-ramp already operating at unacceptable LOS F without the hook ramps. To the extent the hook ramps construction is, in part, necessary to address Approved Cumulative Impacts, the City Council makes findings on this significant unavoidable impact of the hook ramps. The SEIR states that there is no feasible mitigation other than not constructing the hook ramps. The only other possible mitigation measure would be widening the freeway, which is infeasible for the reasons described in Section 3 below. The hook ramps will have a beneficial impact on the operation of intersections in the Oyster Point Interchange. Since the hook ramps will contribute over a 1% increase at the diverge of the southbound off-ramp already operating at unacceptable LOS F, construction of the hook ramps is considered a significant impact. Page 5 of 10 3. Findings of Infeasibility of Mitigation Measures and Alternatives For Unavoidable Impacts a. Infeasibility of Mitigation Measures (1) Project trip generation reduction of 59%, 64% or 85%. The SEIR proposes drastic reductions in Proposed Phase II and III Project trip generation of 64%, 59% and 85% for Impact 4.4-1 (2000 freeway impact), Impact 4.4-4 (2010 freeway impact), and Impact 4.4-5 (Northbound On-ramp), respectively. A reduction in Proposed Project trip generation by 59%, 64% or 85% is infeasible. The Final Project is significant reduction from the development approved under the 1982 Specific Plan. A 59%, 64% of 85% reduction in the Final Project itself is infeasible. Any further reductions in Final Project residential density to reduce the impact to less than significant is infeasible because of the extensive and costly public amenities and improvements required for the Final Project and already built for Phase I, and the fixed cost of constructing infrastructure necessary to serve the Final Project. The development of the Terrabay Project, including the Final Project is subject to extensive conditions of approval under the HCP, Development Agreement and Specific Plan. These documents require 1) the dedication of property to the County as open space; 2) funding HCP maintenance and monitoring; 3) construction of a fire station (built as part of Phase I); 4) construction of a recreation center (built as part of Phase I); 5) construction of a 100 child child-care facility in the commercial component; 6) construction of a 150 seat Performing Arts Center in the commercial component; 7) completion of the Hillside Boulevard extension (built as part of Phase I); 8) a significant financial contribution to the construction of the hook ramps; 9) and other improvements and fees. The costs of these improvements are spread throughout the entire project, including the Final Project. The construction of required infrastructure and geologic remediation the Final Project are fixed costs that must be spread over the number of units developed. An over 59% reduction in units would result in a density that could not support the costs of the development of the Final Project would be economically infeasible. Furthermore, this drastic reduction in Final Project housing units will impede the City's ability to provide its fair share of housing to address regional needs required under the City housing element and state law. The reduction in housing units will also adversely affect the City's jobs/housing balance. Based on the foregoing and other information in the record, a 59%, 64% or 85% reduction in Final Project trip generation is not feasible. (2) Funding of Regional Circulation System Improvements and Widening of U.S. 101 Freeway. The SEIR proposes Project funding of"regional circulation system improvements" to mitigate Impact 4.4-1 (2000 freeway impact) and Impact 4.4-4 (2010 freeway impact). The impacts of the hook ramps on the U.S. 101 Freeway (Impacts 4.4- 13 and 4.4-14) could also be mitigated by widening the freeway. These mitigation measures are infeasible. Page 6 of 10 The SEIR does not specify the regional circulation system improvements that would address this freeway impact. However, the only circulation system improvement that will alleviate the freeway impact is the widening of the affected segments of U.S. 101 (See, Traffic Section of 1996 SEIR). The widening of the freeway is infeasible for two reasons. First, the City may not legally impose this requirement on the Final Project because its traffic impacts do not solely contribute to the need for widening of the freeway. The widening of the freeway is necessitated by regional traffic impacts. Second, the widening of the freeway is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Cal Trans and other state agencies and cannot be adopted or imposed by the City of South San Francisco. Cal Trans currently has no plans to widen this segment of the freeway in the future. There are significant constraints on the widening of U.S. 101 due to existing structures along that segment and the high cost of acquiring land to complete the expansion. Furthermore, the traffic congestion problems on U.S. 101 are a regional issue that must be addressed by all jurisdictions that contribute traffic to the freeway. The City of South San Francisco is only one of these jurisdictions and has no power to impose mitigation measures relating to the expansion or alteration of U.S. 101 which is under the jurisdiction of Cal Trans. Based on the foregoing and other information in the record, the requirement of widening the freeway necessary to address the impacts is not feasible. (3) Construction of second on-ramp lane to Northbound 101. The SEIR proposes that the project sponsor provide a fair share contribution towards the construction of a second on-ramp lane connection to Northbound US 101 to mitigate Impact 4.4-5 (northbound on-ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard). This mitigation measure is infeasible. Construction of a second lane on the on-ramp would require Cal Trans' approval. Therefore, the implementation of this mitigation measure requires approval of another agency and the City does not have the authority to impose it. Furthermore, Cal Trans' approval of a second lane is highly unlikely. A two-lane on-ramp was not approved as part of the overall Oyster Point Interchange Project approved by Cal Trans. Cai Trans standards also strongly disfavor adding additional access capacity to a freeway that is already operating at unacceptable levels of service like US 101. The on-ramp expansion would also require several exceptions to Cal Trans standards which are unlikely to be approved. Construction of the second lane is also infeasible because of physical constraints and costs. There is limited land on which to build the lane and the costs of acquisition would be high. Based on the foregoing, the proposed mitigation measure is infeasible. (4) No construction of hook ramps. The SEIR states that the only mitigation to address the impacts of the hook ramps on the freeway (Impacts 4.4-13 and 4.4-14) is to not build the hook ramps. Not building the hook ramps is infeasible. The hook ramps are needed to address the unacceptable conditions in the operation of the Oyster Point Interchange due to the necessity of traffic on southbound Bayshore Boulevard to go through the entire interchange in order to access southbound U.S. 101 Freeway. In particular, the cumulative traffic from buildout of Brisbane would largely benefit from this on-ramp. Furthermore, the existing four-way stop sign for the off-ramp needs to be Page 7 of 10 signalized to create acceptable operation under cumulative traffic conditions in the Years 2000 and 2010. Based on the foregoing, the nonconstruction of the hook ramps is infeasible. b. Infeasibility of Altematives Which Would Reduce Impacts Certain alternatives propose greater density and intensity of use for the site than the Final Project and would not reduce the trip generation below that of the proposed Project. The City is not required to make findings on the infeasibility of more intense development alternatives because they would not decrease the significant unavoidable impacts of the Final Project to less-than-significant; rather they would only increase the impact as compared to the Project. Therefore, the City is not required to make findings that the following alternatives are infeasible since they will only result in an increase in the level of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project: Existing Specific Plan Alternative (1982 Specific Plan which contains more residential units than the Final Project); Phase II Reduced Residential Development Alternative (which proposes 316 residential units as opposed to the 166 proposed under the Final Project); the Concept Plan Alternative (745 housing units for Phases I and II, same as 1982 Specific Plan, which is more housing units for Phases I and II than under the Project ); Alternative Designed to Conform with Sphere of Influence Study (more housing for Phases I and II than 1982 Specific Plan which is more than the Project); and Alternative Designed to Conform with General Plan Amendment (more residential development (985 units) for Phases I and II than 1982 Specific Plan which is more than the Project). To the extent the City Council is required to make findings that each of these alternatives is infeasible, the City Council finds that these alternatives are infeasible and rejected because they will result in greater impacts than the Approved Project in the following areas: traffic, air quality, geology, drainage, biology, noise and public services. Since the significant unavoidable impacts will be caused by buildout of the Final Project, the only alternative identified in the 1982 EIR, 1996 SEIR and SEIR that would reduce this impact to less than significant is the No Development Alternative (no development of Phase II and III). The Phase III Permanent Open Space Alternative and the Reduced Phase III Commercial Development may reduce impacts of Phase III but do not address alternative development of Phase II. In light of the foregoing, the only alternative that would reduce the cummlative impacts of building out the project as proposed in the Final Project is the No Development Alternative for the remaining parcels of Phase II and Phase III. This alternative is infeasible. The Final Project already incorporates many of the alternative proposed under the 1998-99 SEIR. First, the Project provides for a 20+ acre of preserve for the protection of endangered species habitat. Additionally, a buffer area is proposed to shield the archeological site from the proposed development. The project also incorporates more area into the HCP. As a result of the foregoing, the developable footprint on the remaining parcels has been significantly reduced. Any further reduction Page 8 of 10 would necessitate reducing the number of housing units even further and creating taller, less visually appealing buildings in order to accommodate the proposed Project. Moreover, the benefits of the Project to the City are derived from the Project as a whole. The goals and objectives of the Project may only be met if each phase is built as proposed in the Final Project. If Phase II residential is not built, the City's objective of residential development on the site with its enhancement of City property tax revenue would not be achieved. Furthermore, the benefits under the HCP are based on the development of each phase. If Phase II is kept as open space, the developer's funding of enhancement and restoration measures (including the eradication of invasive species) and dedication requirements under the HCP associated with the development of Phase II would be eliminated. In addition, public improvements which will be funded, in part, or required to be built as part of Phase III would not be constructed if Phase III is not built. These improvements are needed to serve the needs of the City generally as well as the Project. Therefore, since the No Development Alternative for Phase II and Phase III does not accomplish most of the objectives of the Project, the City Council finds that this alternative is infeasible and, therefore, rejects this alternative as it relates to the remaining parcels of Phase II and Phase III. 4. Statement of Overriding Considerations The City Council has considered the public record of proceedings on the Final Project and finds and determines that the approval and implementation of the Final Project entitlements would result in the following substantial public benefits that outweigh the six significant, unavoidable cumulative impacts of the Terrabay Project: 1. Provide economic growth and employment opportunities in the City and surrounding region, by creation of new jobs, especially in construction-related industries. 2. Development of housing units needed in the City and regional area to meet housing demands and needs. 3. Increase tax base and revenues to City through increased property tax from development. 4. Construction or participation in costs of construction of certain improvements to serve both the residents of the City and the Project. 5. Construction of a 100 child child-care facility to serve tenants of the commercial office building and residents of the City. 6. Construction of a 150 seat Performing Arts Center in the commercial building that will serve as a meeting facility during business hours and a theatre for local performing arts groups during the evening and on weekends. 7. The addition of 32 moderate income residences within the City. Page 9 of 10 8. Offset Project sponsor's burden and costs created by development of residential units in Phases I and public amenities already constructed by the Project including Sister Cities Blvd., fire station, recreation center, Hillside school recreation facilities and child care/library service fee ($700,000) by allowing the Final Project to be completed. 9. Preservation and protection of a large portion of San Bruno Mountain as open space through the dedication of portion of Phase II property owned by the Project sponsor to the County and through implementation and compliance with the Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement between the City, Myers Development Company, San Bruno Mountain Watch and the Center for Biological Diversity. 10. Furtherance of the goals and programs of the Habitat Conservation Plan by allowing the Project to be built which will result in the corresponding dedication of land to the County and funding of restoration as required under the HCP. 11. Creation of a transition area between the urbanized portion of the City and San Bruno Mountain Park. The Final Project will also protect the HCP area and County Park habitat by minimizing water usage to a carefully planned landscape plan utilizing non-invasive and drought resistant species to San Mateo County. 12. Creation of an approximately 25 acre preservation area to protect endangered species and their habitat. 13. Reduce environmental impacts and preserve open space through use of a compact development design and dedication and restoration requirements under HCP. 14. Increase the City residents' access to recreational opportunities in San Bruno Mountain Park through the provision of a trailhead and trail as part of Project to the Park properties. J :\WP D\Mnrsw\405\035~AGREE\PHASE3\CEQA_exB_Novl 7.doc Page 10 of 10 EXHIBIT C FINDINGS ON IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM 1982 EIR AND 1996 SEIR NOT FURTHER ANALYZED IN 1998 SEIR This section contains findings on the environmental impacts of the remaining parcels of the Final Project that were not further analyzed in the 1998-99 SEIR because the impacts of the Final Project for the remaining parcels were not significantly different from the impacts of the remaining parcels under the 1982 Specific Plan. No further analysis of these impacts was required because the Final Project did not present any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects in these areas for the entire Terrabay Project (Public Resources Code § 21166; CEQA Guidelines § 15091). The prior City Council findings on the environmental impacts of the issues identified in this Exhibit C for Phase II and Phase III under the 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR are incorporated herein by reference. The Final Project has eliminated a substantial number of residential units and preserves as permanent open space more than 20 acres more than the project analyzed under the 1982 Specific Plan. Mitigation measures already completed or incorporated into the Final Project design are only addressed as necessary for the finding. Visual Oualitv Impact (1982 EIR). The Final Project would consist of two residential clusters: a 70 unit single family attached cluster and a 18 story, 96 unit condominium building. The 70 unit single family development would be located in swales similar to the 1982 Specific Plan. The Project would alter the site's visual character from an open space setting to housing development. However, since the completion of the 1982 EIR, part of the Phase II site has already been graded, so it is no longer in its natural condition. Phase I, the Recreation Center and Fire Station have already been built adjacent to Phase II, so the area west of Phase II is now urban development, not open space. The entire Phase II site is not visible at one time and none of the development would break the ridgeline. However, the components of the development of the Final Project (grading, residential structures, streets and trails) would have a potentially significant impact on views. Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Final Project to mitigate visual impacts: Development would be generally restricted to swales. The knolls would remain open. The development would appear as a series of clusters, not as a mass. The entire Final Project would not be visible at one time nor would it break the ridgeline. Building design features have been incorporated to reduce visual impacts. Residential structures would be oriented for solar absorption and for views but would not incorporate solar panels for hot water heating. OOO18° Page 1 of 10 · To save open space, the road system has been efficiently designed to reduce grading. To unify the Final Project and create homogeneously designed neighborhoods, restrained natural colors, unifying building materials and landscaping are used throughout the development. · To save open space and reduce visual impacts, units are attached or grouped more closely together than in standard subdivisions. Stepped buildings break up' the visual mass and reduce the amount of required grading and retaining walls. The visual mass is integrated into the hillside by stepping, offsetting, and rotating buildings where feasible and by providing tree grove clustering in a naturalistic setting. Articulated facades, recessed entries, roof overhangs and courtyards create varying patterns of light and shadow to soften the residential buildings' appearance and to create visual interest. Pedestrian access is provided at the intersections of Hillside Boulevard and Jefferson Street, at Hillside Boulevard and Hillside Extension, and near the intersection of Randolph Avenue/Hillside Extension and North Spruce Avenue. · Landscaping is used to reduce visual impacts. · Open spaces are added to reduce visual impacts. · Street lighting would be kept low to reduce glare. Landscaping, including trees, are used to break up mass of roofs and building structures when viewed from above. The trees also break up the mass of south facing facades when the Project is viewed from the south. Under the HCP, areas at higher elevation above the project development area are dedicated to the County as permanent open space to maintain the natural setting and appearance of these areas. Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1982 EIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Rationale. Although the Final Project would alter the undeveloped appearance of parts of the lower slopes of San Bruno Mountain, the visual impacts are mitigated by the measures identified above. The mitigation measures reduce impacts by clustering )00183 Page 2 of 10 development, limiting areas of disturbance and grading, and incorporating landscaping and open space into the design. The upper elevations of the Final Project site will be dedicated as permanent open space under the HCP. There is no single viewpoint from which the entire Final Project area is visible, and the Final Project does not break the San Bruno Mountain ridgeline. With the implementation of the mitigation measures described above, the visual impacts are less than significant. Land Use lmt~act (1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR). The Final Project site is on open hillside adjacent to areas that previously have been disturbed by grading. To the west of the site, Phase I is almost built out, including the Fire Station and Recreation Center. Further to the west is Hillside Elementary School and its outdoor recreation facilities. San Bruno Mountain State and County Park adjoins the Final Project site to the north. Most land to the south and east of the Final Project has been committed to urban uses including residences and the U.S. 101 Freeway. The Final Project would replace existing, undeveloped open space with residential, commercial, recreational and open space uses. Miti~,ation Measure. The Final Project incorporates a number of features which would soften the transition between urban and open space uses along the Final Project. The linear park, which is already built as part of Phase I, would be extended adjacent to the Final Project. The land outside the developable parcels for the Final Project would be dedicated to the County or retained with conservation easement and would remain permanent open space. The Final Project would also provide various community recreation facilities. Findin¢:. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Rationale. The Final Project has been designed to provide a transition between urban uses and the open space uses of the San Bruno Mountain Park. Based on the mitigations described above, including, the Project design and amenities, the incorporation of open space, and the required dedication of open space, the Final Project creates a transition area between the urbanized portion of the City and San Bruno Mountain Park. Water Services lmtJacts (1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR). The entire Terrabay Project under the 1982 Specific Plan would consume an average of about 320,370 gallons of water per day. This would represent about 0.8% of the total system capacity for the California Water Service Company in 1982. The Company has indicated their ability to accommodate the increase to the system. According to the Company, current supply would exceed projected high demand for the year 2010 by more than 10% (1996 SEIR). However, the Final Project would need to construct infrastructure on site to provide water service to the Final Project. The entire Terrabay project area, including Phase II, is within the present service area boundary of the California Water Service Company. 003 ! 84 Page 3 of 10 Mitigation Measure. The project sponsor is responsible for the construction and cost of the new on-site water system infrastructure and improvements to the off-site system which occurred as a result of the on-site system to serve the Final Project. A series of booster pumps shall be constructed to lift water to the upper portions of the Terrabay Project site where a 1,000,000 gallon storage tank will be constructed to maintain adequate water supplies for fire protection and domestic use. California Water Service Company has indicated that an above-ground tank would provide maximum resistance to possible seismic forces. Screening provided by such methods as painting the tank with earthtone colors and landscaping and mounding would be utilized to reduce visual impacts. The water system mains, storage tank and booster pump system have been constructed by the project sponsor. Findin~. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Rationale The impacts of the Final Project on water service are less than significant because the California Water Company has sufficient capacity to serve the Final Project, the Final Project is within the boundaries of the California Water Company service area, the main infrastructure needed to provide water to the Final Project Site (system mains, storage tank and booster pump system) have been built, and the Final Project plans adequately provide for infrastructure to provide water to the individual residences. Based on the foregoing, the Final Project impact is less than significant. Waste Water ImtJaet (1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR). The addition of the residential units from the Final Project would increase average flows to the Colma Creek trunk sewer. The capacity of the Colma Creek trunk sewer interceptor would need to be increased. There is adequate capacity at the South San Francisco treatment plant to treat wastewater from the Final Project. Sewage service for the Final Project would be provided through a system of on-site gravity sewer mains and interceptors which would connect to the existing sewer system. Costs of the on-site sewer system and any corrections or modifications to the existing off-site system that are required as a direct result of the Final Project would be the responsibility of the project sponsor. Miti~,,ation Measure. The project sponsor would participate with the South San Francisco Public Works Department and the Town of Colma City Engineer to ensure that enlargement of the Colma Creek interceptor would accommodate wastewater flows generated by the Final Project. The project sponsor shall fund or build all on-site and off- site sewer system (required as a direct result of the project) infrastructure needed to serve the Final Project. The 1996 SEIR required correction of infiltration problems in the already-built sewer infrastructure. 000185 Page 4 of 10 Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Rationale. The South San Francisco treatment plant has adequate capacity to treat the wastewater from the Final Project. The design and capacity of the on-site sewer system for the Final Project will be subject to review and approval by the City. The main line for Phase II on-site wastewater system has been built. The off-site sewer infrastructure improvements required for the Final Project have already been constructed as part of Phase I. The off-site collection system improvements, including the interceptor sewer between the Terrabay Project residential subdivisions and the City's Colma Creek trunk sewer are complete and have been accepted by the City. The off-site sewer collection system is now adequate to accommodate the sewage flows from the Final Project. The infiltration problems identified in the 1996 SEIR have been corrected. Solid Waste Imt~acts (1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR). The residential portion of the Terrabay Project under the 1982 Specific Plan was expected to generate approximately 4,470 pounds of solid waste per day. The commercial portion under the 1982 Specific Plan is expected to generate approximately 6,831 pounds per day. The total solid waste generated from the commercial and residential sources annually would represent only 1.4% of the total amount collected within the service area of the South San Francisco Scavenger Company which provides solid waste and collection disposal services for the City. The Company has adequate capacity to dispose of the waste generated by the Final Project and does not anticipate any adverse impacts on service. Therefore, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Furthermore, since the number of residential units for the Final Project is significantly less than the units included under the 1982 Specific Plan, the impact of the Final Project is even less than was analyzed in the 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR. Gas and Electricity lmt~acts (1982 EIR). It is estimated that the entire Terrabay Project under the 1982 Specific Plan would generate energy demands of 12.2 million kwh of electricity and 979,000 therms of natural gas per year. The annual residential demands would be about 3.7 million kwh for electricity and about 750,000 therms for natural gas. PG&E has indicated that present facilities would be adequate to provide service to the project. However, the Final Project shall incorporate energy conservation measures as required by law (Title 24). Mitieation Measure. The Final Project would be designed in accordance with the energy conservation standards of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. The Code requires that structures comply with the specific prescriptive measures for energy conservation, such as wall and ceiling insulations, climate control systems, water heating systems, and infiltrations. (See discussion of energy impacts below.) 000186 Page 5 of 10 Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1982 EIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Rationale. Since PG&E had adequate capacity to serve the Existing Project under the 1982 Specific Plan and the Final Project represents a decrease in units from that proposed under the 1982 Specific Plan, the impacts of the Final Project are less than significant. Furthermore, the energy conservation and efficiency standards under Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations wou.ld be incorporated into the Final Project. Telephone Services Impacts (1982 EIR). Pacific Telephone indicated that the South San Francisco Central Office facilities are adequate to accommodate 1,500 additional telephone numbers, an estimate exceeding that expected from the proposed development under the 1982 Specific Plan. Therefore, the impact of the Final Project would be less than significant. Furthermore, the Final Project has reduced residential units from those under the 1982 Specific Plan, and, therefore, the impacts of the Final Project would be even less than those analyzed under the 1982 EIR and determined to be insignificant. Fire Services Impact (1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR). Development of residences as part of the Final Project would result in an increase to the City Fire Department's service area and an increase in calls for services. The Fire Chief anticipates a possible manpower shortage at Station 1 with the relocation of one engine company plus its staff to the new station. Miti~:ation Measure. The project sponsor shall erect a firehouse and donate the land on which the firehouse is built as part of the first phase of the Terrabay Project. Final approval of the Final Project design will require conformance to South San Francisco and California Fire Code standards, including those for on-site fire hydrant systems, satisfactory access to structures, and adequate water supply and pressure system. To increase efficiency and improve the station's ability to cope with more serious fires, the Chief recommends the addition of one firefighter position. Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Rationale. The fire station on the existing Terrabay Project site has been constructed and equipped pursuant to the terms of the Terrabay Development Agreement. The design of the Final Project shall conform with all fire code requirements, as specified above. With the construction and equipping of the fire station to provide services to the Final Project area and the compliance of the Final Project design with applicable 000187 Page 6 of 10 provisions of the fire code, the impacts of the Final Project on fire services is less than significant. Parks and Recreation Impacts (1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR). The development of the Final Project would impact parks and recreation services by increasing the number of residents in the City and removing some private open space. However, the Terrabay Project as a whole, including the Final Project includes the designation of a significant area as permanent public open space and the construction of several park and recreation facilities. Mitigation Measure. The impacts on parks and.recreation services by the Terrabay Project as a whole (which includes the Final Project), would be mitigated by the development of a community recreation center, a linear park along Hillside Boulevard, improvements to play fields at nearby Hillside Elementary School, a trail to San Bruno Mountain Park, construction of a child care center, the creation of a 25.73 acre Preservation Parcel, the creation of a 2.69 acre Buffer Parcel and the dedication of a significant area to the San Bruno Mountain Park as permanent open space. The County Department of Parks and Recreation has recommended that the open space areas of the Project be deeded in fee to the County and fenced. Upon Terrabay Project approval, the Project Sponsor has agreed to dedicated Juncus Ravine to the County as permanent open space. Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Rationale. The provision of a community recreation center, improvements of' play fields at Hillside Elementary School, the dedication of open space and provision of a trail head from the Terrabay Project site to access San Bruno Mountain would mitigate this impact to less than significant. The improvements to the Hillside Elementary School playfields and the construction and dedication to the City of the community recreation center also have been completed. The City Council has approved and accepted payment of a $700,000 in lieu fee for the construction of the child care center in the existing Phase I. The fee is to be used for child care and/or library services. The Final Project will include additional child care facilities. Recycling: Pro~ram Collection Services Impacts (1996 SEIR). The 1996 SEIR analyzed the impact of the Final Project in light of the passage of the California Integrated Waste Management Act in 1989 which requires a 50% diversion of solid waste from land fill or transformation facilities by January 1, 2000. The Final Project would have significant impact on the City's ability to attain this goal unless recycling programs are incorporated into the Final Project. 000188 Page 7 of 10 Mitigation Measure. In order to ensure that project waste is recycled in a manner consistent with the state-mandated requirement that the City divert at least 50% of potential waste from land fill disposal by 2000, the design of a future development projects shall include recyclable material storage areas in multi-family developments that would include dumpsters, rather than relying on individual curbside pick-up for trash collection. Such areas should be conveniently located and accessible to residents and collection vehicles and personnel, properly protected from the elements, screens, and architecturally integrated into the development. These services are provided under the City's recycling program operated by the City's waste disposal server, the South San Francisco Scavenger Company. Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1996 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Rationale. The Final Project will comply with the City recycling program which is designed to reduce the disposal of waste in land fills. The services required for the Final Project will be provided by the South San Francisco Scavenger Company. Based on the incorporation of the City program into the Final Project, the impacts of the Final Project are less than significant. Energ, v Impacts (1982 EIR). Final Project implementation would require energy for construction and operation of buildings, structures and associated site improvements, and for the fueling of project-generated traffic. Mitigation Measure. The Final Project construction shall comply with the energy conservation requirements of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. The Final Project sponsor is encouraged, but is not required to, incorporate other design features which go beyond the requirements of Title 24: · Favorable solar orientation. · Night set-back thermostats. · Energy efficient lighting. Solar heat for swimming pools, if any. · Additional insulation. · Additional infiltration control measures. · Energy efficient space and water heating equipment. · Energy efficient glazing. Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1982 EIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. 00,318'9 Page 8 of 10 Rationale. The Final Project would reduce energy consumption by following the conservation measures of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. These measures would reduce energy consumption and result in a less than significant impact. In addition to the Title 24 measures, the Final Project has incorporated the following energy conservation measures into its design: favorable solar orientation, night setback thermostats, and energy-efficient lighting. Wind and Climate Impacts (1982 EIR). The Final Project would not have a significant impact on the micro-climate of the area but the micro-climate could impact proposed uses. Wind would have the most direct impact on outdoor activities. The condominiums near the intersection of Sister Cities and Bayshore Boulevard are located on a ridge and would probably be exposed to strong westerly winds. Mitigation Measures. The Final Project design locates most of the residences in areas at least partially sheltered from the wind. The clustered development in the swales would provide partial shelter from west winds. To the extent feasible, the layout of buildings and planting of vegetation should be done so that they provide some form of shelter for outdoor activities to the east. Outdoor recreation spaces should be laid out so that buildings, landscapes and fences are used to reduce wind impacts. Vegetation, such as trees and hedges, are most effective wind shelter. Pathways, entrances, and outdoor recreation spaces should be laid out so that buildings, landscapes, and fences are used to advantage in reducing winds. Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1982 EIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Rationale. The current layout locates most of the project in areas at least partially sheltered from the wind. The Final Project Precise Plan will reflect a layout of buildings and planting of vegetation that puts wind-sensitive activities to the east of some form of shelter. Vegetation, such as trees and hedges, are incorporated as an effective wind shelter. Where this type of windbreak is not feasible, porous screens would be used, such as the kind installed around tennis courts. With the implementation of these design measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Drainage and Water Oualitv Impacts (1996 SEIR). Sut~tJlemental Impact D-1 Maintenance of Debris Basins. In 1996, the County of San Mateo raised questions regarding the effectiveness of the 1983 City-County Joint Powers Agreement in adequately maintaining project-related catchment basins and proposed disbandment of the Joint Powers Authority. This creates an uncertainty regarding ongoing maintenance responsibilities for the catchment basins, which represents a potentially significant adverse impact of the Final Project storm drainage system. 000190 Page 9 of 10 Mitigation Measure. Consider disbandment of the Joint Powers Authority for catchment basin maintenance, as proposed by the County of San Mateo. If the Joint Powers Authority is to be disbanded, work with the County and Project Applicant to ensure that the catchment basins are in proper condition to allow their dedication directly to the County, as the County suggests. If the Joint Powers Authority is to be maintained, continue to fulfill City responsibilities in accordance with Joint Powers Agreement of June 21, 1983. Findin~. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Final Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1996 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Final Project is less than significant. Rationale. This mitigation requires that the maintenance of the debris basins will either be provided by the Joint Powers Authority or the County in the event the Joint Powers Authority is disbanded. Since the mitigation measure provides an alternative if the Joint Powers Authority is disbanded, the impacts are mitigated to a level of less than significant. J :\WPDLMnrsw\405\035XAGREEXPHASE3\CEQAEXC_kaj_nov 17. doc Page 10 of 10 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION THE FINAL TERRABAY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM BACKGROUND On February 17, 1999, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco certified the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for Terrabay Phase II and III (Certified 1998-99 SEIR) (State Clearinghouse # 97-82077) by Resolution # 19-99. The Certified 1998-99 SEIR built upon the 1996 SEIR and the 1982 Environmental Impact Report (1982 EIR) for the proposed project. The Terrabay Project is a three-phased project, beginning in 1982. Phase I was analyzed in the 1982 EIR and is built and fully occupied. Phase I consists of two residential subdivisions: Village- 161 townhome units and Park-125 single-family detached units. Phase II Woods, Commons and Point and Phase III Commercial was analyzed in the 1996 SEIR and the 1998-99 SEIR. The following two tables present a detail of the project analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR: TABLE I-RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD #/TYPE UNITS ACREAGE Woods East and West 135/Single-Family 31.30 Commons 32/Condominium 8.22 Point 181 23.90 Condominium/Townhome Total 348 Units 63.42 6214756vl Terrabay Final Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 2 TABLE Il-COMMERCIAL DRAFT AND FINAL SEIR LAND USE Draft SEIR Hotels Restaurants Retail Mixed Use Total-Commercial Total Residential/Commercial Final SEIR Hotel Restaurant Office Total Commercial Total Residential/Commercial [SQUAREFOOTAGE I ACREAGE 235,000-280,000 21.20 12,000-18,000 3.66 6000-10,000 3.57 30,000-35,000 2.45 283,000 - 342,000 30.88 N/A 94.30 150 Room (+/- 200,000) 2.9 7,500 1.8 340,000 4.9 540,750 9.6 N/A 73.02 The Woods project is currently under construction. The applicant (Sunchase/Sterling Pacific) withdrew the application for the Commons, and the City Council denied the Point, on May 12, 1999. The City Council remanded the Phase III commercial portion of the project back to the Planning Commission with the clear directive to preserve the archaeological site, among other issues. Therefore, no approvals were granted for the commercial portion of the project. Sunchase/Sterling Pacific did not return to the Planning Commission with the Phase III Commercial portion of the proposed project. THE FINAL TERRABAY SPECIFIC PLAN (Final Project) Myers Development Corporation assumed interest in the Woods, Commons, Point and Commercial lands in December 1999. Their development proposal for the Commons, Point and Commercial lands is substantially different than that of the project analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR in that it holds from development 25.73 acres of land and places it in preserve. The land referred to, as the "Preservation Parcel" would preserve the archaeological site (known as CA-SMa-40) as well as Viola Pedunculata (Viola) and wetlands areas from development. The creation of this Preservation Parcel is mandated in the February 26, 2000 Settlement Agreement entered into by Myers Development Company, the San Bruno Mountain Watch, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the City. In summary: 6214756v I Terrabay Final Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 3 TABLE Ill-PROJECT DESCRIPTION FINAL PROJECT LANDS PARCEL ACREAGE Preservation Parcel 25.73 Buffer Parcel 2.69 Office Parcel 18.08 Residential Parcel 14.96 Recreation Parcel 6.48 LAND USE Open Space Preserve Surface Parking 665,000/ Office (child care and performing arts theatre) 96Condominium/Apartments 70 single family attached 25,000-30,000 Recreation Center Total N/A 42.25 (Preservation Parcel excluded from total) 1) A 25.73 acre "Preservation Parcel" The Preservation Parcel (which is required by the Settlement Agreement between the City, Myers, San Bruno Mountain Watch and the Center for Biological Diversity) is located in the mid- to north-area of the commercial lands. The Preservation Parcel will provide preservation of the shell mound, wetlands and Viola. The Preservation Parcel will remain in permanent open space and may eventually be conveyed to San Mateo County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County Park. 2) A 2.69 acre "Buffer Parcel" The Buffer Parcel, also required by the Settlement Agreement, is located adjacent to and south of the Preservation Parcel. The Buffer Parcel will provide a "buffer area" between the Preservation Parcel and the Office Parcel. Very limited development of the Buffer Parcel is proposed and will consist of a play area for the day care, surface parking and landscaping. 3) An 18.08 acre "Office Parcel" The Office Parcel consists of the remaining portion of the commercial area south of the Preservation and Buffer Parcels and a portion of what was the Point Area. The project is an office tower consisting of 665,000 square feet of commercial office space including 7,500 square feet of ground floor support retail and 1,785 parking spaces. The office Parcel will include a 150-seat performing arts theatre and a 100-child day care center. The performing arts theatre will also include storage area requisite to store items peculiar to the performing arts. The theatre will be around 4,000 square feet in area on the ground floor off the main lobby and will serve as a conference room during the day. The day care center, proposed to be operated by the YMCA, will consist of approximately 9,000 6214756vl Terrabay Final Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 4 square feet in area and include an outdoor play area, as noted above. The day care center will be at-grade in the northern section of the podium structure (garage) and facing the Buffer Parcel. The proposed orientation and location provides for maximum separation from vehicular activity and the main entry to the office. Maximum glazing will be used in the center to provide natural light and views to the north. 4) A 14.96 acre "Residential Parcel" The Residential Parcel will consist of the remaining areas of the Phase II Residential area near the Point. The proposal is for 70 units of single family attached units in three, four and five unit clusters with 298 parking spaces and a 17-story 96-unit apartment building plus 102 garaged parking spaces. Single family attached housing will be located on the mid- and eastern-portions of the site and an apartment/condominium building will be on the western portion of the site. 5) An 8.22 acre "Recreational Parcel" The proposal is for a recreation center that would be owned and operated by YMCA. A portion of Recreation Parcel that contains Viola Pendunculata will be dedicated to the County of San Mateo for inclusion in San Bruno County Mountain Park and the boundary line of the HCP was revised in the October Plan to accommodate the protection and conveyance of the habitat. Should the YMCA, or similar organization not be able to develop a recreation facility on a portion of the site, then the entire site would be dedicated to the County of San Mateo for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County Park. Other elements of the October Plan (Final Plan) include: 6) Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM Program) The Final Project also includes an aggressive TDM Program that addresses both the commercial and residential components of the project. Shuttle, van pool, parking and shift management, worker support services and worker housing as well as annual monitoring, updates, and penalties are included in the TDM Program. The TDM Program includes funding for the City monitoring of the TDM Program, penalties should the trip reductions not be met and additional on-site services for the office workers. Another critical element of the TDM Program is the linking of the residential construction to the construction of the office, and offering the office workers first opportunity to purchase or rent a home via an aggressive marketing program to the office tenant and office workers. The TDM Program will be accomplished through a program that will meet the trip reduction goals based on the 1998-99 SEIR. The following measures will be considered for inclusion in the TDM Plan: 6214756vl Terrabay Final Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 5 1. Office Element Of The TDM Program a) Transit · Dedicated private shuttle for employees to BART and CalTrain stations; · On-site sale of subsidized transit passes for office users; · Free start-up transit package for office users; · On-site transit-stop; · Use of daycare facility proposed in the office component; · Operate private shuttle to train stations at 15 minute headway during peak hours (6-9 am, 3:30-7:30 PM) and at 20 minute headway during off-peak (balance of 6 am-10 PM), with flexibility to change based on use of system; and · Guaranteed "ride home" program. b) Carpool/Vanpool · Reserve premium parking spaces for office carpool/vanpool riders; · Office employee ridesharing matching system; and, · Assistance in office vanpool arrangements. c) Parking Management · Reduced office parking; Reserve at the onset of the Project, a minimum of 10% of office the parking spaces (after deducting visitor parking, handicapped, and carpool/vanpool spaces - estimate at about 115 overall) to be sold as paid parking at not less than $60 per month by the building owner. The remaining 90% of office spaces may be offered free of charge, at MDC's election. Non-visitor parking (paid, non-paid and carpool/vanpool) would be gated with access by card keys; · Charge for structured parking if TDM goals are not met; and, · Increase parking charges ifTDM goals are not being met. d) Bicycling/Telecommute/Flexible Work Hours/Services to Employees 6214756vl Terrabay Final Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 6 · On-site bicycle storage: (One Class I and II lockable covered storage unit for each 50 parking spaces) for office use and 10 such units for any future recreational facility; · On-site office shower and locker facilities; · Assistance in implementing office telecommute programs including installation of highband width connections to employees' homes; · Installation of videoconference center in office building; · Monitor bike-use and add bike racks/lockers as needed; · Promote employee flexible work hours; · Provide limited exercise area in building; · Provide automated teller machine within/at the building; · Provide support retail uses which shall include limited food service, and such other convenience services as are needed by building tenants; · Require shifts to start and end off-peak "flex time;" e) Transportation Coordinator · Dedicate a part-time on-site transportation coordinator; · Conduct annual transportation surveys to identify employee travel needs; · Promote ongoing education program on alternative modes; · Incorporate an on-site transportation information center in building entry area; * Collect shuttle rider-ship data by drivers for one week and boardings by shuttle run; · Expand annual transportation surveys to include opinions on transit service; · Collect shuttle rider-ship data as appropriate; and, · Submit annual employee surveys and shuttle rider-ship data to the City Coordinator. f) City Annual Monitoring Program and Update. · Monitoring shall occur annually throughout the life of the Project. TDM Program trip reduction measures shall be increased should the targeted goals that are necessary in 6214756vl Terrabay Final Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 7 order to stay within the umbrella of the 1998-99 SEIR trip rates, impacts and mitigations not be met. Review of annual traffic data submitted by Transportation Coordinator assigned by the Terrabay Office Project; · Collection and assessment of traffic counts at office driveway; Collection and assessment of parking counts at office and recreational / daycare facilities; · Collection and assessment of shuttle transit rider-ship counts; · Collection and assessment of rack data on use of bike racks; The building owner shall pay the City a Traffic Monitoring Fee (TMF), in order to cover the costs of the City's annual review of the traffic data and in order to collect the requisite data. The data shall be collected and reviewed by an independent consultant hired by the City and paid for by the building owner and shall commence one year after the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The cost of such data collection and review is estimated at $15,000 per year. The City will collect these fees from the office-building owner annually. · The TDM Program shall be memorialized in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and the Development Agreement for the Commercial Office project. g) Additional Traffic Monitoring and Verification The possibility exists that South San Francisco and Brisbane will not develop to levels projected in the 1998-99 SEIR. For example, traffic activity associated with Brisbane's most intense development alternative presented in their General Plan was included as a part of the background traffic levels analyzed in the 1998- 99 SEIR. For this reason, a thorough re-evaluation of traffic levels and projected future development in both cities by 2005 or 2010 could indicate a measurable change in overall traffic levels expected on the local roadway system. The possibility exists that if background traffic volumes are lower than projected in the 1998-99 SEIR analysis, additional capacity may be available to accommodate a higher level of Terrabay trip generation. The steps to follow at some future point to determine if additional trip generation may be allowable (and thus the trip reduction required of Terrabay less) from the Terrabay site are: · Conduct a thorough set of freeway and intersection counts during both commute periods to determine existing traffic levels in the vicinity of the Terrabay site. 6214756vl Terrabay Final Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 8 Obtain the most up-to-date development projections from both Brisbane and South San Francisco and conduct a traffic study to determine a new set of area build-out commute period traffic projections for the freeway and major intersections near the Terrabay site. Determine freeway, ramp and intersection AM and PM commute period operating conditions and the available capacity to accommodate additional traffic from a new set of businesses relocating into the Terrabay Phase III development above that approved for the commercial development in the Final Project. h) Penalty Portion of the TDM Program Based upon the monitoring and City review of the data, if the results of the report indicate that the required trip reduction is not being met, the building owner will be notified and be required to make changes in the TDM Program. Monitoring of the program's effectiveness shall occur the subsequent year and if the required trip reduction remains unmet, the building owner shall be fined $15,000 for each percentage point that the trips have not been reduced. The TDM Program shall be revised again and monitored again the following year. In the event results continue to fall short of the TDM Program objectives, the same fine shall apply. 2. Residential Element to the TDM Plan a) Residential - Transit · Operate private shuttle to train stations with hours noted above for office; · Provide one shuttle stop within the Final Project Residential area, two stop locations within Phase I and one stop within the Woods; and, Operation of shuttles to serve Terrabay residential neighborhoods, including the Village, Park, Woods and the Final Project residential neighborhood should be monitored to analyze potential capacity problems created by non-Terrabay use. b) Bicycling Facilities · Provide covered, lockable storage capacity for 10 bikes for the recreational site facility (YMCA or equivalent) should it be developed; · Provide adequate storage in the condominium garage for securing bicycles; c) Worker Housing / Trip Reduction 6214756v! Terrabay Final Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 9 MDC will make all reasonable efforts to encourage tenants of the commercial component of the Project to purchase units in the residential component, including, but not limited to the following: i) Offer employees of the commercial component a right of first offer to own or rent housing within the Project; ii) Negotiate with the lead office tenant(s) to acquire or assist in acquisition of the residential units on behalf of its employees, subject to fair housing laws over a realistic period of time that does not undermine project feasibility; iii) Establish market pricing in the residential component targeted to the commercial component employees which is acceptable to MDC and the City but that does not undermine project feasibility; iv) Implement a marketing plan that targets employees occupying the office buildings in the east of 101 Highway commercial areas and the entire City. The provisions of parking under the Final Project is less than City zoning standards. To encourage alternative transportation modes and to minimize hillside grading, the level of parking provided for the office uses has reduced by slightly more than 24% from the City's code requirements. This reduced parking supply is feasible based on the application of the TDM Program. Parking areas and standards shall meet the City design layout and dimension requirement. As a means to enhance pedestrian access within and throughout the Final Project, the following concepts are incorporated into the Final Project: Pedestrian paths will be constructed at locations through out the Final Project to tie the existing adjacent neighborhoods and the project approval by San Mateo Department of Parks and Recreation and the City of South San Francisco Planning Division. · A paved pedestrian path will be constructed along Sister Cities Boulevard. A paved pedestrian/bicycle path shall also be provided along Bayshore Highway, between the Final Project entrance and Bayshore Boulevard's intersection with Oyster Point/Sister Cities Boulevards. 6214756v 1 Terrabay Final Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 10 7) Open Space and Habitat Restoration and the Point Restoration The Final Project includes restoration and habitat enhancement for the Preservation Parcel and Recreation Parcel. The restoration is similar to that currently being employed in Juncus Ravine, which involves a three- to five-year invasive plant removal program. Thomas Reid Associates the Habitat Conservation Plan Administrator has approved the program. The work has begun on the Preservation Parcel. Restoration of the remainder parcels, pursuant to the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is still required by the HCP and proposed in the October Plan. FINAL PROJECT IMPACTS The development proposed in the Final Project will result in disturbing 43 acres of land; approximately 23 acres of land less than the 73 acres proposed by the 1998 Project evaluated in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. The proposed Recreation (old Commons parcel) and Residential (old Point parcel) development would affect 22.08 acres. The Habitat Conservation Protection (HCP) fence has been moved to include the Viola that is on the Recreation Parcel in the HCP lands. The Project analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR proposed full development of what is now referred to as the Recreation Parcel. The project analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR proposed developing all of the Commercial Parcel which is now referred to as the Preservation Parcel and Buffer Parcel. The Final Project will preserve the archaeological site (CA-SMa-40) and its relationship to CA-SMa-92, which is on County lands as well as wetlands and Viola. The development proposed in the Final Project will result in less drainage and hydrology impacts, less grading impacts, less biology impacts, no impacts to archaeology, and the same or slightly less impacts to traffic and circulation impacts, noise, air quality public service and hazards. 1998-99 SEIR Analysis The Certified 1998-99 SEIR analyzed geology, soils and seismicity; hydrology and drainage; biology; traffic and circulation; air quality; noise, public services; hazards and archaeology. The following discussion compares the proposed Final Project to the impact topics, impacts and mitigations, identified, discussed and analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. The following Table IV compares the proposed Final Project land uses and acreage with that analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR which includes the Project, the Mitigated Plan Alternative and the Environmentally Superior Development Alternative. 6214756vl Terrabay Final Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 11 TABLE IV COMPARISON OF THE FINAL PROJECT (2000) AND THE PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN THE 1998-99 SEIR PLAN LAND USE ACREAGE FINAL PLAN 166 Residential Units 18.08 665,000 sq. ft. Office 14.96 30,000 sq. ft. Recreation Center 06.48 1998-99 PROJECT (SEIR) MITIGATED PLAN ALTERNATIVE (SEIR) ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE (SEIR) TABLE NOTES: 213 Condominiums/Townhomes 280,000 sq. fi. Hotel 18,000 sq. fi. Restaurant 10,000 sq. fi. Retail 35,000 sq. fl. Mixed Use 213 Condominiums/Townhomes 340,000 sq. ft. Office 7,500 sq. ft. Restaurant 150 room Hotel 181 Condominiums/Townhomes 4,800 sq. ft. Restaurant 12,000 sq. fl. Mixed Use 120 room Hotel Total Acres: 39.51 32.12 21.20 03.66 03.57 02.24 Total Acres: 62.79 32.12 04.90 01.80 02.90 Total Acres: 41.72 23.90 Acreage (estimate) for all three uses: 4.70 Total Estimated Acres: 28.60 The "Woods East' and "Woods West" (Woods Only) 135 single-family development was analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. The Woods Only development was approved by the City Council on May 12, 1999 and is under construction. Woods Only is not included in this table as this table compares the remaining parcels of the Terrabay property, and not the property with approved entitlements that is either complete (Terrabay Phase I- Village and Park) or under construction (Terrabay Woods-Only). The Environmentally Superior Development Alternative did not include a breakdown of acreage for the three development parcels to be located south of CA-SMa-40. The above comparison assumes approximately five acres for the three commercial land uses which is based upon the location of the parcels and the acreage provided by the applicant for the Mitigated Plan Alternative analysis. 6214756vl Terrabay Final Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 12 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS Geology, Soils and Seismicity The development in the Final Project will result in less grading and geotechnical impacts than what is identified and analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. In brief summary, less impacts would result because: 1) There will be substantially less grading of the commercial area; 2) Grading is separated further from the debris slide area on the Commons (i.e., "Recreation Parcel") parcel than that what was analyzed in the 1998-99 SEIR; 3) The residential building footprints and grading is proposed to be in an area that is significantly smaller in area than that proposed and analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR; 4) The development in the commercial area will greatly reduce the size of the cuts behind the proposed buildings; 5) Development in the commercial area is further away from the rock and debris slide area. Hydrology and Drainage The development in the Final Project will result in less hydrology and drainage impacts than what is identified and analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. Hydrology and drainage will be reduced from those analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. Hydrology will be largely un-affected where the 25.73 acre Preservation Parcel is proposed. The Recreation Parcel (old Commons parcel) will not be developed as intensely as that analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. The Precise Plan(s) for the project will be designed in accordance with the mitigation measures identified for site development, which are contained in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. Biology The development in the Final Project will result in less biological impacts than what is identified and analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. More wetlands and perennial springs will be preserved as a result of the Preservation Parcel being held in undisturbed open space. As a point of comparison, the Certified 1998-99 SEIR (Figure 4.3-1 and the text on page 153) identifies that there are 2.026 acres of wetlands on the Phase II and III site (the majority being on the Phase III-commercial site). Impact 4.3-3 on page 160 of the Certified 1998-99 SEIR states that the 1998 Project would eliminate all the remaining wetlands on the site. Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(a) identifies redesigning the Project to avoid jurisdictional wetlands to the maximum extent feasible. The development in the Final Project does implement mitigation measure 4.3-3(a). The office building in the Final Project will affect a portion of the perennial spring near the Point area. The City's hook ramp project will affect approximately 0.86 acre of wetlands. The proposed mitigation plan is a 2:1 replacement on site in the Preservation Parcel area. The City adopted an MMRP for the hook ramp project on October 11, 2000 by Resolution # 123- 2000. Less grading will occur and as a result less native grasslands will be removed from the site. The 1,000 plus Viola in the northern portion of the site will be preserved on the 6214756vl Terrabay Final Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 13 Preservation Parcel. All of the Viola will be preserved on the Recreation Parcel. The HCP fence boundary has been moved to include the Viola within the HCP area to assure the protection. The mitigation measures contained in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR will still apply to any development proposed by the Final Project. Any "take" of Viola would be subject to an U.S. Fish and Wildlife Incidental Take Permit (10a) amendment. Any alteration or take of jurisdictional waters of the United States will still require an U.S. Army Corp of Engineers permit. Traffic and Circulation The development in the Final Project will result in the same or slightly less traffic and circulation impacts than what is identified and analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. The analysis assumes a 16 percent trip reduction is in place. The TDM Program is designed to provide a 13 to 36 percent trip reduction depending on the use of the building. The TDM Program (memorialized in the Specific Plan, Development Agreement and herein) contains annual monitoring and penalties if the required reductions are not being met. In brief summary, development proposed by the Final Project will produce significant impacts at the same number of intersections and ramps analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. However, although significant, these impacts will be somewhat less than those identified in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. The number of segments on U.S. 101 freeway significantly impacted would be reduced from nine down to six due to the lower traffic levels associated with the Final Project. The number of locations experiencing significant storage deficiencies along Bayshore Boulevard in close proximity to the Terrabay site will be reduced from two down to one with the Final Project (Y 2000). Mitigations required at the Bayshore Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection will be the same or less with the Final Project. Air Oualitv Development in the Final Project will result in the same air quality impacts, or slightly less, than what is identified and analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council (Resolution # 150-99) with respect to regional air quality. Air quality impacts are a function of vehicular trips and emissions. Traffic and circulation will result in slightly less vehicular trips than the 1998 project that was identified and analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR (see Traffic and Circulation above). Construction air quality impacts will be the same as those identified and analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR and the same mitigation measures will apply to development proposed by the Final Project. 6214756vl Terrabay Final Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 14 Noise The development in the Final ?roject will result in the same, or slightly less noise impacts than what is identified and analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. Noise with respect to project operations is a function of vehicular trips. Traffic and circulation will result in slightly less vehicular trips than what was identified and analyzed for the 1998 Project analyzed in the certified 1998-99 SEIR. Therefore the noise impacts will be the same. Construction noise impacts will also be the same as that identified and analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. The same construction noise mitigation measures will apply to development associated with the Final Project. Public Services Police Services The development in the Final Project will result in the same, or slightly less police impacts than that which was identified and analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. The mitigation measures identified in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR will apply to the development proposed by the Final Project. Public Schools The development in the Final Project will result in the same school impacts as those identified and analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. School impacts identified in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR were less-than-significant. The analysis was based on 135 new single-family units in the Woods neighborhood (which is under construction), 213 new residential units in the Commons and Point neighborhoods and the commercial development. The Final Project envisions 166 units (as opposed to 213 units). The size of the units are anticipated to be one, two and three bedroom units as opposed to the three and four bedroom plan of the 1998 Project analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. Therefore, the number of occupants (and thus school age children) is anticipated to be the same or slightly less that that analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. As a point of comparison, 837 bedrooms were proposed in the Point and Commons Project analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. Assuming that all 166 units proposed by the Final Project contain three bedrooms, the result would be 498 bedrooms (a conservative analysis for CEQA purposes) a reduction of 339 bedrooms. In summary, the 1998 Project and the project envisioned by the Final Project are virtually the same. School impacts would remain less-than-significant. 6214756vl Terrabay Final Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 15 Hazards Aerial Lead The development in the Final Project would result in the same aerial lead impacts as those identified and analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. The aerial lead analysis contained in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR pertains to the "hook ramp" project. The impacts and mitigations will remain the same and not be altered negatively or positively as a result of any development envisioned by the Final Project because the hook ramps project will be unchanged. On October 11, 2000 the City adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the hook ramp project by Resolution 123-2000. Magnetic Fields The development in the Final Project will result in less electromagnetic field (EMF) impacts as those identified and analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. The 1998 Project analyzed in the 1998-99 SEIR analyzed the impacts that EMF would have on future residents, and found that the impact would be less-than-significant. The development anticipated by the Final Project, is not residential, but recreational and day care. People would be expected to be on the site less that that anticipated by a residential land use and the building may be set back further from the transmission line. Archaeology/Historical Summary Final Project The development in the Final Project will result in significantly less impacts to archaeology than what is identified and analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. The development proposed in the Final Project will preserve 25.73 acres and hold in abeyance from development the archaeological site (CA-SMa-40) which is located within that parcel. The Preservation Parcel will extend from approximately 30 feet south of the archaeological site to the boundary of the property to the east, west and north. A Buffer Parcel is also proposed which would consist of 2.69 acres extending from the southern boundary of the Preservation Parcel to "Indian Ridge." Development on the Buffer Parcel will allow for surface parking only; i.e., no structured parking would be permitted. The Final Project will not impact archaeology. The City adopted an MMRP on October 11, 2000 by Resolution # 123-2000. 6214756vl Terrabay Final Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 16 ATTACHMENT E Remaining Lands of Phase II and III - Terrabay Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program 6214756vl I M PACT GEOLOGY MITIGATION: 1998 - 1999 SEIR 4.1-1 Grading Construction of the Final Terrabay Specific Plan (Final Project) project would require excavation of approximately three additional acres of natural lands. The Final Project would grade approximately 24 acres of land for the residential project that was previously disturbed during Phase I activities and 10 acres of land for tile commercial portion of which 6.7 acres were disturbed during Phase I activities. This grading would expose areas to erosion, decrease the stability of the bedrock and sediment cover, and cause differential settlement in fills over drainages. The impact of grading of new areas could not be avoided without redesignihg tile project and reducing the size of development areas. Grading as proposed without mitigation would result in significant erosion, slope instability, differential settlement, and secondary impacts. Grading is considerably reduced lbr the Final Project than that of the 1998- 99 Project. MITIGATION Remaining Parcels of Phase II and Ill-Terrabay Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan No measures would be required tbr gradingper se within previously graded parts of the site development areas. Moreover, grading which would not extend beyond the 50-foot minor boundary adjustment limit and 9.31-acre uphill of the HCP fence would comply with tile Agreement with Respect to the San Bruno Mountain Area Habitat Conservation Plan, as required by the Terrabay Specific Plan District, and, therefore, would not necessitate additional mitigation. In order for the project to be deemed in compliance and to constitute a less-than-significant impact: Project sponsor's In Precise Plan (before City City's Geology geotechnical consultant issues grading permit)An Consultant addition, tile project sponsor's geotechnical consultant shall be present on-site full-time during grading to verify and, if necessary, modify the final grading plans. All grading plans and operations in the Terrabay Specific Plan District shall be in compliance with the provisions of the San Bruno Mountain Area Habitat Conservation Plan (Title 20 of the South San Francisco Zoning Code Section 20.63.020). In order to meet this requirement, disturbed land within this minor boundary adjustment limit area shall be replaced through in-kind restoration. No development proposal which requires a permit or an approval of any sort to be issued by any local, State, or Federal agency may be approved by the City until proof of such other permit, license, or approval is on file in the department of community Development (Title 20 of the South San Francisco Zoning Code Section 20.63.250). Reducing the extent of grading involved in project implementation would help balance cut and fill operations and the need to export excess fill material lbr disposal (or reuse) at another location. Measures to mitigate direct erosion, slope stability, and differential settlement impacts are presented below (see Mitigation Measures 4. I-2 through 4.1-5), and measures to mitigate indirect traffic, air quality, and 1 I M PACT GEOLOGY MITIGATION: 1998 - 1999 SEIR 4.1-2 SIopeStability/Erosion Cuts greater than ten feet high, cuts in soil for proposed slopes with grades steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical), or cuts with bedrock grades steeper than 1.5:t could erode until vegetation is re-established. These engineered slopes can erode locally, as experienced in Phase 1 where substantial grading was completed during a drought and then abandoned during a period of above average rainfall. Proposed cut slopes, especially in soil, need to be protected from erosion before tile rainy season. Unless a comprehensive winterization plan is implemented before the onset of winter rains, tile erosion from the unvegetated slopes would be significant. MITIGATION Remaining Parcels of Phase II and lll-Terrabay Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan IMPLEMENTED BY WHEN IMPLEMENTED MONITORED BY VERIFIED/DATE noise impacts are presented in the respective' analysis. (a) In order to reduce slope stability impacts to less- than-significant levels, the project's grading plans shall incorporate the following: · Project sponsor's geotechnical consultant In Precise Plan (before City issues grading permit).In addition, the sponsor's geotechnical consultant shall be present on-site full- tirne during grading to verify and, if necessary, modify the final grading 'plans. City geologic consultant to monitor mass grading. After grading, sponsor's and City's geologic consultant to monitor slopes including monitoring instruments until slopes are turned over to Homeowners Association. Slopes shall be laid back to provide grades no steeper than 2:1 in soil and 1.5:1 in rock except in areas where rock is highly fractured and acts like soils in which case slopes shall be laid back farther, rock bolts shall be installed, or retaining walls shall be constructed. In addition, subsurface drainage shall be installed. Intermediate benches and accompanying drain- age shall be designed with vertical intervals of about 30 feet or as recommended by the City Engineer. · Perimeter type A-ditches shall be provided above cut slopes. Slope and groundwater monitoring instruments (inclinometers, piezometers) shall be installed at the tops of cuts to monitor slope stability. If slopes cannot be laid back without encroaching beyond the 50-foot minor boundary adjustment limit (and in excess of 9.31 acres) in the HCP area, alternative mitigation to the above criteria include revising proposed grading plans to modify site design. Such modifications shall incorporate one or all of the following measures: IMPACT GEOLOGY MITIGATION: 1998 -1999 SEIR MITIGATION Remaining Parcels of Phase II and III-Terrabay Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan [MPLEMENTED BY WHEN IMPLEMENTED I MONITORED BY VERIFIED/DATE I The location and / or height &retaining walls shall be shifted or raised. Retaining walls higher than ten feet shall not be designed as poured in place structures but shall provide step backs or cribs planted with vegetation and built with rough stone or earth colored materials. The project sponsor shall submit plans for retaining wall design for City review. Grades &the site streets shall be increased wherever possible to reduce grading into the hill but in no case exceed 15 percent. Grades between 12 and 15 percent shall require approval by the City Engineer, as provided by the Terrabay Specific Plan District. Development shall be limited to lower site elevations to contain grading within development areas, thus reducing the total development area (and amount of development which could be accommodated). (b) As previously stipulated for Phase 1, the City shall withhold building permits for development of lots located downhill of cut slopes until the slopes have experienced at least one average winter season (about 20 inches of rainfall). (c) As automatically required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWCQB) and the City of South San Francisco, all exposed slopes and surfaces (graded pads) shall be winterized before October 15 &each year. The winterization program shall include such measures as; Waddles, hydroseeding, silt fences, straw bales, and berms shall be placed around pads with contained (pipe) discharges. · Streets shall be swept before (and truck access should be limited during) major storms. Sandbag check dams shall be placed along gutters, and straw mats should be placed over storm inlets. City's Engineering and Building Divisions Project sponsor's geotechnical consultant After at least one average winter season (before City issues the building permit). Before October 15. City's geologic consultant City's geologic consultant and City's Water Quality Control Division 3 IMPACT GEOLOGY MITIGATION: 1998 - 1999 SEIR 4. I-3 Landsliding and Debris Slides Landslides and debris slides are present within and above site development areas. Without mitigation, continued movement would have significant impacts on proposed development. Large-scale grading operations likely would be necessary to repair unstable areas. In addition to deep-seated landslides, the site has experienced impacts from shallow debris slides. Landslide repair techniques, similar to those used during Phase I grading, would be necessary during grading proposed for the site. If mitigation measures, including drainage, removal, deflection and / or retention structures, setbacks, debris basins, etc., are not taken, thture debris slides would have a significant impact on proposed development. MITIGATION Remaining Parcels of Phase 1I and llI-Terrabay Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan IMPLEMENTED BY WHEN IMPLEMENTED MONITORED BY VERIFIED/DATE · The grading site(s) shall be inspected prior to and during major storms. (a) The Precise Plan and Vesting Tentative Map grading plans shall incorporate the following: Project sponsor's geotechnical consultant In Precise Plan Grading Plan. The sponsor's geotechnical consultant and City's inspector shall monitor mass grading on the site. The project sponsor's geotechnical consultant also shall monitor the instrumentation. Any conditions not identified before grading, shall be mitigated during mass grading. Measures to mitigate active slide areas and to mitigate cuts into active slides shall be incorporated into the project and include removing material, buttressing, and building retaining walls. Locations shall be shown of all deflection and retaining walls as determined necessary by the City's Consulting Geologist. Implementation shall include installation of monitoring instruments (inclinometers, piezometers). Measures shall adhere to the City's grading requirements listed in Impact 4.1-2 and can be achieved by using techniques listed in Mitigation Measure, including installation of slope stability monitoring instruments. If monitoring determines that mitigation is not working as designed, additional mitigation will be necessary, using the measures listed above, as approved by the City. As required by Mitigation Measure 4.1- 2(b), slopes shall be monitored for at least one average winter season I M PACT GEOLOGY MITIGATION: 1998 - 1999 SEIR 4. l-,I Rockslides and Roc~falls Past cuts into the sandstone bedrock along the southern end of San Bruno Mountain often initiated major rockslides, such as large historic rockslides present north and northeast of the Phase Ill development area. In addition, rock outcrops on and above the site pose potential h~ards from rockfalls, especially if triggered by ground shaking in an earthquake. MITIGATION Remaining Parcels of Phase II and lll-Terrabay Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan [ IMPLEMENTEDBY I WHENIMPLEMENTED ] MONITOREDBY J VERIFIED/DATE (b) The project's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall establish and provide for implementation of a Slope Maintenance Plan by the project's Property Owners Associations (Owners Associations). The project sponsor shall provide initial funding for the Slope Management Plan, and the Property Owners Associations shall fund long- term implementation after receiving title to their respective private open space lands. At a minimum, the Slope Maintenance Plan shall provide for moni- toring and maintenance of engineered slopes, perimeter drainage, debris slide retention, and deflection structures. (a) Project plans shall be revised to incorporate the specific measures identified by the detailed rock slope stability analysis of the orientation and spacing of rock defects and inspection of individual rock outcrops conducted by the project sponsor's geotechnical consultant. The revised plans shall identify individual measures or combinations of measures proposed for each rock slope, outcrop, and source area to mitigate rockslide and rockfall impacts. Among measures for consideration are one or more of the following: Rockslide measures: Flatter slopes shall be graded with benches drainage ditches, and access for maintenance. Rock anchors shall be installed. Subdrains shall be constructed. · Geotechnical mitigation and revegetation shall be coordinated, possibly through design of Project Sponsor initially Jn the project's CC&Rs and Property Owners Associations thereafter Project sponsor's geotechnical consultant -- including both visual in-spection and continuing to collect monitoring instrumentation data -- before turning repaired slopes over to the respective Property Owners Associations for long-term maintenance and monitoring. In Precise Plan. In Precise Plan. before releasing lots immediately below the slopes for development. After development, the site shall be monitored as part of the Slope Maintenance Plan similar to procedures used in Phase I. City's geologic consultant and City Attorney Property Owners Associations for implementing Slope Maintenance Plans including monitoring of' the outcrops to be inspected annually before each rainy season and after significant seismic shaking. 151 PACT GEOLOGY MITIGATION: 998 - 1999 SEIR MITIGATION benched terracettes. · Slope monitoring instrumentation shall be installed (inclinometers, piezometers etc.). Rockfa// measures: · Loose rocks shall be scaled off. · Engineered rock fall fences shall placed below rock outcrops and above cut slopes. Remaining Parcels of Phase II and III-Terrabay Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 4.1-5 Artificial Fill Differential settlement £rom placement of deep fill, unconsolidated fill, or artificial fill at variable thickness can damage structures, roadways, and utilities developed on or in the fill materiaI. · Netting shall be placed around features to encapsulate and prevent material from moving. (b) The project sponsor shall include annual inspection of outcrops before each rainy season and after significant seismic shaking in the Slope Maintenance Plans (that is CC&Rs) identified in Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(b) for implementation by the respective Property Owners Associations. The City shall review, modil~ as necessary, and approve the CC&Rs. (a) The Precise Plan shall indicate the measures proposed to mitigate differential settlement impacts expected from development on areas of deep or varied fills. These techniques shall be evaluated and used on a case-by-case basis and, when selected and implemented, shall be monitored to determine their effectiveness. One or a combination of the following approaches shall be incorporated into project plans: · Cuts shall be over-excavated to provide bencbes in the fill. · Rock fill shall be used in the deepest parts of the fill areas. Fill shall be surcharged with excess material to accelerate settlement or by an alternate method approved by the City's Geology Consultant Project Sponsor initially in CC&Rs and Property Owners Associations thereafter. Project sponsor's geotechnical consultant to identify and incorporate measure(s) into Precise Plan In Precise Plan (betbre City approves grading permit) In Precise Plan City's geologic Consultant and City Attorney Project sponsor's geotechnical consultant and City's Geology Consultant I M PACT GEOLOGY MITIGATION: 1998 -- 1999 SEIR 4. I-6 Secondary Effects of Seismic Shaking Given site geologic conditions, hazards to people or property from ground shaking (including liquefaction, lurching, and lateral spreading) could be mitigated to levels deemed acceptable in a seismically active region through compliance with Unilbrm Building Code standards and measures required to address other potential impacts on development. MITIGATION Remaining Parcels of Phase II and lll-Terrabay Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan [ IMPLEMENTED I1Y I WHEN IMPLEMENTED I MONITORED BY VERIFIED/DATE Development of areas most sensitive to settlement shall be postponed for a construction season. The rate of settlement shall be monitored and development (including utilities, curbs, gutters, etc.) delayed until the rate of movement is with-in acceptable limits of the engineered structures. Structures shall be placed on deep pier fotmdations. Measures selected shall be evaluated through moni- toring of reference points, and development of the site, including roadways and utilities, shall be delayed until the amount of future settlement reaches an acceptable level, approximately one-half inch across approximately sixty feet." Stability analyses shall be conducted on representative slopes based on seismic loading and anticipated groundwater conditions to evaluate the need (if any) for special mitigation measures over and above standard engineering of the slopes in order to mitigate potential impacts on development from seismically induced landsliding and rocksliding. If the stability analysis identifies the need tbr special mitigation, Mitigation Measures 4.1-3 and 4.1-4 shall be revised to incorporate the additional seismic measures required. These could include one or more of the tbllowing: Keyways for fills shall be placed through soft soils · Flatter slopes shall be graded with benches. · Rock anchors shall be installed · Subdrains shall be constructed. · Retaining walls shall be built to minimize fill over sensitive areas. Project sponsor's geotechnical consultant shall be responsible for analyzing the engineering analysis of proposed slopes, also to be reviewed and approved by the City before granting grading permits. Betbre City issues grading permits. City building inspectors shall be responsible for reviewing and approving the seismic design of proposed structures as a routine response to building permit applications 7 IMPACT GEOLOGY MITIGATION: 1998 - 1999 SEIR MITIGATION Remaining Parcels of Phase II and lll-Terrabay Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan IMPLEMENTED BY WHEN IMPLEMENTED MONITORED BY VERIFIED/DATE Buildings shall be designed in conformance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) Zone 4 and City standards. Rockfalls shall be mitigated by removal, encapsulation, or fences (Mitigation Measure 4. l-4(a)). I M PA CT GEOLOGY MITIGATION: 1982 E I R MITIGATION Remaining Parcels of Phase II and llI-Terrabay Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan IIMPLEMENTED BY WHEN IMPLEMENTED MONITORED BY VERIFIED/DATE The removal of vegetation during grading would expose the land surface to increased on-site erosion potential and, consequently, increased off- site sedimentation of drainage systems. The project sponsor has incorporated the following mitigation measures in the Terrabay Development Specific Plan which directly or indirectly relate to geologic and hydrologic impacts: Steep slopes of medium to fine grained soils on San Bruno Mountain would have high erosion potential If disturbed during the rainy season (November to March). Excavation of bedrock could produce some rock fragments over six inches in size. Since a nearly balanced cut-and-fill concept is proposed, these oversized tYagments would be used on the site as fill. If left un-crushed, they could eventually cause differential settlement of sill surfaces that support buildings. An erosion control plan would be incorporated in the project design which would include on- site siltation basins to prevent downstream sedimentation and construction techniques to prevent soil loss. The construction period would be kept as brief as possible and phased to reduce the duration of unprotected soil exposure and to minimize soil removal. Slopes would generally be graded to 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) surfaces using cuts or fills. Steeper slopes or improperly designed slopes at this ratio could be subject to landsliding during seismic shaking, heavy rainfall, or from the weight of structures above them. The graded areas which would not be permanently disturbed would be hydromulched prior to the rainy season to further reduce soil exposure. Sharp changes in slope would be reduced to eliminate areas where erosion could begin. Terrabay has numerous shallow landslides and deep slides within its boundaries. Soil creep is moderate, but downhill creep in weathered bedrock is severe. Some bedrock in the Woods West my not be ripable and may require blasting. Residences on both the east and west would be built on fill and would be subject to moderate settlement. Access roads around the edges would generally be on cut slopes~ Road grades would be generally below six percent but range up to 14 percent. Slide repair, slope stabilization and subdrainage would be necessary. Limits of temporary and permanent grading would be clearly delineated during construction to prevent encroachment into areas to be left un-disturbed. Pedestrian and bicycle paths would be constructed to reduce the effects of indiscriminate travel across the project site and adjacent upslope areas IMPACT GEOLOGY MITIGATION: 1982 E I R The 1982 EIR studied the geologic conditions of the development area and the impacts and required mitigations for the plan under the 1982 Specific Plan. Similar to the 1998-99 SEIR, the 1982 EIR identified the following impacts: erosion due to removal of vegetation and soils condition; rock cuts; cut slopes; landslides; and settlement of fill. The 1982 EIR identified mitigation measures to address each of these impacts. To the extent these mitigation measures do not conflict with the measures under the I998-99 SEIR, they are incorporated herein. MITIGATION Remaining Parcels of Phase I1 and lll-Terrabay Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan The following mitigation measures are specifically directed toward the development of the steeply sloping project area at Terrabay. Many of them reiterate sound practices which would be required by City regulations or followed by responsible engineers or builders. They are recommended by the EIR consultant to assist the City and the project sponsor in creating a development which would be sensitive to the special conditions posed by the Terrabay site. Project sponsor's geo- technical consultant In Precise Plan prior to issuance of grading permits. City's Geologic Consultant and Engineering Division. The preliminary design criteria for each proposed development area provided in the geotechnical feasibility and general geotechnical summary should be used as a guideline for planning. Detailed geotechnical investigations for each specific project site should be conducted to provide design recommendations for each area. The grading plans should be evaluated after detailed geotechnical intbrmation is obtained from the investigation of each project development area. All grading and site preparation should be done under the direct supervision of the soil engineer in accordance with the guide specifications for engineered fill supplied by the geotechnical consultant. Fill slopes and cut slopes should be inclined no greater than 2:1 unless specifically reviewed and approved by a qualified soils engineer. Subdrain-age and surthce drainage should be installed to prevent sloughing or raveling of slopes. Cut slopes should be designed on an individual basis and approved by the City / County. Weak or unstable soils should be over- excavated and replaced with sound material properly keyed and compacted. High fill slopes should be overfilled and 10 I M PACT GEOLOGY MITIGATION: 1982 E I R IMITIGATION Remaining Parcels of Phase I1 and Ill-Terrabay Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan graded back to obtain stable surfaces. All fill slopes must be compacted to City / County specifications with no loose outer slopes. Cut and fill slopes should be planted to reduce erosion. Cut slopes should be terrace[d] between benches for silt retention where appropriate. Storm drainage and subdrainage should be in- stalled and maintained to prevent erosion of fill Retaining walls should be subdrained. All retaining walls should be designed to resist pressures appropriate to the size of the backslope After building sites are graded, they should be inspected by a qualified engineer and treated where necessary by over-excavation and back filling. Moisture prevention treatment should b used beneath building slabs where necessary. Landslides should be repaired by over- excavation, installation of subdrains and engineered backfilling, or by installation of retaining walls, or by some other appropriate method. Disturbed areas should be stabilized as quickly as possible either by vegetation or mechanical methods. During construction, limits of grading should be defined by fencing. Both temporary and permanent erosion control measures should be employed Slope lengths and gradients should be kept to a minimum Runoff should be kept away from disturbed areas using water bars during construction. I1 ! M PACT GEOLOGY MITIGATION: 1982 E I R The [southern part of the Phase II1 site] would be ahnost entirely on fill. A deep landslide is uphill ['rom the site on the west side of the ravine. Numerous small shallow slides line the east side of MITIGATION Remaining Parcels of Phase II and lll-Terrabay Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan I IMPLEMENTED BY WHEN IMPLEMENTED I MONITORED BY I VERIFIED/DATE · Construction sediment should be trapped before it leaves the site. Adherence to grading principles and recommendations to reduce geologic and hydrologic impacts should be made a condition of approval of the proposed project. It should be the responsibility of the City / County to see that the recommendations are carried out. Grading, drainage, and erosion control plans should be submitted to and reviewed by the City / County tbr each final subdivision during the phased development of the site. Site- specific soils and foundation studies for each neighborhood would be necessary to complete these plans. · All landslides and areas of weak soil in nor near proposed development should be repaired. Although all faults on the site are considered inactive, the maps for each final subdivision located along a suspected fault trace should include verification of inactivity. Setbacks should be provided as necessary. The project sponsor should investigate the avail-ability of landslide insurance programs. Liability for the cost of damage from future landslides on the site to on-site property or adjacent property should be clarified. Construction on hillsides should be designed to avoid areas of potential landslide or erosion problems. · Cut and fill should be balanced within each project site, to the extent feasible. · Whenever possible, grading activities during the rainy season should be avoided. The project sponsor shall incorporate the following mitigation measures in the Terrabay Precise Plan which directly or indirectly relate to geologic and hydrologic impacts: Project sponsor's geotechnical consultant In the Precise Plan before issuance of grading permits. City's Geologic Consultant and Engineering Division. 12 PACT GEOLOGY MITIGATION: 1982 E I R the ravine, Some settlement is expected in the fill areas. Subdrainage would be necessary through the ravine. Over-excavation and benching may be needed to repair the major slide. Road grades would be less than 14 percent. MITIGATION Remaining Parcels of Phase 11 and ill-Terrabay Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan IMPLEMENTED BY WHEN IMPLEMENTED MONITORED BY VERIFIED/DATE An erosion control plan would be incorporated in the project design which would include on- site siltation basins to prevent downstream sedimentation and construct}on techniques to prevent soil loss The [northern part of the Phase I11] would be entirely in cut areas with their parking lots on fill. Several slides and soil sk.~nps occur on the site and would need to be excavated during grading. An area of loose fill would also require excavation and backfilling to provide stable ground. Soil and weathered cut rock slopes may be subject to downhill creek after grading. Some of the bedrock may not be rippable. The entrance road grade would be about 14 percent. The construction period would be kept as brief as possible and phased to reduce the duration of unprotected soil exposure and to minimize vegetation removal. The graded areas which would not be permanently disturbed would be hydromulched prior to the rainy season to further reduce soil exposure. Sharp changes in slope would be reduced to eliminate areas where erosion could begin. Limits of temporary and permanent grading would be clearly delineated during construction to prevent encroachment into areas to be left undisturbed. Pedestrian and bicycle paths would be constructed to reduce the effects of indiscriminate travel across the project site and adjacent upslope areas. The following mitigation measures are specifically directed toward the development of the steeply sloping project area at Terrabay. Many of them reiterate sound practices which would be required by City regulations or followed by responsible engineers and builders. They are recommended by 13 I M PACT GEOLOGY MITIGATION: 1982 E I R MITIGATION Remaining Parcels of Phase 1I and llI-Terrabay Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan IMPLEMENTED BY WHEN IMPLEMENTED MONITORED BY VERIFIED/DATE tile EIR consultant to assist the City and the project sponsor in creating a development which would be sensitive to the special conditions posed by the Terrabay site. The preliminary design criteria for each proposed development area provided in the geotechnical feasibility study and general geotechnical summary'should be used as a guideline for planning. Detailed geotechnical investigation for each specific project site should be conducted to provide design recommendations for each area. 14 I M PACT HYDROLOGY MITIGATION: 4.2-1 Stornnvater Draimtge Patterns and Flooding Some of the streets proposed for con- struction on the Phase II site would be drained by concrete V-channels aligned between street travel lanes and parking bays. This design would promote the occasional clogging of the channel with debris and potentially could create minor flooding conditions where the tiers of parked cars obstruct the gutter flow section. MITIGATION 1998 - 1999 SEIR No mitigation required. 4.2-2 Stornnvater Drainage and Flooding Nuisance flooding could occur in backyard areas if insufficient grades are not provided in the vicinity of residential building pads. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) specified a minimum slope of two percent for surface grades in such areas to promote efficient stormwater drainage and to deter structural damage due to excessive groundwater seepage. The project grading and drainage plans indicate one percent grades for drainage swales which would be constructed to drain residential lots. In addition, yard grades leading away from the building pads toward the swales would be a minimum of two percent. Since the drainage swales would be excavated into the adjacent terrain, efficient drainage still would be achieved. Accordingly, this would be a less than significant impact. 4.2-3 Stormwater Draimtge Patterns and Erosion and Sedimentation Absence of drain inlets on cut benches would permit runoffto flow onto an unprotected hillslope which could trigger hillslope erosion in the form of gully incision. This would be a significant impact. S 4.2-4 Flooding Benched concrete lined drainage channels on the Phase Ill site would be convey surface drainage to a sump inlet with deadwall not linked to the adjacent street storm drain system. This ultimately could cause some minor street flooding and would constitute a potentially signiticant impact. PS No mitigation would be required. The proposed grading plan shall provide for grading of the bench identified in the Commons neighborhood in order to direct runoff flows to ward the inlet to the debris basin. Vesting Tentative Map and Preliminary Grading Plan sheet 17 shall be amended to included missing storm drain link in the storm drain design. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-5 would also be requires as explained below. Remaining Parcels of Phase II and lll-Terrabay Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan IIMPLEMENTED BY WHEN IMPLEMENTED MONITORED BY VERIFIED/DATE Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. NOT APPLICABLE TO FINAL PLAN PROJECT Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable NONE REQUIRED NOT APPLICABLE TO FINAL PLAN PROJECT Project sponsor Civil In Precise Plan City Planning and Engineer Engineering Divisions NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FINAL PLAN PROJECT Project sponsor Civil In Precise Plan City Planning and Engineer Engineering Divisions NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FINAL PLAN PROJECT 15 I M PA CT HYDROLOGY MITIGATION: MITIGATION 1998 - 1999 SEIR Remaining Parcels of Phase 11 and llI-Terrabay Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan IMPLEMENTED BY WHEN IMPLEMENTED MONITORED BY VERIFIED/DATE 4.2-5 Stormwater Drainage and Flooding This impact and mitigation is applicable to the City's Hook Ramp Project. The Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program was adopted by the City on October 11,2000 by Resolution #123- 2000 NOT APPLICABLE TO FINAL PLAN PROJECT. 4.2-6 Erosion and Sedimentation Higher velocity flows from steep concrete-lined channels into earth-lined ditches would erode and could also exceed the capacity of the downstream earthen reach. This would be a significant impact. S 4.2-8 Erosion a,d Sedimentation Regraded Commons neighborhood roadways left unpaved atier project implementation could erode and generate downstream sedimentation. This would be a significant impact. No benched earthen channel segments are permitted. Channels shall be rocked or concrete-lined. The channel also shall be designed with a higher capacity (that the 1998 project) to accommodate some entrained sediments and rocky debris conveyed from the upstream concrete segment. The existing dirt access roads are located entirely within the limits of the proposed grading. Therefore, both roads shall be removed. According to the City Fire Marshall and the project sponsor's engineer, none of the roadways outside of paved subdivision streets would be required for fire access. In addition, where no regrading is proposed, the original hillslope topography shall be restored with no installation of artificial drainage facilities. Within the proposed slope regrading area, the regraded slope shall be slightly amended to allow for the roadway elimination. All regraded and restored hillslope areas shall be subjected Co appropriate erosion control measures in conformance with an approved Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), as previously required by the 1996 SEIR. Project sponsor Civil Engineer Project sponsor's civil engineer. In Precise Plan In Precise Plans City Planning and Engineering Divisions City Planning and Engineering Divisions to review revisions. MAY BE REVISED BY FINAL PLAN PROJECT 4.2-9 Erosion and Sedimentation Retaining unprotected roadways in the Point neighborhood after project implementation could yield substantial sediment volumes. This would be a significant ilnpact. Two options are available to mitigate this erosion impact: Project sponsor's civil engineer. In Precise Plans City Planning and Engineering Divisions to review revisions. With approval and monitoring by the San Bruno Mountain HCP coordinator and San Mateo County Department of Parks & Recreation, the applicant shall remove the entire length of any roadway which would daylight within the proposed limits of the project grading or winterize to County standards to be used as a fire road by the California Department of Forestry. This option would include restoring original hillslope topography, revegetating restored slopes using native species, and implementing 16 IMPACT HYDROLOGY MITIGATION: MITIGATION 1998- 1999 SEIR erosion control methods. Remaining Parcels of Phase 11 and lll-Terrabay Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ] IMPLEMENTEDB¥ WHEN IMPLEMENTED ] MONITORED BY I VERIFIED/DATE The applicant shall regrade and maintain the existing unpaved roadways to protect them against erosion using fortified shoulder drainage ditches and frequent water bar construction. The City shall require long-term monitoring by the entity overseeing debris basin performance. 4.2-10Erosion attd Xedimentation Drainage facility connections omitted from 17 lots proposed in the Point neighborhood could result in localize erosion and downstream sedimentation if/cfi: unprotected. This would be a significant impact. Vesting Tentative Map and Preliminary Grading Plan sheets 15 and 16 shall be revised to add transitional storm drain links between outlet drains from proposed Point Lots 167B-175B to line A. Project sponsor's civil engineer. In Precise Plans City Planning and Engineering Divisions to review revisions. MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE FINAL PLAN PROJECT 4.2-11 Erosion and Sedimentation Design of the southern Phase 111 debris basin and its diversion swale could result in significant deposition of sedimentation which would reroute water discharge around or over the deposited material and trigger downslope erosion. This would be a potentially significant impact. The project should provide for installation cfa third debris basin at the base of the steep reach of the middle channel. The retaining wall proposed as part of the project to extend north and south to the adjacent debris basins shall be redesigned to accommodate debris and water overflow from the new central basin. Inclusion of the third basin would reduce the collective long term costs of sediment / debris basin maintenance at the three sites through its more hydraulically efficient delivery characteristics. Project sponsor's civil engineer. In Precise Plans City Planning and Engineering Divisions to review revisions. MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE FINAL PLAN PROJECT 17 IMPACT HYDROLOGY MITIGATION: 1996 SEIR Supplemental Impact D-1 Joint Powers Agreement The County of San Marco bas recently raised questions regarding the effectiveness of the 1983 city-county joint powers agreement in adequately maintaining of project-related catchment basins on the south slope of San Bruno Mountain and has proposed disbandment of the Joint Powers Authority. This uncertainty regarding ongoing maintenance responsibilities for the catchment basins represents a new potentially significant adverse impact of the project storm drainage system. Supplemental Impact D-2 Stormwater Regulations City adoption ufa "Storm Water Management and Discharge Control" program as Chapter 14.04 of the Municipal Code suggests a revision to water quality related mitigation measures recommended in the 1982 EIR. If these mitigation standards are not met, the project could result in a potentially significant ;eater quality impact. IMITIGATION Remaining Parcels of Phase I1 and III-Terrabay Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan IMPLEMENTED BY WHEN IMPLEMENTED I MONITORED BY ] VERIFIED/DATE Consider disbandment of the Joint Powers Authority for catchment basin maintenance, as proposed by the County of San Mateo If the Joint Powers Authority is to be disbanded, work with the County and the project applicant to ensure that tile catchment basins are in proper condition to allow their dedication directly to the County as the County suggests .... If the Joint Powers Authority is to be maintained, continue to fulfill City responsibilities in accordance with the joint powers agreement of June 21, 1983. City of South San Prior to issuance of any City's Engineering Francisco and San grading permit. Division. Marco County~ In addition to measures recommended in the 1982 EIR for water quality impacts, require the project applicant to: Project sponsor. Prior to issuance of any grading permit. City's Engineering Division and Water Quality Control Division. (I) Comply with all applicable provisions of the City of South San Francisco "Storm Water Management and Discharge Control" program (Chapter 14.04 of the Municipal Code). (2) As required for projects involving construction on sites of more than five acres, file a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board, in order to be covered by tile City's general NPDES permit or apply to the State Water Resources Control Board for an individual NPDES permit. (3) Prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)for City approval and filing with the NPDES permit, detailing construction activities that could cause pollutants and describing measures / practices that will be undertaken to control the pollutants. The SWPPP should, at a minimum, include activities that will: 18 IMPACT HYDROLOGY MITIGATION: 1982 EIR MITIGATION Stabilize areas denuded due to construction with temporary or permanent seeding, mulching, vegetative buffer strips, plastic covering, and / or other measures. Remaining Parcels of Phase 11 and lll-Terrabay Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan IMPLEMENTED BY I WHEN IMPLEMENTED I MONITORED BY VERIFIED/DATE ] I 19 I M PA CT BIOLOGY MITIGATION: MITIGATION 1998- 1999 SEIR Remaining Parcels of Phase II and llI-Terrabay Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan IMPLEMENTED BY WHEN IMPLEMENTED MONITORED BY VERIFIED/DATE 4.3-1 Vegetation Removal, Wildlife Habitat Loss, and Landscape Compatibility Grading associated with project implementation would require removal of existing vegetation and associated wildlife habitat in areas proposed for development. Loss of non-native grassland would not be considered significant, but impacts on native freshwater marsh and riparian habitat and remnant stands of native grasslands would be significant. Proposed landscaping and restoration of graded slopes appear to be compatible with open space designations on parts of the site, but without a salvage component to the proposed restoration plan anticipated impacts would continue to be signilicant. (a) Areas of native freshwater marsh and riparian natural communities in the Phase Ill portion of the site shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible given the difficulty of recreating these natural community types and their importance as a source of surface water and protective cover for wildlife. Of greatest importance is the perennial spring at the southern edge of the site which provides a permanent soume of drinking water for wildlife. This spring is proposed to be retained as a part of the Final Project. (Therefore not eliminated as proposed by the 1998-99 Project.) Preservation and in-kind replacement &these wetland-related habitat types shall be considered as part of the mitigation plan called for in Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(a). If preservation is determined to be infeasible, any replacement mitigation shall provide for creation of a permanent spring which replicates the flows from the perennial spring on the site. The replacement spring shall be located adjacent to the County open space lands to ensure accessibility to terrestrial wildlife populations on San Bruno Mountain. (b) The proposed Restoration Plan for the project shall be revised to include an additional component which provides for the selective use of native plant material that otherwise would be eliminated as a result of grading and development. The scope of the salvage effort shall be determined by the project sponsor's vegetation specialist responsible for implementing the Restoration Plan and shall consider proven success rates and availability from other sources in targeting specific species. Methods of plant material salvage may include transplanting, seed collection and propagation, and use of cuttings from on-site vegetation. Transplanting shall be performed during the optimum period necessary to ensure plant survival, generally in the fall and early spring months, with salvage material stored in a temporary growing area if necessary and eventually transplanted onto slopes where restoration is to occur following final grading and soil preparation. Any plant salvage and seed collection operation shall be restricted to the limits of final grading to prevent the further loss of native species in permanent open space areas. PrQectSponsor. Project sponsor to revise proposed Restoration Plan for Phase Il site, and cooperate with City, County, and HCP coordinator about trail location to connect the project site and San Bruno Mountain County Park. Project sponsor's vegetation specialist. Plan revisions to occur in formulating Precise Plan Plan revisions to occur in formulating Precise Plan. Salvaging to occur before grading is initiated after issuance of grading permits are issued to prevent premature removal of plants. City and HCP coordinator to monitor compliance. City and HCP coordinator to monitor compliance. 20 IMPACT BIOLOGY MITIGATION: 1998 - 1999 SEIR 4.3-2 Impacts on Special-Status Species Except lbr callippe silverspot butterfly and mission blue butterfly, no impacts on populations of other special-status plant and animal species are anticipated. While the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) fully addresses potential impacts of anticipated development on mission blue, amendments to the HCP would be necessary lbr the recently listed callippe silverspot. Further loss of suitable habitat for callippe silverspot on the site would be a significant impact. It is important to note that the Final Project has been designed to avoid any take of Viola. Tire HCP Fence has been relocated on tire Commons Parcel to add 1.74 acres containing Viola to the HCP areas. Additionally the Preservation Parcel which contains Viola will be preserved in Open Space pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. MITIGATION Remaining Parcels of Phase II and lll-Terrabay Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (c) Any pedestrian trails linking the site with the open space lands of San Bruno Mountain preferably shall follow the alignment of existing fire trails to minimize disturbance to vegetative cover and shall avoid areas of native grasslands, freshwater seeps, and larval host plants for callippe silverspot butterfly. Final pedestrian trail alignments shall be approved by the Habitat Conservation Plan coordinator. Project sponsor's vegetation specialist. In Precise Plan (before City and HCP filing of Final Subdivision coordinator to monitor Map). compliance. (a) The project sponsor shall be required to fulfill the landowner / developer obligations identified by the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan with respect to the site. If San Mateo County and the Cities of South San Francisco, Brisbane, and Daly City (co-applicants) do not obtain an amended incidental take permit which includes the callippe silverspot butterfly, the project must be redesigned to avoid any take, as defined by the Federal Endangered Species Act, of the callippe silverspot or its habitat, including avoiding all larval host plants. If the permit is amended to include the callippe silverspot, the landowner shall incorporate any new permit conditions into the project. The lbllowing measures also shall be implemented to further minimize potential impacts of the project on the callippe silverspot: Project sponsor to revise Precise Plan and grading plan and conceptual development plan, revise proposed Restoration Plan, and post trailhead signs in cooperation with City, County, and HCP coordinator. In Precise Plan (before City and HCP filing of Final Subdivision coordinator to monitor Map). compliance. If an amendment to the incidental take permit to include the callippe silverspot butterfly is not obtained: (1) Project development shall not result in the "take" (as defined in the Federal Endangered Species Act) of the callippe silverspot butterfly of its habitat including redesign of the project plans to avoid disturbance to and development of areas supporting populations of the larval host plant (Viola pedunculata). (2) A supplemental survey shall be conducted in spring 2001 to verify the presence or absence of any larval host plants (Violapedunculata) on the Phase 11 site. 21 IMPACT BIOLOGY MITIGATION: MITIGATION 1998 - 1999 SEIR Remaining Parcels of Phase 11 and lll-Terrabay Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan IMPLEMENTED BY WHEN IMPLEMENTED MONITORED BY I VERIFIED/DATE I (3) If permitted under the Federal Endangered Species Act, the proposed Restoration Plan shall be revised to include a component to salvage and transplant existing adult nectar plants (especially natives such as Monardella) which otherwise would be lost due to grading and development in accordance with Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 (b). Salvage material shall be used as part ora propagation program to reestablish adult nectar plants on restored slopes and in additional grassland habitat where they currently are absent. (4) All stands of larval host plant which are to be preserved on the Phase I1 site should be adequately protected from construction related disturbance. These locations should be identified as a "no disturbance zone" on all grading plans. The perimeter of stands of larval host plants within 100 feet of proposed grading and construct}on should be fenced prior to initiating of grading to prevent possible damage and loss. (5) Signs shall be prepared, in cooperation with the San Mateo County Parks Department and HCP coordinator, and installed along trails and other appropriate locations warning park users against illegal activities (such as poaching). (6) Appropriate dust control measures shall be implemented as a component of the project's sedimentation and erosion control plans in order to minimize construction-generated dust (as required by Mitigation Measures 4.1-2(c) and 4.5-1). Measures shall include frequent watering of graded area, equipment, and haul roads to minimize dust and control its dispersal. If an amendment to the incidental take permit to include the callippe silverspot butterfly is obtained, the landowner/developer shall comply with all the conditions of the incidental take permit amendment and measures 3, 4, 5, and 6 (above) to the extent they do not conflict with the conditions to the amended incidental take permit. 4.3-3 Loss of Jurisdictional }Vetland Habitat Implementation of the project as proposed would eliminate approximately 1/10 of an acre of streams (a) The Final Project was redesigned to avoid jurisdictional wetland habitat to the max/mum extent feasible over that proposed by the 1998-99 Project sponsor to revise Spec/ftc Plan grading plan and conceptual In Precise Plan (before filing of Final Subdivision City to monitor compliance with Corps, 22 IMPACT BIOLOGY MITIGATION: 1998 - 1999 SEIR on the Phase I11 commercial site. This loss of jurisdictional wetland habitat would be a significant impact on the proposed project. MITIGATION Project. Remaining Parcels of Phase 11 and Ill-Terrabay Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan IMPLEMENTED BY WHEN IMPLEMENTED MONITORED BY VERIFIED/DATE development plan, formulate and implement Wetland Mitigation Plan, and prepare and implement erosion and sedimentation control measures. Map). CDFG, and RWQCB. (b) If complete avoidance of jurisdictional wetlands is not feasible, a wetland mitigation plan shall be prepared by the project sponsor's wetland consultant to provide for their replacement. The plan shall include the following details: Project sponsor's wetland consultant. City to monitor compliance with Corps, CDFG, and RWQCB All plantings to be used as part of any replacement mitigation shall be restricted to native wetland, riparian, and adjacent upland species. Site preparation and revegetation procedure planting design, implementation schedule, and funding sources shall be defined to ensure long- term management of the overall wetland mitigation plan. Performance criteria, maintenance and long-term management responsibilities, monitoring requirements, and contingency measures, if perlbrmance standards and mitigation goals are not met, shall be specified. Replacement habitat shall be monitored for a minimum of five years until all success criteria are met. Betbre issuance of any grading or building permit tbr the project, the mitigation plan shall be reviewed and approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game, and Regional Water Quality Control Board subject to their authority under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 1603 of the Califbmia Fish and Game Code, and Section 401 Certification, respectively. (c) A detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be prepared and implemented during construction on the site. The plan shall contain detailed measures to control erosion of stockpiled earth and exposed soil, minimize construction- generated dust, provide for revegetation of graded slopes before the first rainy season following Project sponsor In Precise Plan (before City's Geology geotechnical and filing of the Final Consultant. vegetation consultants. Subdivision Map). 23 IMPACT BIOLOGY MITIGATION: MITIGATION 1998 -1999 SEIR Remaining Parcels of Phase 11 and lll-Terrabay Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan IMPLEMENTED BY WHEN IMPLEMENTED MONITORED BY VERIFIED/DATE construction, and specit¥ procedures tbr monitoring of the plan's effectiveness. The revegetation component of the plan shall be consistent with the revised Restoration Plan. 24 1 M PACT BIOLOGY MITIGATION: 1996 SEIR Development of the proposed project would have a number of biologicaI impacts varying in significance. The most noteworthy of these impacts is the elimination of habitat currently used by a federally-listed endangered species as well as another rare, but not listed, butterfly. Elimination of 126 (less disturbance of grass lands would occur as the grading of the virgin lands would be reduced) acres of annual grassland would also have an impact on those other wildlife species that occasionally use or are dependent upon that habitat. In particular, the amount ofraptor foraging habitat would be reduced .... Other carnivores such as gray fox would experience a similar modification in available hunting territory, especially due to increased hunmn and potential domestic animal activity. The removal of some riparian-type babitat (e.g., willows and rushes) would also reduce the available habitat for certain other species of birds. Remaining Parcels of Phase 11 and Ill-Terrabay Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan MITIGATION IMPLEMENTED BY WHEN IMPLEMENTED MONITORED BY VERIFIED/DATE (a) Habitat Conservation Plan Guidelines. The Habitat Conservation Plan provides explicit guidelines for mitigating adverse impacts of the project on species of concern. City, project sponsor, and HCP coordinator. In Precise Plan and grading plans, hnplemented continuously. City Planning and Engineering Divisions and HCP coordinator. (b) The project sponsor has included the following Mitigation measures in the Terrabay Development Specific Plan which directly or indirectly relate to impacts on vegetation and wildlife: The limits of temporary and permanent grading will be clearly delineated during construction to prevent encroachment into areas that are to remain undisturbed.., as required by the Habitat Conservation Plan presently under review. Project sponsor Prior to issuance of grading permits. City Geologic Consultant and HCP coordinator 25 Remaining Parcels of Phase II and III Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan IMPACT [MITIGATION r IMPLEMENTATION WHEN IMPLEMENTED I MONITORED BY VERIFIED/DATE TRAFFIC MITIGATION: 1998 - 1999 SEIR (THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS FOR ALL PHASES OF TERRABAY ARE INCLUDED HEREIN. A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION WAS ADOPTED BY THE CITY (RESOLUTION 6499) IN FEBRUARY 17, 1999 FOR IMPACTS 4.4- l; 4.4-4; 4.4-5; 4.4-13 (CITY HOOK RAMP PROJECT); AND 4.4-14 (CITY HOOK RAMP PROJECT). 4.4.1 Year 2000 Base Case plus Phases H + II1 Freeway Impacts Phase 11 and III traffic combined would increase volumes by more than one percent on segments of U.S. 101 freeway already operating unacceptably at LOS F.i Southbound: north of the off-ramp to Bayshore Boulevard (AM=1.25 percent / PM 2.43 percent increases), from the new Bayshore Boulevard on- ramp to the Dubuque on-ramp (PM=2.45 percent increase) and south of the Dubuque on-ramp (AM= 1.66 percent increase) (Segments I, 3 and 4 in Exhibit 4.4-2). Tbe project sponsor shall reduce the amounts of development proposed within the Phase 11 and Phase III sites and / or shall assist with funding for regional circulation system improvements. Based upon the freeway segments receiving tbe biggest significant impact due to the project, Phase Il + III trip generation would need to be reduced at least 64 percent. Project sponsor. In Precise Plan. City Planning and City adopted a Engineering Divisions to statement of monitor, overriding Consideration on May 12, 1999 Northbound: from tile Grand Avenue on-ramp to the Dubuque off-ramp (AM=1.71 percent / PM=2.76 percent increases), i'¥om the Oyster Point on-ramp to the Bayshore Boulevard off-ramp (PM= 1.60 percent increase) and north of the Baysbore Boulevard off- ramp (AM=1.65 pereent/ PM=1.75 percent increases) (Segments 5, 7 and 8 in Exhibit 4.4-2) Phase II and II1 traffic would change operation f¥om LOS E to an unacceptable LOS F: Northbound: from the Oyster Point northbound on-ramp to tile Bayshore Boulevard northbound off-ramp during tbe AM peak period (Segment 7 in Exhibit 4.4- 2). Southbound: from the Oyster Point southbound on-ramp to tile Grand Avenue interchange during tile PM peak period (Segment 4 in Exhibit 4.4-2). 4.4-2 Year 2010 Base Case plus Phases H + HI Intersection Impact AM peak hour Base Case operation plus project traffic would change operation from an unacceptable LOS E to an acceptable LOS D at the Sister Cities Boulevard / Bayshore Boulevard / Airport Boulevard / Oyster Point Boulevard Intersection (a beneficial impact), but acceptable LOS D PM peak hour operation would change to an unacceptable LOS F. The project sponsor shall provide a fair share contribution towards restriping the westbound (Oyster Point Boulevard) intersection approach (to provide a single left turn lane, two exclusive through lanes, and a shared through / right turn lane). A contribution also would be needed towards a third westbound departure lane (on Sister Cities Boulevard) which then would merge into the two existing departure lanes just west of the intersection. In addition, although not strictly needed for capacity Project sponsors of Terrabay Phase II and Phase Ill and other local area development to pay their fair share oftbe improvements. Execution of Amended and Restated Development Agreement prior to approval of Final Subdivision Map, City Planning and Engineering Divisions and City Attorney to monitor implementation. As part of this process, the City should review modifying the existing capital improvements program to include fair share funding 26 Remaining Parcels of Phase 1I and 111 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan TRAFFIC MITIGATION: 1998 - 1999 SEI R (THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS FOR ALL PHASES OF TERRABAY ARE INCLUDED HEREIN. A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CON$1DERATION WAS ADOPTED BY THE CITY (RESOLUTION 6499) IN FEBRUARY 17, 1999 FOR IMPACTS 4.4-11 4.4-4; 4.4-5; 4.4-13 (CITY HOOK RAMP PROJECT);, AND 4.4-14 (CITY HOOK RAMP PROJECT). reasons, restriping also is recommended for the mechanisms for major southbound (Bayshore Boulevard) intersection roadway improvements. approach (to provide an exclusive right, a shared through / right, a through, and two left turn lanes) Based upon total traffic growth to 2010, the project's fair share contribution would be 21 percent of the improvement costs. A Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM Program) is proposed as part of the project and included in the development agreement. 4.4-3 Year 2010 Base Caseplus Phases H + IH h~tersection lng)oct Project Phase JJ + JJJ Iraffic ~ould change 2010 AM peak hour operation at the Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue / U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp Intersection from an unacceptable LOS E to an acceptable LOS D (a beneficial impact) but would change acceptable PM peak hour LOS D operation to an unacceptable LOS F. The project sponsor shall provide a fair share contribution towards constrt~ctJon ufa second exclusive right-turn lane on the westbound (Oyster Point Boulevard) approach and a second exclusive left-turn lane on the northbound (Dubuque Avenue) intersection approach. Both measures would require widening existing structures. Based upon total traP& growth to 2010, tire project's fair share contribution would be five percent of the improvement costs (see Exhibits 4.4-10 and ¥.4-15). Project sponsors of Terrabay Phase 11 and Phase III and other local area development to pay their fair share of the improvements. Execution of amended and restated Development Agreement prior to approval of Fina} Subdivision Map. City Planning and Engineering Divisions and City Attorney to monitor implementation. As part of this process, the City should review modifying the existing capital improvements program to include fair share thnding mechanisms for major roadway improvements. 4.4.4 Year 2010 Base Case plus Phases II and II1 Freewqv In~act Phase Il and I11 project traffic combined would increase Base Case volumes by more than one percent on U,S. 101 freeway segments already operating unacceptably at LOS F.i Southbound: north of the off:ramp to Bayshore Boulevard (AM=I.10 percent / PM=2.09 percent increases), from the new Bayshore Boulevard hook on-ramp to the Dubuque on-ramp (PM=2.19 percent increase) and south of the Dubuque on- ramp (AM=1.48 percent / PM = 2.00 percent increases) (Segments I, 3 and 4 in Exhibit 4.4-2) Northbound: from the Grand Avenue on-ramp to the Dubuque off-ramp (AM=1.50 percent/ PM=2.41 percent increases) I¥om the Oyster Point on-ramp to the Bayshore Boulevard off-ramp (AM= 1.34 percent / PM=1.39 percent increases) and north of the Bayshore Boulevard oft-ramp Project sponsors shall reduce the amounts of development proposed within tire Phase 11 and Phase Ill sites and / or shall assist with funding for regional circulation system improvements. Based upon the freeway segment receiving the biggest significant impact due to the project, Phase II + II1 trip generation would need to be reduced at least 59 percent. Project sponsor to implement. Execation of amended and restated Development Agreement prior to approval of Final Subdivision Map. City Planning and Engineering Divisions to monitor. City adopted a statement of overriding consideration on May 12, 1999 27 Remaining Parcels of Phase 11 and III Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan TRAFFIC MITIGATION: ] 998 - 1999 SE1R (THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS FOR ALL PHASES OF TERRABAY ARE INCLUDED HEREIN. A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION WAS ^BOP'rED ~3¥ THE Crr¥ (REsoLtJTIOIq 6499) IS FEBP`U^R¥ 17, 1999 FOP, IMP^C'rs 4.4-1; 4.4-4; 4.4-5; 4.4-13 (CITY HOOK R^MP PaOmCT); ^~B 4.4-14 (CITY HOOK RAM~' PROJECT). (AM=1.46 percent / PM=1.51 percent increases) (Segments 5, 7 and 8 in Exhibit 4.4-2)~ 4. 4-5 Year 2010 Base Case phts Phase H + III Ramp Impacts Phase II + I11 development combined would increase PM peak hour Base Case over-capacity operalio~ by 6.8 percent on the Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard. The project sponsor sball reduce Pbase 11 and I11 development trip generation. Approximately an 85 percent reduction in Terrabay trip generation would be required to reduce the project traffic impact to less than a I percent increase. Alternatively, the sponsor shall provide a fair share contribution towards construction of a second on-ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 freeway. Based upon total traffic growth to 2010, the project's fair share contribution would be 12 percent of the improvement costs. Project sponsor to implement. (Alternatively, project sponsor and other local area developers to contribute funds towards construction of second on-ramp lane, which would require Caltrans approval.) Execution of amended and City Planning and The City adopted a restated Development Engineering Divisions statement of Agreement prior to approval and City Attorney to Overriding of Final Subdivision Map. monitor, consideration on May 12, 1999. 4.4-7 Turnarounds Angled, hammerhead, and cul-de-sac turnarounds proposed for the Phase I1 site would accommodate fire tracks. No mitigation would be required. See findings in Exhibit A of Environmental resolution. Not required. Not applicable. Not required. Not applicable. 4.4-12 Potential Storage Distance Deficiencies Bet*veen Intersections Queues would exceed available storage capacity at three to six intersections, depending on analysis methodology Interconnected and coordinated signal operation and flow between these four closely spaced intersections along Bayshore Boulevard shall be provided in order to preclude storage deficiencies. Due to right- of-way limitations along Bayshore Boulevard, provision of dual left-turn lanes is not considered feasible on the northbound approaches to the Terrabay Phase Ill site driveways or on the southbound approach to the U.S. 101 southbound hook on-ramp. Also the northbound left-turn lane on the approach to the Terrabay North Access could not be lengthened without shortening the southbound left-turn lane on the approach to the U.S. 101 southbound on-ramp. Traffic volumes and queues shall be monitored at these intersections as development occurs on the Terrabay site to determine if the turn lane lengths and signal timing should be adjusted. Terrabay Phase III project sponsor, City, and Caltrans to implement. City to monitor effectiveness. 28 Remaining Parcels of Phase !1 and !II Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan I I VERIFIED/DATE TRAFFIC MITIGATION: 1998 - 1999 SEI R (THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS FOR ALL PHASES OF TERRABAY ARE INCLUDED HEREIN. A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION WAS ADOPTED BY THE CITY (RESOLUTION 6499) IN FEBRUARY 17, 1999 FOR IMPACTS 4.4-1; 4.4-4; 4.4-5; 4.4-13 (CITY HOOK RAMP PROJECT); AND 4.4-14 (CITY HOOK RAMP PROJECT). 4.4-13 Year 2020 Hook Ramps Impact on Freeway Mainline Traffic t¥om the new on-ramp would increase AM and PM peak hour volumes by more than one percent on the U.S. 101 Freeway Southbound Mainline from the new southbound buttonhook on-ramp to the southbound on-ramp t?om Dubuque Avenue, a segment about 3,500 feet long that would already be experiencing unacceptable LOS F operation. No mitigation is feasible other than not constructing the project. 4.4-14 Year 2020 Hook Ramps Impact on Freeway Ramps Increased traffic due to the hook ramp project would increase AM peak hour off- ramp volumes by more than one percent at the diverge of the Southbound U.S. 101 Freeway Off- Ramp to Bayshore Boulevard where diverge traffic flow operation would already be an unacceptable LOS F. No mitigation is feasible other than not to construct the project. The City adopted a statement of overriding consideration on May I2, 1999 The City adopted a statement of overriding consideration on May 12, 1999 29 151 PACT TRAFFIC MITIGATION - 1996 SEIR Supplemental Impact TI9 No significant impacts were identified for year 2000 or 2010 Base Case plus Phase I traffic conditions, However, in 2010 with Phases I, I1, and I11, tile Serramonte Boulevard / Hi#side Boulevard intersection would be expected to experience an approximately [three to] four percent in-crease in traffic volumes which could be considered a [potentially] significant a&,erse impact, Jif the intersection already is operating at or on the borderline of unacceptable operation]. MITIGATION Require that project Phases 11 and / or I11 provide a reasonable fair-share contribution towards improvements needed at this intersection by 2010 if it is operating unacceptably during the peak hour. The contribution should be in proportion to the volume of project traffic passing through the intersection in relation to the total traffic volume. In addition, any major new development projects in the town of Colma located along or in close proximity to Hillside Boulevard should be required to provide their fair share contribution towards needed improvements along Hillside Boulevard in South San Francisco. Remaining Parcels of Phase II and III Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan IMPLEMENTATION I WHEN IMPLEMENTED MONITORED BY I VERIFIED/DATE I City of Colma to develop improvement projects; project sponsor to pay fair share. When identified by tile City of Colma that there is a capacity problem at the intersection. City of Colma in co- ordination with City of South San Francisco's Engineering Division. 30 I M PACT AIR QUALITY: 1998 -- 1999 SEIR 4.$-1 Short-Term Construction Impacts Dust generated during construction periods could result in both health and nuisance effects. Although temporary, this would be a significant impact. MITIGATION The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) recommends the following measures for large construction areas located near sensitive receptors. The BAAQMD typically determines the level of significance based on the control measures implemented. These measures constitute all feasible control measures, with the addition of a disturbance coordinator to monitor compliance with the control measures and respond to neighborhood complaints. The disturbance coordinator shall be retained by the City and paid for by the project sponsor. The following controls shall be implemented throughout the construction area: All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily and more often when conditions warrant. This measure would reduce emissions by at least 50 percent. All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials shall be covered, or all tracks shall be required to maintain at least two feet of free-board. All unpaved access roads and parking areas at construction sites shall be paved, watered three times daily, or treated with (non-toxic) soil stabilizers. All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites shall be swept daily (with water sweepers). Streets shall be swept daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. Inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more) shall be hydroseeded or treated with (non-toxic) soil stabilizers. Exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) shall be enclosed, covered, watered twice daily, or treated with (non-toxic) soil binders. 31 Remaining Parcels of Phase !1 and Ill Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan IMPLEMENTATION WHEN IMPLEMENTED MONITORED BY VERIFIED/DATE Project sponsor and subsequent developers of individual parcels to incorporate Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 into all contractors' contracts. Belbre and during construction. A mitigation monitor ("disturbance coordinator") hired by the City and paid for by the project sponsor. I M PACT AIR QUALITY: 1998 -1999 SEIR MITIGATION Traffic speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoffto public roadways. Disturbed areas shall be replanted with vegetation as quickly as possible (within one month of the disturbance). Wheel washers shall be installed for all exiting trucks, or the tires or tracks shall be washed offall trucks and equipment leaving the site. Excavation and grading activity shall be suspended when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph and cause visible clouds to extend beyond the construction site. Activities shall be suspended until the disturbance coordinator decides that the emissions from construction activities would be controlled (such as through additional watering or installation of wind fences). This measure could reduce dust emissions by up to 80 percent. Wind breaks shall be installed, or trees / vegetative wind breaks shall be plant on windward sides(s) of construction areas, if conditions war-rant, to prevent visible dust clouds from extending beyond the site. The area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity shall be limited at any one time. A disturbance coordinator, retained by the City and paid for by the project sponsor, shall be designated to be responsible for monitoring compliance with dust control measures and to respond to neighborhood concerns regarding air pollutant emissions (primarily dust) during construction. The project sponsor and coordinator shall be responsible for operating a neighborhood "hotline" for neighbors to Remaining Parcels of Phase II and III Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan IMPLEMENTATION WHEN IMPLEMENTED MONITORED BY VERIFIED/DATE 32 I ~ I PA CT AIR QUALITY: 1998-1999 SEIR 4.$-2 Changes in Local Long-Term Air Quality Carbon monoxide levels attributable to traffic substantially affected by the project would be below State and Federal ambient air quality standards. 4.5-3 Changes in Regional Long-Term Air Quality Direct and indirect emissions of air pollutants associated with fizll buildout of the project could interfere with the efforts within the Terrabay region to attain ozone and PM10 air quality standards. Thus, while the incremental change bet~veen the currently and previously proposed Phase Il and II1 projects would be less- that,-significant, tile cumulative impact of Tcrrabay project development (Phases I, I1, and 111) would exceed standards tightened since examination in the 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR/ MITIGATION voice complaints regarding air quality during construction. No mitigation would be required. Air pollutant emissions which would be regionally significant could be reduced from motor vehicles through a reduction in vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, and reduced traffic congestion. The following measures either are included in the project design or shall be implemented by the project sponsor to reduce regionally significant air pollutant emissions. Coordinated traffic signals shall be installed to provide more efficient levels-of-service at inter- sections substantially affected by project traffic. The project includes roadway improvements to Sister Cities Boulevard which have already been constructed. Additional intersection improvements are proposed along Bayshore Boulevard as part of Phase Ill. This measure could reduce total year 2000 project emissions by ten (10) pounds per day of ROG, seven (7) pounds per day of NO~, and one (1) pound per day of PM The U.S. 101 southbound freeway offramp shall be reconstructed and a new U.S. I01 on ramp shall be constructed (the "hook ramps"). The project sponsor shall pay a fee established in the Amended Development Agreement for Phase 11 Woods to be used for the construction by tile City of the US 101 southbound freeway offramp and new US 101 on ramp (the "hook ramps").This measure would allow direct access on to the freeway, eliminating emissions associated with congestion at local intersections, which provide access to southbound U.S. 101. This measure could reduce total year 2000 project emissions by five (5) pounds per day of ROG, six (6) pounds per day of NO~, and seven Remaining Parcels of Phase II and II1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan WHEN IMPLEMENTED I MONITORED BY VERIFIED/DATE IMPLEMENTATION I Not required Not applicable Not required Not applicable City's Engineering Prior to final acceptance of City's Engineering City adopted a finding Division. Final map Division. of overriding considerations on may 12, 1999, Resolution #6499 City's Engineering In Development Agreement. City's Engineering Division. Division City's Engineering In Development Agreement. City's Engineering Division. Division 33 IMPACT AIR QUALITY: 1998 -1999 SEIR rMITIGATION (7) pounds per day of PM,~. Bus shelters, easy pedestrian access, and bicycle lanes shall be provided in the project design to facilitate alternative modes of transportation. This measure could reduce total year 2000 project emissions by ten (10) pounds per day of ROG, 12 pounds per day of NO~, and 11 pounds per day of PMm. Fireplaces shall be equipped with certified wood burning fireplace inserts, which meet Federal emission standards, It is difficult to assess the overall effectiveness of this measure due to the infrequent use of fireplaces. However, the mca-sure would reduce PM,~emissions from fireplaces by up to 90 percent. Installation of natural gas fireplaces is encouraged to further reduce particulate emissions. The applicant proposes to include outdoor electrical outlets and natural gas subs to avoid the use of gasoline-powered landscape equipment. This would provide a minor reduction in overall emissions of ozone precursor air pollutants. Remaining Parcels of Phase II and III Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan IMPLEMENTATION WHEN IMPLEMENTED MONITORED BY I VERIFIED/DATE Project sponsor. In Precise Plan and building City Planning and plans. Building Divisions. Project sponsor, In Precise Plan and building City Planning and plans. Building Divisions. Project sponsor. In Precise Plan and building City Planning and plans. Building Divisions. 34 ! M PACT NOISE: 1998- 1999 SEIR~ 4,6-1 Construction Noise Impacts During coustruction periods, noise levels would be elevated outside existing homes located across Itillside Boulevard and Sister Cities Boulevard from the residential development. rMITIGATION The following measures shall be required to reduce the project's short-term construction noise impacts to a less-than-significant level: Construction Scheduling Noise-generating construction activities, including track traffic going to and from the site for any purpose, and maintenance and servicing activities for construction equipment, shall be limited to the hours stipulated by the City's Noise Ordinance which are 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays, 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Saturdays, and 10:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Sundays. Mufflers and Maintenance Ail equipment used on the project site shall be adequately muffled and maintained. All internal combustion engine-driven equipment shall be fitted with intake and exhaust mufflers, which are in good condition. Use of good mufflers with quieted compressors on all non- impact tools should result in a maximum noise level of 85 dBA when measured at a distance of 50 feet. Idling Prohibitions Powered construction equipment shall be turned offwhen not in use. Equipment Location and Shielding Stationary noise-generating construction equipment shall be located as far as possible from nearby residences. Noise Disturbance Coordinator A project construction supervisor shall be designated as a "noise disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise (as was done for Phase I site development). The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaints (such as starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall require implementation of reasonable measures Remaining Parcels of Phase II and III Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan I IMPLEMENTATION r WHEN IMPLEMENTED r MONITORED BY I VERIFIED/DATE Project sponsor or subsequent developers in contracts of all contractors involved in site preparation and development activities. Environmental and entitlement review and permit approval for each phase of development shall be conditioned on incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4.6-1. City Engineering Division to grant grading and building permits contingent on £ulI compliance with the measures. Mitigation Monitoring Coordinator to super vise project construction for each phase of development. 35 ! M PA CT NOISE: 1998 - 1999 SEIR~ 4. 6-2 Land Use Compatibility Impact Proposed uses in residential and commercial portions of the project would be exposed to noise levels which would exceed those considered satisfactory for the intended uses. MITIGATION warranted to correct the problem. The telephone number of the disturbance coordinator also shall be posted conspicuously at the construction site. In order to reduce potential noise and land use compatibility impacts to a less than-significant- level, the project sponsor shall retain a qualified Acoustical Engineer to prepare a detailed acoustical analysis and mitigation plan pursuant to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. The report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval before issuance of building permits. The report shall include a detailed acoustical analysis of noise reduction requirements and specifications for each project phase, in accordance with land use / noise level compatibility standards established by the State and set forth in the City's Noise Element. The identified noise reduction requirements and specifications then shall be included in the siting or design of individual housing units: Noise levels in backyards of homes proposed adjacent to and overlooking the Sister Cities Boulevard-Hillside Boulevard corridor intersection shall be mitigated with a noise barrier. The proposed upsloping geometry to a graded building pad would provide an excellent opportunity to mitigate with a property line barrier. Calculations based on the Precise Plan grading plans indicate that a six-foot high barrier measured above the rear property line elevation would be appropriate at locations shown on Exhibit ,t. 6-7. To be effective, the barrier must be constructed airtight over its face and at the base and have a minimum surface weight of three pounds per square foot. Suitable materials include wood, masonry block, precast masonry, or precast concrete panels. If the barrier is constructed of wood, a post and panel or board and batten construction method should be used to eliminate sound leaks. Forced air mechanical ventilation shall be pro-vided pursuant to residential building sound insulation requirements so windows may be kept closed at the Remaining Parcels of Phase 1I and 1II Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan IIMPLEMENTATION WHEN IMPLEMENTED MONITORED BY I VERIFIED/DATE Project sponsor or subsequent developers to prepare acoustical report including noise reduction measures. Report to comply with City (Noise Element) and State (State Building Code) requirements. Likely acoustical mitigation measures include sound rated windows and doors, forced air mechanical ventilation, sound ratings for through-the-wall air conditioning units, special wall construction details, etc. Before City approves building permit. City Planning and Building Divisions to review compliance with Noise Element and State Building Code requirements. 36 IMPACT NOISE: 1998- 1999 SEIR~ 4.6-3 Traffic Noise Impacts Traffic-generated noise would not increase ambient noise levels measurably on existing neighborhood streets or roadways, which would provide access to the project site. MITIGATION discretion o£building occupants to control noise. The interior CNEL shall be reduced to a level of 45 dB or less to conform to City General Plan and State Building Code requirements. The noise analysis also shall include adequate consideration of aircraft noise to achieve the FAA 's recommended maximum single-event noise level of 55 dBA in bedrooms of housing units.. No mitigation would be required. Remaining Parcels of Phase 1! and Ill Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan IIMPLEMENTATION WHEN IMPLEMENTED MONITORED BY [ VERIFIED/DATE Not required. Not applicable. Not required. Not applicable. 37 IMPACT NOISE- PHASE II SITE: 1982EIR Along the extension of Hillside Boulevard, traffic noise levels would increase .... Due to the contiuuous nature of traffic noise as opposed to the sporadic nature of aircraft noise, the extension of Hillside Boulevard might still annoy some of the homeowners in this area. The resulting noise levels due to traffic on the extension of Hillside Boulevard would be high enough to occasionally interfere with speech outdoors. MITIGATION Increased traffic noises along Hillside Extension could be mitigated by the erection ora sound barrier on the south side of the extension. Detailed studies during the engineering of the road would determine the required height and location of this barrier .... The purpose of this barrier would be to maintain traffic noise levels at their existing levels in the absence of aircraft noise. Remaining Parcels of Phase II and I!I Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan IMPLEMENTED BY [ WHEN IMPLEMENTED MONITORED BY VERIFIED/DATE I Project Sponsor. With approval of the Department of Public Residential Precise Plan. Works. 38 Remaining Parcels of Phase I! and II1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan [ MITIGATION ] IMPLEMENTED BY WHEN IMPLEMENTED MONITORED BY VERIFIED/DATE IMPACT PUBLIC SERVICE MITIGATION: 1998 - 1999 SEIR (THE FOLLOWING LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS IDENTIFIED AND ANALYZED IN THE CERTIFIED 1998-1999 SEIR ~N THE SAME OR SLIGHTLY LESSER IMPACTS UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED IN THE FINAL PROJECT. 4.% 1 ~MPACT OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON POLICE SERVICES; 4.%3 COMBINED PROJECT IMPACT ON POLICE SERVICES~ 4.%5 TRAFFIC IMPACT ON POLICE R4ESPONSE TIMES; 4.%8 IMPACTS ON JEFFERSON UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT; 4.7-9 IMPACTS ON JEFFERSON UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT:, 4.%9 IMPACT ON SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; 4.?- l0 CUMILATtVE SCHOOLS. NO MtTtGATtON OF THESE IMPACTS WOULD BE REQUIRED.) 4. ?-6 Police Impact from Cumulative Development Substantial cumulative development by the year 2010 would greatly increase the number of calls for service to the South San Francisco Police Department and could require an estimated 5.4 to 6.2 additional police positions plus two additional police vehicles. While these cumulative impacts would be significant, the incremental contribution of Terrabay Phase Il and II1 development would not be "considerable", thus less-than-significant for the purposes of CEQA. 4. 7-7 Impact on Brisbane School District Development of 213 duplex and triplex units in tile Terrabay Phase II Point and Commons neighborhoods and creation of an estimated 720- 780jobs on tile Phase Ill site would add about 85- 88 new students to Brisbane School District (BSD) scbools. This number would be fewer than the 90 students previously estimated to be generated by the Terrabay project. Approximately 85-88 new students would contribute incrementally to capacity constraints, but class size reductions are affecting school capacity more profoundly than increased enrollments attributable to new development. No additional mitigation would be required of the Terrabay Phase II or IIl project than identified by Mitigation Measure 4.7-4 and the 1982 EIR / 1996 SEIR The prior EIRs required funding provision of a separate new fully-staffed beat (1982 EIR) to consist of three officer positions and one new patrol vehicle (1996 SEIR). hnplementation of Brisbane School District efforts to carry out its class size reduction policy -- when facility improvements (and funding sources to make them) have been identified -- will mitigate the impact of decreasing elementary school capacity. Such efforts would accommodate students originating from development of the Terrabay Phase II or III site at Brisbane Elementary School, and no additional mitigation would be required. Not required. Not applicable. Not required Not applicable. Not required. Not applicable. Not required Not applicable. 39 IMPACT PUBLIC SERVICE MITIGATION - 1996 SEIR Pttblic Schools Suppleme, tal Impact PS-I South San Francisco Unified School District The project would be expected to generate approximately 260 new studeats attending South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD) schools .... the SSFUSD has indicated that school impact fees accruing from the project ... may not be sufficient to cover the cost of providing additional classroom capacity and associated facilities to serve the additional students geoerated by the project. As a result, the project can be expected to have a significant adverse impact on SSFUSD capacity. Note: The school impact fees accruing to the district from the project appear to be underestimated because of the size of the residential units estimated by the district is smaller than the actual units being built. Although the SSFUSD has indicated that all elementary school students would attend Hillside Elementary School, in the event that some project elementary school students attend SSFUSD schools other than Hillside Elementary School, adult crossing guards would be needed at the signalized Hillside Boulevard Extension / South San Francisco Drive and Sister Cities Boulevard South San Francisco Drive intersections. Supplemental Impact PS-2 Brisbane School District ... The School District anticipates that enrollment of students from the Terrabay project MITIGATION As mitigation for SSFUSD impacts, require the applicant, as a provision of the project development agreement, to prepare and submit for city review and approval, a schoolfinancing plan that includes: (I) Payment of&ate-Mandated School Impact Fees Require the applicant to comply with applicable SSFUSD school impact fee requirements. If it is determined by the City that the project fees would not be sufficient to reduce project school impacts to a less-than-significant level, the City may also (2) Additional Impact I.'ees Require that the project applicant / developer pay additional in-kind contribution or establish other financing mechanisms in consultation with the city and acceptable to the sufficient to cover the cost of providing classroom space and ancillary school facilities needed to serve the increased enrollment generated by the project, to the city's satisfaction. The City shall periodically monitor crossings at the Hillside Boulevard Extension / South San Francisco Drive and Sister Cities Boulevard South San Francisco Drive intersections to determine if40 or more elementary school children cross within any two hour period. If the threshold is attained at either of these intersections, then the Phase II project homeowners association shall be required to: (1) Fund the provision of an adult crossing guard at that intersection (including all salary, background check, equipment, and training costs), and (2) Actively recruit candidates for the position and for an alternative part-time back-up fill-in position from among project residents. (Project residents are preferred because of opportunities for more familiarity with students.) Remaining Parcels of Phase II and III Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan JIMPLEMENTED WHEN IMPLEMENTED MONITORED BY ] VERIFIED/DATE BY Project sponsor. Issuance of building City Planning and permits. Building Divisions. Same as Supplemental Mitigation Measures PS-I Project sponsor. Issuance of building City Planning and an.__~d permits. Building Divisions. 40 IMPACT PUBLIC SERVICE MITIGATION - 1996 SEIR would cause both Brisbane School and Lipman School to exceed capacity school irnpact fees accruing to thc district from thc project ... would cover the cost of providing two additional portables but would not be sufficient to fund other necessary improvements at Brisbane and Lipman schools. Not~: The school impact fees accruing to tile district from the project appear to be underestimated because of the size of the residential units estimated by the district is smaller than the actual units being built. However, the size of the uuits in the Final Project would be comparable to those envisioned in 1996 (i.e., one to three bedroom units). Also, the district does not provide transportation for its students. Brisbane School is located approximately 1.9 miles and Lipman School approximately 2.6 miles from the farthest part of tile project within the district boundaries, distances which may be too great for young students to walk to school. There are no sidewalks along busy Bayshore Boulevard between the project and Brisbane. Because the state-mandated school impact fees may not be sufficient to cover the total cost of accommodating the project-generated enrollment increase and because the needed transportation to school has not been adequately provided fbr, the project could be expected to have a significant adverse impac! on the Brisbane School District. Solid Waste Supplemental Impact PS-$ Recycling Program Collection Services State law requires provision of adequate space for recycling in multiple family residential projects with five or more units and all new commercial developments. Future project phase multi-family residential and commercial development may not include adequate provision lbr collection of recyclable materials. This situation would represent a significant adverse MITIGATION Require the project applicant to provide fbr safe transportation to Brisbane School District schools for students from the project. This may be accomplished by installing a sidewalk along Bayshore Boulevard and / or other streets to allow students from the project to walk to Brisbane Elementary School and Lipman Intermediate School or in some other manner acceptable to the district. Require the applicant to submit to tile City an official statement in writing form the Brisbane School District declaring that the needed transportation has been adequately provided for to the satisfaction of the district. In order to ensure that project waste is recycled in a manner consistent with the State-mandated requirement that the City divert at least 50 percent of potential waste from landfill disposal by 2000, require the design of future project development to provide common exterior trash and recyclable material storage areas in commercial developments and in those multi-family developments that would use dumpsters, rather than relying on individual Remaining Parcels of Phase II and III Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Project sponsor. Prior to occupancy permits. City Planning and Engineering Divisions. Project architect, fn Precise Plan. City's Planning and Building Divisions. 41 I ~I PA CT PUBLIC SERVICE MITIGATION- 1':)':)6 SEIR project impact. MITIGATION curbside pick-up lbr trash collection. Such areas should be conveniently located and accessible to residents and collection vehicles and personnel, properly protected from the elements, screened, and architecturally integrated into the development. Remaining Parcels of Phase II and III Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan IIMPLEMENTED BY WHEN IMPLEMENTED MONITORED BY VERIFIED/DATE 42 151 PA CT PUBLIC SERVICE MITIGATION- 1982 EIR Fire Services Planned development in the project area and subsequent annexation would result in an increase to the Fire Department's service area and an increase in calls for service .... [The} Fire Chief... anticipates a possible manpower shortage at Station I with the relocating of one engine company plus its staffto the new station. Gas and Electricity The proposed project would be designed in accordance with tile energy conservation standards of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. The Code requires that structures comply with specified prescriptive measures for such architectural details as wall and ceiling insulations, climate control systems, water heating systems, and infiltrations .... Water Service. Based on the proposed uses of each building and associated landscaping, the total project would consume an average of about 320,370 gallons of water per day, or 0.32 [million gallons per day]. ... The location of the water tank would coincide with a disturbed open space area within the jurisdiction of the City to facilitate servicing. The proposed project would require a new water distribution system, independent of existing neighborhood water mains. MITIGATION The proposed project would have to conform with all fire code provisions. The project sponsor is currently working with the Fire Prevention Officer to identify specific design features necessary to conform to existing fire codes. To increase efficiency and improve the station's ability to cope with more serious fires, the Chief recommends the addition of one firefighter position to Station I. None required. California Water Service Company has indicated that an above-ground tank would provide maximum resistance to possible seismic forces. Screening pro- vided by such methods as painting the tank with earthtone colors and landscaping and mounding would be utilized to reduce visual impacts, although an underground tank could be more easily designed to minimize visual impacts and should be given serious consideration. The entire cost for the new on-site system and improvements to the off-site water system which occurred as a result of the on-site system would be incurred by the project sponsor. Remaining Parcels of Phase ii and III Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan I Project sponsor. In Precise Plan and building City Building Division permit applications, and Fire Department. City Fire Department. Completion of Phase II. City Fire Department. Project architect. Prior to issuance of building City Building Division. permits. Project sponsor. The initial cost of the water system installation would be the responsibility of the project sponsor. Completed Ongoing maintenance of the water lines from the meters to the individual dwelling units would be the responsibility of a homeowners association in the residential areas and the property owners 43 IMPACT PUBLIC SERVICE MITIGATION - 1982 EIR Waxtewaler Since enlargement of the Colma Creek line is still in the planning stage, impacts to that line are undetermined at tl~is time. Sewage service for the proposed project would be provided through a system of on-site gravity sewer mains and interceptors which would connect to the existing sewer system in Airport Boulevard. The project design designates approximately 46 percent (153 acres) of the site as open space. Most of the open space is adjacent to the San Bruno Mountain State and County Park. The project sponsor has agreed to dedicate all undisturbed areas of the project site to the County as permanent open space. The San Bruno Mountain HCP stipulates dedication of the project's undeveloped open space at the time the first grading permits are granted for the parcel of the project to which it pertains. This is included in this document as provisions for open space were addressed by recordation of Parcel Maps Pages 82-85 in Volume 53 at San Malco County in 1983. The proposed project provides for trail access to San Bruno Mountain. MITIGATION The project sponsor would participate with the South San Francisco Public Services Department and the City Engineer for the town of Colma to ensure that enlargement of the Colma Creek line would also accommodate wastewater flows generated by the proposed project. Costs of the on-site sewer system and any corrections or modifications to the existing system that are required as a direct result of the project would be incurred by the sponsor. Upon dedication of the facilities, the City of South San Francisco would assume maintenance responsibilities for the sewer system. The County Department of Parks and Recreation has recommended that the open space areas of the project be deeded in fee to the County and fenced. Remaining Parcels of Phase II and II1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan IMPLEMENTED BY I WHEN IMPLEMENTED MONITORED BY VERIFIED/DATE in the commercial areas. The California Water Service Company would assume maintenance of the water tank and service mains following their dedication. Project sponsor, town of Colma, City of South San Francisco Public Works Department. In process. City of South San Francisco's Engineering Division. Complete 1982 Project sponsor and City of South San Francisco. Precise Plan, completion of Phase II. City of South San Francisco's Engineering Division. Project sponsor. Completion of Phase II. City's Planning Division, HCP Administrator. Project sponsor, HCP Being implemented Administrator, City and City's Planning Division, HCP Administrator, and 44 IMPACT PUBLIC SERVICE MITIGATION- 1982 EIR Juncus Ravine, a separate 157-acre parcel of land, is located west of Hillside Elementary School. This area has been designated general open space on the County General Plan and as a community park on the City's General Plan. A 2.000 square tbot child care center would be located within Terrabay Village .... The Terrabay Development plan indicates development of Hillside Recreation Center, a four- acre communi ,ty park with both indoor and outdoor facilities .... The Terrabay Development concept also indicates improvement of tour acres of Hillside Elementary School with development of an illuminated adult softball field, soccer field, bleachers, and a restroom. MITIGATION The project sponsor has agreed to dedicate Juncus Ravine to the County as permanent open space. Remaining Parcels of Phase 11 and ill Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan IIMPLEMENTED BY WHEN IMPLEMENTED I MONITORED BY VERIFIED/DATE County. County. Project Sponsor. Residential Completion. City Planning Division. County of San Mateo. City accepted in lieu fee September 25, 1996 by Ordinance 1191-96, for Phase I, II, and I11 impacts COMPLETE COMPLETE 45 IMPACT ENERGY MITIGATION: 1982 E I R Annual energy use tbr project operation, not including trafiqc-related consumption, would total 235 billion BTU .... The estimates of energy consumption assume that the structures would conform to the provisions of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. MITIGATION The project sponsor bas planned to include several design features which go beyond the minimum requirements of Title 24. These options are [as follows]: Favorable solar orientation Night setback thermostats Energy-efficient lighting There are also additional options which would reduce energy consumption in the residential buildings, although at increased cost. These include: additional insulation additional infiltration control measures energy-efl'~cient space and water beating equipment energy-efficient glazing Remaining Parcels of Phase II and III Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan I IMPLEMENTED BY I WHEN IMPLEMENTED I MONITORED BY VERIFIED/DATE Project architect. Prior to issuance of building permits. City Building Division. May not apply to Final Project as UBC requirements address these issues. 46 IMPACT HAZARD MITIGATION Impact 4.8-2 Effect of EMF on Future Residents Residential development of the Commons West site would not expose residents to unusual magnetic field levels or, in the absence of California State or Federal standards, levels which government entities outside California regulate. The Final Project does not propose residential units in the Commons Parcel and the recreation facility can be set back further from the transmission lines. MITIGATION Mitigation Measure 4.8-2 Although the proximity of electric power lines to proposed housing units would not be expected to result in significant impacts requiring mitigation, the August 1997 PG&E report reviewed by this SEIR makes two recommendations. The first corresponds with 1996 SEIR mitigation. These are to: An advisory disclosure statement shall be included on all deeds of properties within the Commons West subarea of the site that the subject property is located near power lines and purchasers should be aware that there is ongoing research on the potential health effects associated with magnetic fields which exist wherever there is electric current. Potential buyers shall be reminded that PG&E can and will, upon request, provide information on EMF and the current state of ongoing research on the potential health effects of EMF. Remaining Parcels of Phase !I and 1II Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan IMPLEMENTED BY WHEN IMPLEMENTED MONITORED BY VERIFIED/DATE Project sponsor. Transfer of Property. City Planning Division. May not apply to Final Project. 47 ! M PACT WIND AND CLIMATE MITIGATION - 1982 E The project would not have a significant impact on the microclimate of the area, but the microclimate could impact proposed uses. Wind would have the most direct impact on outdoor activities. MITIGATION IR The current layout locates most of the project in areas at least partially sheltered from the wind. Nevertheless, the entire site would be breezy. Care should be taken in the layout of buildings and the planting of vegetation to put wind-sensitive activities to the east of some form of shelter. Vegetation, such as trees and hedges, are the most effective wind shelter. Where this type of windbreak is not feasible, porous screens could be used, such as the kind installed around tennis courts. Remaining Parcels of Phase II and III Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan tIMPLEMENTED BY WHEN IMPLEMENTED MONITORED BY VERIFIED/DATE Project architect. Prior to issuance of building City Building Division. permits. 48 ! M P A CT VISUAL MITIGATION- 1982 El R Architectural elements of the proposed development would be visible within the context of existing topography and proposed landscaping. South-facing facades and roofs of the proposed buildings xvould be their most prominent feature. Parking and service roads running perpendicular to the hill's contours would be steep and prominent. Grading which does occur would be highly visible since existing vegetation and topography would not screen views. The light colored residences would appear bright in the sunlight, and, unless shielded by plantings, windows may reflect low morning and afternoon sun as glare. The buildings' colors and shadows would be visible against the green firebreaks and against the hillside's natural grassy cover. From trails in the San Bruno Mountain State and County, Park and the open knolls above the development, lights, tile roofs, cars, and paved areas could be seen, although landscape buffer would soften and break up the mass of this development. MITIGATION The project sponsor has incorporated the following mitigation measures into the project design in an effort to mitigate visual impacts: Development would be generally restricted to the swales; the knolls would remain open. The development would appear as a series of clusters, not as a mass. The entire project would not be visible at one time, nor would it break the ridge line. Residential structures would be oriented for solar absorption and for views but would not incorporate solar panels for hot water heating. To save space, the road system would be efficiently designed. To unify tile project, lower building costs, and create homogeneously designed neighborhoods within the project, restrained natural colors, unifying building materials, and landscaping would be used throughout the development. To save space, units would attach or group more closely together than in standard subdivisions .... Stepped buildings would break up tile visual mass and reduce the amount of required grading. The visual mass would be integrated into the hillside by stepping, offsetting, and rotating buildings where feasible and by providing tree grove clustering in a naturalistic setting. Articulated faCades, recessed entries, roof overhangs, and courtyards would create varying patterns of light and shadow to sotten the residential buildings' appearance and to create visual interest. Pedestrian access would be provided at the intersection of Hillside Boulevard and Jefferson Remaining Parcels of Phase 11 and II1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan IIMPLEMENTED BY ] WHEN IMPLEMENTED MONITORED BY VERIFIED/DATE Project sponsor's Precise Plan. City's Planning and architect. Engineering Divisions. Does not apply to Final Project. The specific design issues Mil be addressed through design review during precise Plan review. Complete as part of 49 IMPACT VISUAL MITIGATION- 1982 E I R MITIGATION Street, at Hillside Boulevard and Hillside Extension, and near the intersection of Randolph Avenue and North Spruce Avenue. Landscaping is used to reduce visual impacts' Open spaces are added to reduce visual impacts. Street lighting would be kept be kept Iow to reduce glare. Landscaping, including trees, are used to break up mass of roofs and building structures when viewed from above. The trees also break up the mass of south facing facades when the project is viewed from the south. Under the HCP, areas at higher elevation above the Project development area are dedicated to the County as permanent open space to maintain the natural setting and appearance of these areas. Remaining Parcels of Phase ii and 111 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan I IMPLEMENTEDBY [ WHENIMPLEMENTED MONITOREDBY ] VERIFIED~DATE Phase I 50 ! M PACT LAND USE MITIGATION- 1982 E I R The proposed project would replace existing open space uses of the site with a mixture of residential, commercial, recreational, and open space uses. Terrabay development would eliminate current use of the site by pedestrians along Hillside Boulevard. Residents north of Randolph Avenue would no longer be able to use the site for small garden plots due to construction of the Hillside Boulevard extension. MITIGATION Mitigation measures proposed as part of the project: The undisturbed open space located between the developed area and the northerly and easterly property lines would be dedicated to the County of San Marco for inclusion into the San Bruno Mountain State and County Park. All other open space areas would remain within the jurisdiction of South San Francisco and under the purview of the combined property owners association, Community recreational facilities and trailheads to the park would be provided by the developer on the project site. The City would most likely assume maintenance of the recreation facilities. Remaining Parcels of Phase II and III Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan I IMPLEMENTEDBY I WHENIMPLEMENTED I MONITOREDBY VERIFIED/DATE Project sponsor In Specific and Precise Plans City Planning Division Project sponsor In Specific and Precise City Planning Division Recreation Center Plans Complete 51 EXHIBIT E CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION ADDENDUM TO 1998-99 TERRABAY SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: October 24, 2000 Terrabay File Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Adam Lindgren, Assistant City Attorney Allison Knapp, Consulting Environmental Planner SUBJECT: Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for Terrabay (SCH #97- 82077) BACKGROUND February 17, 1999, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco certified the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for Terrabay Phase II and III (Certified 1998-99 SEIR) (State Clearinghouse # 97-82077) by Resolution # 19-99. The Certified 1998-99 SEIR built upon the 1996 SEIR and the 1982 Environmental Impact Report (1982 EIR) for the proposed project. The Terrabay Project is a three-phased project, beginning in 1982. Phase I was analyzed in the 1982 EIR and is built and fully occupied. Phase I consists of two residential subdivisions: Village- 161 townhome units and Park-125 single-family detached units. Phase II Woods, Commons and Point and Phase B1 Commercial was analyzed in the 1996 SEIR and the 1998-99 SEIR. The following two tables present a detail of the project analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR: TABLE I-RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD #/TYPE UNITS ACREAGE Woods East and West 135/Single-Family 31.30 Commons 32/Condominium 8.22 Point 181 23.90 Condominium/Townhome Total 348 Units 63.42 00 3193 Addendum Terrabay 1998-99 SEIR Final Terrabay Specific Plan October 24, 2000 Page 2 TABLE II-COMMERCIAL DRAFT AND FINAL SEIR LAND USE [ SQUARE FOOTAGE [ ACREAGE Draft SE1R Hotels 235,000-280,000 21.20 Restaurants 12,000-18,000 3.66 Retail 6000-10,000 3.57 Mixed Use 30,000-35,000 2.45 Total-Commercial 283,000 - 342,000 30.88 Total N/A Residential/Commercial 94.30 Final SE1R Hotel 150 Room (+/- 2.9 200,000) Restaurant 7,500 1.8 Office 340,000 4.9 Total Commercial 540,750 9.6 Total N/A 73.02 Residential/Commercial The Woods project is currently under construction. The applicant (Sunchase/Sterling Pacific) withdrew the application for the Commons, and the City Council denied the Point, on May 12, 1999. The City Council remanded the Phase III commercial portion of the project back to the Planning Commission with the clear directive to preserve the archaeological site, among other issues. Therefore, no approvals were granted for the commercial portion of the project. ' Sunchase/Sterling Pacific did not return to the Planning Commission with the Phase llI Commercial portion of the proposed project. CURRENT PROPOSAL Myers Development Corporation assumed interest in the Woods, Commons, Point and Commercial lands in December 1999. Their development proposal for the Commons, Point and Commercial lands is substantially different than that of the project analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR in that it holds from development 25.73 acres of land and places it in preserve. The land referred to, as the "Preservation Parcel" would preserve the archaeological site (known as CA-SMa-40) as well as Viola Pedunculata (Viola) and wetlands areas from development. In summary: Addendum Terrabay 1998-99 SEIR Final Terrabay Specific Plan October 24, 2000 Page 3 TABLE III-PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION FINAL TERRABAY SPECIFIC PLAN LANDS PA R CEL LAND USE A CREA GE Preservation Parcel Open Space Preserve 25.73 Buffer Parcel Surface Parking 2.69 Office Parcel 665,000/ Office (child care 18.08 and performing arts theatre) Residential Parcel 96Condominium/Apartments 14.96 70 single family attached Recreation Parcel 25,000-30,000 6.48 Recreation Center Total N/A 42.25 Parcel total) (Preservation excluded from Please refer to Attachment A and B with respect to the following project description. A 25.73 acre "Preservation Parcel" The Preservation Parcel (which is required by the Settlement Agreement between the City, Myers, San Bruno Mountain Watch and the Center for Biological Diversity) is located in the mid- to north-area of the commercial lands. The Preservation Parcel would provide preservation of the shell mound, wetlands and viola. The Preservation Parcel would remain in permanent open space and may eventually be conveyed to San Mateo County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County Park. A 2.69 acre "Buffer Parcel" The Buffer Parcel, also required by the Settlement Agreement, is located adjacent to and south of the Preservation Parcel. The Buffer Parcel would provide a "buffer area" between the Preservation Parcel and the Office Parcel. Very limited development of the Buffer Parcel is proposed and would consist of a play area for the day care, surface parking and landscaping. An 18.08 acre "Office Parcel" The Office Parcel consists of the remaining portion of the commercial area south of the Preservation and Buffer Parcels and a portion of what was the Point Area. The proposal is an office tower consisting of 665,000 square feet of commercial office space including 7,500 square feet of ground floor support retail and 1,785 parking spaces. The office Parcel would also include a 150-seat performing arts theatre and a 100-child day care center. The performing arts theatre would also include storage area requisite to store items peculiar to the performing arts. The theatre would be around 4,000 square feet in Addendum Terrabay 1998-99 SEIR Final Terrabay Specific Plan October 24, 2000 Page 4 area on the ground floor off the main lobby and would serve as a conference room during the day. The day care center, proposed to be operated by the YMCA, would consist of approximately 9,000 square feet in area and include an outdoor play area, as noted above. The day care center is proposed to be at-grade in the northern section of the podium structure (garage) and facing the Buffer Parcel. The proposed orientation and location provides for maximum separation from vehicular activity and the main entry to the office. Maximum glazing would be used in the center to provide natural light and views to the north. A 14.96 acre "Residential Parcel" The Residential Parcel would consist of the remaining areas of the Phase II Residential area near the Point. The proposal is for 70 units of single family attached units in three, four and five unit clusters with 298 parking spaces and a 17-story 96-unit apartment building plus 102 garaged parking spaces. Single family attached housing is proposed on the mid- and eastern-portions of the site and an apartment/condominium building is proposed on the western portion of the site. The proposal also includes 32 units of moderate income housing to be provided off site (discussed in more detail in this report). An 8.22 acre "Recreational Parcel" The proposal is for a recreation center that would be owned and operated by YMCA. YMCA representatives have indicated to staff that they are very interested in providing a facility here and have also indicated their enthusiasm in operating the day care center in the office building. A portion of Recreation Parcel that contains Viola Pendunculata will be dedicated to the County of San Mateo for inclusion in San Bruno County Mountain Park and the boundary line of the HCP has been revised in the October Plan to accommodate the protection and conveyance of the habitat. Should the YMCA, or similar organization not be able to develop a recreation facility on a portion of the site, then the entire site would be dedicated to the County of San Mateo for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County Park. Other elements of the October Plan include: The Provision of 32 Moderate Income Housing Units Off-Site The proposed October Specific Plan also includes provisions to construct 32-units of housing affordable to moderate income families off the Terrabay site and within the City of South San Francisco. The applicant is currently in preliminary planning and site identification stages with respect to the moderate income housing component. Environmental effects of this portion of the Specific Plan will be reviewed, under separate cover, when a site(s) is/are identified. Any environmental evaluation of the moderate income housing proposal would be speculative at this point Addendum Terrabay 1998-99 SEIR Final Terrabay Specific Plan October 24, 2000 Page 5 Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM Program) The Specific Plan also includes an aggressive TDM Program that addresses both the commercial and residential components of the project. Shuttle, van pool, parking and shift management, worker support services and worker housing as well as annual monitoring, updates, and penalties are included in the Program. The proposed TDM Program has been expanded from both the June and August Plans to include funding for the City monitoring of the Program, penalties should the trip reductions not be met and additional on-site services for the office workers. Another critical element of the Program is the linking of the residential construction to the construction of the office, and offering the office workers first opportunity to purchase or rent a home via an aggressive marketing program to the office tenant and office workers. Open Space and Habitat Restoration and the Point Restoration The October Final Terrabay Specific Plan includes restoration and habitat enhancement for the Preservation Parcel and Recreation Parcel. The restoration is similar to that currently being employed in Juncus Ravine, which involves a three- to five-year invasive plant removal program. Thomas Reid Associates the Habitat Conservation Plan Administrator has approved the program. The work has begun on the Preservation Parcel. Restoration of the remainder parcels, pursuant to the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is still required by the HCP and proposed in the October Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ADDENDUM TO A CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 15164 permits the use of an Addendum to an existing certified environmental impact report (EIR) provided that (Section 15162 PRC): No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to any involvement of new significant environmental effects or substantial increase in severity of the previously identified significant effects. No substantial changes will occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects. No new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following: Addendum Terrabay 1998-99 SEIR Final Terrabay Specific Plan October 24, 2000 Page 6 A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR. B. Significant effects previously discussed will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR. Co Mitigation measures previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents declined to adopt the mitigation measure. Do Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in th.e previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment but the project proponents declined to adopt the mitigation measure. EVALUATION OF ADDENDUM CRITERIA Executive Summary The development proposed in the Final Terrabay Specific Plan would result in disturbing 43 acres of land; approximately 23 acres of land less than the 73 acres proposed by the 1998 Project evaluated in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. The proposed Recreation (old Commons parcel) and Residential (old Point parcel) development would affect 22.08 acres. The Habitat Conservation Protection (HCP) fence has been moved to include the Viola that is on the Recreation Parcel in the HCP lands. The Project analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR proposed full development of what is now referred to as the Recreation Parcel. The project analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR proposed developing all of the Commercial Parcel which is now referred to as the Preservation Parcel and Buffer Parcel. The project proposed in the Final Terrabay Specific Plan would preserve the archaeological site (CA-SMa-40) and its relationship to CA-SMa-92, which is on County lands as well as wetlands and Viola. The development proposed in the Final Terrabay Specific Plan would result in less drainage and hydrology impacts, less grading impacts, less biology impacts, no impacts to archaeology, and the same or slightly less impacts to traffic and circulation impacts, noise, air quality public service and hazards. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) Pursuant to Public Resources Section 15097, a MMRP will be prepared and adopted by the City Council. The MMRP will be prepared based upon the Precise Plan submittal and adopted by the City Council along with the action on the Precise Plan(s). Addendum Terrabay 1998-99 SEIR Final Terrabay Specific Plan October 24, 2000 Page 7 1998-99 SEIR Analysis The Certified 1998-99 SEIR analyzed geology, soils and seismicity; hydrology and drainage; biology; traffic and circulation; air quality; noise, public services; hazards and archaeology. The following discussion compares the proposed Final Terrabay Specific Plan to the impact topics, impacts and mitigations, identified, discussed and analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. The following Table IV compares the proposed Final Terrabay Specific Plan land uses and acreage with that analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR which includes the Project, the Mitigated Plan Alternative and the Environmentally Superior Development Alternative. TABLE IV COMPARISON OF THE FINAL TERRABAY SPECIFIC PLAN (2000) AND THE PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN THE 1998-99 SEIR PLAN LAND USE A CREA GE FINAL PLAN 166 Residential Units 18.08 665,000 sq. fl. Office 14.96 30,000 sq. ft. Recreation Center 06.48 1998-99 PROJECT (SEro) MITIGATED PLAN ALTERNATIVE (SEIR) ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE (SEIR) TABLE NOTES: 213 Condominiums/Townhomes 280,000 sq. ft. Hotel 18,000 sq. ft. Restaurant 10,000 sq. ft. Retail 35,000 sq. ft. Mixed Use 213 Condominiums/Townhomes 340,000 sq. fl. Office 7,500 sq. ft. Restaurant 150 room Hotel 181 Condominiums/Townhomes 4,800 sq. ft. Restaurant 12,000 sq. ft. Mixed Use 120 room Hotel Total Acres: 39.51 32.12 21.20 03.66 03.57 02.24 Total Acres: 62.79 32.12 04.90 01.80 02.90 Total Acres: 41.72 23.90 Acreage (estimate) for all three uses: 4.70 Total Estimated Acres: 28.60 The "Woods East' and "Woods West" (Woods Only) 135 single-family development was analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. The Woods Only development was approved by the City Council on May 12, 1999 and is under construction. Woods Only is not included in this table as this table compares the remaining parcels of the Terrabay property, and not the property Addendum Terrabay 1998-99 SEIR Final Terrabay Specific Plan October 24, 2000 Page 8 with approved entitlements that is either complete (Terrabay Phase I-Village and Park) or under construction (Terrabay Woods-Only). The Environmentally Superior Development Alternative did not include a breakdown of acreage for the three development parcels to be located south of CA-SMa-40. The above comparison assumes approximately five acres for the three commercial land uses which is based upon the location of the parcels and the acreage provided by the applicant for the Mitigated Plan Alternative analysis. Geology, Soils and Seismicity The development proposed in the Final Terrabay Specific Plan would result in less grading and geotechnical impacts than what is identified and analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. In brief summary, less impacts would result because: 1) There would be substantially Jess grading of the commercial area; 2) Grading is separated further from the debris slide area on the Commons (i.e., "Recreation Parcel") parcel than that what was analyzed in the 1998-99 SEIR; 3) The residential building footprints and grading is proposed to be in an area that is significantly smaller in area than that proposed and analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR; 4)The development in the commercial area would greatly reduce the size of the cuts behind the proposed buildings; 5) Development in the commercial area is proposed further away from the rock and debris slide area. See Appendix A memorandum from Dr. Eric McHuron, Consulting Geologist, June 8, 2000 which describes geotechnical issues detail. Hydroloey and Drainage The development proposed in the Final Terrabay Specific Plan would result in less hydrology and drainage impacts than what is identified and analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. Hydrology and drainage would be reduced from those analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. Hydrology would be largely un-affected where the 25.73 acre Preservation Parcel is proposed. The Recreation Parcel (old Commons parcel) is not proposed to be developed as intensely as that analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. The Precise Plan(s) for the project would be designed in accordance with the mitigation measures identified for site development, which are contained in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. Biology The development proposed in the Final Terrabay Specific Plan would result in less biological impacts than what is identified and analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. More wetlands and perennial springs would be preserved as a result of the Preservation Parcel being held in undisturbed open space. As a point of comparison, the Certified 1998-99 SEIR (Figure 4.3-1 and the text on page 153) identifies :hat there are 2.026 acres of wetlands on the Phase II and m site (the majority being on the Phase Ill-commercial Addendum Terrabay 1998-99 SEIR Final Terrabay Specific Plan October 24, 2000 Page 9 site). Impact 4.3-3 on page 160 of the Certified 1998-99 SE[R states that the 1998 Project would eliminate all the remaining wetlands on the site. Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(a) identifies redesigning the Project to avoid jurisdictional wetlands to the maximum extent feasible. The development proposed by the Final Terrabay Specific Plan does implement mitigation measure 4.3-3(a). The office building proposed by the Final Terrabay Specific Plan would affect a portion of the perennial spring (approximately 0.10 of an acre see page 11-33 of the Proposed Final Terrabay Specific Plan) near the Point area. The City's hook ramp project would affect approximately 0.86 acre of wetlands. The proposed mitigation plan is a 2:1 replacement on site in the Preservation Parcel area. Less grading would occur and as a result less native grasslands would be removed from the site. The 1,000 plus Viola in the northern portion of the site would be preserved on the Preservation Parcel. All of the Viola would be preserved on the Recreation Parcel and the HCP fence boundary has been moved to include the Viola within the HCP area to assure the protection. The mitigation measures contained in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR would still apply to any development proposed by the Final Terrabay Specific Plan. Any "take" of Viola would be subject to an U.S. Fish and Wildlife Incidental Take Permit (10a) amendment. Any alteration or take of jurisdictional waters of the United States would still require an U.S. Army Corp of Engineers permit. Traffic and Circulation The development proposed in the Final Terrabay Specific Plan would result in the same or slightly less traffic and circulation impacts than what is identified and analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. The analysis assumes a 16 percent trip reduction is in place. The TDM is designed to provide a 13 to 36 percent trip reduction depending on the use of the building. The TDM program (memorialized in the Specific Plan and the Development Agreement) contains annual monitoring and penalties if the required reductions are not being met. In brief summary, development proposed by the Final Terrabay Specific Plan would produce significant impacts at the same number of intersections and ramps analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. However, although significant, these impacts would be somewhat less than those identified in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. The number of segments on U.S. 101 freeway significantly impacted would be reduced from nine down to six due to the lower traffic levels associated with the Final Terrabay Specific Plan. The number of locations experiencing significant storage deficiencies along Bayshore Boulevard in close proximity to the Terrabay site would be reduced from two down to one with the Final Terrabay Specific Plan (Y 2000). Mitigations required at the Bayshore Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection would be the same or less with the Final Terrabay Specific Plan. See Appendix B, "Traffic Analysis- Terrabay Final Specific Plan (2000)", Crane Transportation Group, October 24, 2000 for a more detailed discussion of traffic and circulation. Addendum Terrabay 1998-99 SEIR Final Terrabay Specific Plan October 24, 2000 Page 10 Air Oualit¥ Development proposed in the Final Terrabay Specific Plan would result in the same air quality impacts, or slightly less, than what is identified and analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council (Resolution # 150-99) with respect to regional air quality. Air quality impacts are a function of vehicular trips and emissions. Traffic and circulation would result in slightly less vehicular trips than the 1998 project that was identified and analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR (see Traffic and Circulation above). Construction air quality impacts would be the same as those identified and analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR and the same mitigation measures would apply to development proposed by the Final Terrabay Specific Plan. Noise The development proposed in the Final Terrabay Specific Plan would result in the same, or slightly less noise impacts than what is identified and analyzed in the Certified 1998- 99 SEIR. Noise with respect to project operations is a function of vehicular trips. Traffic and circulation would result in slightly less vehicular trips than what was identified and analyzed for the 1998 Project analyzed in the certified 1998-99 SEIR. Therefore the noise impacts would be the same. Construction noise impacts would also be the same as that identified and analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. The same construction noise mitigation measures would apply to development associated with the Final Terrabay Specific Plan. Public Services Police Services The development proposed in the Final Terrabay Specific Plan would result in the same, or slightly less police impacts than that which was identified and analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. The mitigation measures identified in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR would apply to the development proposed by the Final Terrabay Specific Plan. Public Schools The development proposed in the Final Terrabay Specific Plan would result in the same school impacts as those identified and analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. School impacts identified in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR were less-than-significant. The analysis was based on 135 new single-family units in the Woods neighborhood (which is under construction), 213 new residential units in the Commons and Point neighborhoods Addendum Terrabay 1998-99 SEIR Final Terrabay Specific Plan October 24, 2000 Page 11 and the commercial development. The proposed Final Terrabay Specific Plan envisions 166 units (as opposed to 213 units). The size of the units are anticipated to be one, two and three bedroom units as opposed to the three and four bedroom plan of the 1998 Project analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. Therefore, the number of occupants (and thus school age children) is anticipated to be the same or slightly less that that analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. As a point of comparison, 837 bedrooms were proposed in the Point and Commons Project analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. Assuming that all 166 units proposed by the Final Terrabay Specific Plan contain three bedrooms, the result would be 498 bedrooms (a conservative analysis for CEQA purposes) a reduction of 339 bedrooms. In summary, the 1998 Project and the project envisioned by the Final Terrabay Specific Plan are virtually the same. School impacts would remain less-than-significant. Hazards Aerial Lead The development proposed in the Final Terrabay Specific Plan would result in the same aerial lead impacts as those identified and analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. The aerial lead analysis contained in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR pertains to the "hook ramp" project. The impacts and mitigations would remain the same and not be altered negatively or positively as a result of any development envisioned by the Final Terrabay Specific Plan because the hook ramps project would be unchanged. Magnetic Fields The development proposed in the Final Terrabay Specific Plan would result in the same electromagnetic field (EMF) impacts as those identified and analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. The 1998 Project analyzed in the 1998-99 SEIR analyzed the impacts that EMF would have on future residents, and found that the impact would be less-than- significant. The development anticipated by the Final Terrabay Specific Plan, is not residential, but recreational and day care. People would be expected to be on the site less that that anticipated by a residential land use. Archaeology/Historical Summary Final Terrabay Specific Plan The development proposed in the Final Terrabay Specific Plan would result in significantly less impacts to archaeology than what is identified and analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. The development proposed in the Final Terrabay Specific Plan would preserve 25.73 acres and hold in abeyance from development the archaeological site (CA-SMa-40) which is located within that parcel. The Preservation Parcel would extend from approximately 30 feet south of the archaeological site to the boundary of the property to the east, west and north. A Buffer Parcel is als6 proposed which would Addendum Terrabay 1998-99 SEIR Final Terrabay Specific Plan October 24, 2000 Page 12 consist of 2.69 acres extending from the southern boundary of the Preservation Parcel to "Indian Ridge" (see Attachment B). Development on the Buffer Parcel would allow for surface parking only; i.e., no structured parking would be permitted. Projects Analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SE1R One Project (the 1998 Project) and two alternatives were analyzed in the Certified 1998- 99 SEIR that are comparable to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan.~ Table IV on page 6 compares the 1998 Project, the two alternatives, and the project proposed by the Final Terrabay Specific Plan. The 1998 Project proposes developing on top of the archaeological site which would result in its total destruction. An alternative proposed by the applicant which is referred to as the "Mitigated Plan Alternative" analyzed a site plan that would develop to the north and south of the archaeological site but not on the site itself. The Mitigated Plan Alternative would result in less impact to the archaeological site, but does not address the potential relationship between CA-SMa-40 and -92. The Certified 1998-99 SEIR also analyzes an alternative project very similar to the one proposed by the Final Terrabay Specific Plan. The alternative, identified as the "Environmentally Superior Development Alternative" (Exhibit 5.6-2 page 333 of the Certified 1998-99 SEIR) clusters commercial development south of the archaeological site (CA-SMa-40) which results in preserving any potential relationship between CA- SMa-40 and-92. Preservation of CA-SMa-40 in the Final Terrabay Specific Plan The Preservation Parcel, proposed by the Final Terrabay Specific Plan would preserve the valley between CA-SMa-40 and -92 (located within San Bruno Mountain County Park), which was the topic of much discussion during the public hearings on the 1998 Project. The Final Certified 1998-99 SEIR (pps 34-37) contains three master responses to many comments received during the public review period on the Draft 1998-99 SEIR regarding the possibility of an historical connection between the two sites; the possibility of off-site burials and the cumulative loss of archaeology. A connection between the two sites was not unequivocally determined to exist nor was the possibility of off-site burials unequivocally ruled out by the certified 1998-99 SEIR. A recommended mitigation measure (on page 295 of the Draft SEIR) should CA-SMa-40 have been destroyed by development was to investigate and determine the relationship between CA-SMa-40 and -92. The Preservation Parcel which includes CA-SMa-40, the area described above, and the valley between CA-SMa-40 and -92 would preserve CA- SMa-40 in-situ, lands surrounding CA-SMa-40 and the lands between CA-SMa-40 and - 92 in perpetuity. The Preservation Parcel would be conveyed to a public trust, San Mateo ~ The Certified 1998-99 SEIR also analyzed the "No Project" alternative required under CEQA. The Certified 1998-99 SEIR also analyzed an "Existing Specific Plan" alternative, a Phase II "Reduced Residential' alternative, a Phase III "Reduced Commercial Development Alternative" (the environmentally superior development alternative), and Phase III "Permanent Open Space" alternative. Addendum Terrabay 1998-99 SEIR Final Terrabay Specific Plan October 24, 2000 Page 13 County for inclusion in the Park or private conservation organization that would also preserve any relationship between CA-SMa-40 and -92. Changes to CEQA 1998-2000 The California Environmental Quality Act was amended in October 1998 and those changes became effective the following year. The criterion by which a lead agency is required to evaluate archaeological resources was amplified to include an historic evaluation in addition to the archaeological review. The lead agency is required to determine whether the site is an historic resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15065.5 (a): (1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historic resources (Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 Title 14 CCR Section 4850 et. seq.) (2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. (3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, record or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally a resource shall be considered a resource by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources (Public Resource Code Section 5021.1 Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) including the following: A. Is associated with the events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; B. Is associated with the lives of persons important to our past; Co Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a tYpe, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic value; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. , Addendum Terrabay 1998-99 SEIR Final Terrabay Specific Plan October 24, 2000 Page 14 (4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources, not included in a local register of historic resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in the Public Resource Code Section 5020.1 (j) or 5024.1. CEQA 1998 The Preservation Parcel proposed by the Final Terrabay Specific Plan implements Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 (b) identified in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. The mitigation measure identifies "avoidance of developing on an archaeological site" and preservation of the site as a mitigation measure acceptable under CEQA. More specifically, CEQA Appendix K (1998) summarized in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR states that: In-situ preservation of a site is the preferred manner of avoiding damage to an archaeological resources. Preserving the site is more important than preserving the artifacts alone because the relation ship of the artifacts to each other in the site provides valuable information that can be lost when the artifacts are removed. Further, preserving the site keeps it available for more sophisticated future research methods. Preservation may also avoid conflict with religious or cultural values of groups associated with the site. The development proposed by the Final Terrabay Specific Plan implements this mitigation measure. CEQA 2000 CEQA Section 15064.5 (2000) provides an update to the analysis and treatment of archaeological resources since the preparation and certification of the 1998-99 SEIR. In particular the change relates to archaeological sites being analyzed under the historic resource criteria as identified above. The Draft 1998-99 SEIR (p 284) and the Certified Final 1998-99 SEIR (page 33) both state that the site may be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The Certified Final 1998-99 SEIR (page 33) also identifies the historic criteria pursuant Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 which is the same criteria identified by CEQA in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 A-D (identified above). In particular, both the Holman Report (Evaluative Archaeological Investigations at the San Bruno Mountain Mound Site, CA-SMa-40, South San Francisco, California, Holman and Associates December 1989-revised February 1998) which was peer reviewed by the certified 1998-99 SEIR identifies that the site meets criterion D (page 285) in that "it has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history". Addendum Terrabay 1998-99 SEIR Final Terrabay Specific Plan October 24, 2000 Page 15 CEQA Guidelines (2000) Section 15126.4 (b)(3)(A) states as a directive and mitigation measure that: Public agencies should, whenever feasible, seek to avoid damaging effects on any historical resource of an archaeological nature. The following factors shall be considered and discussed in an EIR for a project involving such an archaeological site: (A) Preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological sites. Preservation in place maintains the relationship between artifacts and the archaeological context. Preservation may also avoid conflict with religious or cultural values of groups associated with the site. Preservation may be achieved by 1) Planning construction to avoid the site; and 2) Deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. The development proposed by the Final Terrabay Specific Plan accomplishes the in-situ preservation as well as its contextual preservation. The Certified 1998-99 SEIR analyzed the site within the framework of an historic resource and identified a mitigation measure to avoid disturbing the site. The entire Preservation Parcel would be deeded as permanent open space/conservation easement. During City study sessions with the applicant, the applicant and the Historic Preservation Commission have explored, and continue to explore, the idea of nominating the site for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. The method to preserve the 'archaeological site proposed by the Final Terrabay Specific Plan is the most conservative method identified by CEQA. SUMMARY IMPACT STATEMENT The proposed Final Terrabay Specific Plan would not result in any new impacts or mitigations or increase any existing impacts identified in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. The proposed Final Terrabay Specific Plan would reduce impacts to Viola and wetlands and eliminate archaeological impacts entirely. The development proposed in the Final Terrabay Specific Plan would not result in substantial changes that would require major revisions to the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. There are no new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The development proposed by the Final Terrabay Specific Plan would, as stated and demonst:ated above, result in a reduction of impacts. Addendum Terrabay 1998-99 SEIR Final Terrabay Specific Plan October 24, 2000 Page 16 No substantial changes would occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project would be undertaken which would require major revisions of the Certified 1998- 99 SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects. The development proposed by the Final Terrabay Specific Plan would, as discussed above, result in a reduction of impacts. The archaeological site would be completely preserved. Geotechnical, biological and hydrologic impacts would be reduced. All other impacts would be the same or slightly less than that identified and analyzed in the Certified 1998- 99 SEIR. As discussed above the development proposed in the Final Terrabay Specific Plan would not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. Significant effects previously discussed not be substantially more severe than shown in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. The development proposed by the Final Terrabay Specific Plan would implement the open space alternative for the archaeological site, as well as lands south and north of the site, which is a mitigation measure identified in the Certified 1998-99. The Preservation Parcel and the Buffer Parcel proposal would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, and the applicant is proposing this as part of the project, as opposed to declining to adopt the mitigation measure. There are no mitigation measures or alternatives, which are considerably different from those analyzed in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR which, would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment of which the project proponents declined to adopt the mitigation measure. The Certified 1998-99 SEIR analyzed an alternative project very similar (although it would still have disturbed more land area than the development proposed in the Final Terrabay Specific Plan) to the one proposed in the Final Terrabay Specific Plan. The alternative identified as the "Environmentally Superior Development Alternative" (Exhibit 5.6-2 page 333 of the Certified 1998-99 SEIR) clusters commercial development south of the archaeological site (CA-SMa-40). All Alternative-related impacts (except cumulative air quality and the hook ramp impacts for which the City adopted a Finding of Overriding Considerations on May 12, 19999-Resolution 150-99) were reduced below that of the 1998 Project ADDENDUM PROCESS An addendum to an existing EIR does not require circulation or public review (PRC Section 15164 (d)). A brief discussion as to the Lead Agency's decision to prepare an addendum as opposed to a subsequent EIR should be included in the document (PRC Section 15164 (e)). This discussion appears in the above section entitled "Evaluation of Addendum Criteria". The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR (or SEIR) prior to making a decision on the project (PRC Section 15164 (d)). The resolution recommending approval of the Final Terrabay Specific Plan includes a recital with respect to the addendum. Addendum Terrabay 1998-99 SEIR Final Terrabay Specific Plan October 24, 2000 Page 17 ATTACHMENTS Figures 5, 9, 10 17 and 20 from the October proposed Final Terrabay Specific Plan. Letter-McHuron Geosciences, "Geologic, Slope Stability, Erosion and Seismic Impacts Proposed Changes in the Specific Plan Phase 111 Terrabay Development, South San Francisco", October 20, 2000. III, Letter-Crane Transportation Group, "Traffic Analysis-Terrabay Final Specific Plan", October 24, 2000. AddendumOct CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP 6220 ]3ay X~itw Avenue El Sobrantt, CA 94806 (510) 236-9375 phone (510) 236-5624 fax FAX MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Allison Knapp (Fax #650/829-6639) Mark D. Crane DATE: October 24, 2000 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS-TERRABAY OCTOBER 2000 SPECH~IC PLAN NUMBER OF I'AGES (including this one): 7 Crane Transportation Group has analyzed the circulation impacts due to the development proposal contained in thc Terrabay October 2000 Specific Plan by Myers Development Company. Impacts have been determined in relation to those of the proposed Terrabay Mitigation Plan Development Alternative analyzed in the ~lanuary 1999 Final Supplemental EIR (FSEIP,) for Terrabay Phases II and HI. A. CHANGE IN DEVELOI~MENT Overall, the change in development between plans is as follows. Phase H- Eliminate 213 single family residential units (Pointe & Commons developments). Replace wlth 96 condominium units, 70 medium size single family units and a 23,000-square-foot health club. Phase III- Eliminate 7,500 square feet of restaurant; 340,000 gross square feet of office and a 150-room hotel. Office use trip generation was projected to be reduced by 13% due to TDM measures. Replace with 665,000 gross square feet of research & development (IL&D) uses and a 100-child day care center. Approximately 70 of the 100 10/24/00 CTG Page 1 Memo ~o Allisan Knapp 10/24/2000 11:50 415-457-6031 PAGE 02 children are projected to be from parents working in the 1K&D office while 30 would come tSom other area workers or residents. R&D use peak hour trip generation was assumed reduced 16% due to TDM measures in order to produce the same or reduced levels of significamt impacts to the local circulation system as the mitigation plan development alternative in the FSEIR. B. PHASE H AND HI TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION Expected Phase Il and III daily, AM peak hour and PM peak hour trip generation due to the Terrabay October 2000 Specific Plan is presemed in Table 1. A comparison of the net change in peak hour trip generation between October 2000 Specific Plan proposed uses versus those analyzed in the 1999 FSEIR is as follows. NET CHANGE IN PEAK HOUR TRIPS (PHASES H AND HI-LAND USES PROPOSED IN TERRABAY OCTOBER 2000 SPECIFIC PLAN VERSUS THOSE ANALYZED IN 1999 FSEIR) Phe~e I1 Phase HI AM PE^K IlOIIR TRI'Pt PM PI. AK IH)UR TRIP~i 'INBOI. IN'D OUTBOUh'D , INBOUND' OI.ffI'BCH!ND -10 -66 -50 -25 +67 + 18 -66 +67 TOTAL +57 -48 Source: Crane Transportation Group -121 +42 Traffic from newly proposed residential and research & development (office) uses was distributed to the local roadway network in a manner similar to development analyzed in 1999. The health club was projected to attract customers from the following sources: 25% from Terrabay condo and single family units; 25% from east of 101 employees; 20% from the Terrabay Phase III office; 30% from other nearby residents. Exhibit I presents year 2010 AM and PM peak hour Base Case + Terrabay volumes assuming completion of the Terrabay October 2000 Specific Plan. COMPARISON OF SIGNIFICANT CIRCULATION IMPACTS DUE TO TERRABAY OCTOBER 2000 SPECIFIC PLAN VERSUS THE PROJECT ANALYZED IN THE JANUARY 1999 FSEIR Based upon the revised traffic projections, a comparison was made to determine whether 2010 traffic conditions with the Terrabay October 2000 Specific Plan would be better or poorer than those for the Mitigation Plan Development Alternative evaluated in the January 2000 FSEIR and whether there would be more or fewer significant circulation impacts due to the October 2000 10/24/00 CTG Page2 Memo to Allison Knapp . [0/24/2000 [1:50 415-457-603[ P~GE 03 Specific Plan. Locations analyzed in the project vicinity were as follows: intersections, fieeway segments, freeway ramps and storage distances between intersections along Bayshore Boulevard. Table 2 presents a summary of the number of locations experiencing significant impacts due to the development proposed in the Terrabay October :2000 Specific Plan compared to the Mitigation Plan Development Alternative evaluated in the ~rmary 1999 FSEIR. As can be seen, the Terrabay October 2000 Specific Plan would produce significant impacts at the same number of intersections and ramps as the plan evaluated in January 1999. However, while still significant, the intersection impact would be somewhat less than the Mitigation Plan Development Alternative analyzed in thc 1999 FSEIR due to thc overall lower volume levels resulting from the October 2000 Specific Plan (with a -~16% R&D peak hour trip reduction TDM program). Intersection level of service results with the October 2000 Specific Plan are presented in Table 3. The number of segments on the U.S. 101 freeway significantly impacted during both commute periods would be reduced from 9 down to 6 due to the slightly Iowe~ traffic levels (in some directions) associated with the October 2000 Specific Plan (assuming the +16% R&D peak hour trip reduction TDM program). Finally, the number of locations experiencing significant storage deficiencies along Bayshore Boulevard in close proximity to the Terrabay site would be reduced from :2 to I with the Terrabay October 2000 Specific Plan versus the Mitigation Plan Development Alternative. 10/24/00 CTG P~¢ 3 Memo to Allison Ya~pp Table SUMMARY OF 2010 SIGNWICANT OW-SITE CIRCULATION IMPACI~ TERRABAY OCTOBER 2000 SPECIFIC PLAN VERSUS MITIGATION PLAN DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE AS PROPOSED EN JANUARY 1999 FSEIR (SUMMARY OF AM AND PM COMMUTE PEAK HOUR CONDmONS) LOCATION~ ~'ITll ~iG.~'lf'iCANT IMPA(Tg~ I'I~.M Intc~scctiom Rnmps sa the Oyster Point lnterclmn$~ U.S. 101 Freeway Segments Vehicle Storage between Intersections along Bwyshom Boulevard Frontage PROPO.qgD MI'I'IC, ATION ]'LAN lit:VEl ,OPM £NT A.LTERNATIVIE ~ JA N'UA~Y i~99 1 ~aysho~s~r Poin~Si~ Ci6c~) 1 ~ On-~ ~m ~er Poin~b~uc 2 PROPOI~ED ]~ROJ-ECT k.N OC~T~I~£R 2000 ~aysho~ Poin~Si~ Ci~~) 1 ~ On-~p ~m ~r Poin~u~ intron) Assumes · 16% R&D peak hour trip reduction due to TDM measures. · *Ple. a~e see Tabiz 3 for 2010 levels of service. Source: Crane Transportation Group 11:50 415-457-6831 Northix)unel Off-Ramp fo PAGE N Terrab~y Terrab?y Pha~e~il Ph~e. lll Access Ac'ceos 245 567 672 ~ = AM Peak Hour ~ = PM Peak ttom On-Ramp Exhibit 1 Yr 2010 Volu, mes With Terrabay October 2000 Development Plan P'has®s II and III CRANE TRANSPORTATION, GROUP AM & PM Peak Hour ,~ October 20, 2000 McHURON GEOSCIENCES 1 670 8th Avenue San Francisco, CA 94122 415 564-1364 fax 415 664-4041 mchuron@earthlink.net R E C E l'v' E ',73 PLP?NNING Planning Department City Hall Annex City of South San Francisco. CA 94093 Attention: Ms. Allison Knapp, Planner RE: Geologic, Slope Stability, Erosion and Seismic Impacts Proposed Changes (October 16, 2000) in the Specific Plan Phase III, Terrabay Development South San Francisco, CA Dear Allison: At your request, we have reviewed the October 16, 2000, proposed changes to the Terrabay Phase III Specific Plan. Our review was focused on how the potential changes effects the geologic, slope stability, erosion and seismic impacts presented in the EIR and how the changes compare with the June 2000 Specific Plan. We addressed the differences between the EIR proposal and the June proposal in a letter dated June 8, 2000. In general, the October plan is similar to the June proposal in that it has less impacts on the geology, slope stability, erosion and seismic stability. This reduction is mai~xly related to the significant decrease in areas to be graded and the magnitude of the cut slopes. The only area that ma), require more grading than the previous proposal is the shallow landslide north of the Residential Area. The remainder of this letter compares the October 2000 Plan with the June 2000 Plan. Open Space/Residential (Commons West) The October 16, 2000, proposal states that an attempt is underway to have a Recreational Facility Provider develop a facility on this portion of the Phase III development. If none could be found after a period of two years, then the parcel will be donated to South San Francisco Parks and Recreation for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain State Park. If a developer can be found and the proposed footprint of the Recreation Center is similar to what was proposed in the June 2000 proposal then the impacts will be similar and far less than stated in the EIR for the Sunchase Proposal. The October Proposal, should also include the restoration of the eroding temporary slopes that were cut at 1.5:1 vs the required 2:1. The revised specific plan would also avoid the landslides on the northern portion of the Open Space/Recreational parcel. Neither of the June or October plans indicate where the debris basin would be located nor how the traffic would be routed from South San Francisco Drive to he elevated Recreation Center/parking lot. The construction of these roads may require excavation into undisturbed ground but it would be less than the amount disturbed in the Sunchase Proposal that was evaluated in the EIR. Residential (Commons East) The building footprints of the October Specific Plan are significantly smaller that what was presented by Sunchase in the EIR. About 80% of the proposed footprints are ]Vis. Allison Knapp October 20, 2000 Page 2 within the area that was disturbed by Phase I grading (i.e., stripping, siltation basin and topsoil stockpiling). The Sunchase plan called for significant grading of the Point (17.6 acres of undisturbed ground , including the fill 'embankment' across Randolph Ravine. Myer's June plan proposed grading of the Point, but this work was focused on the southern portion of the Residential Area, the parking for the Office Complex and for restoration and revegetation of the existing bare slopes on the Point. A significant difference between the June and October plans is the extension of the cul-de-sacs into the southern portion of the Point. The grading for these road extensions, requires that the entire slope above them, including the "turtle" be lowered by as much as SO feet. This grading would involve about 1.S acres of land that had been previously undisturbed and that would not have been disturbed by the June Proposal. Both the June and October Proposals include restoration and revegetaion of the Phase I grading of the Point. The SO feet of excavation required by the October plan would expose fresher bedrock that would require overexcavation to allow space for backfilling of topsoil for restoration. The restoration would utilize the topsoil strippings from Phase 1 and Phase 1I grading that has been stockpiled on the previously disturbed ground at the Residential parcel. The October plan, like the June plan, would greatly reduce the amount of grading and exposed slopes than were proposed in the Sunchase Plan. The October Plan states that geotechnical studies have not been completed and the extent of landslide mitigation in the Residential area is unknown at this time. The Sunchase Plan called for landslide mitigation using a combination of grading/removal, catchment area and a buffer zone of no houses. The June Plan proposed low- to mid-rise buildings (with underground parking) within the shallow landslides of the residential area. The worst case of the June proposal would have been the complete removal of the shallow slide material that would involve grading of an additional 2-3 acres of native ground. In contrast, the October proposal places the backyards of the attached housing units within the landslide areas. This plan would require the removal of the 2-3 acres of shallow landslide material. However, the total area of disturbed native lands (landslides and removal of the 'turtle') would still be less than the area that was to be disturbed by grading for the Sunchase Proposal. Office Complex The October Plan is similar to the June one and offers a significant reduction in the geologic impacts from the Sunchase Proposal. The new proposal would require some cutting into the Point area for the parking garages. The slope above the garage would also require grading, but would merge with the existing slope at the former quarry bench (below the 'turtle'). Therefore, the proposed grading for the Office Complex would not require the removal of the 'turtle' at the top of the Point. As stated earlier, it is the grading for the extension of the cul-de-sacs in the Residential parcel that primarily requires removal of the 'turtle'. Myers' proposal for the office complex is a significant reduction in the geologic impacts from the Sunchase proposal. Sunchase proposed the grading of about 34.9 acres, of which 6.7 were graded during and prior to Phase I development. Most of the 28 acres of new grading would have been in the vicinity of the Shell Mound. The Myers' Development plan proposes to develop about 10 acres for the office complex (6.7 acres that was previously graded and 3 acres of new ground) The greatest change is the 25 acres that are to be dedicated the Preserve. McHuron Geosciences Ms. Allison Knapp October 20, 2000 Page 3 In summary, it is our opinion that the October Myers' proposal, like the June plan, represents an overall reduction in the impacts geologic hazards, slope stability and erosion. Because the June and October proposals reduces the size of the cut slopes, there will also be a reduction on the potential adverse effects of seismic shaking. Should you have any further questions, or need further clarification, please contact me Sincerely. G~eosciences Dr. Eric J. McHuron, CEG #1023 President McHuron Geosciences