Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Phase II & III Final SEIR 01-1999Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report TERRABAY PHASE T! AND 111 Precise Plan Approval -Phase ;'l Specific Plan Amendment -Phase ll and I!! .Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map Approval. 7errabay Specific Plan District Amendment • Develcpment Agreement Amendment • CC&R Approval. Csrading Pem~it Issuance ,:COMMENTS AND RESPONSES CITY CF SOUTH SAN FRANCi$%O January 1 G89 ~7 0 COMMENTS BIND RESPONSES ~.~ 72 73 74 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Master Response 7.3-1 Analysis. of Project.Sponsor'sMhigation Development. .Alternative _. ._ :Master Response 7.3-2.New Alternative, Project Description, Recirculation Master Response 7:3-3 Application of the National Historic Preservation Act .Master Response 7.3-4 CEQA and California Register<of Historic Resources Master Response 7.3-5.Relationship Between CA-SIVia-40 and CA-SMA=92 Master Response 7.3-6 Native American Burial Concerns .Master Response 7.3-7 Cumulative Loss of Archaeological=Resources Master Response 7:3=8 ;Wetlands = Master Response 7.3-9 Callippe Silverspot Butterfly Master.Response 7.3-10 Cumulative Impacts Master Response.7.3-11'Project Merits . RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Written .Comments _ .:.. overnor's ce of Planning and Research James and Theresa Burns Ann Smith Marjorie Colt -. Del Schembari The Willow /Grand Condominium Association Nicole Cherok :Sierra Club, San Francisco .Bay .Chapter Wildlife Committee. ~Vandeman) Joseph Vaca Jean Jenks _- - Shirley and 3efferson Graves _ David Tomsovic David Hazlow,. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Timothy Cremin, Baker & McKenzie (applicant's attorney) `City of.South San Francisco Public Works Department Liliana Valle >Robert Carrillo Betsy Burr .:Patrick Orozco Foster..City Rod and Gun Club .Fred~Rinne :San Bruno Mountain Watch (Schooley et an San Bruno ~Mountain`Watch (Batchelder) Mishwa Lee Will Two Beats Ken McIntire 4 5 26 29 31 34 34 36 37 39 41 42 43 Letter"00.1 .Letter 1.1 Letter 2.1 :Letter 3.1 :Letter 4.1 Letter 5.1 Letter 6.1 Letter 7.1 Letter 8.1 Letter 9.1 Letter 10.1 `Letter 11.1 'Letter I2.1 Letter 13.1 Letter 14.1 Letter 15.1 Letter 16.1 .Letter :17.1 Letter 18.1 Letter 19.1 :Letter 20.1 "'Letter 21.1 Letter 21.6 .Letter 22.1 :Letter 23.1 Letter 24.1 - . , Crty., ' of~~South_SanFrancisco historic Preservation Commission Letter.25.1 'City of Brisbane Letter.26.1 CaliforniaDepartment of Transportation (Caltrans) .Letter 27.1 '~` `Sierra Qub, .Loma Prieta Chapter, -(Bolt) Letter.28.1 San Bruno Mountain ~V.atch~(L~gille) , : :. . _ , , -.,`; Letter 29.1 'Pajaro Valley Ohlone Indian Council and San Bruno Mountain Watch (Miller) =Letter 30.1 Susan Vigil - I:etter 31.1 .Michelle Brewer Letter 32.1 Jan Pont .:- - - .. Letter 33.1 Dan Shattuc - Letter 34.1 San'Gregorio Environmental Resource'Center) Letter.35.1 Sylvia Gregory Letter 36..1 Ocal.Comments , Dennis.Breen (project sponsor)(also see'Letter 13) Speaker 1 Dan Shattuc(also see Letter 34) :Speaker 2 Betsy Burr (also see Letter 17) . Speaker 3 David Schooley, San Bruno Mountain Watch (also see Letter.21) Speaker 4 3ulia Bolt, Loma Prieta Chapter, Sierra Club (alsosee Letter 28) ° - Speaker 5 Perry Matlock _ Speaker 6 Mary Thompson Speaker 7 ..Patrick Orozco, Pajaro Valley Olone Indian Council (statement read by Speaker 8 Speaker 9)(also see.Letter 18) Lois Robin Speaker 9 Dana Dillworth, Bay Area Mountain Watch - Speaker 10 Judy Talaugon, California Indians for Cultural and Environmental:Protection Speaker 11 Will Two Bears. (see.also Letter 23) ~ ~ Speaker i2 Celeste Langille, San Bruno Mountain Watch (see also 'Letter`29) Speaker 13 Robert Carrillo, -Daly City (also see Letter 16) Speaker 14 Cathy Manus, Friends of.San Bruno Mountain Speaker.l5 Michelle Salmon - Speaker 16 Leland Beham Speaker 17 ' David Tomsovic ;(also see Letter ;l l) -_ : - ,_ .: Speaker l8 -Jan Pont'~(also see Letter 33) -~ Speaker 19 Crail Mallimson, San Bruno Mountain Watch Speaker 20 Mishwa Lee, .San Francisco (also see Letter 22) _ Speaker 21 :Michelle .Brewer (also see .Letter 32) _ pecker 22 S Heather Gilbert Speaker 23 .David Schmidt Speaker 24 David Grace Speaker 25 Elliott Gouger Speaker 26 Albert Lannon, Friends of San Bruno Mountain Speaker 27 Mark Batcholder Speaker 28 Fred Andres, San Bruno.Mountain Watch Speaker 29 LIS.T:OF EXHIBITS "7:3-1 Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative 7 7.3 2 Trip Generation Phase III Site Mitigation Plan.Development.Alternative 10 '7.3-3 Net New Traffic on Local Roads due to Project and Phase III Site 11 Mitigation .Plan Development Alternative "'7.3-4 Year 2000 AM & PM Peak flour Volumes (Alternative) 12 7.3-5 Year 2010 AM & PM Peak Hour Volumes (Alternative) 13 7.3-6 AM & PM.Peak Hour Increment. (Alternative) 14 7.3-7 AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ,(Alternative) 15 4.46 AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection.Levels of Service (Proposed Project) 16 7.3-8 AM and PM-Peak Hour U.S. 101 Freeway Levels of Service (Alternative) 17 7.3-9 AM (and PM) Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Operation (Alternative) 1 g 4.48 AM .(and PM) Peak Honr Freeway Ramp Operation (Proposed Project) 19 7.3-10 Lane Striping (Alternative) 21 7.3-11 AM and PM Peak Hour Year 2010 Maximum Queue Lengths at Bayshore 17 Boulevard Intersections Adjacent to Phase III Site (Altennative) 7.3-12 Mitigation Measures for Phase II Project and Phase.III~ Site Mitigation Plan 22 Development Alternative where Different than Required for Proposed .Project 7.3-13 Comparison of Estimated Phase III Site Police Service Needs 24 7.3-14 Comparison of Estimated Employment and Student Generation 25 <• Amending'the Terrabay':Specific<Plan..related'>to~the`Phase'`II and III sites; 'approving a=Precise :Plan for-:the PhaseII site; approving~a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map `for the Phase II and III ;:sites,amending-:the =Terrabay •Specific Plan ~District~in'=the-Municipal Code "(Zoning=OriJinance), amending the Development Agreement, approving Covenants, Conditions,=:andRestrictions, and .granting of grading permits for the Phase II and III sites .(all requested by SunChase G.A., ~~Catiforna I, iac. sponsor of the Terrabay development project) and • _ Rebuilding the existing southbound U:S. 101 / Bayshore off-ramp and building a new southbound .U.S. • Ol on-ramp°(jointly arnown as the "hook ramps")(sponsored by the City of South San Erancisco):and _: Realigning a segment of Bayshore Boulevard (which the Cities of Brisbane .and .South .San :Francisco will determine who-will sponsor) .During the .public review period from .July 1 to August 14, 1998 and at the public`hearmg held by the City of South San. Francisco Planning Commission on .July 23,.1998, the City solicited comments from .government .agencies and the public. '.This document ,provides responses to comments, as discussed below (7.I Introduction to the Comments and Responses). This Comments and Responses document,_ together :with.-the 1998.:DSEIR,.,constitute the Terrabay Phase II and .III Final. Supplemental .Environmental 7mpact'Report (7999 FSEIR). ,:.This Comments and Responses document will be distributed to 'City officials and the public 'before the :Planning Commission and Council consider its adequacy and the Council certifies the 1999F..SEIR as complete. -Once certified, the City will republish the 1999 FSEIR as the Certified SEIR. The .Certified. SEIR will .. .. consist of as a single document .combining the 1998 DSEIR, revised _in.response .to: comments, and ,.., inserting this Comments and Responses. chapter. 7.7 INTRODUCT/ON TD THE COMMENTS:AND~RESPONSES The government agencies, organizations, and individuals :who commented :on ;the.:I998 =DSEIR are listed below (7.2 Persons Commencing), followed by a discussion. of several :common :issues recurring in written and oral comments received (7.3 Summary of Comments and Responses). ;The:remainder of this chapter.presents and responds to all comments on the 1998 DSEIR and.the;project'. significant environmental effects (7.4 Response to Comments). These include commentssubmitted to'the City in writing and made. orally at the. public hearing. Some .comments express commentors' preferences in relation ao.-;the -merits.:;of .the ;project. or the alternatives studied in the 1998 DSEIR but do not .raise. questions about;-the 1998::DSEIR :analyses. These comments are included in this chapter, although responses to project-related . comments ~~are not necessary in an FIR. However, inclusion in this document will make the cotnmentors' .views.available to .public .officials who will make decisions .about the project itself (7.3:Summary>of .Comments and Responses, Master Response 7.3-I1). _ 7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Terrabay Phase II end 6/ F/na! SE/R Original letters are reproduced in Section 7.4 Response to Comments, .and comments are numbered to refer to responses Responses to individual comments raising significant environmental .points are - ~preserited. "immediately -after. each comment .letter.. 'Some :responses refer commentors to. other ..comments or responses in this chapter (including .to "master responses" presented in 7.3 Summary of . Comments., and Responses:) or::to.the pages of the. _1998.;DSEIR.~(DSEIR: page '00) •wherespecific.aopics -are discussed: , ..... _ . _ . _ -. . .wIn some :instances, ':text....changes ~:resalting.:from .comments. and ,responses swill; be incorporated .in _ ; C.hapters.:I.O :through ,6.0 :of :the origina119.98::DSEIR:,text ~when.republished .in ~ :the :Certified SEIR, as indicated~in.the.;responses,,:,-Revisions.are.-made-inf.mode~to~show:delet~s~s-{}i~e~~} and :insertions (underlinedl. - : -:: -~ 2 PERSONS COMMENTfNG The .city :received .comments on ahe.1998 DSEIR from,the:following -agencies, orgatiizations, and !individuals.:Numbers,referao the-order of :written comments andaheir.responses :presented in section 7.4 Response to Comments. Speaker numbers refer to comments- made at-.the:Planning Commission `hearing on July 23, 1998 and the responses to those comments. WRITTEN COMMENTS 2 7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Terrabay Phase !I and !/! F/na! SE/R ~Pajaro'~?alley~.iOhlone•~Iniian::Council andSanBnmo:.Mountain.Watch (Letter 30) Jan Pont (Letter 33) ;Fred.:Rinne.,(Letter:20) ~ > ., > . ;;, ,. - _: . ,, •San Bnmo,..Mountain:~V.ateh,:(Batchelder).(Letter~2lb) ,. ,_, San Bruno Mountain Watch (Langille) (Letter 29) San Bruno.Mountain Watch (Schooley et al) (Letter 21a) San;Gregorio Environmental:Resource..Center:(Lettet 35) ,.. :De1.Schembari-,(Letter 4) ;.; , _ - _ ,, ,Dan .Shattuc; (Letter 34) ,.;:Sierra G1ub,:.Loma:Frieta:.Chapter,.(Batt) (Letter:28.) •:. ~Sieaa:Club,.San F.rancisco;:Bay Chapter:Wildlife:'Committee (Vandeman)'(Letter7) Ann Snuth (Letter 2) ':The Willow/Grand Condominium Association (Letter 5) ...David Tomsovic (Letter,l.1) Joseph Vaca (Letter 8) ,. Liliana Valle (Letter 15) - Susan Vigil,('ietter.3i WilLTwo.Bears:(Letter 23) .. ; PUBLIC HEAR/NG COMMENTS _. .Fred Andres, .San Bruno Mountain Watch (Speaker 29) :Mark Batcholder (Speaker 28) , , .Leland Beham (Speaker 17) JuliaBott, Loma Prieta Chapter,.Sierra Club„(Speaker.5)(also ee Letter.28). , `Dennis Breen .(Speaker 1)(also see Letter,.13) ..., 1Vfichelle Brewer (Speaker 22)(also see Letter 32) .Betsy Burr (Speaker 3)(also see Letter 17) _.. ..Robert Carrillo, Daly City (Speaker 14)(also see:Letter 16) .:Dana Dillworth,Bay Area Mountain Watch.(Speaker 10) ,: ._ 'Heather Gilbert (Speaker.23) Elliott Gouger (Speaker 26) '' David .Grace (Speaker 25) _ ,.;; . Celeste Langille, `San Bruno`1Viountain Watch (Speaker 13)(see also Letter 29) :Albert Lannon, Friends of San Bruno Mountain (speaker 27) '1Vlishwa. Lee,'San Francisco (Speaker 21)(also see. Letter 22) riail Nfallimsori,~ San Bruno Mountain Watch. (Speaker 20) Cathy 1Vlanus;Friends of,San Bruno Mountain,(Speaker.l5) `Perry lVlatlock (Speaker 6) -, ;Patrick Orozco, Pajaro VaIIey Olone Indian .Council (Speaker 8, statement :read by Speaker 9)(also see _. :.Letter T8) ,.._ 'Jan Pont (Speaker 19)(also see Letter 33) Lois Robin :(Speaker 9) :Michelle Salmon (Speaker 16) David Schmidt (Speaker 24) David.Schooley, San Bruno Mountain Watch (Speaker 4)(also see Letter 21) .Dan Shattuc (Speaker 2)(also see Letter 34) 3udy Talaugon, California Indians for Cultural and Environmental Protection (Speaker 11) Mary Thompson (Speaker 7) David Tomsovic (Speaker 18)(also see Letter 11) WiII Two Bears .(Speaker 12)(see also Letter 23) 7.O.COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ~ .~` •.Tsrrabay Phase 11 end /ll Flna/ SEIR J ^_ :7 3:~UMMARYOF~:GOMMENTS AND~~4ESPOIVSES a The SEIR. analyzes several diverse and complex issues, .and, as a result,' a number of questions and ~ ~= ;.. comments were made.on the 1998 DSEIR..The.more common°inajor"comments~involve the:following ~~ ~., :..main issues: ~ _ , . _ _ , .... .. - -- • The applicant's submittal, during the public-review period•(after. publication of the7998 DSE1R}, of an altennative .development .concept .for the Phase :III site, -proposed =to zriitigate .:impacts - identified .in the draft report (Master Response 7.3-1). Related to this 'issue: are comments on the __, adequacy of the -1998 DSEIR project description~in view .o~f this=perceived change and"questions about ,the .need to:}recirculate `ahe`~`EIIt :':for additional .public review and ,comment ::(Master ' .'Response 7.3-2). _ • The applicability of Federal statutes, including those on preservation'~of historic resources, to the project and Phase III site .archaeological .resources (Master Response 7.33). • Whether or .not .the FIR should analyze the cite as an historic resource-under`'CEQA and its ;_. .eligibility for inclusion on -the California Register of Historical' Resources (Master Response ~_.. 7.3-x. , .:. . , • The relationship between CA-SMa-40 and CA-SMa-92 (Master Response 7.3-5). • Native American burial .concerns .(Master Response 7.3-6). , • The effectiveness of `i998 DSEIR mitigation measures 'for the'Phase .III site. in view of the historic - cumulative loss of :archaeological resources throughout the Bay'Area (Master Response :7.3-~. • The loss of wetlands (Master.Response:7.3-8). __ • `Impacts on the Callippe Silverspot butterfly `(and larval host .plant) . in relation .to the San ,Bruno - - Mountain.Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) (Master Response`7.3-9). • Cumulative effects of implementing the_project (Master Response 7.3-~0). ,. In ,addition to these :issues related to the environmental impacts ' of he project covered by the 1998 - SEIR and the adequacy of the 1998 -DSEIR in .addressing "them, many.,commentor5, expressed-their __ overall views .about .the site in general and 'proposed development .there m .particular .and / or recommended specific City actions when considering the project itself `(MasterResponse 7 3-II ). `TLese issues are "3iscussed'below in response to .specific comments raised' by individual writers and speakers .(and to reduce .repetitious responses to those .comments by referring .:readers to these discussions).. ,< :_ .. _ f. . 4 • - < < - 7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Terrabay Phase l! and 111 Ftna! SEIR MASTER RESPONSE 7.3-1 S OF.,.PROJECT SPONSOR'S..MIT/GAT/ON PLAN DEVELOP. MEM.~LTERIfIAT/VE ANALYST ,, ~> ;s 'Master'Response 73-I describes'the project sponsor's development concept for.the Phase III site and assesses the environmental consequences of implementing ahe.'developnient: concept .=As discussed in 'Master :Response '73-2, for the purposes of'the "SEIR,, this development concept .constitutes an alternative to the project as proposed and is..: referred to as .the. Phase III Site Mitigation Plan `Development Alternative...: .... - _ . Description of Altemative ``For the purposes •of analysis in this environmental document; `the project sponsor's 'Phase III Site ' Nlitigation`Plan DevelopmentAlterrtarive is assumed to have'the following features''I ;Deve/opmentArea The'Phase•III site would consist of three~proposed development parcels (a total of `9.6 acres), circulation, and •openspace-on •the remaining site azea: One development parcel (Parcel "A") would be located north of archaeological site (CA-SMa-40), and two development pazcels (Parcels F and G) would be located south. of CA-SMa-40 (see Exhibit 7.3-I). 2 • `Parcel A '(4:9' acres) would be developed with aten= to 12-story 'building (up to' 260 -feet high) containing approximately .340,000 square feet of -office -space and alive=level (50-foot high) ....parking garage containing 1.,360 pazking stalls. 3 ;('The _proposed :project analyzed in the 1998 1 Applicant's Commenu on Terrabay Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for:Terrabay Project Pluue II and III, Dated July'1998 -App&canf's Proposed Mitigation Measures for Project Impacts, Timothy Cremin, Baker & .McKenzie (project sponsor's attonaey); August 5, 1998 (Letter.l3a). 2 _. - ,,._ ~., .. Current Proposed Mttgatton Plan Brian Kangas Foulk,(BKF, the project sponsor s engineer); August 6,1998. BKFs "Mitigation Plan" map identifies:Parcels F. and.G w.lrich;generally correspond to Parcels F.and G shown on the pending January 15, 1998:Speci,~cPlanmaps and December 1,:1997 Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map.:,;HOwevez; the BKF "Mitigation Plan" does no[ designate the parcel north:of CA-SMa-40 which generally: corresponds:to proposed Speciftc Plan Parcels A-B and D-E. The discussion below.refer; the,parcel north_of.CA-SMa-4U.to as Parcel A. 3 Terra Bay Project Area Summary, Site Plan, and Plaru,.HOK;(project sponsor's Phase III.site architect), undated. These HOK.docaments,prnvide information in addition to the destaiptionpresenred in Letter.73.Thtu.additional information is discussed further in this footnote but is not described in the main text above as assumptions .for the analyses conducted for and presented in this environmental document. The reason the HOK information is not used is that it only addresses •:'Parcel A whersas'Letter:l3 addresses the entire Phase III~site thus also providing assumptions for'Parcel F and Parcel G. sIn order for the analysis of the Phase III:Si'te ~Mitigaiton Plan Development:9lternative to be meaningfitl for City officials -and-the public, it must •be consistent with other Phase III• site alternatives assessed in the `7998 DEEIR. "'Moreover, Letter I3 indicates that the project.sponsorwould further adjust the square'footages of devblopmeat proposed so that "overall :arip generation of Phase III'(would]'notexceed the amount analyzed in the DSElR". ~ • - - According to HOK, the Parcel A office building would beaten-story (130-foot high) building containing approximately 341,800 gross.square feet.of office.space, and the five-level (50-foot high) parking garage~rould contain-about 424,700 square feet rounded (in addition;to: the office space noted above) and provide.1,347 sparking stalls. 5 7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES `Terrabsy Phase 11 snd./11 Float SE1R DSEIR anticipates development of 178,000. to 218,000 square.feet of retail space, restaurant uses, -and two hotels on this parcel:) • Parcel°1= ('1:8 acres) would be•designated for;h"otel; restaurant; or office use' and surface parling. The amount of development, world be . "determined by .the ,trip generation of the..proposed use, such that'the overall top generation of Phase III;jwould] .not ;exceecl'the amount analyzed in the ._. , .. .. DSIIR" d `The project sponsor cuursntly;anticipates "up to,[a] .10,000-square foot:"high-quality, sit-down" restaurant" on this parcel The .analyses.preseraed below assu»te.a 7,500-square foot `high 'quality restaurant. ,S ~"(The proposed project • analyzed : in the .1998._ DSEIR..,anticipates - development of .30,000 to .35,000 square .feet of .mixed-use retail, restaurant, or office use on Pazcel F.) • , Parcel. G ;(2.9 . acres) .would be ,developed :with .a hotel of up to .200 rooms-in: a building up to 75 feet high and .with surfacepazking.: The amount of .development sinularly =would .be .-.determined by trip generation `.`such .that the overall trip generation of .Phase III [would] not exceed the amount.analyzed in:the.DSEIR"-.-6 ;The..analyses presented:below assume:a:150-room::hotel. (The :..proposed :project-analyzed -.in the 1998_.DSEIR. anticipates :development of a i30- •ao 200-room ,hotel on Pazcek G) : ' _ _ _ _ _ _ _, - Circulation .The Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative shows three site entrances on Bayshore Boulevazd.but no:internal roadway..connection between the northern. and southern parts of ahe Phase lII site,(as proposed by the. project): _ ., :: ,. - • One'mairi ~ signalized entrance `/ exit on the northern end of Parcel A (at the cuiTentky proposed unsignalized right-in /right-out driveway) - • One unsignalized secondary driveway on Parcel A connected to the parking garage - • One main signalized entrance /exit between Parcels F and G (at the fully signalized entrance / -exit currently proposed for this location) _ - - The 1998 DSEIR's 23 Project Description did not quantify the area devoted to parking on the Phase III site, including a possible parking garage on Parcel C. The 1982 EIR and _i996 SEIR did not quantify parking structure square footage and, 'thus; did~not include'.thaE"amounE~in building areas-identified. "Parking garages were proposed explicitly for.the Phase III •site by thc'1982 development concept (and;:in the absencx of changes to.:the concept, implicitly in.1996).: Dra, ft Environnient6l Impact Report for the .Terrabgy Development Project; `Envirorunental Impact Planning Corporation, ``August 1982 (1992~EIR), page"30, and Draft'Supplareentdl'F.nvironmentalltnpact'Reponfor !he" Terrabay Specif c PIan and Development.9greement Extension,'Wagstaff and Associates, January`1996 (1996~SEIR). - 4 >9pplicmit s Comments bn Terrabay Draft Supplemental Environmental7nipact Report for'Terrabay Project Phase II and • tlll;=Dattdslufy 1998 lpplicani's Proposed Mitigarion 3Keasurres forProject.Impacts; Timothy Cremin, pp. cit. 5 ; :... ,. `:The EIIt traffic engmeer,esamated the trip.genaauon and distribution of:Parcels A, F,.and G, usingthe project's ;.sponsor's.developaient concept:and_found shat otttbotmd trips.dtuigg'LhcP.:ivl: ~peak:hour--;the critical .time and direction - would exceed.those.of.the.Phase III sitgpmject,.as_proposed,and, therefore, .would.msult in sigmficant~new impacts. In •- " order.to analyze.the maximum amount of office apace.the sponsor,is considering (340,000,sguare feet on Parcel A), the amount of space assutaed on Parcels F,and..G were.reduced,cs nated:in:italics.; 'fie subsection ofMasterResponse 73-1 on :Tra, fftc further.discusses these assumptions and the reasons. for using them. 6 - Applicant's.Comments on.Terrabay Draft Supplanental Fnvirnnmental Impact Report for Termbay Project Phase II and 111, Dated July 1998 --Applicant's Proposed 1~litigation'Measures for 1'rojectYmpacts, 'Timothy Cremin, op. cit. E `+• •f.. $• "I r: t• t t r: i ;+~'• ~t t r: t i t. II t T r f •r'•1 ~ J r: - r i q ? j t r+f t r ~ r r y4~~ •~ rl Vi i. t; •) i .1.~ ~ ~~ 1?! ?'; ? i j• i• r r~ r i i• i r l r •? .• r r v i[j! ~ r r r : I j f r r} r i~ r L~ ~ ~ e i +f:. t r r. ~'r: ~: i r rrl i t r t + i •t r •' i f t F ri t r 1; 7 r • t t~ t •}t r ~ ' ~ ;''/ ~^~ r Tj rt i t +t rt;'~+J r:~r '~.+. l °t r i ty:i,r ~ii 1 r r i \ W i +• + 'j .rt r+ ./' ~• /.r rr r S•. d •':r i t ,€s i Srir? i r •t S t.r :r rd/tt!rrl iY'Rl;lTr+~r~r ..~•f•l: '~•,.. •E p~~.r :l: ii i,• i ~'•~ t7 r ~':ir .... ... - ~ • r r ?if 7).C lltrr ri t r~ f.+tr ~ 4..•i .t r.{•.7 r;a it r ,r ! r R ~ ~ In 0 ~ CL .i t+ ' + t t '~.rt l; ~ ? y .u ..[+ i#' ~'`t:•r q ;. + L'~r r r ~ ~ 7 d m 7 1 i r !+: t t ° 1,:1r /i ? 11 ! ':. ~.) ~ •Tt 1••• •~•. ...r.':.......r,.' 7 O ~ t0 r ~+~7rr+i :7jt1r .ix>'Ir•!7 1. +lt' L~. ~+y~: '.7~ +. .. ,. ... 7 p~~ 'flp w r r t • r r+ r t r : r ~ . i' ' +i ~ / + .. 'i, •t ~ •~{ +qx•,: ~~ `v: i •• .. . i.~ t0 Z'1 ~ a d '.J t + i r ttr i i r . .r 71 T i l r..,,..~ ••t.~ yrr ~'7: ;•.. •• r..r., "y ~ O ' r, ;a..br 1 r j ? • 1'jl~. ~~'R' :e,. ..r:. .:.• '. i _a~'• w l9 ~ m ~, i =..rr tt. :r~ is r (t f+~j ~r ~'l ./f/a,. \'+:'.(~~ri 1~^'.\'••.•7.. :'L.r :r..~ = N r t .:. ~l . rt sl'~~_:~.-~- ` v / :~ ~.y. ..rte •r... j e a r ,? r r+ . r+~ t i t i i? r+ 1 / r }_ '_="~•s•~r~ i 1 1 f~ /i•, l ;• ...~.. ~" 7 :r' ! r ; i..~ 5 i !r't 1 ~ • / / r ~,` i(~ .T. f:. ~ .i ,. ,,`. ~'t O. :i is r ~FT• {; ..~ .. .~• t dip r ! ! : rr:~l~ ' j i ' ;?t' I'. •..y,~ / -~ • • •S• ;•! ^ . ~:,, ~~'. •':.r; .y ' i t r • r t r r • /1# + r !r r ~ . % ~~ ~ w \/ ~ / i` ~#': ~ • r { ~ ~: t r • • r i l r i t iii r S • + i ~ 4 ~ r . t 1 r 1 ~~~''~'•~y~'•~~.~~~:0 C~ 1 \l \ z_ \:i, =.1• '.: .:lt::: ::'. v}: '• :.:.~••.... .. a. ~•''•.. rr ,•;{+!'r} r+ rrj. p ••.~ 1/ ` .. r, 1 .. r 't.• F r r t ~ t ? .Li , .: i '!.1 r ! 1 t ~,~, -•.~~ ~ ~ ' x--1.1 ~ •. \ •'' _•''. .. r r. ! r t r r t iti r r+•' r11~, 7+ i ," }.,.+~~~ ~ ~.1 y„{d d ....~`'- r' t ` ii ' i ; • t"AR ' i r r ~ . , . _-~~~.(p N ~~I ~:/ •+~I ~• •a~.. /•1 .• rr~ ~ .- t•:lt.: r:+•'/ .F r+ 't t 'is \~~ (O :r/' ~ .. r r i ~ .. r~ ~ ..:. • ~. t i rt ~•' it ! w ]~• 1. I: +r ,1. i;r i~+~•rr +ri r !' ~~ ~`~"'=w ~ •7\Ij`ai/ j. r •i ' t. •~~. '. •_ •. s,~a~. r r ;.r r {fir ; t ; r _ \ r ~• t + r . a: ~r.w.' .:~.:; .::. r trt.r?nr i~Errr + t •?: C'C7 /ill \", r•• t '`~ .. r•frrr ir•' ~tiq'r /1t+ f?i r. r; w 1 ~+ •~ . .... y t ••i ~„ '• ,;. _ fir-; 7;t .A.i. .i~7t. ~rt .17:r .r'. 4! ~Itt r rr•• 'r• r~~"~ Ir~• ~ ^1•, i.' .. ' r • i r r ?. ; ! r /r j T,• ~',~~ie-r.t7rr.rrr/1•~; ;.:' rii .7 rt't r J :: +r :l r :i• i .: .. .' .•/•' •.~.: i' ••"~ '' .. .•t, .i :rt i :1.~ r{ ~~\.~, i/ !, •. i. :r t, .,..• •al',.~irr.:•' .,'' 'ti •..-..I• ' ii •' •~ti •t~~;rift i •4 ... C ? .i \~ !~r :t.',,f :d'. :+4.: t +' it at a ..r::s+ .. ••.'.;iy :w~~•. •'.,., .s... t r . t'. I i i r.' i r ! •\.•\ r ~r ~j.. '.a..b,: ~,.• ,t... .i •/ }•• •, ,.r• d...•.' ./'. :t•••• • • r t i':tr r:7.•rl ! :• ! t ( ! rI /"• i{ '~ .j ~• .. 7.. .4•.... ..i•,r,r. i t i r ~(• ,1, L; •i 15 r ~ /li•Y' 4Y\ • J. ~ r ~: i• '1 ~ :f,• ':1•''t•: •:%~- .~` i•t., ~ :vi.Jr.. t+ 'alr: .n..-,..}.. ~, r~+ /'{r1''jV ••.. ~• •': .j• •1: '•' ..~•°~~~..}..• •1' '•T••• '•t. '° ~~ •+ t~. ~.ra~yr •1 /1``-~~' ••l.. rl,l~.: Z• ~\./y, .•(J ri'•s, /. .%.. ..ri: ~:t '~-'r~• "'~• ..i..... 'e~... i:.q .'. .C" iii t+'ilr....~~ii r~ •tl 1~~"~• .~~tJ \St /. I•')) ):~. ..rri~ •Il:' ,.i:ti:~,• .Y.... tie ::ii ~r.•~r' r ~ •~\• •,'•~ /~ ?~~I~ '/••rr f .! i'. ! '/ t'!7~ '1;.•i ^i.a .. .~ry .. •a .. ' :S`-ti. ' t : r t irr fO. r• i / r y ~ ( \ /r/• tr f .i :t ~ / ~ +~ +, ~'~r Cr :%'1,. .. .. •. ~: t• .• r....:•r•••• i.t r .r i. i ~) ~l 1:~ /.{ t ./ i•'4 t•i• r. 'i. .'. ;. i:r.:• r,r. ' ~i:p_~' +t• i i /.• ~eJt i ~:i...,,- ?4• •t •/ •i••' ,t.r' •j, •.rr' ri t~i+~i;i<:i~jj~,. t/t •~' ~,~:~/_1~~f~Si\~t ~ 1.y;: ':~t. ~i'~ /.'i r,j. .j. 1./ r•l.•S•.Y ,..• -•~g ` ~• i r. J' S •{:~', 1, .!;' '.;..• . '+f t ..ar !i1j 1 / .y~...i-'.+1 ~ 'i ~\ / 1 / X1'1 i r / ±t .L• ••i •t 6 i .t t ~ •.r~• '••r . ~ e~, 01. r 1,t +,• ::~ ; tI~-*';ti7n p -~~`/'l~ /!i\ l t --i i:Y t }r':±. i :i i : } ti t / ti' ' f~~/: _ .r•••L.: I~.;i,~t+ :t:i~• 'i ( \K~~~-~ ~\~\/1?\/+;•/~•- :.r:r.i+•i~r f ;. f~~..•fr ar .1'.'! t s! i'.1• '(. •1• vt.... . t . : / ' 'r r J -14 ti"'r0 .Zl~~\ 'Tr\ t- \r j '~i /`~}••'i: 1• i • ,ft ~ / •, i• r, i t j .• '•.• i ~ is :/ {.:r-Sr, 6~ ~ ~ '• >• r ,~ r i':' •, r,: i .i" ~ : i'.i ~~'% •'i 4Y~~ ~~ ; f• ` j,•1 `: r~r~•.,,/~•1 .~1 + } j t..•+ er ~ ~.t •r ••i •%. •rf J • e •r. •;~ •':•~` •.•' •; r.~ r•~ •t r i-tl, i ~t,~~O~ `•~'tn~., ~_~`../f11l+r •i• T +! i. l•jli .~I rr :~ a•: •l ~j, r,~ •~~ ;~• t' :tr(. / rt (.1~~ w ~l.t/i •1 ~.`,I`4 '•, e•• ~'• r•i•1 j r ••~ y ? .f., j .1'l..E.: .'.+.,•+:: .i .r.'•, /, ~ " t ~ r f t i ~ ~~ ~ ~..s~j,^~/ Il iy~./~ .5~;. rr t r. r t ~ i t •~' •~r r .~ 'i ~1•• /~ ~ •i 1t •1 r r%? r' •/' il•• . :i°' i' .r~ \-'rv"~~j (D \J~ ~'•~ °'t• '; i r'+.rT 1/t •••r'r•-•i •r •r• i t'(. ~ ~ r 7 ~~..t r• r'•i.r•f 'r. t r. r ! ~ + i :. T,• (S .r r \ .~"'C ~ ~, .,` 1;,~...~:~4 1 ' f ~;. i ~. r i { i' ;r' ~ • ? . ~ 'r, t • + •?. 1. t r tr f i. t S ~ ~ ~+ :• •.} •r~ :}~• i , t ~ t ° + i Lf ~ f i '~4•.,: 7y yr-"+r~p~ w %•:J'~j-''r %~ / s '•t T r O r ,r ~ 1./ j I T i, r l {'• i. :' +• i i ~ { ,i 't l .' •~+' •L'~ ~ •1~' . t r . ++ r i •r.r., ~~ r ~ .+•~^ ~ a +--~`• ~:i:;~/ j i r ~ r.i ~ • i i i 1 ! j i i ' j t ! r . ~ • r i • i ~ t . :\ •i ~`i, •T• 1 ? ! • ~r r. ~ .t 1... x~ ~ 7 r' i.: a •r 'r ` t r. 'p• .1 i :i .r ,+ ,' \ '. Y•T,'yt ~'~~t•i• sr' i t' i•i.i•i•.,•i••r' i • 't r ' t; /~ f': :. r ' i t i + r ..r l ~ } i i ,. ~, i , ;~itt;~ .7 •i /a' .T`/'~; ''Ri 4~•.•ii~t.:i. e~r•r°t••t.ir t r •' ` ~ 't.+'~ .j ~•,* •` ~` r • r t' . ~ ~ I / f t •i. •5 t ~ +~ . ~ r 1 y . ~ r 1 ti ••T ` i • ' i t •• ~+ i /,~ 1 ~ '1 ~ •t ,r i • t ~ i i t •: ~ ~ i '~ •Y +. :~ .a • +' .5 :J . r i \ •5!\ •{•.~r , ••.L. 1 ~ i.2 ° t •'c ` •'14 'a • 'i a• r / ~ ~ • t ••••'' t: •~ •t •r'L~ • 1 . . t • . r . 4a~ i • . '. • '••r 'r, ct +~ } r mot. •t .tit •• r •, •r,, ••. ..F ttr !1 i •t •i• ,r ;• :~• .~• w t !\••+Z41, ••' .,i:•a` •r •. .••+ r •~` r;• .i .}: ttt:,~t +: ~' .r^ ' t ~ r,•4~ i r • • ~{. ''[•• •t. `t. •` t.. .t. r~ '.+' ' r': n O • ~ • t,•^ r r.4 t.. a T •.~ • s ..,•:• t r r 'i : rt.' : i . ~ (Q F~' .i 'r :':~'`yp .,t? '•i. •• '•t •'t ~ •'• • '''F ' ••k•'• • i +' tit , . ! t jj( :}~ .=:?~•++• •'.• 'r• •F a -~- i': •:/.. r.j 7 r +i• ? ••tr d., ~ ~~.• Il •4 •'•4• F.+~ !~r'''•-!,, iJ ~•r( •t f 1 ~! r• : i i t. ~ N^' t .~ ^ tr.. ,r .t . r i +• .1. 1. j j ri' ~t. t 'rr' i• 1 yy ~1•• •L ~i., C•, ~.Y tr.y '•. ! .' ~~~~ l' t•r 'f • ++ 1 t . t . A S'•' :t 'r + r ' •~'' : T .~' .Tr'' ' • { •ri•''•• '•}n,•r: ;rC: ~ f r 1 ! • ~t! I• 1 F • I 't .t }7 '+ t: '•fi~ ••y:... r r• •t "r~ •t~• l,~t:':~' ••.;~~ .~••t.rr••r••; rf •j•. ~j •'1•, •1 r1 ~al 7.! •?'i. i. ~ +' • } i ~'f i, wi ••, ? • + ~ '.: r' r { } • r• r .i:R ,.~•~ :.Ttr;:.T:.~: r,i 1.. !: .+ .r • ~ 1 r• r r .'r. r~ (!. ' 1 • . .•t• t • i rr,' • 'Rj ...'.• -{' `'i l.••'"~ l,~ 1 J r 1 • t r i ', i :t r r •~.~'.. •.R•'"/• + '•i i,• •r .t ~ •; .,1. i } • ?.l •r. 17 :,? ti., v ?,? 7 +• r ~. !" ° ;it :; '.• ~ \ ,;` t. t \ •r,.r; •}y '. •R• .!•'+••.i i ~ i ~•+~r ~ '!r ~ -•i'1 •r••r t. l.• 1 1•~•i i 'r ~ t ' L t ,t. :i;r r' r~~~ - •~!r fi• r •~ '~. ~ 7'. 'p r ~ r. ~ 't y i•~ ?.i ~•:•i• t i •i ~ i•i•{ ~ r e,~r i•••~'• •t~ t. a ~' ~: iy 1~ ~f': 4- ~~' ? r r , •'•± t~D = t : r r~.r ~ i f•+~' f r•r. r i t 'R ;,• i'. ~ ~^ '7 r r t•t +. r r '1 a •. a CF .r •r 4• •• • •;. lr• \ Id \ O m \./\~ \\~ ~L~ .i •'~..\. :t• 's , O + / 't + t• 't ..1• •`: ~' ^'a••' '',•' •}, :j: + : ~ • ~ \ / rl~+ O '-1 * / ti,.}v{y ~ 4' I ''.t • r• r t r • ;, 1 j •; y ~_' •:/ ~~t••a • .,F • ~•1 • •i•,t ,•H, :i'1.,.• :it '4: ..;X/. N ~ / \ •./ •v'f.~• e, ~ r r 4 r r•i ~+~ ••r ~~'r.~ •i~tr ! •„. ti} . i'r ~•;: .f-r•in""""' _ A jl\~. •;i• +~:.' :•r i• 4 rj .t •'j-: •. •'3 :+•t'`' •`~. ~: 1 L: • r +' r +: C ~ i \ '~t ~ r+ r i y 5 .,ri~~ r-.• • ), 1 r J i •.~••~• ,4 •1. • 1 r : rr L \~ \ / . r 1~ • `. ~ •' l• ry•' +'• r r ie •',.., ..•r. 1 r i} w ,,2.%.\.y~;,. l;F'...~:.:~.'a..•.~i~• rrNt•r:4 ••tr ,! i 'i r !. ~ ~•~i•'~ ~t •~j i :+i y 'i- i ,/ r. ~ .//\ 1'\ r• •„{~ i i \~ ,;.r..~'~ rr }, •F• Y ''i.'1 r ~ + r,. t .~ ri_\/Ir'\+~ ~ ~ t {, •~• 'D ~.~'. t ~~•,4 •' 'q-` % C ri i, ~''1 a t t 'r 'i ! ~ i ~ ~/ l.I+ir ,ir+•.~ ~ ~ r'{.•.r ~' .t `•'~ r .• .ar ~~.{ :••• ~r 1 i. t. r tr'~ jig ~~tr ~= T y i.. i/ l\•. /~li-1/ ,1.. ~ ~/'• ~ .. F;0 ~*•'..: .i.=}.. ~• J~~'r~. •: r .r .t.'y .,'i Yt •'•+•j~+~ ?•±, i;J ~•~1~ t? t: i~ i r• '-~-I~~~~~•-\a \YI~ / •:` •~ r t/1 „O,1' a' •w •i•tt r ! rr•r 'r Ott •~ II' t ~l / i'r. r'r' i s ~. ~ t' i.e j L r ,+~\ %1 / ~~~ -r;- ~ \~-~1/ L•* '.It1L r ~ 1 . ~C. 1n ! +•~ f .v':~ ~: r` / !r { (. . •.~` r•'r ; 'i • r'. • • r ,,t • it ~ ti~/T-'. /....._ ~.;• ./',v /~.1„•,e.'. .1~' r'p .:••yr /~1. '1i + .^••~ f\\~~•" •. a :` •~ !•'+ r •• ~ ~ ./: r' {~.. :' •. 't, r. • i : :' t i •~_i i ~/'i:• n+,~;~~"'--.~,,v. / +~.i r ',i ~ !. Y' O O. /• i r t••< r ii ~'1.. •7 M1s. I i ~. i ° • ' i'! , : r t'? + :~ -tea /" i`r1•-^~-•,~\i` ~ ~ 1 \+r h '%•' •,~ i' • S 7 r ~• i ?• •i, '71 .` + { /~ r i s • i • ~• i• + . t^• .. itjj i i : , r f .+C-~-t.' _T ~ . ---r ji +^.\ i •~ ~ 't. .~,• ! 1 ~ i r , i • i ~ • T ~ ~ i., . •r ji i ~ ; / •~rr v /.r, /.~l .t.."i,•:/ t /' `t,• +' \ ••''t ••r i•' t' +• i i ••~ :r L •'••• r... r .+"i I~/{~,T.w= /~1'+\i~\~:` .*~1 .;~•S ••~.r~ .:+.~• ~.r"•.~t •••~t•+•~. J~• ~i ~ J' ~i' 1r •i t 'r ~••rr / .:~~~/ . ` •'r7r ,'j ••• r••tir •r . ... t i •~'. is r t t ~. ~;1;~i,~i/~A \fr, a• r• ~~r/T ~. •;y+'•t'~ :y r' fl.:. •:r~ '•~'~• • ,~.,,~. .F~ t r, l.:f is 17i/ 2 1 \. -T ~•~ •f ~•' rt• :ir Y....~i .:y, •''4:+L •T• .l,~fi• r.,.:'.,••, . •k' •±' ',•F t r :'.r ~, ) :Y % ~,. ~rl ~1 ~\ \I. `~Fi. i.• ,,• s•'j~ ,j?•,'y++.. ..i` •.i:.)'4,:'.i:;:. .~:..: ]C yr .y•. ~. ,f.' y.~'~.:y,; :•i.. (; }. ;t. 7 / •t ..r--'~-~--_ S '±~--i ` i' i. •1•F ~ar r'~ ;• s• a ..t•~ r• y~ ,• . "+l•~ j __ 4.: t.i ,I..y ii..t. _ '! _ ,~; / ,r ~~ `K~/ •~ _~ F t. ~~N7~•! _ 1,• • _ _ 4 ) 3 ~ ,, N' t r • 4: i~;.~'j\ 1 S• l,• :j j(,~J,.,, •+'' i t F ~ ~ i e/rr, 1 ,2 y. i•' }~ir i ri~i ie :r •'e \ l:\/\`/ i1 i :E' "' (p ~,L••~ r• S r ':+f th? r=i •• ~i< r r, r: ~• r• t/ \ 'r i. •r 't 1 •r. 'i < ~:3 a .r .. :r..: 'S :d:" pry a:r•! (:. • ,?i i. i 'f ••Y /•! ! O w + i..r•• •a,.. ,.. ::r:...:;i••` t•'.",:~'.• ::i<;.. .t .~•. .:i.... •e'' '!try '•t ~'1• 't. l 'j• j'!..' j•i :3 D ~a ~•.•• 'rr• •t •••~:.• .r.• ••.+.. ••.Y.' •~ ~lr i . 'i I . ~ f ~ r Y/ • f` .-i.• • .. Y'-,~• • 7, rr:: 7 •'~ t i ..1..' `J. • i 1' i• .i. . r' r'~ r' •t •'1•,.. .7. .r r 't il• • N, ~ j 'i `~ ~ •i t !'~ i ,•+.• r.. ir• 1• a•~' 1 t: r . ?..•: ••r • •~~r r. tQ '• •i t •i S j' - a' a...• . .Yf L t' '+ ~ .` .. {pp1 :1i•w:?: ~1}: • S. ~t, •r r•~ • O a3 +! • •i • •-.• .r• •• .t i i ~ '. •tl '~" t~ r. i 1•~ .1" . ~ • ''.+• :CS••• tr • •} .. • . •t.. ~, •t7 •L• ~•• .•+•~• ~ .~t "# ..~ .'. t ~ uf• ~ ~ r• ••,;.: . ~4 •• •, • .r ••a. 'r ~m• .+ !~!! ••.T., . ..~. .•~"r •::F'• w R••r `• ., ~ •'~' ~' ' . .•i: • i r~ .•~'• 't r'r. t a~ •`:. ''r .••` ~ •F' .••',1 •.~ :i*• y: t.. • .•`• .~, -y' • -•• ~• •1 ' irfk „a -.• • •~ i•: : t ~ • • 1•• •T•'+• • ~~1'•. ~~:. •r 'ti •i' s ~ ••r: , ~:'r: r :' •' r •*• :~i ~ ~` .T :~•• r .i , C •• .•\• ••.•. ,f• 1 L' I r ;'}.. f••'. w t i•'•• i'~ :O •.'t+' r ~;: J. •~ • r• :. Cir•r~. 1• ,t I t •• 1 ! r J • 1, i • i. :r J .•.• ' t w. .~,~: ..• .~v ' ~• ..~: • • '.~~ C •~t•fy+1, ••t... :i i • •~r :;t: n.::..Y,:+'. .•,i••r •r :,•i '•r,r r•: i +• ~ i ?'''. ..~.' . ~ t'.~':: J~'t•.•.: •• ~ ' t 'i r i• r.'4?•: b •... !,•1..yr.x1~ '.7 i ' : •.r' 'r"~ f't•~` :c.;1'•• :i,•• •S ~I•i r .•r r f r ! , ~:/ •i. 't'O ••/ •r ~'•\•. 'f.. •.1•~•'~'••• •i. t t': ;t'• '/': ,{~. .. ..i i r .r r t ~'t t'j i i r r. •t' ••i' ~:: ,'•~. }•:~.'• ii.• '~t.w• "t` •r+lt! r ~~ \ ~ t r to } :a1,•v'~•:1: •r't''•:•:{j•• •~.'•:' ./•.•'.•: '/.• • i• t t 4 i e iti•: :.•r. ~ .• :j.• s ~\'•~ ~• •ti' • r ~• :r ~ •~ r . i..' ;+:• .?jr:.. .. • t i f . t i e ~ •t• •1. j•i':. ;.\• .•% •S•.L• i•r ij .4,r ;R' ,'r ••1 i ~' •. .r r' C r ,. j .~y'T•'•:.`-;••L•: ,~A.: 1 . ~. , . t ' Y . ~~ . r ~ ~ ~ ~ . '~.n . ~~ ~ ..... 1' r i ' :;~:~•. JJ r 'J rr••: i .i' ~ •~ ~ 'Ir, ~ • ;A ti IYY ': r..... '~ ' '.I !'• :•% •`• : r • r' < t • • ~ ~)'~ !rr'rs'• : -• 4'~:•'~1~i•~~..t'•~~r+,%,,:~'~~_',y:S,~~'.:1.•. ~. r r ,l j : j !r ~: r .G i : r;'t i • ~'i i' i.. ~t L>•u''SY: '%.: •Y~,t, }JSf• •;1.¢ +.•'~;.!.}..e..~•. ~ t i { 1 ~ ? t 1rH'1••: ' ,~~ • r • z fi ~. i ; .i • ~•1• •;•'•Y:~ .~ 4 :f~; • S••M\ . '.lj;.F'i : ~•~.1 ..:"•' ... ~ r.. i ~ i•1• i~%~ r - .r•.~•' '•S• i.k• ;•• ~;.:~'.i~ :••.;: ~'r \t.ti$%~~h~f.:•. ..+•~.. .. t ;i 11 i t r•i: .r... , + • j• I t• •i'~ir•' •. r ~ T t. +.•'~9•: t\•,r'~,4r•1! ~' i.:.j.~'t r. r ••i" ,.t..:......... •t ~ • • ••..C :• ..+.. %' . ! .p ;t. r ,i + A:j7 :'•~•~;.~.~rr~•1'r•. :'~s.J~ •, r'•. :~:1: i • •r i . , i., t R•.: ~? W ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ !~!~~.. F,qi ~ Q 3 , '~ V 7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ` 7errabay Phase II and I/I Final SE1R :Although not~defined'by-.the-projecf~sponsor,-this`analysis •assumes~implementation:of the'altemative :land use aad•development~concept on-the'Phase III -site-and completion of the adjacent transportation . ; ` °.facilities':also -~•:covered ` by xhe -Y998 ':ySEIR =:(hook';rampS':~construetion :and '$ayshore `Boulevard :•realignment). .... _. _ ,. . _ An additional element of the altemative, besides. these facilities, would be formulation and long-term - ~ implementation ° of :a_"`~anspnrtation °demaad -management /transportation- aystems =.management" • ('TI1M /~ TSIvn program~zlesigned to induce peak hour trip ~:generation of Phase~III site` development by :13 ;percent orTnore 'TDM=/ TS1vlprogram components-are~discussed•in'the'"Traffic analysis below. Other:l=eateries .The Phase III Site Mitigation PZan Development?Alternative would provide_a 30-foot buffer around CA-SMa-40 to' set ,development .back,from the archaeologicahaite, The ite :would be -left in its present. condition -,no. fill would .be;placed, • no ;grading .w.ould.. occur, no :utilities .would be ..installed,.and no.park•would.be_created,on or across.the ite. The;projectsponsor would own and be responsible for_maintaining or managing CA-SMa-40. for,iwo yearssafter approval of a precise plan for the.Phase III.site and would provide an .offer of,dedication.to..the..City at.ahe time of fmal.map or parcel map approval. _ Assessment of Altemative .:. ':Except for the traffic assessment, the following environmental :analyses of the Phase III Site 1lMitigation Plan Development Alternative .examine the Phase :III site alone -without-.consideration of aand use .or development on the Phase IIsite - as with .the alternatives evaluated in the-1998 DSEIR. This-was done~to.allowmaders tojudge,,select,.and.combine~concepts.foraheawo,Tsrrabay..=sites-into a single alternative xhemselves,. rather than .assessing the .numerous possible.. combinations in:the DSEIR. `That approach would not demonstrate quantifiable (differences .: among yalteinatives which `would alter +determinations of significance .identified in .the DSEIR. •However; for :.consistency with the .DSEIR text, this traffic as5essment'assumes:the.proposed.project,(Preccse Plan) on.thePhase'IIsite and the `:Phase III Site~Mitigation'7°Ian Development Alternative: (Separate traffic analyses of the Phase II site alone.and the Phase 1II site alone, as,proposed by the_project, are presented in the DSEIR appendix.) _ , :.. Also except -:for the' traffic assessment, the :evaluation of the :Phase ":.III ;Site Mitigation Plan Dei~elopment Alternative ~is conducted at the` ame level of detail'as afforded .the analysis of 1998 _. . DSEIR alternatives except 'for the traffic `assessment -wliich `is conducted at a greater `.level of detail. - 'That :level of detailcompares the results of implementing the alternative :with those of `implementing ,::. . 'theproject as.proposed -~ " Geology The Phase°II11Vlitigation Plan Development Alternarive would signif candy .reduce cuts into the southern part of San'Bruno `1Viountain. `This reduction would contribute to a Similar reduction in the. potential adverse. impacts (such as erosion / siltation and slope stability). This alternative also would reduce the area needed for winterization, revegetation, -and rock slide. potential, compared with -the-project as proposed. Hydrology The development concept for the Phase III Site Mitigation --Plan Development Alternative assumes roughly the same mix .of development as.proposed by the project, except that the extent of development north of the archeological .site would be reduced. The upslope extent of this alternative's ::grading zone also would be reduced. The main difference in. the -level. of :hydrologic impact .would :.occur in the avoidance of some seeped areas. and.partial avoidance of the willow. thicket wetland areas within the delineated archeological site.. Reduced„grading along the western boundary;.of.:the.Phase IL' site:also would address 1998 DSEI12 Impact 4.2-11. This is .because the radical change;in the path. of a potential-.debris flow triggered along the .:middle drainageway ;:diversion (between .the .project's _ 7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES - ~Tsrra6ay Phaae Il and 111 Flna/ SE1R ;_ :proposed southern and northern debris basin locations) would .be eliminated. Instead, the alternative's debris:basin.location would.allowfor_.a direct..entry,of:middle.:drainageway~debris.flow~material to .the ~. ......:;debris.basin:,(that is, without a turn.enforcedby,. *Pt ;,,;ng wall construction).:: 3~'his.alternative would be .san :improvement: over the;..Proposed,.:project,; Yet -would ~~not: offer..=the 'further .reduction:.in •sensitive i._+ `habitat :impacts (seeped areas) :associated .with .the Environmensally -Superior >Alternative (or Environmentally Preferred _DevelopmenxAlternative). , ~. - --, ;. ., ;.. ~~.. ,j4 . ~ _ : ,. ~:~iology .The .Phase IIL,Site Mirigatwn:Plan :Develapment...tllternatrve-would .reduce ::impacts on ~ _ :biological,resounces compared, with ihepmject:as.cuirently ,,proposed, .although:.some loss ~of.sensitive ..:resources still :~vould:occur.:Resources.:protectedby_this:alteraative.wouldanclude the lazge;population --- .. of .larval host ..plant for. the callippe . silverspot at .the northem edge of the Phase III site., parts of `scattered freshwater' marsh ~ ~vvetlands, -end •3he source of -the acave ;perennial ~ spring`'`located just _ .. southwest of the nffice~~building'~assumed ay `~ttus `alternative. 'More "than ~two-tliirds of tie willow -~ _. .. `• thicker ~ along 'the ~ easternfrontage of the ~ srte ~~vvould ~ be eliminated ~ or disturbed . as a result of :the "Bayshore Boulevard .realignment, ~ as vould `the larger • areas of-'freshwater -marsh wetlands located -within fine limits<~of the`Parcel A parking structure and :office `building. ''Collectively, a minimum of - more~than one acre ofwetlaniis and jurisdictional "other waters~ofthe''U:S"-still-.would be affected.by development under this alternative which would represent a significant impact on wetland resources. .Most of the mitigation measures .recommended in the 1998 DSEIR's"liiology~ analysis `would be ..required for this alternative. Measures include, those recommended to address impacts on :vegetation - _.. and sensitive wildlife habitat,.landscape compatibility, effects on callippe silverspot"butterfly, and loss - __. ;.of existing wetland resources. _ ... .. „ Trn~c 'Off=site -circulation impacts of implementing the Phase 111.Site 1VTisigation Plan Development _ .. .~.. , •Allternative were analyzed in combination with the proposed: Phase II .residential,:project. ~ :Overall, impacts of the'PbaselII Sire'1Vlitigatron Plan DevelopmentAlternaxiv_e w.ouid be tbe.same or~less at all _ :... , _.. -locations previously identified as receiving sigiuficant.impacts from"the.project:as.proposed.:Revised .: . mzpacts and mitigation measures;~are `listed below Also, .restrictions to :widening the `.Oyster Point Boulevard .freeway: overpass - evaluated ~in response to comments. on the"1998.DSEIR -:necessitated 'revisions to mitigation' measures identified for the Baysbore 7 'Sister"'Cities / .Oyster Point / ,Airport -~ Boulevard intersection in the. DSEIR .for.the..proposed, project.. Mitigation .needs.. for the Phase III Site . Mitigation ..Plan Development Alternative. at this location .have :been .evaluated in the. context of .the :revised mitigation measures for-the.project. Finally, .a more detailed vehicle storage.analyses has been -- conducted for the`traffic-flow between intersections along Bayshore Boulevard.adjacent toae Phase _ -VIII site 'for :the project and:Phase Ill `Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative. Results for the. project are contained in the DSEIR while results for .the Phase III Site .1lfitigation Plan Development -- Alternative.(and. acomparison to,projectimpacts).are-presented:in.this::analysis. Salient::aspects of the ,project and alternative .are summarized .and compared. on the~following. page:.. 7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Terrebsy Phese it and 111 Flna/ SEIR ~Summary.of 2010 Significant Off-Site Circulation Impacts Mitigation flan Development Alternative :versus Project ;_. , . : , . _ ~.. __ _....~ t :...... ..:_:. - -(Summary of AM-and PM-Conditions) ~... _ ' ~ ;_:.. accatiatrs,.with-Sign~cant.lmpacts . .K It . , em - ~Mlti ation Plan Alternative ~ Pro used Project .Z ,.. .. -Intersections - ' ' ' (Bayshore % Oyster-Point /Sister ' (Bayshore /.Oyster:PointL:Sister Cities./-Airport) ., •Cities / Airport and.0yster Point %Dubu uej 1 1 .Ramps at the Oyster Point Interchange ~ (NB On-Ramp: from Oyster '' (NB On=Ramp from Oyster - Point %Dubu ue intersection °) " Point /Dubu ue intersection) US. 101 Freewa Se nts- 9 '10 vehicle Storage'between'Intersections - 2 alon Ba shore Boulevard Eronta e 3 Source: Crane Transportation-Group a , :Lower volume increase than:proposed project. _ .: Trip Generation and Distribution Exhibit 7.3-2 shows the gross AM and PM commute peak hour trip ,generation expected from-the 340;000-squaze foot office`=.building, 15.0-room•,hotel, and 7;500-square foot quality restaurant assumed by this. alternative.:: Aaransit demand management (TIDM) plan would -~be part of the~~rlew,office<development. -~The_plan would -guarantee eat office trip:generation would be at least .13 percent below;average ~duringae: morning.and:eveningcommute,:peak;traffic ;periods. ;~ - Exhibit 7.3-2 ,Trip;Generation=P..hase:Ill Site::Mitigation P/an De~e/opment.Alternative SAM beak Hour-Tri s' - ' rPM Peak~lourTri s 'Use ~ . :~5ize Inbound ~ntit bound Inbound ° Out bound . Rafe <Valvme ~ ..-Rate . iVolnme :Rate -.volrlme Retie Vo/ume Office 340,000SF <., _° 380 ° _ ,; ;5:1 _ 68 ~ 333 Hotel 150:rooms 0.39 S9 :0.28 ~-42 0.35 - 53 0.36 :: 54 Restaurant - 7;500 SF :0.57 :5 0.24. 2 5.02... 38 - 2.47 19 Total 444 -95 15.9 406 Tnp'liste Source: T inp Genemuon 6''-,Cdttton, InsIImte of Transpottarion Engineers, 1997. - a Ln('1~ =0.797 Ln(X) + 1.558 (88 percent in /~i2 percent out). Legend: ~ LN -National Log . b Includes 13 percent reduction in volume due to TDM measures. X =.1,000 square feet (SF) c ,T =1.121(X) + 79.295 (17: percent in 1.83. percent out): - "T =Trips ; d Gross:Trip. Generation. ,, Exhibit.:7..3.:3, on:.the;following page, compares trip ,generation of:.the:P.hase:IlLSiteMitigarion Plan :.Development Alternative .and the. project.-'The,altemativewould: produce ~a:six;;percent~.reduction in total two-way traffic during -the AM-commute<peak hour (although •with distinct differenaes.:in inbound versus outbound directional flow) and a significant (35 percent) reduction in two-way traffic during the PM commute;;peak-hour, (with:a minor :change in outbound flow,andae majority of•the seduction in_inbound traffic during this time period).; -_ ::- ., . --. • . • < , .; -- ,, :Exhibitr'7..3-4_and 7.3-5 present.AM.and:PM peak hour:Base-.Case +~:Phase IL Project +Phase III Altemative,(Phase III Site...Mitigation.Plan Development Alternatiue)volumes>foryeaz:2000:and 2010 .conditions, respectively. -Exhibit:73-6shows Phase.IlLSite,Mitigation Plan DevelopraerrxAlternative volumes only..Exhibits:7.3-4.and 7.3-5•are comparable to.1998 DSEIRExhibits 4.4-13:and 4.4-14 for the proposed_project.. to 7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 7errabay Phass // and /!1 Flna/ SE1R Exhlbit 7.3-3 - _ -_ ~Net~New:Trai'fic ° on Loca/ Roads Due to Project - ~-~zVersus:Phase•III~/te:JWitigation Plan Deve/opmentAlternative ' ...:: ~:.- , =;. "`. _:AM'Peak Hour Tri .. . Pll+l ~Peak•flour•:Tri s _ ~lnbound Outbound Inbound Outbound l?ro.ect ~ ._ .. _ ;345 ..,.. _. ...,.. . .. -'328 411 -:435 Miti 'on:Plan•Alternative -:444 95 151 `398 Difference with Alternative +99. (-133) (-260) (-37) 'Source: Crane Transportation croup ..;: .: a After allowance fofinternal trips and pass=by capttue: Jnterseetion Impacts .With implementation of the,proposed 1998_DSEIR:.project, both the.Bayshore .'Sister Cities../ Oyster Point /.Airport and.the .Oyster.-Point /Dubuque intersections would be expected ' o experience'significant impacts during 2010 PM -peak :hour conditions.With she -Phase :Ili Site :Mitigation- Plan Development ':Alternative, there would be no ;significant ~level:~of service. (LOS) impacts .during this time .period at the :Oyster Point /Dubuqueintersection, ~ while the .:LOS impact would be .significant but slightly less at the Bayshore /Sister Cities / `Oyster "Point /Airport .intersection..,:Exhibit 7.3-7 shows intersection LOS ..results--for <the `Phase III-Site Mirigation Plan Development Alternative (see Exhibit 4.4-6 for the project, revised and also presented below). Freeway.Mainline <lmpacts The proposed 1998::DSEIR project and Phase 111 Site Mitigation Plan Development.Alternativer~+ould..produce.~similarsignificant:impacts on U:S.:1O1:durmg•yeaz 2000 or '2010.,conditions. ~•During::thePM;peak~traffichour,:all'freewaysegmentswould;receive<lowervolumes with<.the;iP..base "~:~Site:~3vlitgation-;Plan:Development.Altennative?than;~from:the -proposed project. .,During the pM peak traffic hour, the.Phase. Ill Sife Mitigation Plan Development Alternative would ;':increase volumes on two segments. accommodating .inbound flow towards he project.. site and reduce •- ~%olumes.~on~segrnents'carrying~raffc~way~from=rhe site,{compared .wth;the,project)._•;Wlule.one new 'freeway segznent~in the.year 2000 would .c~hange~romT,:OS E to :LOS :F operation during the AM:peak _ . _ _. hour.:with Phase -II1. Site Mitigation Flan Development; fllternative volumes,<-the .percent :increase in ~.trafficfor this segment due' to the:;alternative still ~+ould be lower than the maxunum.percentsncrease --_ in .traffic .found for segments already ~ operating at:unacceptable evels due ao she -.proposed project. That is, in order to reduce.freeway:impacts xo :arless-than-signifscant -level a lazger.decrease in the total -..amount of development:yvould.be:.required.for.the_project,than-for-fihe Phase-llLSite`Mitigation Plan Development Alternative. -Exh:bzt -7 3 8; presents freeway mainIine.:LOS results for the Phase :III Site g Plan Development Alternarive.(see Exhibit 4.4-7 for.the,project). Min anon• . t., - ; p Impacts .The Phase III Site : , . .Freeway Ram Mitigation Plan Development Alternative.would produce a .slightly reduced impact at the one ramp experiencing a significant impact due to he groject. `During 2010 PM peak hour conditions Terrabay traffic would decrease at the northbound on-ramp from the ' Oyster :Point /%Dubuc2ue intersection with 'the Pliase'~ III Site `Mitigation s'lan Development Alternative (compared ` wiith -:the :,project). `Exhibit "7.3=9 presents results for the' Phase III -Site IlMitigation Plan .Development Alternative:'(seeEzliibit 4 48-for~the`proposed,project).' .:Storage~lmpacis ::Access to the`southern part-of the~Phase III~site would be•the same'for-the'Phase Ill "Site Mitigation Plan .Development Alternative as proposed ~for?the project:'=However; `access from Bayshore Boulevard to the northern part Df the Phase III site would .be .somewhat. different with the Phase.IlLSiteMitigation Plan DevelopmentAltennafive than;with the~.project: Access'to`the~northem .development area°(the office'~building and parking garage)would be ~firomBayshore Boulevard via a -signalized intersection about'°1150~feet north of the new hook ramps intersection'ancl via aright-turn in:'/ right-turn- out driveway'for•southbound traffic oaly.located about~750 feet north of the hook ramps intersectiou.:In contrast, the proposed project would have a signalized access about 710 feet north of ~i 1 ®Q is o ~ ... Lm® t- o n~ a~~: m ~~o Sao W +,. d ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~' a ~ ~~ ~Qn~ ,,, ~.,, ~:~ - o ~~~ ,~~. ~ ~ O00 o _ ~ ~ ~~ m ~Q ~, ~ ~ a .. ~ . -. . :; .r. .'~.. a~> ,~~ Cr e ~ ~ o : `~ r' ~ ~- N A ~' pn/g aroys6eg `~ (~ ,~ .~, ' ~ ~ • PN8 ro a r0 ~ ~ ~~ N ~ `~~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ V .C q ~ ~.. ~ O h 'o~- ~aQ ~r ~ ~aQ a- ~~Q e ~ W~ q ~; ~-g.m. ~ ~.® ®~,; ~-. ~ ® o ~ ~~Q ~ ~. ~ a, ~ ~` d .c !.m ~ ~a 3: N "' j ~ ~ ~ 1 ~- t c A o :~ -o ~ m x ~ ®~ L - ~ N ~ '~ C ~ ~ °' ~ ~ 0. 4 RI m a f-- ~ © it -<II ~ ~ O ~ ;~ ~.®®o _Q _ ~ ~~ A r ~ ~ ,~ N i v \ o 0 ,~ ~ ~ 'L `/ ''~ ~ O ...~ C VJ m ®-... .r ~ © N U ~ ` b ~ r C ~.~ ~ .~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ 0 u a ~-- o~ O ~'~= l r~ W Q : .. . . _. _ ~ -..~ .. .. ~ ..,, E _ d m a ~` N ~t ~~N ~ ~ L a - . R{ ~ ~ .: 4 o _ _ { :~. _, ~ ~.a ` ~' ~ rte' ,. c0 y d O ~ t° '~ ~ 0 ~ _ '~~ , ~'~ ~ ._ n - N~ N ~ ~~ mOp ~ ~ _ _ d a ^0~ A t7 .0 ~ U~ N ~ 5 1 ~ N _ N N ~ ~ N N~ ..:0 _.~ 41 a., q '~ -0 m h ~ ~ ~ .. m . ;m O . . ,. r .. y„~ .~~ - _ .- _ - _ i- ~ ~,_ .,t ~ ~ ~ . _ ~ ~~4 _ ,., ., '. © .gNd Q O .m0~~ O ~ . a a Q ~° 0 0 0 ~~ 0 T 0 ~ ;~ ~ tN0 y ~ .~ ~ ' t as rer ~a¢ aQ1 , m in ~ •~ ~ l~ ~0 m ~~ o= ~ x .-~ a~ ~a x a 0 0 .~ 0 a ~. G U u U 7 O h 7.0 COMMENTS. A VD RESPONSES Terrabey Phase /l andID F/nal:E/R, _... _ .., :Exhibit T.3-7 SAM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Levels. of Service ,, ._ Existing,"~ese-Case and'Base Case:Pius M/tigation Plan Deve/opmentA/ternative Source: Crane Transportation Group _ ;.:: -a Signalized Level of Service -Average Vehicle Delay jia sewnds) b All-Way-Stop Level:of Servicx -Average Vehicle Delay (in seconds). c F =.Delay greater than'S0 seconds. -Specific delay, measurements not provided by software for LOS F operation. " .., .. r. :,: _:~.. ~ "Ysa."r.:.Z000 Year a~07.0 ExlslSing ' :Base Case . With Project:; Phase l/flll .~ €Base.Case. :INILh Pr%tt . '=~Phese Iklll AM Peak Hour Hillside / Chestnut B-14.7° C-19.0 C-23.1 D-37:1 ~ 'D-39:4 ' Hillside /Jefferson B-6.5° B-9.1 B-9.8 C-17.4 C-.22.7 Hillside/.Sistet•Cities . " -, -::,B~.8° >~ ;.x.:10.8 ;~-12.2 . .::.;016.4 ...:. '•C-21.5. Ba ore /.Sisusa3ties /.. ster.Point./. .' .D-.283° ... . _,G23.1 :.: _ ::.C-23.7: .E-42.6 >~-37.4 ster Point L.Dubu a B-14.0° ' C-17.1 _ `'C-16.5 E-44:9 D-33.0 Dubu uo/ US 101 Ram s - B-92° -B-14:3 B-12.2 C-21.9 C-17.8 Ba shore / SB US 101 Off-Ram (All-Wa =Sto) D-20:6 A-4.8 NA B-7.0 NA Sister Cities /Phase II Access NA NA 8-8:1 ° NA B-13.3. Ba shore! Phase III North Access NA NA B-9.8 ° NA B-122 Ba bore / SB Oo--Off Hook R s NA NA ^B-11:5 ° NA B-13:8 Ba shore /Phase III South Access .NA NA B-8:8 ° NA B-11:0 PM Peak Hour .;:Hillside:/.Chestnut - _B=9.2° . B-11.6 ~-B-15.0 ,B-14:8 - C-19.2 Hillside /Jefferson B-5.6 ° cB-6.9 B=7:2 ' B-13.2 -: C-19.5 Hillside /Sister Cities B-6.8 ° 'B-7:2 B-7:5 B-9;6 B-11..2 Ba shore /Sister Cities / O ster Point / ort C=18:6`° C-,19.0 C-20.5 D-35.6 F ` Oster Point / Dubu e _ ~ C-16:5 ° C-20.4 C-22.7 D-36.8 D-39.3 Dubu e/ US 101 Rams B-8.4 ° B-11.4 B-9.9 D-34.9 C-18.6 Ba shore / SB US 101 Off-Ram (All-Wa =Sto) B-9.2 B-8.6 NA D-28.2 NA Sister.Cides / Phase II Access NA `NA B-12:8 ° NA C-212. Ba shore / Phase JJI North Access Ba shore/ SB On-OffHook s NA "NA NA NA B-8.7 ° B-15.6 ° NA NA B-9.3 D-37.1 Ba shore /Phase III South Access NA NA B-8.7 ° NA B-11.2 15 7.D.COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Terrabay Phase //and U/ F-na/ E/R _ Exhiblf 4.4-6 AM and PM Peak Hour.Infersecfion Leveis of Service ~`EXisflna yBase'CBSe_ and Gasp Cacti P-uc Prnnncarl Prnian* ~ . ... ...~ `. Y o.a r :Z;D.O.O :, Year 2 0 7 0 v -".. .Exlsting , .. ~.. C:aSa ~'.1I/~/! ~.~~ ~Phassll ~~. ~I/YI Proisct .. -`~hasa ni .v:.1Y/~~t.n Project r~Phaae`~n+-ll _ _ ~ ...~II~ ; Pro)ett ? , Phase n _ •~~fII~I1.. -Project Phase -n ~A/UI Project Ptrase -l+nl AM Peak Hour Hillside /Chestnut B-14.7° C-19.0 C-21.7 C-20.0 C-?3.4 D-37.1 D-38.9 `D-38.8 BD-39.5 Hillside /Jefferson B-65° B-9.1 ~B-93 B-95 . B-9.6 C-17.4 -C-i9S ~ C,19:7 C-21.o Hillside /Sister Cities B-8.8° B-10.8 B-11.1 B-11.4 8-11.9 C-16.4 C-17.7 C-18.7 C-20.4 Bayshore / Sisw Cities / '~ ster Point / rt D-283° - C-23.1 _ ; C-24.8 , , 0225 _ ~-23.7 : E-42.6 ~ ~E-459 ; D-323 -' ' D-39.2 Oster Point/Dubu ue B-14.0" C-17.1 C-17S C-.16.6 C-16.9 E-44.9 ~E~19:2 D=38S D-39.5 Dubn ue/US 101 R s °B-92° B-14.3 B-14.7 B-10:1 B-11S C-21:9 .C-23.6 C-.152 C-16.5 Bayshore / SB US 101 Off- (All-wa -Sto) '. D-20.6° • A-4.8 B-5.2 NA ~-:NA B=7.0 '~.B-7S ' 'NA NA .Sister Cities / Phase II _ - Access 'NA_ NA -B-7:9 IQA ,, B-8.0 -NA B-11.7 - :•NA B-12.8 Bayshorn /Phase III North Access NA NA NA B-9.4 •B-9.6 NA '-NA B=I22 B-123 Bayshore / SB On-Off Hook R s NA NA I NA ~ B-11.9 -B-12.0 -NA ? NA G19.6 C-19.7 .,Bayshors/.-Phase III South Access " NA _'NA `NA _ I B-8:4 :B=10.4 NA 'NA '. ;~ ;B-8.8 B-11.4 PM Peak Hour Hillside /Chestnut B-9.2 ° B-11:6 $-14.0 B-12.4 C-15.2 B-14.8. '?C-.16:1 ;:C-16:1 C-20.0 Hillside /3e#1'erson ~: ":B-5.6 ° B-6:9 ?B-7~0 B=72 •B-73 < B-13.2 c$.13:9 •C=15A C-19.6 Hillside /Sister Cities B-6.8 ° B-7.2 B-7.4 B-7.4 8-7.6 B-9.6 B-10.4 >B-10.2 B-113 Bayshore / lister Cities / Ovster Point/ rt C-18.6 ° C-19.0 C-212 C-25.0 " ' ~-243 ~ 'D-35.6: E~2.2 ; " F ` F ` stet P.oint/: Dubn a C-16.5 ° C-20.4 C-212 C-22.4 C-24.9 D-36.8 E~4:4 F` F` Dub ne TI;1S 101 R s B-8.4 ° B-11.4 B-12.4 B-10.6 B-11.4 D-34.9 D-35.8 C-18.9 C-22.9 BayshoreY`SB US 101. Off--Ram ` =wa -Sto b: B-92 B-8.6 C-11.0. _. NA :....: NA D-28.2 E-36.2 ~ •' NA A :Sister Cities'/ Phase II : - Access IaiA NA ; B-112 :.- . ; ,: :NA .. B-12:8 : ~ . ; NA C-17S NA C-213 Bayshore /Phase=III:North Access NA ,.. :. ANA 'NA B=BS B-9.7 NA NA B-9.1 B-9.7 Bayshore/ SB On-Off Hook Ram NA NA - NA' C-13S C-16:0 NA NA D-29.0 D=35.8 Bayshore /:Phase.III.South Access -NA !~ NA NA - B-6:9 ~ . __. .:B-8:6 NA - NA -B=102 ~ B-11.8 16 7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Tsmsbay Phaas ll snd pl Flna/ E/R ~, ~:. r - Exhibit ~ 3-a :~~IM.and ~M,P.,eak Hour U.S 107 Freeway Levels of Service . ,,, ,. - - ~ -~` ~~:~Fxisting,:Base-Case,and~Base'CasePlus. r_' Phase_?/II Slfe Mitigation Plan Development Alternafive _,: - _,:: - „_; .~. > : '_Year;2000 . _::: :., ~ : Year2o70 _ _ .... US ~D7 ~Freeway.Seglnent Ex}stin9 • ;:Base Case •-with phases Base Case YYIth Phases ;. AM Peak Hour . ~.. North of. SB Off-Ramp. & NB .. ; ;.F J.E ° _ ;--=-~ F / E - _ , F /. E ~. F / F :-~../ F From Oyster Point NB .On-Ramp:;. 'to'Bavshore NB Off.-Ram - At the ster Point'Ov ass 'From.Oyster Point:Interchange w: - Grand Avenualnterchan PM Peak Hour Noith~of 5B Off-Ramp & NB . Fl ver Off:R to Ba shore E/E° .FIE FLF F/F ,:.:F/F- :E/D° E/E E/E 'F/E ':F°/.E _F./.E° F/E _F/F ,. F/F E/F. ;D/E° .I E/F I .:E/F ~ F/F - I F/F From Oyster -Point NB On-Ramp -D'/ F ° D / F D / F E / F E / F o°Ba hore•NB Off-'Ram At the ster Point Ov ass D / E ° D / E D / E E / F E / F ..... , _ From Oyster Point Interchange to,_. _ .._:E /E °. _. _:E /.F .. :.F /-F _ F /.F F / F Grand Avenue Interchan e . 'Source: Crane _Transpottaaon Getup; 5pecial.lteport 209, Transportation Research Board; 1994.Highway.Capaciry Manual Analysis '__.., ,,.; ..; :Methodolo -.: a .:Freeway Level. ofService- Sonthbonnd /:Northbound. , ,_ .: .: - ;AM and~PM Peak-Houri'ear 2010 Maximum. Queue'Lengths at Bayshore'Boulevard Intersections Adjacent,#o,Phase-///'Site :_ _ _ <Base Case + Phase'°1115ite Nlitioation Plan Development~Uternative _ Lanes -. ~41N PeakHaur _ :~P'IN`f~ek°Hour ,,.: ri+lovement .. ` .. _ Storage ::;Length; __ 2070 ohma ]Nax/mum _ <ctat,. den -2070 - aume .<~faxlmtun :, _ _ o~ave :; _.Len Ba hors /Phase /ll Northam Access ~ Left 503 m 2 401 31 m - - ` 62 8 m NB Throe 320 m 1 493 16 m '731- ":23 m SB Throe h / Ri t 300 m ~ 2 1,493 46 m 1,296 39 m Ba hors /Southbound 107 Ram s NB Throe / Ri t 92 m 2 682 46 m 677 :107 m SB Left 115 m 1 389 39 m 520 176 m SB Throe .320 m 2 1,121 16 m -976 8 m ~rB Left 260 m I 348 54 m 669 237 m WB Ri t 105 m 1 :177 31 m 139 .23 m Ba bore /Phase ll/ Southern Access NB Left 92 m 1 42 8 m 53 16 m NB Throe 305 m 2 663 8 m 648 8 m SB Throe h / Ri t 92 m 2 1,469 39 m 1,745 54 m Somxx: Crane "1r~osportanon uronp a Based on FasserII-90 software analysis of three new signalized intersections. b .Metric measurement in meters (m). One meter = 39.37 inches (328 feet). 17 .Existing .. .Base-Case _ ~ ;Base Case + Phase ~l/l 0! R b c ty C amp uS ! apa F +. Volume '.Volume ~Under/Over Volume under/ovsr . Ca c! Ca ac Year 2000 SB Off-Ramp to 795 '283 Under Ba shore 2'100 (535) (424) (Under) NA NA NB On-Ramp from 2,100 925 1,156 Under 1,250 Under O ster-Point - 2;600 d `_(1;130) -`~ _ j1;506) (Under) ~ T(1,645) ~,:'"(Under)... NB Off-Ramp to 2;100 740 -1;065 Under 1,250 -Under Dubu ue (490) (760) (Under) (898) (Under) " SB On-Ramp from 2,100 800 1,090 Under 900 Under Dubu ue [2,600] d (1,215) (1,747 (Under) (1,541) (Under) SB On-Ramp from .1,900 NA ` NA NA 305 Under Ba shore (Phase III) (396) (L7nder) SB Off=Ramp to 1,900 NA ` NA NA 435 Under Ba shore (Phase III) 1501) (Under) SB io I:B Flyover 2,100 NA ` 865 Under 865 Under Off-Ram (445) (Linder) (445) (tinder) Year20l0 SB Off-Ramp to 2,100 :795. 333 Under NA NA Ba shore (535) (659) (Under) ~:NB On=Ramp.from 2,100 925 1;389 :Under ,1,683 Under - sterPoint ` 2;600 ~ (1,130) (2;191) "(Over) (2,330) (Over) - NB.Off-Ramp to 2,100 740... 1,520. Under. _: 1;705 Under... Dub ue (490) •(1,240) ~(LJnder) (1,378) -(Under) 'SB On-Ramp iiom 2,100. 800 1,485 'Under 1,203 :.Under Dubu ue 2,600] d = (1,215) (2,402) (Over) (2,075) (Borderline)` =•°SB On-Ramp-.from 1,900 NA ` ' NA NA 405 Under. ~Ba bore (Phase III) (543) (Under) SB .Off-Ramp to 1,900 ~ NA NA NA 525 Under Ba shore (Phase III) (g08) (Under) SB to EB Flyover 2,100 NA ` ....`1;300 -Under _...:1;300 Under O$- (810) (iJnder) (810) (Under) ~outce: crane rtansporranon croup; ~pecrai ~ceporr ivy, ttanspottanon xesearen tsoam, [ ys~ ttrgnway trapanry Manual. _ _ a # = AM peak hoar, (#) = PIv1 peak hour. b `Passenger car equivalents. 'Existing and'•base case volumes should he increased. by about one to two pertxnt to reflect heavy truck traffic impact and conversion of passenger car equivalents. c Not applicable. d [2,600] =Total on-ramp capacity with second on-tamp lane. e Borderline :with total volumes increased one to two percent to reflect non-project traffic heavy truck impacts (as represented by passenger car equivalents). Exhfbit 4.4-8 Existing and .Base..Case Freeway. Ramp. Operation AM and (PM) a Peak Hour, Without and .With Project :- - j - ~ ~n~ ease cis. ease case + abase u . ,~ a~ ~ Phe~e ul , ~ ~ c~ ~ ~~ ' US.,1ot ~caP~clty p,%ei f~r%ct ll-I/fPr%cr Rar»p `, a .: ~ ...;:Volume •, `.S ,,: . ~i[olume ~ ' Wsd~NGwr .. ;.~ _ .:: _ :;;Volume:: •alnd~nlpwr ~~~ Und~NOver Volume ~ - c. Year 2000 SB.Off-- .;2;100 795 283 .:_ .;Under •. '295 Under. ~;NA` NA` ~~ -:'NA` NA` ... Ramp ~ .; ` .,'(535) , - .; ,(424) " :.(Cinder) •,(494) .; . - ... (Under) - Bayshore : - NB On- ..2,100 925 1,156._ .. ..Under :_.1,227 ..:, Under ,_ 1,225. ,, ... Linder : ,_:;: .__:1,290 • Under. Ramp _ (1,130) (1;506) : XCinder) (495) Nndo) (1.631) Nader) `:(1,656) (Under) from - . Oystea ... , . ~ _ ._. .: . ..:. . ._ _ .. . . Point 600 ° ' NB Off- 2,100 _ : 740 1;065 -Undo _,:.'.: .1,221 -Under-_ :., ..:1,183_,. Under. :.:1;199 Under Ramp to `(490) :.(760) Nader) - (1,531) _ (Under); (912) =(Under) r >(994) (Under) ._ Dubu ue SB On- 2,100 _ , 800 ,.1,090 _ Under 1.071, Uader 814 Under . ::., 894 Under Ramp =.(1,215) .(1,747) (Under) (842) ':Nader) (1;498) (Under) {1,530) (Under) :Dubuque . d - . SB On- 1,900 NA ` NA ` NA'` NA ` NA ` 345 Under 345 Under Rip (416) Nader) ` ,:(416) (Under) -- from _ _ ;. _ _ _ . Bayshorz .. (Phase :III) S$ Off- NA ` NA ` -NA ` NA ` NA ` NA ` ~ Under 412 .Under gip m ~ _ _. _ (503) Nado) - : ::(573) Nader) -- Bayshore . _ " SB toEB "2.100 'NA` ~ 'x.865 Undo 865 : Under 865 -•Undo 865 Under Flyover- ,. -:(445) ~Nado) ,° (445) Nader) (445)..,:- Nndo) (445) Nader). ~-- nr~us,n„ SB Off- 2,100 :795 333 Under - :< 345 -Under NA. NA .. NA NA Ramp to . . ;.:(535) (659) . (Under) ;(729) ~ (Undea) . Ba oie _ - . _. NB On- 2,100 925 1,589 -=Under 1.654 Under 1,653 -`Under -1:7]8 Under Ramp.. _ _ °(1.130) (2,191) ,: ,. (Over') (2,216) -.::.(Over) ',(~16) :. `(Over) (2.341) : (p~,u) _ from ~~ . ° ; Point ! e_.; _...: ;. _.__:.._. .. .._: _ _ _ . NB.Off- 2,100. 740 .1,520 Undo 1,536 Under -1,648 Under 1,664 Under -- Rampto ~.` _(490) •; x'.(1,240) :. (13ado) (1,322) ,_ ::Nndo) , -;(1,396).,._ _..-Nader) '_(1,478) (Under) Dubu ue . , SB On- 2,100 800 1,485 Under 1,565 Under ; 'i1;117 ?Undo 1,203 Under Ramp ;(1,215) = -;(2;402) : ;{Over) ;{2,434) •: (Over).- (2,036) ,,,(Undo) (2,068) from Borderline)` Dubu e ° SB On- 1,900 NA ` NA ` NA ` NA ` • NA ` ` 445 ; .Undo 445 Under ~p - .. ;(563) . . ~Nndo) (563) Nader) from Bayshore (Phase SB Off- NA ~ - NA ` NA ` ` NA ` NA ` NA ` 493 -Under 502 Under Ramp ~ (810) Nndo) (880) Nndo) Bayshore (Phase - SB to.EB 2,100 NA` . 1.300 Undo 1,300 Undo 1,300 Under 1,300 Under Flyover (810) Nader) (810) Nader) (810) Nnda) (810) Nndo) _ Off-Rama -- - - Source: Crane Transportation Group; Special Report 209, Transportation Research Baard;1994 Highway Capacity Manual. a : # = AM peak. hour, (#) = PM peak hour. 6 -Passenger car equivalents. Existing and base case volumes should be increased by about ~tve one to two percent to reflect heave track traffic impact and conversion to passenger car equivalents. r NA =Not Applicable. g Borderline wilt total volume increased oneta two oerc«tt to reflect non-oroiect traffic heave truck impacts las rrnresented bypasseng caz equivalents) 7 0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Tirrabay Phaseal and /1l F1na/ SE/R the hook ramps .intersection and a right turn in / .right tum out access at the north end of the site. _~ _~ Access to the southern development area (the hotel and restaurant) would be from Bayshore Boulevard:: ` ~` via a.signalized intersection about 460 feet south of the hook ramps intersection. (and about 1,100 feet ~' -north of the Oyster Point intersection). There would be no internal connection between •the northem~~F and .southern .parts of the. Phase III site (as is proposed by .the ,project). Exhibit 7.3=I0 presents lane striping recommended by the .project sponsor's engineer .for the .three new signalized ..intersections • along Bayshore Boulevard. An analysis -was .conducted of the ability of the .three new signalized intersections along Bayshore Boulevazd to accommodate projected 2010 volumes as a system:in order to make certain that backups from one intersection would not extend to or through adjacent intersections. 'The Passer II-90 arterial software program was used to test. system operations (see Exhibit 7.3-ZI). Program output indicates aat storage would be deficient at two locations with the Phase III Site Mitigated Plan Development ' Alternative in contrast to three locations experiencing storage deficiencies with. the .proposed project. The two locations experiencing deficiencies with the .Phase III Site .Mitigated .Plan Development Alternative also would experience deficiencies with the project. With the .Phase III Site Mitigated Plan Development Alternaxive, queues at all three intersections would be shorter than storage lengths .;;provided. except :for two ,locations_ on..the -.approaches to ;:.the :Bayshore ,Boulevazd :/ hook ramps intersection;,durin~>~the .201,0 PIVI• commuterpeak,traffic :hour. The.length:of ;the .southbound left-tum lane (serving vehicles entering the new . on-ramp) would .not 'be adequate. Likewise, storage :for northbound through and right turning vehicles. (between the hook ramps intersection and the southern signalized access to the :hotel / •restaurant .development) -would not be adequate. -These would 'be _ significant impacts of -the :Phase `III Site::Mitigated Plan Development Alternative, as .well as .the .proposed project (Impact 4..4-12, DSEIR page 207). Also, during the 2010 PM -peak commute period, maximum off-ramp queues for=left-turn~movements to Bayshore Boulevazd would use up to 91 percent ~~'<of proposed storage length. This ~ would be' a significant impact of both .the alternative as well as the :.;project _ - •-•At the Oyster`Point /Dubuque /northbound on-ramp intersection, while LOS with the. Phase .III Site Mirigated Plan-Development Alternative is ,projected to be at acceptable levels for all 201.0 commute periods with existing .intersection geometries, the Passer II analysis indicates -that there would be insufficient storage for vehicles between: the closely spaced intersections within the interchange azea without improvements. proposed .for this location by the DSEIR for the.. project. Intersection .Mitigation Measures (Exhibit 7.3-I2) "Two sets -of.-improvements .are .recommended for consideration atae Bayshore Boulevard /.sister Cities'Boulevazd / Oyster.Point:Boulevard./ Airport Boulevazd intersection for the Phase III Site Mitigation Plan .Developmem Alternative. The first -would involve restriping the southbound Bayshore Boulevard intersection approach and the proposed project and would.provide acceptable 2010,peak hour operation at this one intersection.:However, if as expected, vehicle storage (or :lack of storage) on the Oyster Point Boulevazd overpass of the freeway becomes an issue, an alternative restriping of the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach is recommended. This restriping would allow through movements from three westbound lanes and would require provision of a third westbound exit lane on Sister Cities Boulevazd. The third exit lanewould .merge into the .existing two -exit .lanes just west of the intersection. Both alternatives preclude any widening of the Oyster Point freeway overpass. 20 y m k .¢ W,~ ;. ".E d. :., a 0 D 0 m .- ._ r -. N C 16 H ~. ~ -- C ,U m v _ ~ ~- o "N~4t"v _ m ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G a `~~a ~ d "-' ~ .¢ ~~' o ~ ~ -;E ~ ,m m ~ ,. .W ._ :co m ~ ~ ~ ~ . _ ~O ~ ~ p J~~ ~'.** ; ~` as m ti a ` '~' , o~ ~ w = `a p m E ~m o ,~ ~ "~ ~ ,~ ~ ',* ~ ~II ~ ' F-. ~k ~k a a ~ o. ~ ~, N c '~ ~- p m m:r ~~ ~ ~ 4 .f1r D, o ,r 41 '::~ C .dJ .3 •tr .,, O .3 W ° , , ~ - .. I'1 c 0 Q U c 0 m t 0 a c a F u c m U ii u 0 H 7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Terra6ay Phase !I and Il! F/na~ SEIR -•~ Altemative 7 Restripe the southbound Bayshore Boulevazd .intersection approach to provide two exclusive :.left-turn lanes, an exclusive through lane, ..a -shazed through /right-turn `lane, and an - : - exclusive:right-turn Iane: ' ' ,.: . _ Resvltant2010 Operation - PM Peak.$our LOS D.7 Delay = 35.8 seconds • Altemative2 To reduce~siorage impacts on the Oyster Point Boulevard freeway overpass as well as improve level of service, to acceptable levels, :adjust >striping-on .the westbound Oyster Point -intersection approach ~toprovide one exclusive deft-tuna'<lane, two exclusive ahrough lanes, and>a :shared through /right-turn `lane.: Also, provide- a'third departure lane on Sister Cities .Boulevard which would merge into the existing two-lane departure just west of the-intersection. Resultant2010 Operation: PM Peak Hour . LOS D /Delay = 30.4 seconds Potentially, Alternative l could be implemented first, followed by Alternative 2, if and when needed. .. .: __ , . Freeway Mainline Mltigafion Measures `No additional measures would'be necessary for the -Phase .'III Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative.. - .:Ramp. Mitigation Measures No. additional measures would _be necessary for this alternative. Storage .Mitigation Measures ..Mitigation :Measure 4.412. in the DSEIR is modified to include he _ :following specific mitigation options: ... - - • Bayshore.Bou/evard /.U:S. `:101 Southbound Hook_Ramps Intersection Proposed Redesign. Coordinate signal timing between intersection .and restripe .the. off-ramp intersection approach to include one .exclusive `left-turn.Iane and a shared Left-: /right-turn. lane.:`:While this .improvement ..,: - vvould elirninaze :the :theoretical need to lengthen 'the proposed Ieft-turn 'lane on the southbound Bayshore Boulevazd.approach to the hook ramps intersection, pit is recommended that alonger southboundaeft-turn'-lane:be-provided in the original design .(lengthening from 115 .meters up to 180 meters and at the same aime decreasing the,°Iength of the second..left-tum lane on the ~- northbound.approach to thenorthem site (office) access intersection by `65 meters). - • Oyster Point Boulevard !Dubuque Avenue /Northbound On-Ramp Although no '- .improvements would be indicated in order to provide acceptable :2010 ::commute peak level of service operation with the Phase 117 Site Mitigation: Plan Development Alternative (if evaluating this location as an -isolated intersection), widening recommended on the. north and westbound = intersection . approaches to mitigate impacts of the ,project site .development is still highly recommended,~:in, order ~to .provide acceptable storage between the closely spaced :intersections :within the interchange. _ Air .Qua/lty Potentially significant construction impacts would occur -with this alternative bnt would, be less :than from implementationDf~the proposed project. Significant long-term. impacts on regional _ _ _ air.quality still would occur but would be somewhat less severe-than with. the pro}ect. Similar to the proposed project, no significant impacts on local long-term air quality are anticipated with the Phase IILSite Mitigation Plan Development:Altenuitive. 7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ' Terrabay Phase 11 and 111 Final SElR Noise Commercial development.under.this.alternative would.be concentrated on three development pazcels`located adjacent to the U.S. TOl / Bayshore'Boulevard corridor: Noise related issues would be no different for the Phase III 'Site Mitigation`Plan Development Alternative than for the project. Because._this alternative makes no land use or development assumptions about the Phase II site, .there would.be no~.land use compatibility issues associated-vsnth .residential components of the: project. " ` `Public Services -Implementation of ahe Phase. lIl Site `Mitigation Plan Development Alternative would=idcrease calls for:service_(CFS), compared-with the project, due to the types and amounts of . coiamercial space.,proposed. ;`Calls for service attributable'to.this alternative wouldrmoie than triple "the number expected as a result of the project. "However, the alternative's~~implementation would not require -the South San Francisco Police -;Department . (SSFPD) to add .a -full officer position. 'The addition of an officer position or,patrol..vehicle is the threshold:used in the 1998 DSEIR to determine `the ;significance :.of .impact. ::'Based _on~ .the :DSEIR's _significance :-:criterion, 'xherefore, '.the increase attributable :.to :the.:Phase III :Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative would-not constitute a significant impact, as shown in Exhibit 7.3-13. _ , . _ _ .:;:Exhibit 7.3-73 __ .. Comparison of Estimated-Phase lll:Site Police Se/vice Needs L.attd'Use e . _ - _'Ca/Is:for Service ° . :Sworn Officer ` Street Patrol d _,._ . ,,Tote/ Need B Pro osed. Pro'ect ' `Size 'Rate Number Rate Number Rate Number. Hotel 600 0.32 192 1;356 0.44 1;95.0 0.3.1 0.75 Mixed Use 35 4.00 '140 1.,759.286 0.02 2,592,631 0.01 0.03 Restaurants <18 `1:10 20 39660 "`0.05 " '582;727 _ `0:03 0.08 Retail 10 `1:50 !15 ` '290,852 ` °003' '' '436;628 `':0:02 0.05 Total 367. 0.34 `.0.37 0.91 Phase 111 Site Miti anon .Plan Develo meat Alternative ..Size -Rate Number Rate .Number Rate Number , Hotel 150 0.32 48 .;:1,356 0:11 1,950 > 0.08 0.19 Mixed Use 347:5 4.0 ..1,390 1,759,286 =0:20 2,592.631 0.13 0.33 Total 1,438 0.31 0.21 0.52 a Size indicates .the amount of space by use given in number of rooms forhotels and in thousands (1,000) of square feed b .Annual calls for service (CFS). Rate shows CFS per hotel room and per 1,000 square feet of other commercial use. c :. Rate bows needao employ one (.1) additional sworn officer per the number•of> quare feet;given. d Rate shows need to assign one additional sworn officer to street patrol activity._per the number of square feet given. e 'Number of sworn. officers and street, patrol personnel positions.. (Fewer than `LO would be ales-than-significant impact.) f -'Flex-space and mixed-use commercial (the. category used by the`SSFPD for offices).. ' : , _ ... Building with heights of '75 to 250 feet at the locations assumed`by the Phase III'Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative would be~ situated :in the ahadow of San `Bruno'~lviountain: The SSFPD will require installation of communications .relay equipment in the first projecr'built within this shadow, whether east of U.S. 101 or on the Phase III site, as .also would occur with the project as .proposed. The Brisbane School District (BSD) -uses a studenC generation:rate of 1:0 student per "130 `to .240 new : jobs.:Based on the project> ponsor's employment~factors (1':O employee per 200-squarefeet of retail, .restaurant, and office development. and D.75 employee per hotel .room) used by the 1998 DSEIR to estimate .employment of the project and other alternatives, --the Phase III Site Mitigation Plan 24 - , . 7. D COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Temabay Phase !! and ll! Finel SE/R .. ~ ; ,. :. _ _ . ;;. .:.... _ - Development :Alternative could create approximately 1;851 jobs compazed with approximately 720- 7$0 new jobs attributable to the projecYs.Phase III development concept.~8 . The 1,851 employees. generated :by tIus, alternative could generate eight to 14 B8D students. This number compares with-three to six new students the 1998 DSEIR estimated for 720-78U new.jobs.from implementation of .the;project's.Phase.III development .concept ;While the Phase..III,Site..Mitigation _. "Plan Development Alternative would result in more .BSD tudents ahan.estimated`from the project's .. -Phase-III development_concept, additional students attributable to this .alternative would .not constitute .. a sigtuficant impact under:CEQA and the: significance cntena.identified on.page 251 of the DSEIR. ~Ezhibit 7.3-14 _ _ ~Comnarison of Estimated Emo/ovmenf and Student Generation Land:Use ,Slzs ,: ,:Job.Rate' :Jobs StcrdentRate students Pro osed Pro'ect Hotel 360-600 moms b 0.75 a to ee /room 270.450 ` 1 / 130-240 'obs 1.1-3.5 .'Mixed Use 35,000 s feet 1.00 a to ee / 200 s are feet 175 1 / 130-240 'obs 0.7-1.4 :Restaurants . 18,000 s .feet - 1.00: 1 ee /.200 are~feet 90 1 / 130-240 'obs 0.4-0.7 Retail 10,000 s feet 1OO em to ee / 200 s uare-feet 50 1/'130-240 'obs 0.2-0.4 `Total '' 585-765 2.4-6.0 ` Phase 111 Site Miti ation Plan Develo merit A/temative Hotel 150:moms 0:75 a to ees/room 113 1 / 130-240'obs 0:5-0.9 Mixed Use 347,500 are feet 1.00 to ee / 200 are feet 1,738 .1- / 130-240 'obs 7.2-13.4 Total 1;851 7,7-14.3 a For the 1998 DSEIR.Pralect vescrtptto>s, tne;pro~ec[ sponsor raentwea au me employee generanon rates snown aoove ` ' `and estiinatedahat.the~Phase' iII project•would employ a total of appmx3mately 780..people: ~b The sponsor assumed developmentof an average of'180 rooms perhotel (for a'total of 540 rooms), compared with the 360 to 600 potential zoomsidentified bythe 1998 5pecific:Plan Amendmertt. -- -:c ''The:sponsor estimated405 employees (assuming 540 rooms and using tho.rate of 0:75 employee per room)-whereas 360- 600.rooms :would.generate.270-450 employees:,(using the same rate of~0:75 employee per:mom). - d The 1998°DSEIR. used the range'of 720-780 employees. 720 employees nRresent the sum of 405.hotel employees plus 3'15 other employees {for 720 total emp7oyees),'.as'discussed in footnotes b and c, above. 780 employees~represent the project.sponsor's estimate. - _ e _ 720-780 employees would result.in dose to siz new students. Hazards 'Because this .alternative makes •no assumptions °about .thePhase'II site;-:potential ..impacts `from ;.exposure electromagnetic 'fields :are moot. , ZVloreovez, :,hazards _ and associated regulatory requirements resulting from aerially :deposited lead do not relate .to. development of ,the Terrabay Phase III site, only to the proposed hook ramps and Bayshore Boulevard sites.. Since this analysis assumes construction of .the -:hook ramps .and realignment-of .Bayshore Boulevazd :with implementation of the ;project and the ;Rhase III Site..-Mitigation.Plan:Development Alternative, aaerial lead. impacts would be identical.for: both. - . Archaeology The 1998 DSEIR identifies the project's impacts on DSEIR,pages 286-288. Mitigation Measure-4.9~1.(a):(DSEIIZ pgge.288).or mitigation Measure 4:9-1(b).(DSEIR.page 290) would satisfy CEQA requirements for reducing impacts ao .aless-than-significant level. ;>By .comparison,'the Phase 8 The range of 720-780 new jobs reflects estimates by the 13IIt consultant (720) and the sponsor's estimate (780). The IIR consultant used employment densities identified by the project sponsor. These densities estimated the number of jobs per 1,000 square feet by specific commercial land use) or the numbg of jobs per hotel mom. The 1998 DSEIR presented this _ _ _. employment range in the project description (DSEIR pages 42-43) and also used this estimate in calculating student generation of Phase III .site commercial development to the BSD. The range presented in Exliihit 7.3-t 4 accounts for -hotel sizes as further explained in Footnotes b, c, and d ~s 7.o COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Terrabay Phase ll and !// F/nai SElR III Site Mitigation.P.lan Development Alternative .would eliminate..all ,project activity on and within 30 :feet of the:boundanes.of CA-SMa=40, resulting in thepreservation of the site. .... _ ..: According to the description ~` of the Phase `III :Site :Mitigation-Plan. Development: Alternative, the :following elements of development which would have impacted CA-SMa-40 with implementation of .the ,proposed, project ;would _ be eliminated... by :this .alternative:.:fill over the .archaeological -site, an .... .. 'interactive park on the site, an internal roadway above the western. part of the site; and, parking lot pads .which encroached on,parts of the~northern .and southern boundaries .of the site. The limits_Df grading 'under a Phase 771: Site Mitigation.Plan Development Alternative. would be at least_30 feet .from the edge.of the: archaeological. site,Since.the mapping:of the archaeological site includes_a 30-foot buffer `beyond the surveyed-edge of the site, the; grading Line world beat least 60 feetfrom the..known site `:boundaries: The elevation of Bayshore Boulevard east of the site would.be.loweredslightly to reduce fill adjacent to the site. Drainage of development pads would be towazds Bayshore Boulevard, not the azchaeological cite. :The development .pads on the north .and .south would be;-constructed with elevations.. slightly.higher than the archaeological site on a natural 2: l slope with.. no retaining walls or .:structures on the slope. _ While'1Viitigation 1Vleasure 4:9-1(b) was the;preferred.mitigation measure of the 1998 DSEIR because it would.preserveae shellmound, the.Phase III Site.Mitigation PIan;Development.Alternative would essentially eliminate all, physical .activity on -and .immediately adjacent to the site. ' By comparison, the Phase III Site Mitigation -Plan Development Alternative would totally reduce.impacts to a less-than- significant .level and would .be even more in keeping with CEQA's emphasis -on preservation of ...significant cultural resources. Archaeological monitoring` during all construction activities still'would.be'reguired, as recommended -~ ''by Mitigation 1Vleasures 4.9-1(a) and 4.9-1(b). The_..pofential for discovering;~off--site =fords and measures for mitigating such circumstances -are discussed in Master -Response 7.3-6 .and a new "' Mitigation Measure 4.9-1(d) which has been added to .the 1999,,FSEIR _ _ -, `MASTER RESPONSE 7.3-2 ; .. `NEW ALTERNATIVE, PROJECT DESCRIPTION, AND RECIRCULATION After the City published the 1998 DSEIR on July 1, 1998, the project sponsor :formulated a new site planning :and development concept. for the' Phase 'III .site. 'The.sponsor 'first._presented .the concept publicly 'at `the :July .16 `Historic °Preservation `Commission meeting, :at the July 23 `Planning Commission ~pubIic `hearing,-and at subsequent`Planning Commission study sessions. and submitted written and illustrative materials to the-City describing the concept `in the form of comments on the °1998 DSEIR. "' The new :development ~ concept departed in some' ways from the `Phase `III project and alternatives analyzed in the 1998 DSEIR. _ , ' - - The City received many comments .on the 1998 DSEIR. which refer to the sponsor's new -Phase III site development concept. Concerns focused on the timing of the sponsor's submittal.:According to those comments, `submittal after°publication : of :the :1998 'DSEIR prevented an `analysis -.:and -:full public disclosure of~the~environmental impacts of-the concept in the DSEIR and:inhibited public review and '<~ ;<an opportunity`to comment 'on the development concept'-?Other comments asserted `that the sponsor's ':'newdevelopment:concept constituted a change to'the~project description'(or another change to the > project description), `thus confusing readers, nullifying the: SE1R analyses, or both. .Project sponsors often revise or modify their projects during the. planning and environmental process. This includes changes during the public review ,period of environmental documents. 'Modifications 2fi 7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Terrabay Phase 11 and 111 .Final SE/R - <•, can'include changes to..incorporate mitigation measures identified'by an.EIR directly into the project. Modifications also can include changes to avert impacts altogether, thus .avoiding the necessity to :.implement mitigate me?cures. Furthermore, modifications.can adopt elements of alternatives analyzed . Besides:respandmg to conclusions of environmental documents, sponsors also revise or:modify their -- projects in .response to;.public "input. Public. review ,.of environmental .documents. usually :is the first ;oppommity for most decision-makers and the public~at-large :to examine.a project itself. `;This means <;that informal study sessions. and formal .public hearings on FIlts provide;-the first forums for reviewers -- ,.. ' to make comments on the . ments of the :project and for : public officials ao provide direction about -elements of the project -despite the statutoryintent of the public review, period to submit comments - on the,project's environmental consequences. ` The project sponsor has not formally amended the pending application to substitute the new Phase ]II -- site development concept. 'This is not necessary `because 'the City has the authority to approve {or _ _ disapprove) the project or an alternative. Therefore, the City can approve the pending application (a ,proposed Specific Plan Amendment), the .sponsor's new. Phase III site development concept, or another alternative without fast altering the.project description. Therefore,"itis not relevant whether.or not the new concept cfianges the.project description evaluated in the 1998 DSEIR. However, what is essential _ ^- is -'that- the environmental `document adequately covers _the .action or .entitlement (the "project") ;ultimately approved. As .indicated in Master Response 7.3-1, this FSEIR treats the new concept as an alternative. This is ~- - because it resembles .aspects . of the. previously approved development ,concept for ahe Phase :III site 'embodied in the Terrabay Specific Plan, aspects of the pending project, embodied .in .the proposed _ 'Specific: Plan Amendment, and aspects of 1998 DSEIR altematives. ,. ;. New Phase lA Site Altemative 'After "the close of the public review period; the City's EIR consultants _ analyzed the project sponsor's new Phase III site land use and development concept. .The results of that evaluation are presented in Master itesponse 7.3-I (above), and the_assessment,of-the.Phase III __ Site .Mitigation Plan.:,Development Alternative; will =be -added •to, ~chapter..5.0 alternatives to the 'Proposed Project in the Certified SEIR. As indicated.above,ahe Phase•III Site.;Mitigation:Plan Development..Alternative.:assumes,.a 340,000- . , , .:square :foot office building ;(Parcel. A), , 7,500-square :foot .quality .restaurant (Parcel F~, :and 150-room hotel .(Parcel. G).:. This is .somewhat smaller..than .the conceptidentified ;by >the ,project sponsor (a .340;000-square foot officebuilding, 10,000-square-,foot quality,restaurant,:and-200-room .hotel). The different amounts of: restaurant. and .hotel.: development .reflect .trip ..generation.- the:Phase -III Site -- Mitigation Plan Development Alternative development .program :assumptions were reduced in order to avoid exceeding traffic volumes :analyzed .in the Draft .1998 SEIR, a stated objective of the project - - sponsor. -The 340;000, gross square .feet of Parcel A offices on the northern :part of .the Phase III cite is virtually identicaLto.the::maximum:amount.of development of all.types.proposed.for the•.entire. PhaseIII site by the. ndin S .eci c Plan amendment,, 343,000.6 feet ~P opine pe g p fi ( quare, ) - he:.amount•of.. otential:devel nt :~analyzed.in the.1998DSEIR..:Thus,.the.xotal.amount.of..development.proposed..byahe,project sponsor_ ;--~ or identified by:the.ElR.consultantfor :the..Phase,lll,Site-Mitigation :Plan. Development:Alternative would exceed the 343,000 square feet analyzed in the 1998 DSEIR on the Phase III site or theproiect. _ ... . _ -- ...However, :the .alternatives .analyzed in the 1998 .:DSEIR ..assumed ;both ,more :and :less than '343,000 quare feet . of development on •the Phase III site. The Existing Specific -Plan Alternative would result '27 7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Terrabay Phaae 11 and /ll F/na/ SE/R in construction of 669,300 square feet development larger than the project), the Reduced Commercial ' Development Alternative would result in development of 293,000 square..feet. of.building area (smaller han the,project),;and the Environmentally Preferred DevelopmentAlternatzve. assumed.:development of 94,200 sduare,feet of building area-.(smaller.than.the project). ,;Inclusion of the mandatory Existing Specific Plan.Alternative more than. aiiequately covers the project sponsor's new development concept, whether defined as~ in Letter I3 or Master Res, ponse 7.3 I Moreover, the 1998 ~DSEIR is :a "supplemental" environmental document. It is "tiered" off of previously prepazed:EIRs certified by the'City and~incorporates those.priorEnvironmental documents >by reference .(DSEIR :pages ~=8). 'The:1998 DSEIR focuses exclusively. on significant:changes from ?the Specific'°Plan development `concept originally approved `for the~'errabay Phase II and III sites by .the .City in 19.82 and :amended in 1996. Among those :changes analyzed .by the 1998_ SEIR is a .substantially different.Phase III site development concept (pending.Specific Plan.Amercdment) than the previously:approved project (approved Terrabay`Specific.Plan). .The.,approved development.concept "for the. Phase III site is the Existing Specific Plan Alternative :ident~edabove.:While the .1996 SEIR analyzes 'the full range of impacts from implementing :a 669;300-square foot development program, the 199:I~SF.IR .analyzes the <same development program in comparative. detail to ae .currently proposed,project. (Comparative detail refers to highlighting.the differences in outcome, rather than at equal detail:) . Recirculation of the EIR Guidelines' Section 15088.5(a) codifies recent case law on the recirculation of EIRs. CEQA states that, if subsequent to public review. and .interagency.. consultation (but prior to final certification) the Lead Agency adds "significant new ~ information". to an _EIR, the Lead .Agency .must recirculate the EIR for additional comments and consultation. ,New information.is considered "significant" .when the .EIR is changed in a way .:which "deprives the public of _ a ,meaningful opportunity to continent". 'This occurs when: • A significant new environmental impact would .result from the project or from new .mitigation proposed to be implemented. • P. substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact- would result unless mitigation <measures were adopted•which:would reduceae impact o a evel of insignificance. • A feasible project alternative or mitigation measureconsiderably.different.from=others.previously analyzed cleazly would lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project sponsor~declines to adopt:it. - _ _• A -draft .EIR was so .fundamentally and basically inadequate .:and conclusory. :in nature that .meaningful public review:and.commend were.~precluded. ,. _, _ :Recirculation of an.environmental document,:guazantees that ;the public is~not denied an "opportunity to .test, .assess, and evaluate -the. data :and -:make an ::informed judgment as:,to .:the validity of the .conclusions". Guidelines' Section 15088.5(a) also states that recirculation is not required where the.new.information added to an EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignecant modifications in:an.adequate EIR. No "triggering event" .specified under this Guidelines' section has been identified, and, therefore, it is concluded that recirculation of this document is not required. The analysis of the Phase 7II Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative did not reveal any altogether new impacts -that is, either specific new impacts or categories of impacts which were not 2s 7.o COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Terrabay Phase 11 and 1I! F/nal SEIR identified .for the project by, the 1998 IlSE1R or which .could not be reduced :to aless than: significant .... `level ahrough mitigation 'One stated. purpose of .the project sponsor's new _development program is to ,., .~ =incorporate~many DSEIR mitigation measures and eitlier confine some ~impacts~ to the severity of those - `,previously. identified or to reduce or eliminate other impacts altogether. 'The analysis of the Phase III 'Site°1Vlitigation"~lan'Development Alternative concluded that pit still:would result in some significant impacts. `However, the evaluation'fommd fhaf~the ne't effect of'ainplementmg~'the`Phase III .Site - Mitigation.:Plan Development_Alternatiue would..be to reduce, . if :not :eliminate, the .magnitude of .:impacts. Finally,'the development concept generally -would incorporate. mitigation measures identified `in the 1998'DSEIR In tliis context, it .does .not suggest altogether new .means to :mitigate impacts of =site development viihichhave not been tested• or scrutinized by the City's environmental consultants. _ .... - . _ `Project Description `"The 1998 DSEIR describes various. aspects of .the project in the level of detail "equivalent to wluchthe project sponsor has defined.the proposed development concept.'The proposed Precise Plan°defines he'Phase-II site development concept in more .detail than the.proposed Specific _ ..Plan Amendment defines the. Phase'III site development concept.:In the City of South "San.Francisco, specific plans are intended'to be more general in nature and precise „plans are intended to define and - provide more detail about:projects than previously afforded them by specific, plans. 'Thus, each step in -_ _ the planning process is designed expressly to refine and provide additional detail :about previous .concepts. - - `'Commentors coacerns`about'the adequacy of the.project description partly relaxe to speculation about whether more intense'latid uses or more total developmentthan cunently proposed might.be built on - the Phase. IR:sitein the'future~tliis concern is unfounded. •Any substantial deviation from the. approved `e'land >use °and~'-development concept would require ;additional :environmental review. 'Presently, a ~- substantial-deviation couldlbe interpreted az exceeding 669,300 square feetdevelopment or consisting ___ of altogether new uses not previously contemplated on the site: :MASTER RESPONSE.T.3-3 APPLICATION OF THE:NATIONAL H/STORlC PRESERVATION ACT Several :commentors ;asserted ~ihat'~the.:Nationale-Historic Preservation Act `(NHPA) applies to the -- proposed Phase III project. Specifically, Comments 11.2, 29.27, 30.6.and 30.7 all inquire about the >applicability ofthe NHPAao~the:project. - ,:_ .In 1968, Congress enacted the NHPA (16 U.S.C:A. §470 et. ••seq.j. to °encourage ~identification and ,:preservation of the nation's. cultural resources. The NHPA declares a public interest in preservation of - •.these resources:n.that:alegacy-of "cultural; educational;_aesthetic,.inspirational, economic, and energy __ benefits will be .maintained and enriched +for .future generations of Americans". ~ The . NHPA authorizes the Secretary of Interior to maintain a National Register of Historic Places. The Register is - '"composed of'':buildings'sttuctures -and >objects •significant ~`in :American `"history, architecture, _ azchaeology,engineering, and culture".. ?, property can"~be'listed 'on he Register in a number of ways. " An owner. of historic property may object and prevent his or her property from'Iisting on the - 29 7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 7errrbay Phase Il and lil Fina! SEIR :::Register. tZ :.However,aisting:on.the Registeris required.if;.the owner,desires to obtain certain Federal benefits, including.;grants,:'loans„'aIId` taX.'mceIIttveS.13 ::And,..even~if.a propetty~is:not,listed on the Register, ::any :,property ..eligible :for; .listing ..triggers he requirement;.that <Federal .agencies with ;; permitting Viand .licensingauthority over, a _project.-take into ,account .the project's: effects :on `historical resources. Compliance:with the. NRHP only is required by, Federal agenetes.:A Federal agency with jurisdiction or control over a;project shall,prior to issuing a,permit-or license ~forahe_project,:take into account the effects of the;project on any site.Iisted or eligible for listing on theltegister u :-The Terrabay Phase III project may require.Federal .permits, including a Section~4O4permit from.xhe U...S.:Army>Corps of Engineers (Corps), an Amendment to -the .Section 10(a) permit under the Endangered Species Act .::(ESA),:.a;National:P.ollutant Discharge Elimination:System:(NPDES) permit from`the San=Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality :Control Boazd (RWQCB), and a permit from-the Bay `Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) .pursuant to the Clean Air Act. Before issuing their respective .;permits, those agencies will review whetherahe Terrabay :Phase ;1II <site .potentially qualifies for listing under the NHPA. Pursuant to this review, the Federal agencies will consider. the effect of the project on any archaeological-and-.:historical .resources-,potentially mpaeted~by :the project and provide an oppommity:for.public-:comment. ':The:term "federal agencies" does not.include private parties. ~~ The term "federal .agencies"_ :also does .not include state ~ or ocal -governmental agencies unless .they are acting as the Federal agency under a specific federal law. " Therefore, neither the project .sponsor nor the' City has the authority o :enforce compliance with 'the NHPA -or to ensure .that the ..property is eligible for listing on,the National Register. _ - "`"" Furthermore, compliance with the NHPA only is required ior` those ;properties "listed or eligible .for -~ listing :on ~ahe National rRegister:: `The 'Advisory :Council .on `Historic 'Freservation'`has adopted (1) Those acts of Congress and Executive orders which create historic areas of the National Park System administered ;by the National Park Service,~all.or portions of which'may be determined tobe of historic significance consistent with the intent of Congress. ' (2) Properties declared by the Secretary of Interior to be of national significance and designated as National Historic Landmarks. (3) Nominations prepared tinder approved State Historic Preservation Programs, subnutted`by<the"state Historic Preservation Officer:and:.approved byahe National Park Service. ~.- (4) Nominaaions from:any person or local government only if such property is not located in a state with no approved °State Historic PttservatiomProgram:and.if the nomination:is approved by theNationai.Park'Service. (5) 'Nominanions of Federal properties:pceparedby Federal agencies,:submitted by the FederalFreservation Officer and approved by the National Park Service. _ - _ ;. 12 16 U.S.C.A., op. cit., Section 470x(6). 13 .Ibid.. Section 40~ 470b, and 470d, and 26 U.S.C.A. § 170(h)(4). 14 16 U.S.C.A, op. cu.; Section 470f. . _ .. .: ::. :1$ ~~; 16 WATCH v. Harris (2d Cir. 1979) 603 F.2d 310,326 cert. denied, 444 U.S. 995. 17 See 42 U.S.C.A. Section 5304..:For.example, the Housing and Community.Development Act designatesaocal agencies :receiving grants as the'"fetleral agency"; thus requiring that the local agency comply with procedures set forth in the NHPA (16 U.S.C.A. §470w(7)(d)) and 36 C.F.R. §800.2. 30 7.D COMMENTS AND RESPONSES - Temsbay Phase 1l and in Flna! SE1R .;. _. regulations ~ defming'~the °.tean eligible" -as :applied'by "federal agencies, to include both properties formally~determmed~as such'^by the Secretary~of the, Interior!(•whether or:_not the property".actually is _: ., listed, in:-the National:~Register) and allother properties which meet the.Naaonal Register,criteria.'A ~-_ =The Advisory Council =is an~independent'Federal agency with a crucial role in implementing review.of Federal agency undertakings under the NHPA. ~- -... . .. .. ....:.- r-- ~The criteria ;:for evaluation =for 'the Narional.`Register.nre ":based on the quality ,:of significance in -American~history,-:architecture; ~archaeology,~•engineering; and calture .that pis present is .districts, sites, buildings, structures, :and =.objects -which ;:possess integrity-~ of 'location,-=design, °setting, :materials, - -workmanslup,~feeling, and:assaciation~and: ;`;. (a) are associated with events. which ~have:made a ignificant contribution to'the broad patterns of our:history or :,.. _ .. (b) ;a~re.assocated with~the~lives~ofpersons gnificant in,our past or ;(c) :embody the :'distinctive -characteristics -:of : a •type, ::period, or method of >construction, or __ :represent the work of a;master, or possess high artistic: values, or-represent:a: significant and distinguishable entity=whose components -may ack individual distinction;or (d) have,yielded, or may be likely to:yield,.information important in prehistory.or: history. Holman & Associates conclude that the archaeological site, CA-SMa-40, probably is .eligible for ` nomination . xo xhe National ;Register: of.:~iistoric .Places (NRHP) (see DSEIR page . 282)...The EIR ~ - archaeologist :agrees, as the;site probably;.qualifies under .criterion:,(d) because :its has; yielded and will :yield additional .information relevant to answering scientific research questions regazding Bay Area ;.prehistmry ..•(DSEIR .:page :::283) _::and ;under <criterion ; (a) ~becanse :it ~•is -directly associated with a -~ scientifically..:recognized, important .prehistoric :event -.(DSEIR page .28~. ':However, the current __ .:..:environmental -:review:.-,process .for. the :.Phase III ;project:is>not required 'to :pursue>1NRHP eligibility determination. _._ ..MASTER .RESPONSE 7..3-4 ` _,. _ CEQA AND CALIFORNIA REGlSTEROF HlSTOR/CAL RESOURCES ~ - .., ,.. _ The 1-998 .DSEIR analyzes the archaeological- sites :under :both archaeological andhistoric resource standards and ~,this . point is :elarified:here and ~thronghout thedocument. Under GEQA, the criteria -for determining the significance of archaeological resources` include historic resources standards. 19 The _ _ CEQA analysis of the significance of azchaeological sites is intertwined with evaluation of historic significance. Consistent with these CEQA standards, -the DSEIR discusses the history of the site and =- its inhabitants and determines-that the .site is potentially historically. significant. Then,- the DSEIR :analyzes the project sponsor's proposed mitigation,.plan.lfor the project) in .terms of-its impact.on the historic and other values of the site and identifies. an alternate mitigation measure (avoidance and .preservation) to .further ..protect the site. This evaluation of impacts .and mitigation measures is consistent with CEQA's mitigation for impacts, on historic resources .(that is, no substantial adverse effect on historic resources). _. _. _ -- 18 .36'C.F.R.' §800.2, ap. cu., and Colorado River Indian Tribes v.°Marsh (C.D. Cal. 198$) 605 F..Supp. 1425, I438). 19 .Public Resources Code Section 21083.2; CEQA Guidelines Appendix K ("Appendix K"). 31 7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Tsmabay Phase 11 and 111 Final SE/R Under CEQA, _ the .standazds :for ,analyzing .archaeological :-resources..:include • historic .resource standards. Z0 . Archaeological resources are `~que",or "important" _(that:is, significant): if .they meet any of .the following.cnteria, which.lazgely focus on_the historic:walue of.the-site. 21 • Associated,-with a scientifically recognized important;prehistoric or histonc event.or person -• , ;Has a;special,-.or~patticular ;;quality, such_:~:as._being .the..•oldest~of-:its: type ~flr .the.;best:available ;.example-.of.its type ~ ._ .. _, _ • Is .at,least-~ ::years old. aad-.possessessubstantial stratigraphic :integrity • Or=involves important research questions that historic research: hasahown°~.can;bec:answered only ._ .with archaeological methods _ ,..: ; . . These significance criteria are similar to the significant standards for historic resources :under CEQA, :which include the following: ~ -• Associated with events that made_asignificantcontribution.;to:Califonua's=history • Associated withahe~lives~:ofpersonsunportanrin nur past or ~ _ =• Has •yielded-or may be likelyto yield information important in prehistory or history Mitigation measures .for archaeological .and historical-resources also azesimilar under'CEQA. Proper mitigation for .archaeological ...resources include ..,preserving them in ,place or leaving them .in an ~~-undisturbed state:~~ Similazly, mitig-anon for~historic resources •are avoiding a "substantial adverse change" which means avoiding demolition, destruction, relocation, ~:or. alteration that°would. impair the historic significance of the site.':24 Consistent with `:these :archaeological and~Yh%sEorical°°standarc~is °under CEQA, the DSEIR includes a detailed discussion =of the <ethnolustory,'-prehistory sand archaeological history of ythe shellmounds .:(DSEIR.page. 276-282). The significance criteria in the.DSEIR include the historic standards under. <~Public :Resources'Code ~:Section 21083:2(8) •and Appendix ~- which are ~sii~nrlar ao the standards under Public Resources%Code-section 21084:1.and~ 5024:1(c).~.(DSEIR page":283): `The DSEIR concludes that CA-SMa-40 is •a' potentially •"significantarchaeological resource-'because it "contains" :information needed~to answer:importantscientific °research questions" (DSEIRpage `283), is likely to be :the `.`oldest >of its type" :and`"best available example" •of~sheilmounds in fhe area (DSEIR,page 284), and "is directly :associated `with -a scientifcally• recognized ~iamportant prehistoricevent" "(DSEIR` page 284). The .DSEIR states that CA-SMa-40 is "an .extremely- important resource.under .CEQA, and believed to +be eligible for listingvn the~National~Register of Historic Places" -(DSEIR page 288). _, :'The :'DSEIR °evaluates the =mitigation :of ~~projectimpacts on .the" archaeological site` in tenors of preservation and `.avoidance of .damage ~ which '.°are the -~prefen-ed mitigationmeasures 'for -both azchaeological -and ~histoncalresources. °The `DSEIR concludes `that °the project and its ;proposed 20 :.1bid... . , 21 .Public.Resources.Code.Section 21083.2(8) •Appendiz K, Section.III. 22 Public Resources Code Sections21084.1,.5024.1(c) 23 .public Resources Code Section 21083.2; Appendix K, Section II. _ 24 Public Resources Code Sections 21.084.1; 5020.1(q). 32 • --- r • - - ~ 7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES , • .Tirrabay Phase /! and /p F/na/ SEiR - ~- . _. mitigation.plan may adversely affect CA ,SMa-40 through compaction caused by the fill, The;DSEIR ".. concludes :'that .the -.potential compaction : is a concern because the `site :is '"an .extremely important prehistoric cultural resources" and~~has'"potential forscientific .inquiry'regarding°the prehistory of the San_.Francisco..peninsula ;(DSEIR..page.288) _, .The DSElRk_concludes that,:#although the-.project's :.proposed mitigation;plan 'would{ con~orrn •with the basic requirements Hof "L~QA for archaeological sites, =its potential'.for damage to~~the •site -would favor an `alternative' rmtigahon pf avoidance and •protection (DSEIR .page 290). This ..preference for .avoidance 'and preservation of `the, site ..under _. Mitigation Measure: ~ 49-1(bj •is =.consistent -with 'the -- standards -'for=.mitgatmg 'impacts , to historic resources-~which:=focns!on'savoiding damage nr alteration:~~ 'Therefore, thetDSE1R identifies he preferred /environmentally superior mitigation as eliminating "`damage ~-`or {ilistiibance`'to the site through avoidance and .preservation .which .is the preferred mitigation .under .CEQA .for impacts. on ,. .... :historic resources. Under CEQA, an historic resource is a resource listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California:Register~ofHistorical::Resources. °'The<criteria for listing on ~'theCalifornia .Register of Historical:Resources consist. ofprovsions:in°both:the•l?ublic;:Resources':Code:Section'S024.1 and the California Code of Regulations. Section :5024:1 ;provides ,that -,(c) ~a ;resource :"may be listed as an historical resource in the California Register if it :meets any of the following National Register of >'Isstoric Places .criteria: .(1) ,Is <associatedwith-:events.. that. have-:made a significant .contribution ao >the.broad ..patterns of .'..California's.history.and.culturalheritage. -, (2) Is associated with the lives of persons .significant in ourpast. (3) Embodies the •distinctive .characteristics of a aype, period, region or method .of .construction, or `:.represents he<work.of an i~portant:creative:rindividual, or.:possesses .high.artistic values. {4) Has>yielded, ~ormay.belikely..toyeld,.anformation,.important in;prehistory or.~history.: :Holman & Associatesconclude.aihat the..archaeological..site,:~CA=SMa-4Q,.Mprobably is .eligible for nomination.toahe National.Register._:of Historic.:Places .(NRHP);.(Z)SEIK;pages 282,and288)_ ;The EIR archaeologist agrees, .as"the site,probaiily.,;qualifies under;criterion.(4).:because-it=.has:yielded and will yield.additional~information.relevant:to;answering;scientific„research,.questions.regarding :Bay Area :prehistory :(DSEIR ,page..283).-'and under .:criterion ::{,1) .;because .:it ~is ~directly_:associated with a scientifically.recognzed impprtantprehistoric,event (DSF1R;page 28~. ~; . .: - _ ,. . . -.. . .. The DSE1R~concludes:that:the .project and rts;proposed..mitigation .•plan.:rnay.;adversely impact CA- SMa-40 through compaction caused by ,fill. :ln accordance with Public .Resources Code Section 21084:1, .the ,,project. ~±ould likely-..cause <a-,,substantial adverse =change,-in ,the~-•sgnificance of the :California.Register-eligible. resource. :Impact:-analysis ,in the DSEIR.(pages,:28.6-288) .evaluates the prooject's .impacts on ;CA-SMa-40.. The ;:detailed>.:.discussion .on site .•compaction -.:..and :eventual destruction of the resource leads to the conclusion that the site will lose its archaeological, cultural -and historical -significance in the event that the project is implemented. Thus, the project would have significant impacts on archeological, cultural and historical resources. The DSEIR concludes (DSEIR page 288) :that, .although the project's .proposed .mitigation .plan (Mitigation Measure 4.9-1(a)) .concerning archaeological excavation would.meet the basic CEQA requirements and reduce impacts to aless-than-significant- level, an alternative mitigation plan ~ of .avoidance and: protection'(Mitigation :Measure 4:9-1(b)) would be.more in keeping with CEQA emphasis on preservation _(DSEIR, page .290). The Phase III Site..Mitigation Plan DevelgpmentAlternative :also.meets the'CEQA requirements 25 ;Ibid. 33 - 7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES `Terra6ay Phsse 1! and !1l Flna/ SE1R and promotes the avoidance-and protection of -CA=SMa-40,thus reducing thepotential impacts on azcheological,cultural.:and~historical-sourcesao a less-than-significant level. ._. MASTER RESPONSE T.3-5 REL4.T/ONSH/P. =BETWEEN~CA-SMA-40 AND-:CA-SMA-92 ._ Physical proximity suggests. a~possible .cultural connection between the .two sites, ,CA-SMa=4U and -92 :(DSEIR page..28~.:.>Holman.;&.Associates,apeculateahat CA=SMa-92•.may have..:been<used by the prehistoric inhabitants o£ CA-SMa-40 during,periods .of: high tidal waters wwhich would. be a cultural connection between the two sites. This raises the ,question of whether or not the sites might constitute .an azchaeological,district. -::However,.:.the..numerous.: azchaeological investigations .which.-have taken ,.place in .the ;project :area ;(DSEIR _ pages .278-279. and :182), :.,including •the Holman & .Associates .subsurface investigations and. the EIR azchaeologist's past and..project-related field inspections, have resulted in no archaeological evidence that the two sites are physically connected by cultural deposits :.above or below. ground.. The 1.998 DSEIR, by ..presenting. mitigation measures for ,potential project impacts o .:both sites, .assumes that both sites meet CEQA .criteria as `.`.important cultural resources". The .SEIR .need not establish the cultural relationship between the two sites or determine .if an -archaeological district is .:present: "Those determinations would not 'change the DSEIR .:impact and mitigation `.conclusions and recommendations. in meeting CEQA .cultural resources management - requirements. The overall Terrabay :Phase III :project area has been the subject of numerous °`- azcheological.investigations .over the.past several decades,.(DSFIlZ,;page 278). The boundaries of CA- -~= Sma-40 have been defined by>the:.Holman,&_Associates test excavations (DSEIR,~page280) and the •' boundaries of azchaeological evidence'has.never been documented.-that would:suggest he,.presence of prehistoric cultural deposits between the two sites. It is therefore concluded that development between T: the two.sites.will:not:.affect cultural resources. - The EIR archaeologist recommends that the Native American response o the DSEIR, regarding the .,;potential for <;random -.off-site Native American burials, -be taken.: seriously.: as demonstrated by .the :required mitigation ;(see Master Response 73-6 for,:further •discussion). ,The presence of .burials <•outside.the:.boundaries of:;a site would not:mean•.that~a:physical :connection=between the sites exists. However, as-.a :clarification .to: he:mitigation::.measure n::the 1996_SEIR..requiring monitoring, to address this concern, it is recommended that all land-disturbing activities within the Terrabay Phase III cite development area. besubjectto:monitoring=<byahe:projecfi:archaeologist.and the designated Ohlone 1Vlost=Likely-Descendant. . ': - ,- MASTER RESPONSE 7.3-6~NATlVE AMERICAN:BUR/AL CONCERNS Native American responses to the 1998 DSEIR have expressed concern as to the potential disturbance of prehistoric burials. The Holman & Associates' report (page-138) documents the presence of burials .within the boundaries of CA-SMa-40. Patrick Orozco, tribal Chairman of the Pajaro Valley Ohlone Indian Council, .has expressed concern -on several occasions .for: ,protection of on-site .burials and the .,potential. for.disturbance>of off-site burials. • , 'Regazding the issue of on-site burials, mitigation of project impacts by means of Mitigation Measure 4.9-1(a) (DSEIR page :288) or. Mitigation:Measure.:,4.9-1(b) -(DSEIR. page .290) -would satisfy CEQA requirements for reducing impacts to aless-than-significant level. Mitigation .Measure 4.9-1(b) is the DSEIR preferred measures:as it would•.preservethe shelhnound-and its Ohlone.burials. -The Phase7ll 34 7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Tirrabsy Phase /1 and Ip FJna/ SE/R Site Mitigation..Plan:Deuelopment.A&ernative :would elirAinate .all ~.projectactivity.:>on and within 30 feet of the boundaries of .CA-SMa-40, resulting in,.preservation : of the :site, including <burials, in its :present condition. The PhasQ III Siaee Mitigation Plan Develop-nent Alternative would be iR keeping with CFJ~A's emphasis on_presesvation of.significaat cultural resources..... -At an October `l, 1998 City of Soat$ Bari ~Francisco'l~annmg"Commission study session, the -Commission accepted oral .comment :from Native .American Will Two Bears .in .which. he expressed 'satisfaction with 'the Phase "III Site lllitiga=ivn-Plan' Developmieent Alternative. ~ 'Two Bears stated that .,. when he first becatne involved .anth the °project he was only -interested in preserving-the .two shell ;mounds. 'He stated-.that it seems'that measures-have been taken to preserve'the sell mounds?~ .;- - : .. In he absence of an'Ohlone'Most~Likely-Descendant, it~would appear that there is'.no consensus at - this time regarding the'Native American community's .,position .the .Terrabay "Phase III ,:project .and potential impacts'to cultural resources. At a July 16, .1998 City of South San Francisco Historic Preservation "Commission .special meeting, 'Miley Holman (the project sponsor's archaeologist) stated the opinion that the presence of off-site ,..prehistoric burial is unlikely while acknowledging that occasionally outlying burials do .occur.. 28 .However, Holman and`'Chavez (the `IIR archaeologist) .agree that the occurrence of such finds is uncommon but do acknowledge the :,potential. for .such finds. 'The archaeologists state that,. in the :absence of archaeological evidence for off site burials and without excavating the entire off--site area in question, 'there his no practical way to determine if, in fact, off: site burials are present. `That is why ..archaeological and Native American monitoring-ls recommended. '.The `SEIR recommends `that, regardless .of which project or project alternative °the-'City approves, if . .. approved, 'the following mitigation measures addressing the potential discovery of -off-site :prehistoric 'burials should be: implemented:- - Mltiaatlon Measure 4.9-7(d) 'Ihe following measures are required to mitisate the votential discovery of off-site prehistoric burials: ~• A formal request shall ' be mane vromptly of the 'Native American 'Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento that an Ohlone lVlost=Likely=Descendant (IvII.DI =be assisned to the Terrabav~proiect.- The •archaeological record :establishes;that :human remains are present at CA-SMa-40 which would mcet the requirements .for.the assiartment of an MLD. • Once an. MLD is : assjened, a monitorin¢ pro¢ram shall= be >developedwhich <mcets' CEOA :requirements and is based upon consultation with and agree~rtent between the MLD the proiect sponsor. and sponson's archaeologist and with the Ohlone commuAity. The City of South San Francisco shall hay ~finaI approval of the pro rah. Recommended elements of the Mitigation Monitoring Pro~am shall include bur not be limited io the follaCvins: 26 IvJr. Two Bears is not on the Native American Heritage Commission's list of Oblonc Most-l ikely=Descendants (MLD) and individuals to wntact regardipg the Ten abay Phase III SEII2. CSQA allows .the'City to=acrxpt, include in the record, and respond to comments received after the close of the formal putllicreview period. 27 ,:South San Francisco Planning Commission Study Session~Mimrtes' October 1,'199.5 pps. 7.and 8 of 20. 28 Meeang Transcript, City of South San Francisco I3istoric Preservation Commission, July 16,'1998. 35 7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES . Terrabay Phase I! and 11/ Flnal SEIR ~ •In.the.event.that human remains are.discovered, .the proiect. sponsor's archaeoloeist and MLD .monitor will.-have the authority to halt land alteration work in the viciniri of the find. _ _ _ , :; -In the event that Native American burials or evidence of~rehistoric human remains are 'discovered, the. San Mateo County Corner's Office, alone with the `NAHC, `the oroiect -sponsor, 'and`'the'Oity -of'South San`-'Franciscoshall be advised:anfl consulted in • ~~accordance~with~CEO~requirements~ttblic`Resources`Code:Sections'5097:94.5097.98. and 5097=99 and Health and `Saferi'Code Section 7050.5. ,_~ : 'A protocol-shall ,be in place for.ihe removal and disposition-of~burial remains:and burial _ :associated artifacts,. Dependin¢:onae;wishes of.the;IyiLD, options-would::include but _ not be 'limited to (1) reburial at a location :in'.closeproximity •to the find -where no disturbance will take place and (2) removal from the area for reburial at :an Ohlone cemetery. All archaeolosical work shall be conducted in accordance with CEOA Apvendix K ~ttidelines_ and .within the context of prevailine professional standards. All procedures -.and findinss would be.presented in a detailed technical report with copies distributed to `the -proiect svonsor, -:the 'Ciro of South 'San `Francisco, and the `Historical 'Resources Information System's Northwest:Information Center. ~V1,4STER RESPONSE 737:CUMULATIVE.LOSS~OFARCHAEOLOGICAL-RESOURCES. ~~ The 1998 :DSEIR (DSEIR ,:page 284) summari~ps .the uniqueness of CA-SMa-40 as one of a ^,_ diminishing number of existing, relatively undisturbed, .prehistoric shellmounds in the San Francisco ~.~- Bay Area. The documented antiquity of CA-SMa-40, based on the •radiocarbon date -of 5,155 years before the .,present (BP), suggests that .the site may be the "oldest of ..its type" on .the Peninsula and ;perhaps -within the SanFrancisco'Bay region:. Because of its long prehistoric occupafion (5515 BP to •- 460 BP) and the fast that few such relatively undisturbed shellmounds still exist in the'Bay Area, it = certainlyis one of the'"best availabie examples" :of the shellmound-type site. - ' As discussed : in the DSEIR, the adverse impacts -on 'the shellmounds may be a potentially -significant °-impact-(DSEIR page:284). Nearly all the approximately 425 'large shellmound sites .recorded around ithe BayArea~early -in the "20th,:~century'have been destroyed :or;greatly~mpacted bynatural 'forces and ;modern cultural activity. ~~.By ~i973, urban-expansion-had damaged nor destroyed more than` 50 percent ;of the'estimated°number~of archaeological sites`(9,675) in'the nine'$ay `Area,counties29 -:Large Bay- fronting ~she-llmounds~ have been :impacted disproportionately'. as easily-filledshallow Bay flats have `been :most :attractive for development 30 Avery fewwell=lmownlarge shellmoundssurvived .long enough to`be part of"the modern°archaeological record. CA-SMa-40 is "directly :associated with a scientifically recognized important ,prehistoric event" 'because it is'the oldest°site yet recorded on the San Francisco Peninsula (the initial arrival of people in he Bay region being an `"mportant~prelustoric event"), :because;it-contains evidence -of :changes in subsistence strategy : as -well as stylistic changes over 'time -{probably •related to the hypothesized 29 California Archaeology. Michael J. Ivloratto. Academy Press, Inc. Orlando, Florida. 1984:226. 30 Evaluative Archaeological Investigations.at-the San Bruno.Mountain Mount Site, CA-SMa-40, South San Francisco, Califonua Holman & Associates. San Francisco. February 1998:171. 36 ' 7.0. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES - " ~ Terrahay Phase p and !/I FMa/ SE1R :replacement:of the;old"Hokans by .the =more:recent':TJtians,-another{important prehistoric event), and `because it possesses a very~long cultural sequence compared with-other regional sites. Shelhnounds contain impressive .amounts .of ..data .relatted .to ~ the :environment and changes in the :environment:~~.'Therefore,>'CA'=°SMa=40 -contains ~a :record of environmental :changes as well as how .. :. . „.. .. 'human ::mhaliitants"~in the. region; :adapted to ;changing •conditions: C:A-SMa-40 is the oldest srte ..:. , .. ". - reported~ on the-Peninsula, .contains a record .of-San.Francisco`Bay :region prehistory, and ties the site to the period just prior to the~contact of Europeans-and Native~cultures.:: :., Implementation of-the•project would resnlt~.in the,loss of:anexceptionaLexample: of .the classic Bay- ;:oriented.prehistoric.shellmound Such an action~.would result.in a.sgnificant cumulative impact on the ever=diminishingtiata bank:regarding'regional..cultural~history,:as well:as;an important Ohlone cultural ., resource.. _ ,:_ Mitigation Measure '4.9-1(a) (DSEIR page 288) or Mitigation Measure 4.9-1(b) (DSEIR page 290) would satisfyCEQA requirements for reducing-cumulative .impacts 'to a'~less-than-significant level. 'Mitigation Measure '4:9-T(b) would be the DSEIR ;preferred .measure "because it would preserve the shellmound: ':The-Phase lll.~ite-Mitigation Plan.Development Alternative :would eliminate all project activity on and within 30 feet-:of-the boundaries.of:CA-SMa-40, :resulting in.the;.preservation of the site. The Phase .III Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative would be in keeping with CEQA's -emphasis on preservation. of significant cultural resources. The Permanent Open Space Alternative and :the `Reduced commercial: Development Alternative. also would result in the. preservation of CA- SMa-40. MASTER ,RESPONSE T.3-8 VYETL4NDS. The ,potential :impacts -of :development :on 'wetland ,:resources appears .ao "be the ;•most ::frequently expressed.:concern in;comments received:on hedl,~raft:1998 SEIR. Asdiscnssed in he:Draft 1998 SEIR (DSEIR page:.756), the project as;currently :proposed would -eliminate -all the native freshwater marsh and riparian vegetation on the site resulting in a significant impact. As a .result, .Mitigation Measures ~.3-1(a)`:and 4 3-3 :were recommended in the -report. 'These mitigation.,measures :call for preservation of:.areas of rnative ~~freshwater:=marsh sand riparian .habitat :and :creation •.of :•replacement habitat where,avoidance:is;not.;possible.-Implementation.of these mitigation.measures::would result in =the :project 'having ;'a :less-than-significant: _.impact-..on <wetland res..ourees.:.:..Specifically,; Mitigation Measure4.3-3(b)::requires;preparationof:a wetland.mitigationplan,~if.~complete.avoidance of wetland °habitat :is .not feasible, :and .:specifies ..that the :plan -must: be reviewed :and: approved .:by jurisdictional :agencies .before .issuance : of any .grading or ..building, permit for the project.:'his requirement would serve to ensure that the concerns of , jurisdictional..agencies :have :been fully .addressed before any .disturbance to wetland habitat occurs. Since: circulation . of .the DSEIR, .the U.S. ,Army. Corps of .Engineers (Corps) verified .the;:preliminary ;wetland: delineation, :and she, project sponsor's :wetland specialist,:Vicky Reynolds, Chas ;:prepared a ..:conceptual wetland mitigation.,plan. '.The :approved delineation;map. from the ;Corps 31: identifies a total of .1.92 acres .of waters of the :U.S. on the site .which is within about 0.1 acre _of the total estimated acreage. of jurisdictional habitat indicated on DSEIR page 153. - Minor adjustments were made to the 31 Mapping of Areas Subject to Section 404 Clean Wcuer~Act:)urisdiction; File Number'23533,"Maps l.through 3, 3uly 9, 1998. - 37 7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Zerrabay Phase.ll and 111 F/na/ SE/R original map prepared by,Reynolds following a.field.inspection with Corps•representatives .on 3une 23, 1998. 'A conceptual .mitigation .plan prepared by :Reynolds also. has :been. submitted for review to ,the Corps ''.and: Regional Water Quality Control.Board , (RWQCB). 'The ;plan, entitled.zTank :Ravine :Mitigation 'Plan . to~ 0„~"set Impacts ao~ tiVaters of the Tlnited. States atahe Terrabay Development Site, .focuses on ,'habitat -restoration and `;ienhancement -at :a 'five to' seven=acre :off site .drainage -laiown _ as Tank :Ravine.' 32 The proposed . iruhgation.:plan . is intended to stabilize the .existing: stream which .passes 'through the drainage and to improve .the . overall.::habitat .value;. of the site by eliminating invasive 'exotics and restoring native„grassland cover ahroughout upland :.areas..: After :Reynolds..explored the potential for •on-site replacement mitigation "_and was informed .:by the,:~project ~sponsor.'s •.consulting • _. 'engineer hat they were largely infeasible due to existing utility..easements and:other-factors, the Tank `Ravine ite was selectedas the preferred off-ste.location as,part of a.survey of:othermitigation sites .. on San Bruno Mountain.: "The proposed Tank Ravine mitigation site `is .located approximately .250 :feet north of Hillside "Boulevard, about 1,800 feet west'of the Terrabay site. The,proposed mitigation siteconsists of about 1,200 .linear feet of stream bed associated with Tank Ravine Creek and .:105 .linear feet of a tributary ephemeral strearn, collectively accounting for 0..14 acre of .other waters of ;the -U.S. A .small seep `brings -the existing area of jurisdictional .habitat ao about .0.28 ..acre.: ;Enhancement .would serve to ..:..correct several `in-stream :and out-of-stream erosion problems, ;provide .:for weed :..eradication, and replanting / reseeding -with native apecies. Waters of .the U.S. to.be..enhanced amount,to_:0..14 acre of ..stream channel and 0.14 acre of..wetland seeps, with an additional O.03_acre of willow thicket to be .. ,., . created along the channel. ~ _ The ro~ect.s onsors, ro osed Mia Lion.Plan su-mr~n~ps anticipated loss of jurisdictional.:habitat on the ite based on the reduced development proposal.presented in 1~Iaster Response 7.3-I, the Phase III . ~;, ,: Site Mitigation Plun'D~velopment Alrernatrve.::The; proposed Mitigation Plan .assumes -that a total of 1.39 acres of waters of the U:S. on the Terrabay site would be eliminated and 0.53.avoided under this reduced .development alternative. 3urisdictional habitat to be,preserved includes he upper segments of `' the tar l unve etated stream-"channels, the u er onion and ource ,of the rennial s rin ~ Y g PP P Pe P g northwest of the ;proposed :office -tower, ;about one-third:~,of .the :willow' thicket :along >Bayshore . _._ . 'Boulevard,-and smaller scattered seeps. 'The proposed Mitigation .:Plan>.contains details .on implementation, maintenance, .monitoring, .and contingency measures, all of which appear adequate o meet identified goals. 'However, the.proposed :Mitigation Plan. does. not;provide.;for adequate;mitigation-of;. he.:minimum:.1.39 .acres:of jurisdictional ,habitat -which would . be, eliminated .with ,..implementation- .of ahe :Phase :'lII Site -Mitigation 'Plan -Development.Alternative. Only 0.03 -acre of riparian or wetland habitat would:actually~be created, and 0.28 :acre of:.~. tream .channels and .weep ,would be..enhanced, .collectively: representing A3.1 :acre of jurisdictional-habitat. to be created or enhanced.:Considerable.expense would be,incurred in restoring the remaining five .to. seven-acres of upland.habitat-which would erve ao improve the overall value of the drainage,'but .this would ..not. offset. the. proposed loss of sensitive freshwater; seep ;and .willow • _. ,. -thicket habitat on the .Terrabay site.. : ; , . ~. .~ re resentative of the Co s concars that details of .the `ro ~osed~Miti ation Plan. appear .technically P rP P P g feasible and that the overall haliitat~improvement would be desirable but that additional enhanced or 32 .Tank Ravine Mitigation Plan to O,f}set Impacts to .Waters of the United States at the Terrabay Development Site, South ~an`Fmncisco, California;•Corps FiloNumbeY23533S, Vicl6 Reynolds, Field Biologist, October20,1998. FIj 7 0 COMMENTS RND RESPONSES - Teirabay Phase /! and /p Fina! SElR created jurisdictional .habitat riiust be "included in 'the plan' to `provide at least none-to-one, .(1:1) ratio for wetlands eliminated on the Terrabay site. 33 ..Additional mitigation options .currently being ,.explored include a.re-evaluation of.locations, on he Terrabay site for creation, and enhancement of i_ ,, jurisdictional wetlands, .other off-site ;locations, : and.:possibly :payment of .in heu •:fees .:which would ` provide for replacement or restoration at.anotherlocation as part.of a larger. mitigation effort..Several "locations appeffi'to be;.posst~ly stutalile'for nse as replacement. mitigation on;the TeFrabay site. =These• `~-include: the graded 'slope below ae,perennial spring on-.the Phase .III -site; the. two .ephemeral streams `located to'the-north and northwest .of the:office tower development area on the Phase III site:~identified . _ . as~Streams'12 and'~13`n the"Wetland'Delineation); the large drainage in the northeastern;part of the ,. ':Phase `II site''(just west of'Parcel `G on 'the'Phase III site); portions of the setback zone around the ~rperimeter.of the archaeological site on the Phase III site;.and.portionsof the~large debris:basins along the ;westernedge of"the -office tower development area. ',While. each of these locations may.. be partly _. constrained by avariety of factors, each does present an opportunity`for atleastamall areas of created or enhanced jurisdictional habitat which collectively may meet the overall ratio desired by the Corps ':and RWQCB. Further .negotiations, with. agency representatives .and '.revisions ;to a :proposed _ approach to mitigation will be -necessary .to .adequately address- potential impacts of -.the :,project on ...wetlands. _ _ , ; ,. . The 1.998 DSE1R :(DSEIR page 160) discussion. of.potential;impacts on wetlands .acknowledges that ". modifications to'wetlands and.other waters on the site would be subject to,jurisdictional review and approval by the`:COrps,''RW:QCB, and the`Catifomia.Department of Fish and:,Game (CDFG). For 'example, `:Section 4U4 of - e -Clean -Water Act. reguu~es .that. all projects be redesigned to avoid r- jurisdictional wetland `habitat to -the. maximum extent'feasible. 'The; permitting process under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is separate from he City's environmental and project.review:process, and . .. .:it. ypically:.occurs . sunultaneous or subsequent to atttal ;project approval by a 'local agency....Because - ~variables "in the ;design •and:;potential impact of the project may change as; the .environmental review .process_.proceeds,~it'is not feasible ':for: the.project-sponsor to. secure'a permit:from the .Corps.and other - :agencies.prior to certification of the 3999 ~'SEIR.under. CEQA.and conditional approval of.the project. _ 'However; the :provisions ~ for ;performance standards; •. monitoring ,requirements, :and contingency 'measures called fore:in'Mitigation .Measure 4~3=3(b) would ensure successful establishment of any -- ~replacement wetlands. ~ In addition, :because the .project sponsors must obtain :Federal .peanits .and :approvals, including a Section 404 permit, compliance with Federal regulations is assured. _ ; MASTER RESPONSE 7.3-9~CAL:IJPPE SILVERSPOT:BUTTERFLY -- ,. , , ., Considerable concern liar also-been `expressed -over the potential impacts of ;development on calIippe silverspot and -other °special-status species associated with `San `Bruno Mountain -:The -.7998 DSEIR {DSEIR ,page .758) :discusses -the .potential effects ' of ahe :project on . these'species ' of .concern. : An ..underlying preriiise . of `.the `San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Flan (HCP) was that allowing -- '_Iimited development on :'the mountain •would enhance the survival .of mission"blue and . callippe _ silverspor-butterflies by making possible the`transfer-of nearly 800 acres of .privately held lands to the public, 'by providing the funding source `for: the conservation and enhancement activities .described in = the 1YCP, and by mitigating the impacts of development through compliance with provisions set fourth in the HCP.::The 1998 DSEIR recommends Mitigation Measure 43-2 .to ensure Ghat .the project ;s onsor would be • to fulfill the landowner /developer obligations identified'in the;HCP, as ,.. 33 Environmental:Collaborativeconversation with Phillip. Shannin, Project Manager, Regulatory Functions Branch, U.S. .Army Corps of Engincers.:7anuary 2999. 39 ". 7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES -:: } Tsrrehay Phase II and !II F/ne! SE/R well as minimizing potential impacts of the°project-nn 'larval hostplants: and adult nectar plants for the callippe silverspot, and to .control the. effects of construction-generated dust. The position of'San`Mateo:County is that the HCP adequately ad'dresses ~allippe silverspot and that no :..:amendment ao .the HCP:.:is needed.: ° :The Final ~' Rule •-which resulted ;in.- the listing ~ of .the callippe silverspot, issued by the:U:S: Fish and~Wildlife Service (LTSFWS) on December 5; '1997,_also supports the position .that this species was considered during formulation of the HCP. The Final Rule states .that ::: - :., ., , . ;::;though: thecallippe::-silverspot butterfly .was.vot~included asa `--`.covered"species in .the'Section TQ(a):.permit, theHCPincluded.specific;provisions.:.for-:the::butterfly-:in ahe .event t:~did:.become listed by.the':Service.:;These provisions:protect:92_percent;of: he species:habitat~at.the site xhrough various.mechanisms.,(such gas,landowner,-.obligations for land,dedications,:open space set-asides, mitigation measures, and habitat enhancement), implement annual. monitoring of its .populations, and allow for adaptive management to conserve this species. lrt September 1998, the County Council sent a letter.to the three local participating agencies requesting -their support to araerrd the 'Section ~10(a)(1)(b), pemut . o add the callippe silverspot as a listed species.34 `Brisbane and Daly ,City have :.already submitted letters _to the USFWS -supporting the .amendment, and the City of South San Francisco .is, planning to submit;the. callippe .amendment letter in the,.near.future. Amending the_Section 10(a) permit appears to be.largely-a procedural requirement and should.not result in .any additional requirement of the.landowner / developer.._9n application from the County to :amend the Section .10(a) permit was submitted to the .USFWS : in October 1998 which „~ included a draft_Environmental Assessment for use by the USFWS in.maldng;their.decision. 35 The .__. ;;public will.have.an..opportunity,to-comment separately.onahe County's-proposal.aaamend the Section ~• 10(a) .permit -to-:include the<callippe silverspot:under the.National En~cironmental Policy:Act (NEPA). _^ -'Under..NEFA, the USFWS-mustpublish.a,noticein.the F,.ederal Register identifying,the.availability of -- the environmental assessment ' .. (EA) on the._proposed.:amendment. -As.,part,of ahts process,. the public can submit comments to the USFWS during a 30.day comment period. .. ,. , ..:Mitigation -Measure 4.3-2 -vas structured . to require ,that the ,project be .redesigned to avoid .all larval host plants Hof the : callippe silverspot if -:an _amended incidental take,•permit is not :obtained prior to ,project implementation with.additional=.meac~~res recommended to Tnin;m;~P potential impacts on this .:species. ;.Complete ,avoidance of-all larval host,plants is not..considered.,necessary.:to-fully mitigate .:;:potential .impacts on .callippe ailverspot abut is a xechnical :requirement if ..an aamendment to the incidental ..cake ..permit ..is .not,;possible -or-cannot be. obtained"before he;project sponsor intends to .proceed with grading and .development... __ . 34 Amendment of Section 10(a) Perinir PRT-2-9819 to Add the Callippe Silverspot Butterfly as a Listed Species, Letter to John Martin, City Manager'City of Daly City, Clay Holstine, City Manager;-City of Brisbane, and Michael Wilson, City Manager, City of South San Francisco, from Michael Murphy, City Deputy Counsel; County of San .Mateo, September 1, '1998. 35 Amendment of the San.Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation P/an.Sectton 10(a) Permit, Letter.to William Lehman, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, from Paul. Koenig, Director, Environmental.Services Agency, County of San Mateo, October 14, 1998. _ .. - 40 7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES • •TsrraWy Phase I! end hl Flns! SE/R MASTER RESPONSE: T3-70 CUMUL4T/VE;IMPACTS - . .. . _ .. _ - - . ~" A number of comnnents on the 1998 DSEIR relate to the completeness and .comprehensiveness of the _ :cumulative:<impact `.:analysis > conducted =for =ahe report. ~LConcems:;-primarily-:include <the project's `';;potential.for contributing to cumulative biotic, cultaral,_~tcafF~c,.air :quality, .noise,:and::.public_wrvice .._ , ->mpacts~ wellies:some..sub~ects~`~ocused•out'~~fxhe>DSEIR (snch:as.fire).; - .. ..... Cumulative impacts include direct or indirect effects. of . a project which would be significant when combined with other effects of the proposed .project .or when combined with the effects of other ~projects..These impacts _ may constitute ~:iess-than-sgnificant~,effects . when:::,considered alone but when ~noinbined wfluld racceedithe significancethresholds usedin Ythe~respective <topical. analyses. (In fact, he ~cum~ilative ~.iesults ~•of prior -activities ~on?prevailing conditionsaffecting aproject can provide •criteria for :establishing"thresholds and scan be used for•detertnining the significance of the project's --- -- ,: ;unpacts~) • _ The assessment of cumulative impacts must be ,grounded in ..what future .environmental conditions ~ .__ .reasonably pan; be predicted to occur .in order to,prevent such .analyses: from :becoming speculative. 'For this reason, an`EIR must establish a number of parameters before cumulative:impact analyses can `be conducted.. Among these are to-define realistic. time horizons, geographic areas of,potential impact, _~ and `land use and development assumptions which can~be supported'factually. These assumptions may not ;coincide •exactly or~.apply :equally for-all 'topics analyzed, although some congruence:may exist _ °.among some stibjects. One approach :is to assume;pamal or full buildout accordingto approved public 'land use policies (such as .generalplans or specific plans). "'This approach can identify -the amount of `- development, :the •area considered,.°and timing as defined by 'the relevant plans or policies. Another .. :. ... .. ~: approach is to .prepare •and -evaluate a °3ist ofother' (non-protect) :development ' ~Pxamples .include completed pojects'°not'.yet '•accupied,::pending projects ~likely'to °be ''approved, and ~Teasonably ;- ''foreseeaiile -projects'_(such as `those for ~whicb ponsors ~--have `.been working with City-- staff). -'The DSEIRadopted a combination of tfiese° approaches. ~" , Tye introductory :DSEIR. section, 2.4 Cumulative. Impacts, identifies cumulative assumptions used .to ,.. ,. analyze~the project. '.These .assumptions chiefly relate to the traffic=based'mpacts (traffic, air quality, -and noise). T7ze assumptions cover~developmenf•anticipated`hy~adopted~.plans of.the`Cities of Brisbane _ :end South :San Franoisicc'by -the ;year 2010 plus a`'factor`for -background growth `yin the region..South '"San.Francisco'and'.Brisbane-represent.;geographic':~areas'affecting off-site traffic.operations but are not -- directly °related to 'sucli=~g~roject °effects as ,biological` or cultural :resource impacts ~°Development .._ :assumed to occureast and west -of U.S:`101 ~in'Soutli'SanFrancisco'~included`intensification of land .uses compared with that identified by the East of 101 Area Specific`Plan:andbuildout of the Terrabay `. Phase I site. The DSEIR assumed •buildout of the most intensive development scenario contained in .the Brisbane General Plan (Scenario K) for its planning area. Tye relevant DSEIR opical analyses presented in 4.0 Environmental Assessment address these issues in their respective technical sections, and the.DSEIR summarizes the conclusions m 6.I Cumulative- :Impacts. The following topical discussions in the DSEIR examine. cumulative impacts of_the project: - • Traffic impacts 4 41, 4.4-2, 4.43, 4.4-4, and 4.4=5 .(of the Terrabay Phase. II and III project) • `'`Traffic:impacts X4.4-12, 4.4-12; and 4.4-1~4: (of the hook iamps;project) ~. . . .. .-._ -:Air quality impact 4:5-3 , • Public service impacts 4.7-6 (police) and 4.7-10 (schools) 'The cumulative.:biological and cultural impacts of the' project, not ~ separately described in individual - - impacts, are discussed'briefly'in the 6:I''Cumulative Impacts summary. - _ 41 7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Terrabay Phase /I and 0l Flnal SE/R .The .cumulative analyses conducted .for the, .1998 DSEIR ..represent ,the .most .current :.evaluation of .;project site development in relation : to presently ,prevailing conditions .together :awith .lmown and reasonably predicted future conditions.:'.Because.the DSEIR .focuses_principally.on;changes between ,... .. .• `.the 1996 and 1998 ;developmett concepts:. for :.the. Phase .II and III.. sites, it ;also incorporates .by ._ ireference environmental documents previously prepared.to~examine:development of.the,three-phased Terrabay project -.the 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR -and to adopt the'San Bruno Mauntain.Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and Endangered. Species.Act Sectiom ID(a) Permit. (L3 InformatiQn .Used to :Prepare the EIR;'DSEIR_pages 6=8. ,Those documents provided .the :backdrop:fur.,reassessing some potential...cumulative impacts under current .:circumstances (mainly..cumulative.,.effects on.~-biological :resources. of San :Bravo Mountain):and addressed .other:cumulative effects,,(such :.as :.other public 'services:besides police aad schools) not.reanalyzed in the 1998 DSEIR .>The:HCP.and the HCP EA / EIR in particular.provide the..original:framework and.~overall mtigation,program.for development of San :Bruno .lvionntain. Those documents ;provided :for ".development : at designated locations on the :mountain coupled with creation-of-the San Bruno.Tvlountain .County.Park and establishment of the .monitoring and management mechanisms•implemented by.the HCP monitor. Thus, the .DSEIR supplemented the prior assessments of cumulative impacts for the .environmental issues affected by changes in the project itself and by_change_ s: in currently prevailing and.reasonably ,predicted conditions on and in the vicinity of.the site.. 'MASTER RESPONSE 7.3-T 1. PROJECT MERITS ` EIRs often presenf `the :first opportunity in the overall .planning process for. decision-makers..and the public to examine and comment vn"projects.''~Tliis is `especially:`true when projects are complex or controversial due to .the attributes of a site, existing or anticipated .environmental conditions on or in ;the vicinity of a site,-fhe-types .and intensities of .land uses and development; proposed -.and as many other factors as here are individual reviewers of reports. `Therefore, :E1Rs ' on ouch` projects inevitably invite' `(and .receive) numerous comments :about .the environmental conclusions .and .about the "`project" per se.' °Such public comment is an integral .element of the. planning and .environmental review,process now underway for the Tertabay.Phase II .and IIL,project. As a result,_people interested in projects have high expectations of environmental documents. They '-want `~EIlts to discuss topics- of importance to them - -and also .may vivant 'EIRs to confirm their concerns about the projects studied. Public involvement throughout the preparation of EIRs --such as the initial scoping process for this 1998 DSEIR in September 1997 and subsequent public review of the DSEIR -- is designed to take public concerns into account at the outset. Nevertheless, expectations about the topics to :be studied and information to be provided sometimes can fall outside the legal requirements of EIRs and cannot reasonably be addressed by EIl2s. For -.people concerned about projects and projects' impacts on sites, sites' resources, and their own neighborhoods -concerned enough to attend and speak at a public meting or to write a.letter - EIRs and responses to comments can seem legalistic and .unresponsive. While projects can .have many -effects .and can ..cause many changes of varying interest to .concerned groups and individuals, EIRs :only examine the changes which. constitute "significant".effects. (Supplemental EIRs .only examine new or substantially di,~`erent "significant" effects.) As a result, EIR analyses do not address always .all topics ~of -interest or concern, :whether environmental issues or other issues (such as social cr economic impacts) more or less closely connected to environmental issues. 42 7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ' .Terrabsy Phase !! and !Il Fina! SEIR ~ ~._ z ;.:. .... _ :.. `Governmental agencies, including the City of South''San Francisco, are dao prepare.EIRs in , accordance with ~ a ~nuniber of :,pacific ..laws, ~.implementing ...guidelines, regulations, ..and. an ever increasing array-~f judicial decisions. _ The ?998'DSEIR and the responses in this 1999 FSEIR refer to - requirements of :the; California. Environmental..Quality Act (CEQA) :and the State . CEQA, Guidelines (Guidelines)• - ,r :; _ :', ;~ : , `The Guidelines: require'.hat' lead agenctes respond ~to significant environmental,pomts .ratsed in the ;: , . °revieRr' •and consultatton. process m. Final `EIIts `:The responses. presented in the following section 7.4 ;., _ 'Response, ro 'Comments ~•address `questions about ahe ,adequacy of the' `1998 DSEIR,.as a public ___ ,.. ,_ _. disclosuredocument.Responsesfocus.on°comments about the analyses.themselves conducted for or ;omitted from the`199& DSEIR -whether the evaluations~reveal all the project's -significant effects, identify measures':-capable :of mitigating `significant `impacts to 'less-than-significant levels, disclose indirect or secondary effects of mitigation, determine `the effectiveness or success of .mitigation. The key consideration ~ throughout environmental preview is "significance" - as; ilefined by CEQA, the Guidelines, the .local General Plan, and, :importantly, -'the significance criteAa identified in the EIR -.itself. r_. in this -context,'"a large number of :comments :from individuals and organizations express concerns about the .project due to the impacts its .implementation would cause. :Many of these comments cite information contained in the 1998 DSEIR (such as about site's resources -.and impact findings) and draw conclusions about .the proposed project's-:development concepts :.and /.=,or.:alternatives to the .project .evaluated in the DSEIR.. Many comments recommend specific City action on the :Phase II - project, Phase aII.project, .or both. ;The following;pages present both "EIR: comments" .and ."non-EIR _ :comments", including comments;on.the "merits of the.;project".- - . - - _. -All of these comments - on :the EIR;and on the project -: are valuable .to City officials who.must make -decisions about the .pending application. `Therefore, while E1Rs are not intended .to address .all. topics. - - - of concern and .Final EIRs .are not .required .to respond to "non-EIR comments", all are .part of the ,public record on the,.project and their inclusion. in. this document will make them available ao officials when they begin making decisions about•the project itself. _ . 7.4 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ;_. - _. _, Written.comments.and_responses.are:presented first,._followed.by comments.rnade orally:az.the public hearing:on the 1998DSEIR_ - - . ,: 43 m ...:~.. ~xa~~ Df ~Gafifvrr~i~ GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH •~, ~• -.1400 TENTH STREET PETE WILSON SACRAMENTO 95814 GOVEflNOR Q -PAUL F MINER ~~~~" ' `DO °OIRECTOR 'August 17, 1998 :ALLISON KNAPP CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO .315 MAPLE STREET SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 - ~EG,EIVED ,~, ~.~ 2 ~ .:,y23 1_: p~ANNING Subject: TERRABAY SPECIFIC PLAN, .PHASE II & II:I SCH # :97082077 Dear ALLISON KNAPP: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review .period is closed-and none of the state agencies have comments. This .letter acknowledges that you :have complied with the State Clearinghouse-.review requirements for draft environmental documents,.pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call Kristen Derscheid at (916) 445-0613 if ,you have any questions regarding the environmental review :process. .When contacting the Clearinghousc_ia this matter, please use the .eight- digit State Clearinghouse number o that we may respond promptly. Sincerely, ANTERO A. RIVASPLA Chief, State Clearinghouse LETTER 00, GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANN/NG AND RESE4RCH Response 00.1 No response required. This letter indicates that the City complied with CEQA .requirements for circulation of the 1998 DSEIR by submitting it for review by State agencies. Letter o0-1 LETTER y July 3, 1998 Theresa and James Burns 564 Keoncr+est Drive South San Francisco, CA 94080 Mr. Christopher Barnett VC 400 Grand Avenue So. San franciscoCA, 94084 Dear Mr.Baraett y, y We were appalled to learn that the city is considering the development of 322 acres on San Bruno Mo~mtain. It is bad enough to endanger Ohlone sacred sites and endanger species but the overbuilding in the city is temble. The building of homes on the McCllelan and II Rancho sites will add to pollution, sewage, school overcrowding, traffic problems. We do not need to burden city services further. We shall .follow developments closely and advise our friends of the proposal and encourage them to voice their disapproval cerely> snd Theresa urns LETTER 1, JAMES AND THERESA BURNS Response 1.1 The comment addresses the "merits of .the project". It does not raise questions about :the .adequacy of the 1998 DSEIR analyses but refers. to the project's significant environmental effects analyzed in the SEIR. •While no response is required, inclusion in the .1999 FSEIR will make the commentors' views available to .City-decision-makers. .Please .see Master Response 7.3-II. The commentors should note that the DSEIR analyzes the project and cumulative impacts on traffic. (pages 162-209), public services :.(police and. schools)(pages 237=256), and cultural .resources .(pages 276- 297). Letter 1-1 -RECEIVEL LETTER Z J U L 1 3 1998 PLANNING Ms. Ann Smith -141 :San Francisco.Ave. #2 Brisbane, CA July 7, 19.98 :South San Francisco Planning Commission 400 Grand Avenue .South San Francisco, CA 940.80 Dear Planning Commission .Members: 2.1 I am writing to express my concern about the .proposed Terrabay Development .Project. I have .been a resident of .Brisbane for the past twelve .years, and have been .deeply concerned about the recent residential developments on San Bruno .:Mountain;. specifically Terrabay and The Ridge. I -feel that the unique lifestyle and .spacious terrain the mountain .offers is being threatened by these developments.. -There has been a ..noticeable increase in congestion on the roadways, and certainly. a deterioration of the ..amenities smaller :.communities as South San Francisco ..and .Brisbane :have to offer. As a member ;of the Sierra Ciub, I am also very concerned .about the environmental .impact of further development on the .mountain. ;I urge you to support the Phase III .Permanent :Open Space .Alternative as a viable means of preserving the sanctity of the mountain as well as .its sensitive archeological sites and endangered species :habitat. Thank :you .for :hearing my concerns. . ~Si^ncerely, " I u ~ • ~~ ..r~ Ms. Ann Smith LETTER 2, ANN SMITH .Response 2..1 The comment. addresses the "merits of the project".and express_s a preference for a Phase III site alternative .assessed in the .1998 DSEIR. It does not raise quesno:~s about the adequacy of the DSEIR. analyses but .refers to the project's significant environmental effects analyzed in the :DSEIR. While no response is required, inclusion in .the 1999 FSEIR will make the commentor's views -available to .City decision-makers.. Please see .Master Response 7.3-ZI. ?'h~ .commentor should note -that the DSEIR. analyzes the. traffic impacts expected from project impleme~itation under both existing conditions ..and cumulative conditions ,:(pages .162 209). `.The .DSEIR ::valuations were based on information compiled .specifically for .consideration in the 1998 DSEI' in order to reflect current conditions and the most recent :estimate of anticipated conditions and t7ereby update traffic analyses. 'Letter 2-i RECEIVED J U.L :1 4.1998 PLANNING 3.i `Planniag Cyan P.O. Boz 641003 -City of South San Fnuicisoo San Ftaacisoo, Ca 94164-.1003 P.O. Bou 711 3uly 10,1998 :South Sam Fraucisoo, CA 94083 I attended the plaaaiag session on the Terrabay developmem project, July 9'~. I was impizssod with the respect, "ceal~ mta+est and tLoughtfulness by t>u commission. I thought the persons presenting the eavironmen~l impact:eports am the area encompassing this dev~e~iopment projecx were knowledgeable and tharougL. I was also interested in the public by people who really has deep-feeling eoncems from that own life experieooec. A short while ago, I had the oppasiu~* to stand above the refenedxo shell mound area and looi< Duet the open space teadiiag do7va to the bay waters. I ccalda't believe that I was looting st a shonetine tLat Las come tLtongh the im its near aad$al state. I gett -the sorrow of tLe deseendeat of an Americas Indum Tn'be, who spoloe at tLe meetutg. MY hope is that the social arms tLat ~Iect the distatrt past, cam main ooh to the area that others before .y«-had' the Wight to preserve for all m usq each in Lis/!~r owes way. I realise gt+owth should nest, and c;aanot be slapped. Yon Lave.that nn+e opporhmdtp.to truly shape the area which yon all obvioasiy ca~+e very much about 'The .you make, if and when impieaxnbad, will be imevernble - wi11 have bees-set. I have faith that you will be respo~ble sad sensitive to the maay-sidod facets of land .use. One may LaNe to look aver and part ~s of momma day spread, bat. still be abk to sx and e~erieace the remoa~ of a life of long ago, a true terra =bay. :Sincerely, ' ~•:~~~ `.LETTER 3, MARJOR/E COLT Response 3.1 .The comment .discusses the public review. process and addresses -the "merits of the ;project". It does not raise questions about the.adequacy of the 1998 DSEIR. analyses but refers to the project's significant environmental effects analyzed in the DSEIR. -While no response is required, inclusion in the 1999 :DSEIR will make the commentor's views .available to City decision-makers. '.Please see Master Response 7.3-I1. Letter 3-1 ,~ South San Francisco Planning .Commission 400 Grand Ave.. .South .San .Francisco, Ca. 94080 ATTN: William Romero -LE7TFR 4 Del P. Schembari X321 ~41ta Mesa Dr. :.South :San .Francisco, Ca. 94080 -Dear Mr. Romero, _, ~ ~ This is a letter to state my support for the Phase UI .permanent open space alternative for the Southeastern slope of San Bruno Mountain. The fact that there are wild creatures and a~ i archeologic significant site so -near an urban environment is amazing to me. As a legacy fc our decendents we shodld-do .our -best to prserve such :things. ~'ltegarding the traffic :around the 101 corridor I feel it`s clear this project should. be scalec 1 way :back.. It's a major problem now.~The E.t.R. didn't seem to address the traffic flows on . those days when 3Com adds to the traffic congestion One thing is certain: there will not ~e ,perfect traffic .coordination. If there is such a thing why hasn't it been done alread ? 1 am :against moving the natural .lay of the streams in the .project. area. It would .have to ,have'-an~dvecse efFect on the flora and fauna if it -were :.put .in :.pipes and rerouted. any consideration ..been given to the -time year it -would be in the best .interests of .plants and animal for the proposed contraction to take place? The best .alternative would be to keep development away from the spring. ,~,4 f5 Finally,~uth :City schools are busting at the seems.. What :effect .will the new .project ~ have on .our school .system? I'm .cooking forward to seeing the financial statement. P'fease .make these comments ,..part of the E.t.R. I ,cannot attend .the ,public fiearing with the Planning Commission.. I attended the July 9th meeting and wanted to .commend the .Commission for running a goa~ meeting and being fair to .the .different speakers. Thank You, ~ , ~~ ~~ q l el P. Sc n CC: Christipher Barnett, VC .Robert Masada Julie Caldocchi Eugene Sim. Judith Honan Marc Tegtia 'LETTER.4,:DEL SCHEMBAR! es onse 4.7 The .comment .express p ,_ es a,preference~for a.Phase.::IILsite:alternative ,assessed in .the 1998 DSEIR. While it . does~_ not :raise,,gnestions about .the :adequacy_of the :1998: DSEIR :analyses, it `_:refers'm the;project'.s significant .en~-ircmmental-:effects as. analyzednin ahe,DSEIR ;<No rsponse is required, but inclusion of the commentor's.views,in,the 1999,FSEIR will .make them.available to City decision-makers. Please see Master Response 7.3-II. Response 42 Weekday..;traffic ,;counts ;were, conducted.. for- he .1998: DSEIR ;yin Late :October .1997, ;including counts:of..the _U.S. lOl ;freeway. `.There was. no>activity..;at:3COM;:Pazk~ on.:.the ;days of the .counts, It is -unlikely that the ;,proposed. project ,would be :built; before-the Giants :move :from 3COM -Park to the new downtown facifity.:However, for .discussion purposes,-weekday.baseball games at `3COM Pazk, whether day , or evening, -would -.have ,had no ;impact-: on AM -commute; peak traffic flow which occurs :before 9:00 AM. :The evening commute peak.traffic.,<hour-on the U.S.::101.:freeway occurs from S:OO:to 6:00 PM, with.~the.heaviest-flow :northbound towards .San:Francisco. The few weekday day games ,at 3COM Pazk: during the -year: ypically end~:;between 3:30. and 4:00. PM. Night games at 3COM .are much more,.common and:start :about 7:30 =PM. There. would :be some :inbound .traffic to the park on U.S. lOl in South San Francisco during the evening commute peak hour 5:00- 6:00), but the majority would be expected from 6:00 to 7:15 PM. Unless a driver were already on U.S. .101 during the commute peak-hour and going to the ballpark, there is no reason-why the vast majority of fans from the Peninsula attending an evening game -would join the evening commute to arrive at the ballpazk one .and a half to two hours before game -time, particularly when there are .usually few fans for :evening games and parking and access .to 3COM the :hour before an evening game are no issue. 'Therefore, while it is true that a lengthy day game at 3COM ending near the beginning of the evening convnute could add a measurable increment of traffic to the southbound U.S. 101 traffic flow through South San Francisco,'these occasions would. be infrequent and not representative of traffic conditions experienced the vast majority of weekday :evenings. With the Giants moving to their new ballpazk in the year 2000 (which has room .for 25 .percent fewer fans than 3COM Park) and with the ..greatly reduced number of ,parking spaces at .the .new park, a much higher number of people will be ..encouraged (forced) to -take .transit to the .games. The San :Francisco CALTRAIN station (for Peninsula residents attending games) is across the street from the new ballpazk..Also, .BART -will be -available :for Peninsula residents .attending..games (via MU1VI .streetcars) who pazk at the. Daly City, Cohna, South San Francisco, or San Bruno stations. Thus, there should be a greatly reduced flow of Peninsula auto traffic to /from the. new.ballpazk compazed to the volume accessing 3COM Park. Response 4.3 "Based on :input from Caltrans, interconnected and coordinated traffic operations between intersections at the Oyster Point .interchange have not been -fully instituted to date.. It is .agreed that, if traffic .grows to levels projected in the 1998. DSEIR for the year .2010, the best signal coordination between intersections would not .provide .acceptable levels of service .during all .time periods, even .after .provision of the new flyover off-ramp serving the East of 101 .area which will .remove a significant amount of traffic from the intersections within the interchange. This is the reason that widening improvements are fisted as eventually being needed for both Oyster Point Boulevazd intersections in the. interchange. 'Additional approach lanes at both intersections also would.be needed ~in order to provide increased storage for vehicles between the closely spaced. intersections within the interchange area (to ..help preclude; to the extent possible, vehicle backups .extending from one intersection back to and through adjacent intersections). .Response 4.4 .The comment refers to the importance of preserving native plants and animals, the effect of timing of construction, and the need to protect a "spring" on the site. -The spring refen:ed to Litter 41 by the .comment is presumably the perennial spring shown on Exhibit 4.3-1 (DSEIR page ISS). Mitigation .Measures 4.3-1(a) and 4.3-3(a) call for preservation of .this ..perennial,; .spring with a minimum 50-foot setback :for .grading and other disturbance to protect this 'feature :and its use by wildlife..: Mitigation Measure 4.3-1(b) .recommends revising the, proposed Restoration Plan: to .provide ,'for,-salvage of-nativeplant material"wliich otherw~se~would be eliminated_as a result_af.grading and :development ` °~'his measure ~tstesthatsalvage should be''performed ;-during `the optimum period .:.necessary to :ensure ;plantsurvival, :generally ~in 'the 'fall and early spring months. 4 3 Biology ~.recommends .additional mitigation measures rto protect''~other ensitiye biological and .wetland resources. Response 4.5 The .1998 :DSEIR estimates °thaf the project would add about `"l 1-27 Grade K-5 students, X15 Grade<6-8 students, ~and:19'Grade 9-12~ tudents to South`San Francisco Unified District schools (Impact-4.7-9), `based ion stadent' generation rates supplied`by the' District. The`<1998 DSEIR "also;estimates that •the project would~increase enrollments by :85 to'88 elementary and middle school tudents at 'Brisbane 'School "District ehools (impact'4.77) and 'by about 21 'high school students at 7efferson Union'$igh School District schools (Impact 4:7-8). '.The 7998 :DSEIR. concluded that these students would nor cause significant impacts as defined by'the California. Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State ~ CEQA >Guidelines jGuidelines), `and applicable .judicial decisions, as discussed in 4.7 Public Services'(see Public Schools - Significance-Criteria, DSEIR page 251). _ iem~ a-z `LETTER 5 RECFIVtL JUL27};,;~ ~'~NNING .July 22,.1998 5.1 As resid$nts of this community, we believe in: OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION OF THS ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION OF THE NATORAL HABITAT QIIALITr OF LIFTS We agree ..that. .eliminating the commercial development is away to preserve the sensitive .archeoplogical:sites and endangered species habitat. ;We want to .preserve ,this-site. As representatives of this community, we feel we represent the voice of .many people. --'~ m ~Cs~rnM~ ss~ o r~ac-S ~~ ~~~ Q. ~ ~~ LETTER 5, THE WJLLOW /GRAND CONDOM/NJUM ASSOCJAT/ON Response 5.7 The comment addresses the "merits of the project". It does not raise questions about the .adequacy of -the 1998 DSEIR analyses but ..refers to the project site's environmental conditions .evaluated in the DSEIR. While no response is required, inclusion of. the commentors' views in the 1999 FSEIR will .make them available to City decision-makers. Please see Master Response 7.3-II. L.eaer 5-1 CHEROK CHIROPRACTIC OFFICE .:NICOLE CHEROK, D.G ETTER 6 328 N. san Mateo ~ . ste: c San Mateo. CA 94401 Telephone:. (650) 348-4262 July ?3,'>1995 Planning-Commission Attn: AI iison );nape >P.O. Boy 711 -South San Francisco, CA 94083 :Dear Ms. Knapp: 6.7 I am a hii:er why loves having the wonderful preserves available here i.n the Rai- Area. I am therefore very concerned regarding the .proposed development on San Bruno Mountain. 'with 300,000 quare feet of comple?:, the proposed Terra Ray Project would thorouo.hly disrupt the beauty of San .Bruno Mountain. Please do nat approve construction of this project. Si cer~.ly, ~~~~~~-~K ~,~/ N/ ~~"" (~ Dr . ti i col e Che.rok NC:me cc.: City Council ~. ~lY~ . ~ ern ~isS ~oro~cg :LETTER'6, NICOLE CHEROK Response 6 1 .The comment .addresses the "merits of the project" .and expresses a preference for a :Phase III site alternative assessed in the 1998 DSEIR. The comment does not raise questions about the adequacy of the 1998 DSEIR analyses or the project's significant environmental effects. Thus, no response is required. By inclusion in the 1999. FSEIR,.the commentor's views will be made available to City decision-makers. Please see Master Respo~rse 7.3-II. Letter 6-1 REC~1•:`~ 7.y ETTER 7 .July 24, lyy~ :PLANNING ;South .San Francisco Planning Department '400 .Grand Avenue " South San .Francisco 9!t0$G-3634 Gentlemen/Ladies: Re .: SAA DRIA~ 1~URTAIlq - OEIAIQB VILIAG= SITS Tlease do not permit a c®ercial development .or •a .freeway interchange on San Drano l~iountain, on the .site of the Ohlone Indian village ahellmound. As you ]onow, this is the largest undisturbed shellmound in the 'Day Area, with its human remains and :artifacts dating back at least 5000 years. The Ohlone -site is .also habitat For 'the endangered Checkerspot and Mission Blue butter~'lies and a dozen .rare plants-. I*, is one of -the fop :areas for .year-round ~:*ild- II flowers and subspecies of shrubs. ~irersity- o*' California survey describes i*..as showing indicators of *he ~ranishing Franciscan habi'•a± of the San Francisco Day Peninsula, t•~hich i s an environ.~nent tha ~ .harbors a -moth 'aunA of .160 species of mi ^o-Lepidop+era, ~-ith :heir lar~ral host .plants. One recently described -moth is knot~n only on San Bruno Mountain.. 7.iZ There is also a marsh with plants and shorebirds that must be presezwed. To lhrther encroach on the remaining home of these endangered an8 rare species may easily push them over +,he line from survival to extinction. rlease! .Sincerely, - ~'~~~,,(/ ~ v ~ Cjut i r C.Qrc~nvss~tiow~cs S; e~ Clu.b S~~ B~~ ~ha~t~.r• ~ T ~i.TM..a~J t~-r~v.~~ sv yj ~_ -.LETTER 7, SAN.FRANC/SCO BAY CHAPTER WILDLIFE COMMITTEE, S/ERRA CLUB (MICHAEL VANDEMANJ Response 7. t '.The comment addresses the "merits", of the both the .private .Terrabay development and.public roadway projects. It refers to the. project site's environmental conditions but does not raise .questions .about the adequacy of the 1998 DSEIR analyses. `.Thus, no response is required. 'By inclusion in the 1999 FSEIR, the commentor's views will be made available to Ciry decision-makers. :Please see Master .Response 7..3-11. The commentor should .note that .the 1998 DSEIR ..analyzes. :archeological, cultural and historical resources, .including CA-SMa-40 (pages 276-305), and biology, including special-status species (pages '147-161). Construction of the hook ramps and realignment of Bayshore Boulevazd aze .covered by -the 1998 DSEIR but are. a component of regional traffic facilities which include improvements to the .Oyster Point Boulevard interchange (overpass, flyover, etc.). Impacts 4.1-7, 4.2-5, 4.3-3, 4.5-2, 4.6-4, 4.8-1, and 4.9-1 address .physical impacts of the public roadway projects, and Impacts 4.4-12 through 4.4-14 deal with traffic operations with development of these facilities. Response 7.2 Comment noted. The 1998 DSEIR. (DSEIR,pages 149-152) .discusses special-status ..plant and animal species known or suspected to .occur .in the vicinity of .the site and includes a summary of information contained in the previous 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR. While a lazge number of .invertebrate species is.known on .San Bruno Mountain, including moths -.and .butterflies, the -1998 DSEIR addresses .those. with special-status. None of the .micro-lepidoptera species refen:ed to by the commentor has any legal protective status,.and the project.is not expected to have a significant.impact on any of -these species... As discussed on DSEIR .page 154, -most of .the vegetation which would be .:removed as a result. of development consists of ruderul and non-native. grassland species. No .areas of well-developed northern .coastal scrub,- referred to as "Franciscan" in :the Flora of .San .Bruno .Mountain, would be affected by the project, and no .significant impacts on this habitat type of concern to the comment are anticipated. Letter ~-1 Honor Excellence Joseph Vaca Sculpture 1201 Howard #E SF,.CA 94103 July 27. 1998 8.~ City of South San 'Fra'ncisco Planning Division 315 Maple.Ave. PO Box 711 South -San Francisco, Ca 94083 Dear Planning Commissioners: 'LETTER 8 `RECEIVED JUL 3 01~ ~~w~ r have been participating in the public hearings, observing the deliberations, and have read both SEtf;;-reports: Fhave-observed the manipulations of Sunchase in regards to it's development of South San Francisco and the methods it has used to confuse.and take advantage of the permit process.. The ,proposals that they have. presented are weak and so flexible, that nobody is able to determine exactly what they intend to actually build. -They seem to be holding too many cards artd obfuscating their rue intentions. Please do not permit them to build~especially in regards to Phase 111. The environmental and heritage site that has been so well documented is irreplaceable. No revenues from a donut store, chain restautant,~or cut rate hotel~will eves be able to replace the incredible archeological site that would very well be destroyed. It is a rare opportunity that Commissioners such as yourselves .are allowed the privilege of making such an important decision. A decision that will -a#ect-decisions all-~averthe country, the Native American Community, Environmental Action Groups Nationwide, Our Children; All the Children of the.Bay Area, and the tribal members whose remains are buried within the exquisite peace of land now entitled the .proposed Phase lll. The original name of this valley that supported some of the first residents of the San Francisco Bay An:a has -been .lost Now it is just a potential slab of concrete, a pad, If you have, ever stood atop the hillside looking over the shellmound out upon the Bay you woufd become truly aware of.the importance culturally for:preserving this site. In this post industrial era. it wouid.tie nice.if South San Francisco was noted for mare than the hill with the Industrial Citysign.. Tfiere is just this one opportunity to forever change the image of South San Francisco, into one that values'the cultural importance and historical significance of it's landscape. Letting this chance slip by, in exchange far tax dollars on a hotel and restaurant that lie in airport flight lanes, would be forever regretable. -.Urge Sunchase to accept the two million dollar offer in the mitigation exchange and let us move on to. much brighter city responsibilities than legal battles and development studies for a -~ valley that the public is demanding remains as it is. Please preserve Phase ill this beautiful valleyas it is, block development of thisprecious landscape. Sincere) , ~rc,~~ Joseph Vaca ~ _ .Sculptor, Sm 1! business Owner, Former Resident of Brisbane, Resident of San Francisco, and .San Bruno Maurrtain Watch Member. ~mm~SS~.O~~ LETTER 8, JOSEPH VACA Response 8.1 The comment addresses the planning. process and "merits of the. project" together with expressing a ,preference for .a .Phase III site alternative assessed in the 1998 DSEIR. .The comment refers to .the environmental resources of the :project site but does -not. raise :questions about the adequacy of the .1998 DSEIR analyses or :the project's significant effects. Thus, no response is required. By .inclusion in the 1999 FSEIR, the commentor's views will be made available to City decision-makers. Please see Master Response 7.3-ZI. u~ a-i July 29, 1998 ~LETTFR 9 RECEIVED ;Planning Division -City of South San Francisco ~Vt .3 1 ..lye 315 . Maple Avenue/P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco,. CA .94083 PLANNING kZE: SEIR - Terrabay Phase II :and III :Dear Planning Commissioners: 9, y I am vehemently opposed to the proposed. construction of three hotels, retail stores, restaurants, parking structures, office space, residential units .and a $50 million freeway interchange upon the site of an Ohlone Indian Village containing the largest undistrubed Indian shellmound in the Bay .Area. Besides its native artifacts and religious .significance to :the .descendants of the Siplisldn Ohlone Indians, the Terrabay Phase II and III project area has needed habitat for the endangered silverspot and mission bluebutterflies also. As you well know, California.now has the bad reputation of .being the most popukous State in the nation, and unbridled overdevelopment has destroyed our former paradise!! For decades my husband and I visited the .Bay .Area for a week or two every year. Now we are appalled and go to Portland .instead--TOO 'MANY PEOPLE AIVD TOO MUCH DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT. The `City of Portland .recently ..bought up .seven or eight residences along a stream where steelhead trout spawn and converted .the area into a park. Before Ghat, the City tore out an expressway along ae Willamette liver and built a'strip park bordering the.river. In addition, to encourage ,people to be .less .auto-dependent, the City .also provides free .light-rail and ,bus service within the metropolitan-area. Instead of building freeway interchanges and residential and .commercial structures on a southeast slopes of -San Bruno Mountain, I believe, the City of South San Francisco needs to be thinking more in these terms. Why not make the Terrabay project area into a park? The destruction of archaelogical sites and ,more of our :State's natural resources is too harmful to contemplate. Sinc~sely, .:Jean R. 3enks "301 San Nicholas Court :Laguna Beach, CA _92651 C:C-',~: ~r~ - ~,pMrc~ ~ SS~o~~ LETTER 9, JEAN JENKS Response.9.7 The comment addresses the "merits of the project" and expresses preferences for both Phase II and III site alternatives assessed in the 1998 DSEIR. Although the comment discusses the project site's environmental resources, itdoes .not raise .questions about the adequacy of the DSEIR analyses. Thus, no .response is required. By inclusion in the 1999 FSEIR, the commentor's views will be .made :available to City decision-makers. Please see Master Response 7.3-II. The .commentor should note chat the 1998 DSEIR: analyzes. archeological, cultural -and historical. resources, including CA-SMa-40 (pages 276-305), and biology, including special=status species (pages .147-161). As noted in Response. 7.1, the :hook ramps .and Bayshore Boulevazd realignment. covered by the 1998 DSEIR are a component of improvements to the Oyster Point Boulevazd interchange (overpass, flyover,~etc.) for regional traffic conditions. L.euer 9-1 . LEVER 10 :} July 30, '1998 E `.~ South San Francisco :Planning Department '- ~'' 400 Grand Ave. ~ = ~ •'~ South .San Francisco, CA ~~~~:;'~ ,.*: - RE: EIR on San .~runo Mountain ~~ ~c ~- ~0 y We :are o ~~.~.. .,; • pposed tor.`the planned large commercial development because we are aware_ that, the site is one of the Bay .Area's * ~-_- i~; largest undisturbed ~ (so far) shell mounds, with human ~ ~ ~ == .remains and other. ~~;nds- dating to 5, 000 years .ago or more.. ~-~;,~` ,. yt As :a burial site ..for -the Siplisk.in Ohlone .Indians, who '• ~ pre-dated the Spanish, there are many legal restrictions ~!= and .matters of .respect Ghat must be observed. r ;. ~:: yD Z~We are also. o~ncerned about: the Silverspot and Mission Blue.. }'. • butterflies, =both of which are endangered. y~ 3 We believe that every effort must be made to preserve this ~, ,land in .its natural state. .~' ~,~: r Sincerely, . __. ~, ShiJJr~""ley' and Jefferson Gra~res 57 .Bahama Reef _ Novato, CA 94949 ~1 .~t Co~cc1 ~~~s ~ ~~ . ~1 y~ ~' y~ .' i"i~ ~~. ~~ . g .LETTER Yq SH/RLEYAND JEFFERSON GR,4VES Response 10.1 .The 1998 DSEIR. discusses the, nature and significance of. archaeological site CA- SMa-40 DSEIR pages 280.28.E and presents alternative Mitigation Measures 4.9-1(a) -and 4.9-1(b), .either of which wuold satisfy CEQA requirements for reducing impacts to ales-than-significant level. The Phase III. Site tYlitigation Plan Development Alternative would eliminate all construction activities on or within 30 .feet of the boundaries of CA-SMa-40. .Impacts of development would be totally reduced to ales-than-significant level .and would be .in :;keeping .with CEQA's emphasis .on :preservation of significant cultural resources. Please see Master Response 7.3-1 for a detailed discussion of the Phase IILSite Mitigation Plan Development Alternative. The DSEIR includes discussion of Native American issues as well (DSEIR page 28.x. The Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative .would result in. avoidance of the site. Response i0.2 :The 1998 .DSEIR discusses the occurrence: of callippe silverspot and mission blue butterflies in the vicinity. of the project site. and. the potential impact of the project on these and other special-status species in 4.3 Biology. Response 70.3 The comment addresses the "merits of the. project" and expresses a preference for a Phase III -site alternative. assessed in the DSEIR. The comment discusses the :project .site's environmental resources but does .not raise ,questions about .the .adequacy of the DSEIR analyses. While no response is .required, inclusion of the commentors' views in the 1999. FSEIR will make them .available to City decision-makers. Please. see Master Response 7.3-I1. recrcr iai _. ~ LETTER i 1 :.July 31, Isse ~ ~ R E C E! V E p :Gay ofi`South 'San Francisco, Planning Division : - - 315 South~Maple, ~°P0.8ox-.711 •.~> ~~4lIG 0 '~/'-~~ ~:Soutn-san i=rdncasco~A :woes `~ PLANNING 'Regarding: Draft Supplementai:ElR, Terrabay Phases ll:and.111,~Cfty of South SanFrancisco, July ,:,;1998 ihave;;reviewed~#he DSEIRssued:byahe.Cit)rofSouth~San;•Francisco:~anda~ave•the~following comments ~:to:nifer. I _aisoapoke at thepublic=hearing held~on Thu y,:~uly 23, 1998~and;prowded verbal ;comments on;fhe~proiect's;consistency-with:Sectton ; otaee Federal Cle~h=Water:Act,-:which .regulates the,piacement of dredged or fill material into waters of tiye United::States;~~including .wetlands and other ~~, 'special aquatic sites.' I ask that my comments at the July 23 hearing .also be included in the administrative-•record:forahis~project~bothforpurposes of.,preparing the`Fnal ElRfor-the project and for any=Yfuture:judicial~~proceedng aivhichmay. require<tl. .~.~• ,i., °'1. PROJECTS FAILURE. AND FAILURE OF DSEIR.'TO CLEARLY SHOW THAT PROJECT COMPLIES_ WITH SECTION 404.0E THE;CLEAN =WATER ACT AND EPA-GUIDELINES AT 40 CFR PART::~30~REGULATING THE:DISCHARGE-OF~DREDGED OR`FILL'MATERIAL-INTOWATERS OF ;THE UNITED-.STATES. ;. .,. . , Acco~ng to'the DSEIR introduction, actual .physical construction with the project will encompass X75 acresancluding ? .X26<acraes~forS48:residentiahlats; :1:3acc+es;for.interRaf~n7adways.~ndutilities onthe:Phase 11 site. On the 5 phase=Ul ite,saves.:cornmeatial~Jots•wouid~:~total3Lacres,antemal roadway.:oneacre,-;adjacent.parldn9 two~acres,and~~.uttiities-as:~weU..an:many:-instances°:lh~can_beaafely_presumedthatahe.project.can be ;- ~°reconfiguredand reshaped ~:avoidsens'ttnrehabitats,~tsuch as.endangered species:habitat, wetlands, ._ Btc. _ Regarding theaossof jurisd'~ctiorial ~weiland habitat, ~ Page 85~f the DSEIR°(Summary~ of Impacts & MitigationMeasures)statesahat ~heFproposedprojectshaq.3~e-redesigned~o:~svoidjurisdictional wetland ~habltat=~o~the maximumfeodsnt=~easible.~'' lTils~lsin=~ke~plfng:wf>ff~Fbderal:,%gulations under the Clean -111fstar..ActSectlon404,whichfrequir~esthat~proJects avoid:andminimi~e,:~toafhs greatest ;extent~practicabk,•fheplacement;ofBlt~materlai~lnto;:aqustic~resources;;protected under Clean aAlater~~4ct~Section~~{04..~ -. _ However, page,:is56=of~the•-DSEIR ~candidiy-aclu~ovMiedges -that '.....:removal:of ,native :wetiane~rolatedfiabitat•snd~the;perenniahsptingon;xhe Phaseillsiitewouid:beaignHicarn. As ~currentiy;prpposeddevelopment-:would~eliiminaterallNxheznativeareshwater~:marsh~and riparian ~ vegetation, resulting in a cobctlveloss otappcoximately,two acros.of #heseaensfUve natural community types.' _, . . She ~statemenYon page 156 of the DSEIRcertainiy>seems 2oatae m:conflict wdh<the Federal Clean Water Act, Section 404 and the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines developed ~.the:US •EPA and which are binding r :.r :- -' ~ ; ~, i on.all.parties:in.this.country. The City of South':San~F..rancisco=has an.affim~ative;obligation to ensure, pri~-rto certfiixtion.of this project.under CEQA,..that the project compoctswith~.the'"Federal wetland protection,requirements at Section 404 of the Clean Water:l4ctand~.~he:EPA guidelines at 40 CFR 230.. And: certainly-any placement of f~l material in wetlands and other.aquatic resources,protection under :: '`Section~404 of,the'Ciean 1Alafar>Act~~needsto.be.canefully~-examined`by,both~~the._~Amry~'Corps of : Engineers, the US-,EPA, and the USFsh and Wildlife Service, all three of which have~pecial.areas of responsibility under the Section 404 regulations. I believe that the City of South .San Francesco should ;work~cbselyaRriih~theseFttrree~:.Federal agencies:poor,~to~:issuirigithe.Fnal:EtR•anordecto accurately • detem~ine~aivhethersthe:~pr~ojed~s~ctually=in~corr~fiancewithahe.provisions:ofithe~Federal Clean-Water ;~1ct. To doarry less woukd:be ~an;abdication °of the~Cit~s ~nesponsibilityto:ansurethatahe project is legal in ~alk:respects-andfornas. _ 2:'•Indian'Cultural-~~-rtifaccs: ->constderable opposition to~theproject:as~~itrelates to :Indian burial sites was voiced at the July 23 session before.'the'SSF-Planning~Commissioners: Many<speakers voiced their .belief that the site should be respected for its cuRural and historic value and that not enough attention has ~•been=paid to the :area •edatcationat:resoprces~palticulaily;for: ctiiidren.~and-forvisitors :to theMountain. I am in;agraemerrt:vv~ith thewie~ressed on.:th~~matter,~and would^~ecommendthatsthe City of SSF i.~ #ake,itLto~ts•:rtextJogical stop, yvhich'is,~does~thesitequafify~asssite that~is poterittally eligible for fisting on-the National Register of Historic Places? The City should address.th~s issue_m'ihe, Final EIR and also in the CEOA certification process - 1 ~,.3 - 3..Transl and the Project: Unfortunately many-development;projects:that:have~been constructed in north ' ~,SanMateo~Ca~Myin:pastseveral =yearsrbav~been:abysmal~~heir;~ailure~#o~integrate transit-into ahe>dev~e1opments~~-:~-~fa~ct,:~nanyrof~#he~pr~oject~ are~acttrally`~pedestrian~urafriendiy'~>~n hat pedestrian ;cr+osswatlcs ~re~ewrandfarbetvr~Ben:mospeed~burr~ps are,~rovided~soahats'pedestr#arts may have greater ~securily,-etc.-~Exampies~or+~creli~reJ;oath-:Cis.T~ertabay.lN(does_this~havesat~ytransit features at all ??? do:not :believe so); :the :recent Daly Coy devebpments on GeUertt3oulevardanear Serramonte ~` (3oulevani :(this;entire;complex;is:a nightmareaor pedestrians.•and;also contains no..transit); :and the entire #~iome=,Depot/280.1Uietro'Cer~terlex~in Cdrr~a yvhich~to~my;knowledge~asno;p~ficaransit accommodations~uiftfntolt. ~Eachtof;theseatlractseven~lathousand~cars4each=~reekday., andprobabfy - ~1D3o;20.thousand:cars on°the~areekends' Yet-~no-xransit is~va~lable•- Terrabay?II andallshould not ~.~ ~~cnake~the~same~mrstake.. The~ity-~of~South~an~F..ranciscc:has-an,.aifirrnative~bligation#o.integrate . = #rarrsif~:rrto~n~jectswh~ch~tt~ppro~res~nrotder~~a.~educe~nehicular,havel;oe~air~emissions (carbon ` monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulafes), and to improve the,-qualilyaf~theair we~alibreath dnto our lungs.. Thent~r~edesigr~ation:af=#he:SanFranasco±8ay~lrea byaheUS:EPA~as an ozone,nonattainment area aiso:pourts-,up~ihe need~to reduoe•emissions~~af~oiddes~of<nitre.gent=NOx -~-wvhich;is=a~precursorto ozone . >#ormatia- •,~virhich~:would~~:omefromnot°oMy`-the`Project's~constnxtion:phase¢emissions but.aiso from j - - s~bsequent>vehicxilar•#raffic~goir~tc+andfrom~Phases91=111:. _ - -_ ~~ 1.J~ 4. Sta Ctearinahouse I:D. Number. Every EIR I have ever seen in the past decade.contains aState ~: ~Clearinghouse~assi~red nrJmban on'thecover page. 4This °ElR does not:°~The=:final :EIR should contain the °State Clearinghouse number ; .- ~ . ; ° . - Thank.you for the opportunity to comment on this EIR. 1-would like o be notified by mail. - - when he Finat EIR is released, but there is no need to actually send me a copy of the document As noted, please incorporate my verbal .comments deCnrered July 23ni into the administrative record.. Sincerely, ~ ~,,- ~~ m David R Tomsovic C Om~' 183 Flournoy St Daly Cry CA 94014 LETTER 11, DAVID TOMSOVIC 'Response 11.1 The comment .refers to the Mitigation .Measure 4.3-3 . recommendation .that the project be redesigned to avoid jurisdictional wetland habitat to the maximum extent feasible.andpoints -out that the. project would have a significant effect on wetlands.as .currently proposed. The commentor contends that.the project and DSEIR must.show.compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and other. regulations pertaining to wetlands prior to .certification of the FSEIR-which is not accurate. Refer to Master Response .7.3-8 regazding potential impacts on wetlands, the need for .adequate mitigation, and compliance with relevant State and Federal regulations. Response 11.2 'Plans for the Terrabay .project do not incorporate transit features (bus. turnouts, •stops, or shelters) as part of the proposed internal roadway system on-site. To-.use transit, residents would be .expected to carpool or walk to the nearest bus stop. The .nearest stop currently is located neaz the Hillside Boulevazd /Jefferson Street intersection served by SamTrans' Route 26H). The 1998 .DSEIR discusses existing transit service {DSEIR pages 175-176).: No speed bumps aze proposed for internal streets on the Terrabay Phase II or III sites..However, crosswalks would be provided at major intersections. The relatively narrow residential streets :proposed .for he .Phase .II site would .result in -.less distance for pedestrians to traverse when crossing residential streets on-site. Response .11.3 CEQA does not require that the Lead .Agency pursue a determination of eligibility :for nomination to .the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). -This register is :;governed by he `National Historic .Preservation .Act (NHPA). Please see :Master .Response :7.3-3 for :a :detailed ::discussion of the .application of ahe NHPA to the azchaeological site. The I998 DSEIR (DSEIR, pages '2:83-286) discusses the cultural /historical importance of the.azchaeological site in detail. Response 11.4 The .1998 DSEIR analyzed air quality .:impacts Expected from..implementing -the -proposed project. The redesignation of the- Bay Area as a .non-attairunent .area for :ozone under the Federal Clean Air Act did not change the standazds of significance used in the 1998.. DSEIR. These significance standards were developed to address ;the more stringent California .Clean Air Act. Air quality impacts resulting from construction .and .cumulative buildout :(including the project. and -other .area development identified in 2.4 Cumulative Development) .were .found to be significant (Impacts 4.5-1 and 4.5-3, respectively).: Mitigation measures to reduce these ..impacts .were identified and evaluated. .Implementation of these measures would .reduce construction .impacts to a less-than- significant level. However, 'cumulative long-term .air quality impacts would .remain significant and :unavoidable..Measures to reduce dust emissions from construction and operational:emissions.from reduced automobile .traffic were identified.. These measures would require the applicant to provide transit and promote public transit. Response 17.5 ...The State Clearinghouse (SCH) number. assigned to the.EIR is 97082077. :Please see.LeGter 00 from the Governor's Office of Planning and Research. I.ecter 11-1 °LETTER 12 -"United States Department of the Interior ~sx ~ wa nL~ s~xvlc~ Sacrawsuto Fa~.a~d ildlite OQlcs . 3110 Lt .C~isa Awna,'Sntta 130 + 5atral~wts, CatKoto~a 951iZ1-G3d0 r i `Tim Hattnsh, ChiefPlatm~r ~` Z _ _~, . r- . - .. EpdaaSered .Species .>:. ;.,p. ... ;:~ ; , ~...,. ~.... ... ._, . 12.2 'Tht Snvice soles a urge concentration ~ofjolamYN~-UP P~ (v~nta pedwrcilata)'u~Iocated -- 'at_ the extreme northern tip of the ~oposod ,Pbasc lII "Commercial Area," ar-d moderaae concmdrsUons oCthe plant are locatod lathe e~tral norchera sad western. pe~r~ions of the ,, ..proposed Plisse Ii •`~'ommons" rgidtrrtial area. lohaay jump-up is the sole food,pLaflt for larvae (carerpsllars) ofttic ca3lippe a~v+ersPoCbutterII9.{S~e3~rr+QCaili~pe;c~alliFP'e~,,'1'bebutterflY.was - federally }fisted as as eadaageeed spe~i~ an Deeanber 5, 1997.,(Foder~l.R~giater~:f 4306- b4324) and is fully protected uada the Endangerod Speaes Aet of 973,~:as,,am~ded ::,The hrcc eoaons of food. plants fvr.the butterfly mapped is the drall SEIIt werv.~not~:coasidered in the HCP, because the $(~P saappe:d adult callippe s~po#;buitar9y distrr'i~utions but;r~ot locations of Isavae or food P>amt_ Caltiippe dtver~pat buttcr8ies typi~llY $Y upsIopc tv~ hiritops and ridgesav 5ud mates, sud mated females then $Y dorovnslope to lay their eggs on or neu -- ~~~!Y)~-uP;P- Tbt~HCP.aadsubsaqueut,:mntritAr~ing,rrpo:tt fouad~snd,coatiwae to find substantial member of aduh calfippc ~vc%sapot ~butce:direetiy:;up slope of the jobunY.T~P-uP ocations mapped in the dra$ SEIR The Service recaaan-ends the project be adjusted to avoid -- and protect these three food pleat locations-and buffo them .from adverse: effects. - 12.3 pf<the:~velopaamt.~lternativssilA'uPo~, ~e_~er`-toe-~ctu's that: :comhin~iion.ofthe P,base;:II _. Reduced: R~sideafudDevelopmaet.:aad.a~base..Reduced~ Coal:~ev~elepame~~attes~-es would 6ava~f~!ar:~ermsentnl-impacts tban°tlaep~posed~projec:~~netes.,~t}~=~hesc'inspe,cts ._ .can be fiatirer roduced. ~To further ~educe~irnp~,a~r~i3er~hsfe~li,erecommead•.portione of the '_ "Comaa~aas" arm a~ppflrti~ populsuons aF sxllippe s~verspot butterfly. food pleats, plus all portions upslope and s l00 foot bu$a dowaslape,`be dedicated. as.germtbprotsctod .: - - ecoaysteen n- the Sae Bsuno.Mouatain Park (~ lsodraped ~ deiveloped with,paric f'sc7itia as suggested:nalmadesct~paon~tise;~ta~oative). `~he~~c'~~II Roduc~l~Commeri~... Devdo~t~alter;hppears}to~+~oid:~atuch~flt>se'tiuttecffia' ~food-~laat~popv~icn ~t the -. .,~ :aord~~pvfthe=races. ?fierec~mca~d~urthersa~U~djwtmarta~ia~thc`~~cvciopmcdt/peik ~ba~emdary:~t~lte.:~os3heln.tipto~svoid~liis~senaiti~r~ babitaR:cosdPlez~Y. '~ith~ese wed adjustmoats, tlx rcductd 4evelapmtntatvas='~v~oidsbot~t'9T/o ~o~latval`f+oo~ pleat= for ih~e eadaagered ~PPe ~ Y- `With,xhe adsust~ts descry'bed. ba Sesvice _ = ... _. - wvuld~npport=~henrntahon•v~~3betambiaed'~uced,:d~opnsrnr'altrmatives. ' -- Wetlaad .Ecosystems ,, :.. ..,. '12.4J ~ Under provision of tba Fuh end a Coora'matoa Act; the Service a the U.S. Army . _ Corps of (Corps} oa projeca iav!olvng dregs sad fdl activities m `~+vatert.af_the :L l`7nited~tues;'~~ofw+-'hich-vvetlaads-asd souK m snbes~ones Tlns~lextec:is not ~- ... itlte~Cd"~Q`e~~'COtf~iCDts_'Ct"r~rl7iR't!'yC'SCZVtCC ID=y5Q~0 tD t~ (:016 it i aaterEdate~uade~`~e'°proviaioas~o~tht~Fish'~WtldSfh~Coos~aaon`Aet. _ Tim Hamish, Chi~t'Planucr ~ 3 `We appreciate the opportunity to wmn,ent an this. project. If yvu have qucstivna about this Icttu yr if we can be of further assistaaee, please contact David Wright regarding enaaagercd sPecles, or Jasdce Chin regarding wedaads, ai the letterhead address or at (9.16) 979-2710. Sincerely, ~~ David L. Harlow Actin Field .Supervisor cx: AES, Portland, OR Mic5azl Vasey, San Francisco Stste University, San Francisco, CA Sam Hercberg, San Mateo County PIanaiin~ Division, Redwood. City, CA Yctons Harris, Thomas Reid Asanciazes, Palo Alto, CA ' Drian Craffaey, Bay Area band Watch Qaklaad, GA Sake Sigg, California Native Plant Soeicty, San Francisco, CA ''LETTER 72,` D~LVID HARLOW, 'U.S. FISH AND'WILDLIFE SERVICE ~ __ .. espouse 721 The rcomment 'provides =information :on the obligations -of <ahe project sponsor ' ~ •regarding permit conditions ~~defined`by -the:.~an `Bruno Moiuudin Habitat' Conservation Plan (HCP). Further review by the City~and HCP monitoring consulting 7`Plan~Operator aiill-ensure that the project sponsor's .obligations and .development restrictions .defined in .the HCP .aze adhered to as .part of 'project approval. Mitigation'IVleasure'4.3-2 states that the:project sponsor shall"be required to .fulfill the' landowner 7 developer -obligations` identified in the HCP. -with `.respect to 'the site. 'The °1998 DSEIR (DSEIR .page 156) reviews. the adequacy of the ;proposed `Restoration 'Plan for the `project which provides for the revegetation.of graded slopes with native plant.species. .The HCP Agreement requires that the local land agency make a finding at a public hearing that the project complies with the HCP. The HCP compliance can'be made in conjunction with any other .local public hearing scheduled to consider. the development proposal, or it can be made at a separate .public .hearing. .Before the compliance hearing, specific compliance information must be sent to the responsible agencies (San Mateo County, California Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) fora 30-day review period. The public can obtain copies of the .compliance information from the local agency and can comment on HCP compliance at the required .compliance hearing. Compliance information should show: . • ..Conserved habitat boundaries are consistent with those described in the HCP • A reclamation. plan for reclaimed habitat has been prepazed, and it .provides for runoff controls, habitat restoration, and adequate bonding to secure proper.performance The project has adequate fire buffers • .Restrictions on lazge-scale use of pesticides is assured • The project is participating in the long-term funding program, and the funding is .consistent wit that described in -the HCP Response 12.2. The .1998 DSEIR (DSEIR pages 131-152) discusses the status -and life history of callippe silverspot butterfly. Exhibit 4.3-1 shows the locations. of populations of the larval host plant for he callippe silverspot, including the lazge .population of more than 1,000 plants .located at the northern edge of the Phase III site. ;Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 includes recommendations to minimize potential impacts of the project on callippe silverspot, stating .that project plans shall be redesigned to :avoid disturbance to and development of areas supporting populations of the. larval host plant .to the greatest .extent possible. The Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative assessed in Master Response 7.3-I includes complete preservation of the large population of host plants at the northern edge of the Phase III site, demonstrating the feasibility of meeting the intent of this measure. No additional mitigation is considered necessary. On July 29, 1998, the U:S. lish and Wildlife Service (EISFWS) asked the City for a copy of the 1998. DSEIR and for an :extension to the public review period in order to submit comments. The Assistant City Attorney replied on August 5, .1998, described the City's efforts to provide the USFWS with a copy of the report for review and comment, and indicated that a second copy of the 1998 DSEIIt had been sent to the writer. The City's letter also responded to the request to extend the public review period but did not extend the 45-day public review period. Both letters are .part of the n~ord and are on file with the City. -.The City did not receive comments on the 1998 DSEIR from the writer or any other .representative of the USFWS until after the close of the public review period The City is allowed (but not obliged) to .respond to comments received after the close of the public review period. :Letter 12-1 :Response .12.3 The position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife :Service (Z.7SFWS) .regarding the Environmentally .Preferred Development Alternative is noted. The description of the:Phase II :Reduced Residential Development:Aiternative,.on DSEIR;page 301:;.states';.that.8ny:neighborhood :park __ facilities in the Commons "development area" world be. restricted to previousIy_graded parts of .the site,.;so no-direct..loss,..of:~.host.:plants for,::the.;;callippe..ailverspot~butterfly isanticipated;., 1?Viitigation .;Measure .4.3-2:would require .that .all host,:plants pc+onId be avoided nnless::an-.amended incidental take permit is obtained,.including-those..in.the:Commons neghborhood...> . ... - - Response -12.4 .Information provided .by the commentor is .noted.. The D5ElR_ (DSEZR page 153) :;:mentions the :Fish .and Wildlife, Coordination -Act ~in the._description -of..jurisdiction. over wetland ..: resources.,:No additional response is necessary.... •. - _ Letter 12-2 LETTER ~y3a BARER ~ M4SENZIE Euwe .W `ATTORNEYS AT LAW ~ - M W~tlur l~or , a~+HNO 3auTwAri . e TWO EMBARCADERO CEN . ,.MiTawr ~ TER s.o*. . s.e~«.. a.r...r~ro ' ...Q10.. .O.COr - .Nlltbl TWENTY•FOURTN FLOOR ~r;M •rw """"'a 't~M ~IM.CM ~.,O.a l~/IIRT .rbO~Mii -a1..fpRT .SAO I,YLO ..r..m .rte ~awRaw SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA Oslll .nr~ow~ T~1.11. MAVC~T -/M~M< -'~~ ~ , -3lap~';i.ewo: To~a.ro ~ - ~Yt1Y TELEPHONE 14131 37d •JOOO '.~InR J.1aO Y.ta10. ~vuRT w Oli aw~ •.eYSaer , rw o~,.o ..~wtak as .osvw at.rsi..~w. .war FACSIMR.E14131570-30~ ~`~ - ~ `s..Q.a... ura~ ww mow aww +s~ tasro - . . -:: "i~u~*i~st 5,1998 _.. 6oal~s r 13.1 Below is a dean o1: (1) . the environmental impacts that will be reduRxd by the Mitigation Plan; (2) the e$ea of tlx Mitigation Plaa on other impact arras identifiod in the >DSEIR; {3y the specific mitigation messeues-under the 1ltittgation Plan; and (4) an overall summar3- of the Mitigation Plan. The Mitigation Plan has been formulated in conjunction with a single,;prospective buyer for an office building on the northem,partion of the Phasc III site. All dtherpotential office buyers for the. site have. souglrt a low~e, campus development. -The buyer has entered into a contract and is in its due diligence period at this time. Underthc contract,°the`buyrr:has a right to cancel if the Project enti0ements arc not approved 1ry~the Litp on orbefore Septembar 30,1998. Theeefore, the Mitigation Plan is subject to and conditional upon timely approval. If the ovals are noi~ m atimel manner~nd the' er caacels~its ~ contract, the appr granted"~ :. ~ 3' ~' Pm'c App~Iic~+nl reserves the n~htto-v`vithlraw #hc It~itigation Plan ' Ifthe'Plan is withdrawn, thm the Applicant will:propasesadditional pa+d18Kas=o~a~hie=normernpartianvf Plmsc III in orderto aceommodatathc owaisc,~c~mpusdevelopment. Additionally, a delay in the Applicant's '~1~ Pa3+m~t towards the cost of the hoolaramps/Bayshorc soul.EVard project-a+ill be uestad. a A. - 'Avof dance ~r ~talnction of Impacts andcr'Mit1'gati'an Plan. ThesNfitigationP~~wcorparat~es~hefollo~wing~.measuresxo<~avail or•.teduce ~environmentat~imp®cts~onareheolog~; biol+Qg3rand~geology dentified~in ihe'DSE~IIt. 1. - ,- :,Archeology. - ,_ . In contv~m~m~cx with.lbe ~SEIIt :recommended alt~arve.mitigation measure .. 4.9.,1(b), all fill, encroac]iment of buildingpads,:md gradiag~oa :fie CA-SMa~OSite are eiiminat~ and the giading limits will .bc at !seat 30 feet from the edge of.tise ite.:As a res<ilt of _,tltie,mitigation,-~A-SMa~0;~n71 becomple~ety,:avaided'and uatauched..The site will be left in its ..; . c~dsting,:natucal .condition and ;mill. not be disturbed. There: will:be;na :fiU :on she. site, no utilities aerated.on~or..acnoss-theaibe,and.no interactive;park.. -Thesitie=will-bc left "as is".:~Sincc.the ~_ _- .archeological~sitc:~wtll not be~lled.aa~d:rapped,:>t6c wetlands:I~ocated~within:#heboucidarics ofthe site will not be filled or disturbed. - ~; .. , .r:_. bl'he .Lauts•for.~P~ase4Ul-.developmenl4w11:;bt~at=least 30 feetfi+omthe ~_. .:northern and southern edg~~fthe:ai+clseologics3l site. ;I~e,area~,~vest of ha sibe.will be ~;: u~distiu~d; ince:#he,abemalroedw~ay~betwem~#bc:nortbern~aed southern,ends:of.- III is eliminated. Therefore, from~Bayshoze Boulevani, she ar+clroologicalslte ~~vtlL;be viewed against the backdrop of the nattusl mountain. ?he banding pads north and south of the archeological siwe Boa. BASH da RZ~ vlr. aim Hanish August 5,1998 Page 3 ~:_ ,: ..:...... . ..,. 13. ~a site will .be at a slightly higher elevation=then the. side - up a.,2l.natural slopc,v~nth no ruining waf{-orsappurtmg strucfimre.-' Tnc eieva~tion of Bayshore ffoulevard, east of CA-SMa 40 will be :,:slightly,dowered.>torcduce~filledjaceat; o-thesite. 13.2 2. Biology ___. ., _. . - _. The mitigation for geaeraL biological irnpact.4.is ar+eduction.in the amauat of Land disturbancx, the lowering of the elevation of the gading limit lint, and eliminating the cut. slopes on the northern edge of Phase IIL: She. area.of ~disnubancc ;in P,hasc Ill for. the Mitigation Plan (apprvxi~tely-21 acnas) is less tt>an the area of distnrbancx aflalymd in the DSEIR (38 acres) - a rediwtion of 43°r6. The grading~limitlina:for~the~tgntion=PlaQ~is within the grading hitnit lint aaaly~ed in the' DSEIR. Overall, the northwesicrn grading area is at a lower elevation thaw the grading~srea~in tlle'DSEIR;aood docs:aot wttend~s fat north `"Impacts an biological resouc+ces result from distvrbaace of land area.:'Ihq+cforc, sincx the area of land disturbance is less than the ~~area anslyzEd~~uad~r-tEie DSEIR~e overalh=biologica!'impacts-grill be less. The:I~itigation Plan ,~_~ also includes redesign and relocation of the bu4ding pads and grading area to specifically avoid the identified viola plant locations oa Phase IIl and cxrfaia of the wetland areas as described below.. - a. , ' Clinuse'Bhtt~ertty ~Vioh Plant). . ~ _ ._~ _ '_ 'I~ grading ~in flye ai+ea of~fbe vola~pl8nts hss`=~CCen eliminated. All identified ~- :.areas°of viols plants an the ~hese~lII-sme~aN1 `be•av~oidod~aod n,ot-disturbod-because they will be outside'~thcliniits•of grading,i~r the~Mitigation'Plan.",:The northern'Iimit of grading win be -.:;SO fit from~the -viola muster vrmozc thsa" 1000:plants'locatod::m,~the northeast>corner ofPhase `~IlI`• The wrstcm lizuitj~of grading wrifil=be below~he small viola plams~idcntificd shove southern paroeI F. Therefore, uadcx the T~iiiti~ia'Plan the~ne will'bz no'impacts on viola P~~ ~~8 fmm.Phase III development. b. W e. Thc`Mitigaiian'Plaa srgnificanRly reduces the-amount~:of wetlands impacted by [''hase:`III ~develvlmneat.=overall; ~he~IitigationPian will 7rducx mpacts° on`wctlands 22'/o from - . ahose~impscts ~dautified ~in tha'DSEDt: ~'Fhc ~NIitigatioa Plan wilhreduce impacted wetlands by •. .. •~ •::~pproaamatiely~b~7~:acxeshnd~ttidnce~n>p~tod streams by~aplu+oanmately4:Q4•acres. ~'Specifically;°th~e~percaaialstream aboveformerPad G~•~+vill be avoided~:and not~dist~abed. This -parennialstream is~idenf~iod~in~thz°~,as~the=most importaat.xesowrre inPhasc DI. `The limits of grading will be ataeast~0 feet-outside the stream as~racommended in the DSEIR. sosat93 ,~3Al~ICR dG M~S~NZI]E Mr.1im Hsrtish August 5,1998 PagE 4 In addition, the fogowing wetlands or s4eam channels on Phase iTl identified in the DSTIR will .~3.2 ., <be avoided and kft :'.Portion .cf ~hc vd acea vrest of Dayshore Douicvar+d. 2,.a~ ncn~ _nf theprupo~ed.nathcrnpad aa~d.aoutheast•ofthe ~riola cluster: .The m~a~es in. he -lVfitgetioaPlan arc desi~od :#o;lc~en and avoid impede on . ,:archeology,-ibiolo~-,and;:geology-~-,flee gal:-ac+cas af~ooncem,idd~tified:in tire~.DSEIR..The ~impacts_of lh~ese~itig~a~measures-.o~n odux~impe~ctareas analy~ed~n:dteDSEflt bsve bxa rexiew~ed.toeaf~ey;~v~Lacsr~sse>~c~ac~ity~:af~lnrad ~.:' inthex _ . Y~~ -.~#her=areas. 'tbe~A~iti~o®.P18a~w~~~at~result~in an 3ncroa~e.:inan~rof lhe:otiter impact areas . - anal ~n~:tbe:DSF.iR::Ti~c•~ and ;Air;v 't . ~ ' •~l'ublic Sarvioes .. Yom'' ., ~BYa i- Qom. Y.: ~ ~~' (po~ice.aarvioes, Pablic schools),eod.Hs~eds (aeriaiacad,:magndic fi~~ The. impacti of the boatna i Mitigation Pl#m~will remaiaaE~e same .orn,ot~eaccxd abc lc+-.cls of impact dentifiod :and anatya~d -an d~e~S~l~ffx~ca~-o€~ese - ~.4 'Tn~fi'ic. '[>Le IV~tigation Ple4 ~iith the impl~neatation of TDM/1'SM i~ip reduction -mea~-es f~~he l'iv, ject,~~will.notrcauli~m~~y additional AM„peaic. trips.aad induce PM pcalc from-tho~c idcatificd,in 1hc,;DSEiR. ~.OvtralI,.the: Mitigatwn=~lan~wivnld,gena~me 31Y. fewer ~trips;d~aing tbe,AM;peat:}~aur. m~d39'~o f~erxripa dining the 1~M;Pea~cbo~c.:tban;~lFhase III Plan cvaluatied iathe1996SF.IR. _ increased allocation of P1~se III,9qusrc: footage b oboe use reduces<trafLe.and.ailoNVS ~'Dh~I'SM-measia~es.to~_be.usad affecxively,~to boih:reduce xraffia sad~mitigatatratL'nc-impact~ _ ___ :Ba.9edon survey.data.from be.ll~~inlti~ity 3'SM Ageacy,(`~i'L'SiVL4'~~for:major employers m:nerthem.San Mateo.Couoty; T!)M meas~a+esin,officc.ases bave.resulted is a 32'/. r+edu~ction,in commutes who dnvealonc.:Under t}ar 1946 SEQt. TDMI_TSM mitigatiion measures wene.apptied.to firturc in b~hahe Teaabayi'E+~ject and:F,ast of.l Ol,:Area r~esuliing in a.I2'J~6reduction:inh~c,generatioa ." "The: Mi6gatioa Plan iegtiQZS the `peon of TSMITDM mea~nes to the - . ..maximum cxl~c-al Jea~31C ~lc~ ac~mne,atleastaL3y. rodu~onn Project ~c6ide nips.. Since the - -a~etse~f ~lt~~ffM ~AH~oII~ A~a1~L tfAf~~!?~f.~`~~.iiwwiiww :D1~w .~ wM._~ .. ~..~ ~~ :r r ev ,._r._ae _ 60ii193.4 60itlyllt . - _ ..., :.. .:: C. Deeriptioe of 1Vi'~tion~Msasares Under'Miti~atioa Yian. ,1. Avo'~asAeo o~f,~ir6eolo~cil Site, y3, b fi~ndathe~NGttgatioa Plan, ~ anchootogical site will rr~sm in'its natasi ~wa3isturbca:conditiaa withno:fill .and ne uitilities croasing~the aitc ~Thc:following~devdopmcnt ;pleas ~irbich~affeeted'the site~ve been eiimmated: dill overthe aite;~intersctive pa~c on~tbe site; intcxnal roadway°above~wcstamportinn•of archoological sits; and PnrkinB'~ot pads which en~oached on a portion of northcoa and southern bo~mdaries of archeological site. The limits of ;goading under the Mitigation Plan will be at~~kast"30 f~oei from the edge of the archeological site. Since the mapping; of the archeologicat site. included a 30 foot.biiffer: beyond the survcyod edge ; ,. ,. of the site, dye;.gisding lac will be aL le~sE.bO foet.fivm lmown..caltural re~omces .an the srte, The elevation of BayshoseMBoalevardeast ofthe site will'be slightly lowered to teduoe-fill .adjacect to thesis.. Draimge of the.`development;pads vriU ,be towards Bayshore:Houievard, not the amheologicalsite..Tbc ilewelant;pads-~vf6e. north snd~~sa~thwillbe sligbdy abo~re the archeological sibc on n aatraal 2:1 sk~pC.with no ztainiug walls or sirtrctures ~ the slope, _ ,.' 2. Reduced Gaming and Single, Smaller Building Aad Oo Northern _~ Pertioo of Phsse 1lL - .._Zhe five bnild~ng pads onahe.:no~them site bsv~ been-reduad to one peed.:Pads A 13.:1 '~ :;attd C v~Ct.mo,p~+oposed,Plsn have been ,eiioninated,_ .Pads: B, D..and.E have been combined into vie pad aad both the length acid a-idth ofth~e,priar,pad area~bsa;b~eetrnduoed. In other words, the northern and southern boumdazies have bees mavod iowatd. The total a of the noctLem building ~p®ds has:baen<reduxdfro~'9 `8:a~ m ~!!:9_aixes -~a SO'Ys redoctioa The vin edge ofti~e bti~ding pad is tl~e I1+ftigation Plan is at a lower elevstiool, so the grading limit Line is lower on iLeslope~otthe~mouosain. ~ctiit~sl~at~a gg~~n,the northernmost slopes have been eliminatod. '17ie bmlding p®d, itself', wi11 have a maximum slope of SX. The access madway under the Mitigation Plan is a signalized main single eatraacx on the y3.72 nocth~m end'>plas an*~signalieed right=in-and~iight-out access to.and~fivm.soutbbound `~Y$~'Boulevard~on°~tbe southain~ortion of the:~e~. ~erofldway on the northern end will :~'~~~~;t~tJiW11.1~~.~~~~ ~ V.W. .Tnr v~n'fl be tS6 feet wide with a two=lsne~entrancc=moo the ~sitc a s~ loon island, and throe exit lances (two right hand turn lanes and one left hand turn lane). T7ie unsignaiized santhboaad will be 24 Beet wide .with one eat~ao<;c°.1ane and cme exit'la~;`loceted about 550 fieet south of the.main si~od ioitersocdm. 4oais3.4 r_ 1 i_ iDii19l.4 R,~B dz M~KEi~z1K 13.7c 1 Mr. Tim Harnish August 5, -1998 Page 9 • Maximum building height of 75 feet. Psd F: • hotel, restaurant, oT,officx use. The amount of square. footage will be determined by the trip generation of the proposrd use such that the overall trip generation of Phase III does not coccecd the amount analyzed in the DSEiR. Presently, up to 10,000 square foot high.quality, cit-down resta~aamt is arrticipated on this ped. • 1.8 acre pad area wide maximum 5% slope. • At-glade garbing. ,. E. Conclasion The Nfitigation Plan roducxs the signi5cant impacts of the Tecrnbay Project identified in the DSEIR It does not iesult m any incaza4e in ide~fied impacts.. We mge the City to adopt .these. }xoposed mitigation measures and approve the Project in an expeditions manner so that tlec Applicant can close its time-sensitive contract with the sunk buyer under the Mitigation Plan. `_ Sincerely, Tnnolhy D. Ctemin 'fDCJIb F~eclosures cc: Steve Mattes, City Attorney edam Liadgrae, Assistant City Attorney Mic~acl Wilson, City Manager .`Allison Knapp i0til9j.4 LETTER :y36 BASER .~ :~tI~KENZIE Etwo~ Atn ATTORNEYS AT LAW ` 4/mrt Eaar t~u~c - NairMnio sourH:Arrr a '"'"^ "'"o"O i •~~ TWO EM6ARCApERO CENTER ,uuTOliwM 1awM ioa•i ,•000tw aR7nep CRT sww r11AMCKCo i""ecw°"" ;"clear NwMa TWENTY-FOURTH FLOOR 'i""i"" 'iw'r ~•~wnw•o MD M Mri1 CRT i11FMOi A•v - MOMfpU[T . •w0 -wYlO icwic-i ! ~ Moiaior• SAN FRANCI5C0 CALIF ~1{IOAKlT nMAY{C MYRA , ORNIA 94UI-3909 ~~ ,: ~ ~ ~ nwwo ~iRww ~o.•arMC TELEPHONE 14181$26-3000 owa~,ws "1D 0e~""'i'oD "'"~" sww~itsvwT , ! eons .> ; • e,i•+iwrvwe ' . '; . ... " + NOU•TOw _ . -.awN aeeo ;wwwriTOw ac ~w •lit.+crasww. `iracT ' FACSIMILE 14151 576 3099 ''~'^"`_ . rev ~ iTOew~r uusww~c .~w~w•ww rMO TacTO -.. , _ _ _.., .. ,,:.: .. •. - :c.., _, , ~woow : a•iee August I2 I998 :Plaarling Director _ _, , ,..:. . _ City of South`San.Francisco ' 400 South G~aad Avenue South San Francisco, CA - 94083 . Re: Applicxnt'a CommentLetter.on,.Terrabay Draft Supplemeatat Enviironmrntal Impact:Report, Dated ~n1y,1998. Dear Mr. Harnish: On behalf of SunChase C:.A California I, Inc., the applicant for Phases II and III of the Ten~jbay Project ("A~rplcant'~,_~-esubmrt;the following.~comments on.the Terrabay Draft Supplemental Environmeatai Impact Report, dated Jnly,1998 ("DSFrIIt'~. These comme~s are divided into=threesections::-:(I),mitigation:measures~:in the;DSEIR which have already been - incor~Orated into Protect plans; (2) proposed alternative mitigation measures for impacts idcntified in the DSEIR; and(3) impacts=identified as significant in the DSI~ which are mot significant environmental impacts under CEQA. This letter is a supplement to our comment letter, dated August 5, 1998., outlining the ... ~ : ..Applicant's. proposed mitigation measures for~impacts of`Project developme~ ("Mitigation Plan'. These comments apply to the DSF.IR in general, and $PP1Y ~~Y ~ ~ January Plan (on which the` DSE1R analysis` is`based) and the Mitigation. Plan: ' Howevcr, as noted in our. prior letter; the proposed Nfitigation Plan will further reduce the impacts of the Project on archeology, -,geology :and biology, which are already identified.as insgnificairt with mitigation in the DSEIR. I. DSEIR Mitigation Measures Already Incorporated Into Project Plana The A hcant has attend , mco rated^ ' ~ , PP ~ y ~ many of the mitigation measures identified in the DSEIR as revisions to the January Plan. These mitigation measures .also will be part of the 6oa9oos.1 603900~.t The Applicant isincorporating into its pleas some, butnot sll, of the .::.:recommended,mitigations>identified in-:t>x~DSEIIt,-paiticularly>in this proposed Mitigation Place. ,How~wer, sincx~ahe Applicant's mitigationmeasures do;notcxactly ~match~ihe DSEIR~PmPo~, he.Applicant's<pmposed•mitigations are ~~as-an alternativc mitigation in `Section II :;;below - ,.._ . - . 4. 'Traffic and Circalatiou . - bossoos.~ •i i "'~~ Augpst 12,1998 _ Page±4 j I ~ . b. Nn~se ,:~.. ..~i - s.c.' > .. - - .The Project wdl_ccunply_with all the.noisc mitigation mrasures identified in the 13•~~ 7~ DSI~R (Sec Mitigation Measm~es 4.6-1-and 4.6-2). _ - h~ ,_ '7. Archeology _ _ _.. -. ...As.recognized 1ry.;the:DSEIR;~the,proposedfillingNand-,capping•:of CA-SMa-40 13.1,8 .a~ndeer;thc3anuary~lan issn:a~ceptablefmitigation nnder.CEQA.` The>:~pplicant:disagrres with the:D'SEIR's conclusion~that.the-fill<and cap will~havesnadverse:;impactonfhe ite:due to compaction float will require additional excavation to.fiather document the site (Sec-.Section ID - belov~-). Therefore, the Applicant does not agree with therequirement of excavating the site if _ filling and capping is used as the mitigation measure. _ ' _. The:MitgationPlan-will comply with~thebasic•pre~mise of alternative Mitigation 13.19, ;:Vieas~tre 4;9-1 identified in thaDS~EIIt.:The Mitt on Plan will: ~,com letel :aYoid the CA- ~)~ ~ P y __ SMa-;4U its;: not:placeany`fill~~.on~he~site~d~move the<grading:limitiinesatleast:30 `feet from #be=e~ge;of the site~(exccp~talo~g:Bayshore:Boulevard:+due=tro~he'3~oolaamps project): =The . DSIIlt~mitigation:meas~aestates_~that ``vanati~ons:of~l~1itigatwn~Measune~.9=1(b)~'possible as `long~~s~the~basic premise ~ifsiteon~as;maintained=and:the need-for~iite destroying fill compaction=•and coaip~ession is:eli~inated:" The~l~fitigationPlan iscons with this direc4on- .:.. - .. ~3.ZO8 In regard to CA-SMa-92, the Applicant disagc~ecs with the DSIIR's conclusion ,__. #hat theProjcct~vill~:have.aaiBnificaa~tmpactoa~#he:;archeologicahsite, since it is located outside - the deivelopment and .grading area for Phax.III and will not be ~disbnbed. Therefore, the Project: will have no.impact on CA :SMa-92 and.no mitigation is necessary.:Thc Applicant also disagrees -- `~with` hc`D-S~'s~rccommerided mitigation~measute to cap•aad"fill CA=SMa-9l. Such capping - . _ , ;.,.. "and is infieasible: CA-SMa-92 is ~' aad`fi~l h7cely will daanage the site due'to its ~sbeeP ~PoB~P~Y. on~swery steep~slope a-lichA~os'difficukto°aecess:'fbe eq~np~ent needed to accxss and fill and cap thf site would potentially. damage the site. Fuath'erawre, fill and .capping material will likely erode ~ may potentially adversely affect the site. Therefore, the Applica~ proposes avoiding =-- the sitr~. and leaving.it.untouched, which is.the_prefen;ed areamaent ofsigmficant archeology resourCes..under CF.,~A. _ . ' . ._ .. ... . _ II. • ~. Pro ed Alternstiye and, SuPPlemental Nf~tigation 1Kesesnres. :,. P~. - ~ ,.:~ ...: ,; T~ Applicant proposes the~follow:~ag alternative or supplemental mitigation meas~aes to __ •, . those iflentifiod in the DSEIIL These alternative or supplemental mitigation measures will result in the seduction of identified significant impacts. to a.level of insignificant The alternative mitigation measures may be adopted by the City. in Iieu of the mitigation measures in the DSIIR _. i 6os9oos.t i BAKE dL M~SENZIE Mr..3im Harnish Augu~ 12, l 998 Page , °The~s~tpplemental mitigation as additions to the-DS measures may "be adopted EIR's mitigation , 1. eulogy, Soils and Seismicity ._ - As=discussed above, She APPli~ PmP~~ ~>t~uiiques~or methods as :,~optioms to.:address.-gcologic~conditioas. These=supplemental mitigations wiwill Bllow`flexibility in desigiung~the~~oPtimum`gcotechnicalsolution. ~Below~is a description=of each supplemental meas~ue. ;: :. ,_ ' 11~iitigahon=M~4 I=21a1`gl: "A~todify#he second~bulkt in~-tbe-snitigation measures to y3.2~., read as~follows. "interme~ate'benches•and-sccamPanYing'd~sinege sha11 be designed at vertical inter~ails~of about 34 ft.~or~ar recom~ierrded ~bythe `C~ty Geotechnicdl Consultcmt.~ `The reason for this modification is because the 30 R-standardTdoes~not~unifornaly~apply ~in all instances, but depends on geologic conditions. Therefore, thaCity Geotechnicai Consultantahould have the `discretion to~ alternative .. ~ spacuig ofinteanedrate>benches~to address specific geologic conditions. -. _ - .. , ~ `h!fitieation=3~Ieas~me 4:1:~($1:~~2. l~~ballet: Thismitigation-option should~bc~amended to y~.22 read as follows: `Mans for retaining wall design for walls;ItiBber than ~1~0 -ft: ~shall~be subject to review' and approval by the City Geotiecbnical Consultant. To the extent feasible, retaining walls hi ~ than ~T 0 ~ft:= shall not be °desi , 8hdc _ gn,ed as-pomzd inrplacestivctr~res,'but shall-provide step-backs or cribs P with vegetatron and~bu~t with mugh stone or earth~co'lore$~materials:" -This ~, . = modi~ica#ioa-allows flexibility'in the~design ofTetaining wa11s _to'meet geologic conditions. The DSEIIt proposed mitigation measure requires all walls greater.than l0 ft. to have~step-backs or .cribs.; The language is too restrictive for structural. design options .because the required wall types may be not be structuraIiy or geotechnically feasible. In addition, step backs or cubs increase the area tb `be,graded and do not .. - nly improve slope stability. NGtiaation Measure 4.1-2. q2.3`~ bullet::This mitgation.mcasui+~should be revised to 73.23 0l'uiai~~ the reference to modifying the Commons„and'WoodS~F,ast design and.to limit,ttie ... .. mitigtition measure ~to implementation,wheie feasible .Although focusing development within 1owe~ ire elevations to, reduce 'the total . ...and develo _ .. . ,, ,.:8 pment area is an av~:Pr'4J~ gam, this goal only maybe accomplished to the extienffeasible The-HCP atready`limitcdahe approved develu~pmeiit area to lower site. elevations to reduce grading and habitat disturbance. Therefore, - this mitigation measure. should be stated as a goal limited by feasibility.: Specific actions to implCmeat this goal should not be dictated. Therefore, the references to changes to Commons _ ::and oods..Fast in.the-mitigation measureshorild be deleted. , - . , .. _.. ,. 6oasaos.i 1 f -.. ..t ~ .. ~ ..{ ~ b. 'M`~r.~ - ~i.ia. iii iJWY~ Augu'st' 12,1998 P~ I~ ~;:; Based on the fore8oin~g, the measurzshonld be rievised to<read,as follows: ,.- _:. . .., ..,.1=..,.,.., . 13.23 ~"Dc~jelopmeat should be limited to lower site elevations to the extent feasible,to.contain grading ' with development areas and reducx the total grading in development area .Mitigation Measure 4.1-?.Lb~: The ~m ".average winter season" in this.mitigation _ 13.24< ; measure'is:ambi~guons_and ubject-.to +ng moons ;;tThe~efiome, the term "average" ,.. `::should :be deleted and=floe mitigation measurezshould require ~°slopes,to. haveexperienced at :,least one:winterseason_priorap:ssuance ofbuilding-~ecmitsfor:dev~elopm~t. _ Mitigation Measure 4.1-3 This mitigation should .be amended to add the following , on, "~or.Phese.III, therequirements forahe Slopc:MaintenancePlea:may be mef by an - 13 25.p~ ~ _ _ .. altec>~ative.doctunent xo .CC&Rs subject o. rexiew and ~approval~by:,the City Atbonney." This ; ,modification will allow-the:Applicaat toaaopose ~.the.most effective eafo~ce~oent<mechanism in :; :Ii bf the. .aad,land o ofPhase III. - 8~ , ... ~-nzrship :. ,: . .-, ~ - .-~ _ . '; : , Mitigafion Measure 4 1 51a1.3'~ buDet:.The.p~oposed.mit-gauon should be amended to ., -13.26 read as follows: gill shall be surcharged with excess materials .to aaceleraxe settlement, ar by an alternative method approved by the City (3eotechnical Consultant" This revision will allow . ;:; ;:flexibility=#o :use-~e~~ous Aptions available to ~consolideRe :engineered;~since surcharge is _._ . _. nota~ the:most effectivemea4ure. -. ` - . Mitigation Measure 41 S(b1: Thespr+oPosod .mitigation measure should:be, amended to . 13.2 the following alteaiarive::;`.2fthe~proposed sanitary sewer:Iine is-not.reloc~ted,.installation of add .~ _ ~... ._ ,. _ . .: . _ Pressure. pipe are . asleeve :around the,proposed sanrtuyaewet or,installation ofAWWA.C900, uu~ed." -2. Hydro~togy aad~Drainsge.. ` .-. ,..: The following alternative mitigatibn measures are propose: ration-lvieasur~e 4~ I 1 `To allow flexibility in choosmg'~the optimum. solution~for -- ._ , 13.28 this condition'the mitigation measure should"be revised to read ss"~ollows:`~"T~::proposcd _ debris Swale aad retaining wall system shall~be redesigned to~the satisfaction of the City _ -. > _, _ . Engineer 'ga option is adding a tliirid debris basin ai Creotechnical'Cons~iltant and'City - One redesi .. __ ... . ' 'the:Imddle of the `channd . ;, `3. ' `:Biology: ~ ::_ _ - ,: , - - - . , The SIIR-identifies three areas ofiiiologic~impaets: ~1~ vegetatiori~cmoval, ._~ wildlife habitat loss, and landscape connpatibBity (Impact 43-1); (2) special status species (clip~se butterfly end viola plant) (Impact 4.3-2); and (3) loss of jurisdictional wetland habitat ' 6oi9oo5.1 BAKF3R.:~ MFSENZIE . ~lVir. Hemish Au 12,1998 Page;7 - ~(Imp~ct43-3) _The'Applicant ~roposes~alterna~ive-mitigation measuresrto reduce "theseimpacts. to a liwel of less thaa significant The alternative mitigation measm~es~include cxrtam aspects of the I~SEIR gation measmrs, bat~ot all of - Therefore, they: are:presented as alternatives `` for a~option by the City. 1 ~ioa Measure 4.3 1. Tlns mitigation should`be deleted°beeause the'Project has no :13.29. signi~c~nt impact on native and special status giant species, except for the viola plant (a host ,plant~for~the clippae buaerfly). `The DSEiit states:that there-:are no special. status species located is the dcvelo ent °area ex the viola and `loss of native P® ( ~~ ) grassland would not'be significant Since the general `impact of development on naaive and special status plant. species is not ' sigeant,-no-mitigatie8-3houlcfbcared. =Furthermore, any loss of native plaint materials withp the Project development.ar+ea is mitigated by the HCP, which requires: the dedication of over ~ 32 :acres of land (4t?% of the. Teaabay site) in.order to mitigate the loss of native plants in ~.~ the development area. Therefore, the'HCP already mitigates~this imnpact. The HCP also requires the i~storation of graded areas which mill" be dedicated to th~`Couaty. T'he combination of these ``IiCP!require~nents will mitigate`~any''loss of native plants resulting from the development project. - No additional mitigaxion is required. _ - `" Iyltieation Measure 4:3-Z fcTinoae silver~wt/viola plantl: fn light of the minimal impact ~~73.30 on ` identified~in theD .. th~ otippae silverspot ~~ _ SEIR, compliaace vv~th the HCP .and any otlur ... .. of`ihe'V:S Fish and'Wildhfe`Service, sgnage to,~reveat poachiag, cad dust control ., - are~suffcientmitigation. "'The impacts on-the clippae silverspot are minimal due to the ;; lick ~f butterllies on the site, the small amotmt of viola, sad the existing paotections for the -:. clppae .under the HCP. -;As stated in:the .letter fmm.Mr. P~rnold, Entomological Consulting ServicGS, dated Apri16, "1998.(Appendix `7.4 to ~DSEat~, .clippae silverspot adults =have been rarely obse:vcd within. Phases II and III during the annual monitoring of the -HCP by Thomas - Reid~Bt Associates The. DSEIR7fieIdstudies detezmined that ahe violaplant is located only on ;. lysmall.portions of P..hases:II,aad .III (less~tharl 1 %o of theland atea:for both Phases). ., The,; IiPpse silverspot is identified as a species.of,concem.under.tha;HCP.and protecp 'on of their .. , halaitiat:is;part.oftpe HCP requirement for `dedication ofover.I32 acres as habitat;preservation and~ublic openspace for the Terrabayproject ;So,mitigationao.reduce the,impact:on`the ._ ~ch 'pp~aeto less than sigtuficant,has.already been::iacorporated irno; he Project under; the HCP. Theposition of U.S.Fish & Wildlife.:Service.is that~existing mitigation measures undertbe HCP -ar~eaiequate to ~compeasate;for.theloss ofhabitat and food,plaats of the.clippae:from development of Phases II and. III. . =, -: Please note that, under-the.HCP Agreement,~the U.S. Fish & Wi1dli$c Service, the Comity, and the City are prohibited from imposing-any further requirements on the Terrabay Project in order to protect identified Species of Concern in the HCP, which includes the clippae silve~spot (HCP Agreement, Section V.B., p. 13-14,) Therefore, the City is legally constrained i i i .~ 60R900f.i .. Poor-t~'#he issuancx-of aay~ grading~br building permit"fvr ;activities which°~vtll impac~~etlaads~as shown on~#he ~-~etlaad ~elineation,.map:artifred by~tl~e~:TS. AimyLCops of `` ~, ~ Pmjoct sponsor shall obtain a permit from the U.S. Nrmy Corps of Engineers and be is compliance with all requirements for wetland ' ==mitigation under-the tenns~ofthe~permit:" Please aotethat=if xhe Mitigation Plan is•adopted, significant. portions ~offhe wetl8ads -1 an Phase =III will be avoided, in partictiler the perennial stream ide~ntified~in'-the DSEIR (seeo~~~d~scussion-ofMitigation Plan.in~letter for Mr Hartiish~from Baker:&~McI~eazie, dated Auguat.5, .1998).. _ :. _ ._ _;; 4. Traffic and Circulation 1'liereare~everal~+nblems:with~the traffic-analysis:in:ahe.DSEIIL. first, it __ .overs~atesbackground:traffic:.levels:and~dte:Pr+oject's_trip.generation:and=impacts. ~.Sccond, ii propdses:mitigationmeasures~.vlucha~~nfeasible and does:not inciude~feas~ible TDMfs'SM Programs as mitigations,,. Third, itfails:to:rxogm~e ti~at,uzven.a+ith:the.~mplementati® of aIl ~- `feasible. mitigation measures, the traffic impact of the Project, like the hookramps,'may be :=sigtu$cant.and::unavoidable, aad.a statemcnt~ of overriding,considerations=should be adopted. - ~ Twosssumptt~s:ia the DSEIR trafficaaalysis~result is a s_sgnifieantwerstatcmmt of the 13:32 Pro'eot's • ~ . J , unpaets ,:;~) total build-rnrta~nder the Brisb®ae General -Plan:by t~ year. 2o1Q.; aad (ii) a 30'/0 sand 40'/o increase in the-trip ge:~eratio~n for the residential units inPoirrt and :Commons, and wc~ods,:a~es,~pxhvely :Brisbane:.Gen~a] Plan~buildout::s~,ot.liloel3-;to ~oca~ unti1.2o2o,nr later. . The incrcase_~in.number ofbedmomsin:aad:of rtsclf~does not wairant~sn incarasein_standazd trip ;;generation:rates by~almost.one°third.-`~~uereis nopirical evidence.~~the;I~S]IR to support a . ,. direct correlation~between numbers.of bedroomsandsincreased.~numberof=arehicles. "These assunaptionsahouldbe:revisedand.the',traffic analysis revised accordingly. .. _ Fuithermorey the DSEIR does not:cacplam why,: despite asignificant reduction in trip ~, 13.~3~I; =gener~tiun under he~roposea:plaaas=compared.to~the:1982.5 c E rt_Ydcnttfies Pmje~t .traffiic ampaets;than, the 1996 SIIR : ~e 1995 Sffit concluded thax the Project would not ... .. ., have #my:agnificaat~.mpacts,on intersections or - freeway.::ramps::that.couldnotbe:miti with ;; traffic improvrsn~ts+andLor ~'DMr1sM meas~a~es ;~'he:DSEIRStates: tbatthe proposed.Plan will ., result in a reduction in vehicla traps of 32°J0; for the.:AM,peak l~ and ~23% ,for,th~e:PM. pest hour from the 1982 Specific Plan. Despitic this reduction in Project vehicle`trips,-.the DSEIIt~identifies greater traffic impacts on two intsrseetions and one on-ramp and proposes further significant 6oaaoos.~ ,i ' B do Me1~1~z~ _ , Ham]811 j . Auggst 12,`:1998 Page ho 1 Pm ~t.redu~chons :as mitigation. The conflict between tae ~SEIR ~maiysis and the 1996 SIIR ~ _ :. .. _ ..13,33.., ~ .. _. and tra~aalso_ is_flvastated=because no'TSMrTDM reduction is The amoiint.of backgro~ 13.34 applied to xho Fast Af 1~01-,~rea traf6ic. rInahe.1996 SF~t, a ~2°/.- rip~reduction due to TSMITDM mitig~on was.applied to-the~East of~lOl~,area traff c :However,-the DSF~ did not apply this _ same~rediiction. - - - _ __. `: T]ie DSEIR proposed mitigations for the impacts on.the ~fie~wvay mainline, two 0ystcr _ 13.35a Pointi i~erchaage intersoctions, and the noritibotm,d freeway on-ramp. at Dubuque are infeasible. .':Thca~itigation for::freeway~impacts;(NfitiBation4.4-1)requires~at;least:a.64%reductioa in Project ~; . n :; 'on 'I'his:is .infeasible on:fs:~Ce. The~P.roject density ~alresdy has been.reduced 24% 'p ,for.,P. ;Ih and 50!/o for>Phase III':from t~~19.8~ SpecificPlanPurtherreductions:in:Project densi~y will result in a project that does not meet the City's goals and objectives and,is -- ~' infeasible. _ ~ 3.36.: L T~ mitigabon measure requiring widening of the Oyster Point Boulevard overpass to -- a,adr~s~e :mtersoctican"ympa~ts also=~is ~nfeasi'ble die Oyster Poirot Boulevard overpass caanot . ;: }~+y~~.~au~:the-supportaowers'for~e flyoverere"located mnmediately adjacent to the ~: ;, end southern ends.of~the?ovorpass~roadway. ;fa~e,~-idening of the. as~^toci~noiogicaiynnfeasibie.~i'th~e.construction ofxhe ~yove= --- 13. ~5b ~ The-DSEI~~gationmcasia~c for-the uS :10.1 frxway~~n ramp.-at Dubu4ue;also is - infeasible.: An 85%reduction in~Terrabay ~P 8~ ~ on its facx, infeasible. The . y~. altcroauve~6gatioh to vvidca'the`freewa "nn- ~ , also. is irifeasib"le due to and constraints and the ptnln'bitive cost of the lead ~acgatsition needed=to widen~tlie on-ramp _ ,_ ;, - _ _ ,~ tnlightoftheforegciuig,`tlucApPhctPro~osesst~uefoliownngvemitigation 13.37 :.~ t:a~~. , _ ;:,m ~ imp>icts '"`'Ihe::unposr>Yanaof 1?i31v~i'ShI measureson Phase III:to the a~x~'eittmt'feasi"tiie to ~icvc.at =least-n I3°~6;roduction'in•~singie-occupancy ,vehicle trips." _- - -`This~~ . `gabon~~isfeast'blesadswillresultm~atleast•a~1.3%ronin nps. ~The`Multi-City TS ~ ~°-gencY's : i 996 ~urvey~of3~iorthern~San~viatool~onnty ~nmploytrs indicates that 32% of „ .. . 1 ees 1 or use transit. For the 1996 SEQt, a 12% reduction due to TDM/TSM emP; Py meas~aes was applied~to all=future``developmenf in`the Project~dHast of `IOl area. `.Therefore, a ~nitiorimeasure requiring the >mposition of TDMlPSM measures. to aclrieve af'least;a'13°h ~ on~~ia~smgle~o~acupancy velucic trips fiorthe'Project is fcasib'le slid will result in'the _ .; 1 ~o~~o~acttra~ic impacts. =-P~e aots~at, under l~hga~ian'Plan, tbie'alloc;ation of . _ - ., Phasf III uses to o~ce'in a ' ~ e bwi a-11 increase the efficacy o~TDMTfSMmeasiaes and __ dm8:- .. iilael~ result. ui a greater than 13% rtdachton._ ._ _ ~ .. ., _. . a.~ _.. .. . i _ f . ',' .~ ~ - :Ba~~t & M~'S~vz~ Ivtr. Jun Iiatnish ` Attgt>~t .12,1998 ...Page X11 13.38 ,,. .:: ~ ::~1s an~additional:mitigation meastn~e,~the~DSEIRshould°still inchzde~the`Ptrijed Sponsor's fair share eo~ibution towards:rest~in8•-tiie souttibouadBayshoreBoulevard intersecrtion approach to provide an exclusive right, a shared through/rght, a through, and two left ttmm-lanes -ta='fitigate~hcF}3-ster':Paint>w~estera ~intion= ;.. ` _:Even~ with-the addition-of theme feasi'ble'1'DMTI'SMmit~ 73.39 "'gationmeasures~=ts tutldcely thatntbe:Pmject's sigmficaat~mpact of the - frxway`matnhne, ~ single firewaY on~amp, and two '.~: inons .could be:rrduced~~to.,$aevd~ofnsigoificant-based`vn the a%~signi[ficancethreshold ~• appliedm:the:DSEIR. `.The : Y996 S1IR, w~iicli~ aaalyxed ~ruildout under the ~ 982Specific Plan, - :.concluded-that impacts nn~the freeway `main7inewvould'be signific,ant and m~avoidafile:despitc the :.impleme~tionofall feasible°nuigation=m _. castors, including TDM/'I'SM. 'The proposed Project ,,hasad~rip generatiat~ fiy~32'/° fortlu:~°. ~{ peak hour.-and~2~%for the'PM;peak`.hourfiom development in the-1982 Specific Plan. Despite these reduction ~in~Project nip generation and the implon of maldmttm feasible TDM meastmes, the impact on the freeway, two `; =intersectiions,=aa~d o~ramp mill'1i1CelY,emaia'- gnifirant"andtmavoidable.'' For the 1996 SEIR, ::the=C~ty adnpted~a~statement of ovecnding consideration for~the•sigiuficant,`unavoidable Project traffic impacts. `~'`DSEQt rxommends that-tlie-City~adopt a~statement of overriding consi' 'ons„fot the ° of the _ " ~; Herat, tmPact~: hookramps on~thc:fncev-ray nLainline ana~l3ay§6ore soukvara off~amp 17x ~AppGceat. req»ests that the amityadopt tt statement ofovetticling considerations for the~Prv~ect tcaffic=impaets to the t'they are~not mitgated:,toinsignificant .III. ~ DSEIR Impacts WLicb AreNot Signi6csnt ~ _ 13elow.is a Iist of uisigmfi~ impacts of the Project that the:DSETIt incoaectly identified _ as sigdificantbased on-inaccurate facts: The foIlovuing discussion ~~ explains why the City should .find that'these identified signfica~ impacts are `insi cant theref no mitigation is .-. ,T . .~. ~, ~ reduuzd- ~ _ y 3.40; ImAact'4:~ ~1-coff Sec DramaQe Channd 3ttret'Desgn `cro,~med xoadwavsl - An off- set drainagc~caannel strxt design does not:pr~seat ~Y .greater_potentiahcloggmg-_or runoff ~con~tions #han`the standard crab and " ' ~ , , gutter design recommended as-a mitigation`measure. Then!fore,'tlie `City'shotild'find~that the off-set channel street design;pn~ents no significant _.. _ ._ _ . environmental impact and no =mitt anon is timed. A vehicle: 8 reQ parked adjacent to a curb and :.::gutter. will:carrya very. small amotmt of water,onto the asphalt.concretesurface just as it would with an offset valley gttiter,`resulttng in theaam,e~amount ofpotential `: __ . detenoration. The asphalt ttsurfacing process`adjaeent to a Butter edge ~is~identical :whether that` that gutter is connected to a caurb or fa~tms a valley gutter ~ two-foot wee valley gtrttcr~has one-thud mon-capaci#y than ~ one-and-a~ne~all-foot ~ride:gut#er s~aceaot:to a canb A"valley gutter' saes ~riot,promote clogging any more then a cutb`and;gutter, very~at longitudtnal;.gutterslopes, not.theprrsence or abseizce of a curb, cause'debris deposition and alogging.:There is tio~tiasis`in-fact to conclude 6os9oos.t i B~ ~ ~~~~ - Mr. Jim xarnish - Auguat 12,1998 Page ~2 . that: roadway :e~oss-section with~an::off-set.drainage ~chanael :and/or constant cross- 13.0 ~~"''~ •,.. .; 310pC~le.R11~L4~Ii18,~ptCDt1g113i;S1,~tL1~~ ~ ~lID •e; ~'"~r~ ~• ~,'; ~~'c ~. ;._ . Impact 4.2 2 (li~imum Rear and Side Yard Drainage Slogr~ The;potential #looding of Y.3.41 r~r or side yards due to the proposed 1'/0 lope is based on inaccjaste fads-and a - - , misintcatian.<of~the I3BC standards ~UBC Section~r~31S:4 Kngques~a minimum slope of two ;pen~eiot~.way;from,buildingpadsao:en-,~approved:dtainage~fac~ity. Swales:~e;r+ecogniud .drainage. feat~nrs <~rhuch3lead:to'~nlexs land the hard-piped drainage-system The T1BC does not _ _ require;tw+o:peromt ovedandflow,~ora;Piped s3'stGm. ~~~~earthen:or h~ndsceped. swales are not:an.uausual:.feshme ar=~.Pm#icvlarlY•.di~cuh:construction.feat. ' CC&It ,c~nttols are _ Y sufficientto.eostmeahatshsinage feattu+es:.:are.natadversely-altered. The yardsas~esigned do not - present apotential flooding,impact. Therefore,~the Cityalwuld :find that the~mpact is not , :: signi$icant:aad-no~mitigationis rzquirtd, ,..~ _ ~ .If the City,detecmines:.that.theproposed 1%slopepr~nts apote~ially sgnificaat .im.Pad,;zhe.mitigation.;meas~aesho~ldbe.ievised:.,to:read.as:follows: "Mmimvm rearya:d amd - side,yard~draimagcshall::comply-with~IJBCstandards. ~~n~addition,~xhecvnditions=ofProject apprgvalsahall~includc ~appro.,priste,ovtrsi„ghtandlor~controls-~on;:backyard;pav~ingbyresideats. `. ,-These co~olssball,be.;;iachxledin:the:Projects•.~Cove~aats,~~Conditions aad:Rastrictions: (CC~Rs).and.mforced:~ty theme Homeowner's:Associationslfor each:neighborhood." Under this mitigation measime, City staff would detemninc compliance with UBC standard. f ,. _ _ 13.42 ~~ 42-8 sad 4 2-9 (unnaveci A~ and'Fire ILoadsl =-Tha existing unpaved access and ire roads~aze.not as~ficant.impact of tlu Project a~ their wired removal would ` conflict with other~mitigation measures and cause `fiuther ~mpaets. Therefore, the imprct should ` _ be;"identified as~` . ' .": and the.mitigation:measure deleted. , T1ie access~and fi:e trails ,._~ ., .. '. already ex~st~and are not impacted''by the Project;-except within the'Pmject brats of grading _- arhert they are eliminated. 'The County Fire Department,:not the developer,,put in the roads and wa there ~s no evidence tD the.DSEIR s conchuao wa cause si -_ . dae afore. 'The;remoyal also. tbatthese.unpaved access } : Ys,'.8 ~mPact~ ~ would conflict :with _._ ,proposed LV!rtigation Measure 43 1{c) which requires,the use:of existing fine roads for pedestrian park trails"Lastly, restoration of existing~fire trails;shouldnot be.1e~rired because the restoration .. - .. _ `~gmficant impacts :due to the,grad~wg requu~ed to access and restore he roads. i_ itsel~;will:create , _ ,. .: , - ,, .~ , 13,3 ~int~act ~ X4-6' (Rosdwav~Vidthl There ~s.ao factual bas~sfor the~SEIR's conclusion ~tbat°22 foot widetravel.ways.in PIBSO II esidentia'l areas willhave ssigaificaatimpact onpublic -- safety ~s the`DSEIlZ'sclCnowledges, the'2'L footer zs Witted undcr.the .aasdng .- standards,~fortheTeira'bay SpccificPlanDistnct;(§ 20.~3120~EI,)(2))- ~he~proposed`Phasc II , ' roadways`wflT3save at'least a ~ foot travel wa~y.,`~This Exceeds .the City :Code standard for a ; - - _ . } pubhg residential minor streeE which requires only a 2Q:foot wide travel way (3b :foot roadway with pight~Foaf parking on both sides.) -, 6oa9oos.~ j ~ 22. foot travel way was specfically ;,nco to mmimi~e, grading 13.43 ~ rporsted into the;plans and .. , walls in ~thc-T'ertabay`Pro~ea:The 22 foot;aavel. way under the proposed,plans was apthe:City pub`hc sa~etY • The narrower st;ceet~eahances.safcty by reducing ,, , ,. . , ~ - th+es~eo`d of ~relncles ;~'hcre--nt contLct between cars pul~ng.QUt of driveways and cars traveling on the street:' "'These streets only serveaocal housing amts and have.extreme 13'. - low't~c volumes. 'There are'nu~ecou's`~other residential scene m:South .San Eracisco which ,, _ .. , have~2.=foot travel ways or narrowrr`in~hg~ht oTthe City"20 foot staadard~discussed above. The ,. . - .~ .City should' find that ~e-22-foot travel way presents no sigDificant-mpact and no mitigation is ,- _ ;. - :. . .~, .. ' Imflact 4.4=8 '(Residential Paid Dimensions) -The DSEIR,identifies .the "substandard" 13.44 .: - - - - ~ ons'firP~ll~ P~8 spaces, _ B~Se s and driveway. aprons. for the residential arcs ` a si "" cant eavironmeatal" . F' .. ,, gnifi impact.: ast, even :assuming the dimensions arc substandard, no si cent +envimnmental'impact resuhs from the conditions. It is an issue of:compliance wi$t `~ ity'Code requirements, not an emnromnental issue. The: iesideahal,parking dimensions are ~ ~ . y set'lor thc'Project in the Teiraliay Specific P-lan District ordinance due to-the unique 'hy of the Project area:`Therefone; she City has the discretion to 'set: any standard that it ~° ;' finds° 'for the"Terrabay`Prhject. ;Second, thepatallel parking spaces,.-garage and driveway aprons conform with:City standards:` In numerous discussions`withPlaiming and ,. _. . . ` Publi~ Works staff, the City consisteatTy measured~apron depth from ,the facx of the garage .door tQ ba~k-of ~e sidewalk, oz, .w`hereahere-is ~ s~depvsIlS t4 the face of. the curb, mot to.#he private :~ '' ngiit; f-way as measured inahe~,DS'EIIt. 'Therefore, 'in the PmP ~~ drvearaY -with ~_ no eaeent sideavalks meet the Citystanda~d whey measiu~ed.from the garage door to_the face of e `, the .Similarly, the garageparkin"g s~a~ce size of 1.8,feCtin depth for.the third car'bay was _ .:.. .. ~yb3' ~ ~Y due ;to a gn constraims. `Tliis. garage. size. for the third +car bay may be `by ~the'City under the'Terraba - S c Plan District Drdinance. `The arallel . ,.. _._Y P~fi„ ,. P ~ ~ p~nB spac~ size ~ also'ia confa®oance with the Ttxrabay District'Ordinancx and" Crty Code in_general. Tha epnsttng Terrabay District Ondmaoce acts .eight feet as the minimum .width for private road . ,,. spaces .(§ 20.63070B;). The City Code sets eight ffat-as the standat~d parking aridtb for a .. '" ~ .minor street (Diagram 1920 020.) Therefore, the proposed .eight foot.width is in ,r.. ;. ce,with the City standards..The~length of paiallel,parkingspaces:also~was discussed at ,..... length withsta~ ~Parallel_parlQng spaces are20 feetaong,.except where one end.of theapace is . - . ,, adjac~nt to_a dnveway~apron whichpmvides maneuvering room to~enter orexit.the,parldng ... -_._ ' spaces..-Such spaces with one constrained ~od;are ,18~feet 1or~g...Based.on th,e, foregoing, all ,, ref ,cece~nces to substandard driveway~prons.~r;parkimg.dimensions mahe.DSl~shouldbe ~' deleted. ;;(See, for examplc,=Fxhiints 2.3-4.and 2.3-12 ). ~ - I~ - ., -- Impact 4 ~9 (Dverflow~Parkmal "The DSEIR's'iden • ` `~ ~ tification of potential instfficie~ . ; , . .. g'for visitors for:part~es or special events, desp~ compliance with tfio CitY.:Parking rala}rements, is not a significant eavironmenial impact. The City,residential parking standards 6os9oofi.i i 73.46 '. ~~ 4.9-1 (CA-SMa-401-The DSEIIt should identify the plan for filling and caPP~B CA-pia-40.as.a mitigation;in c~mpliancx_with.CEQA and no:furthar:measurcs are needed to Protest the site Filling a>id capping -aa archeological site"~s an accepted mitigation under ~EQA and tike proposed plan will not'significantly damage the sift 'The DSEIR's conclusion~that the .. ~P~sed fill over~the ~sitc would resiilt~ia the'"total;destruction"; of the resource is eaoneous. The I~SIIR`does not have:ec-rrecf in~'onnation on the amount of 5ll on tbe:archeologicalsite ;propgsed under the',plan.' :The verbal.de.4ciiption aapages,~8~-287 and F.achi'bit 4.9-Tare inacciaaze "The amount flf fill his shpwn a~n -the:graiinB Plans. As Mr. McHuronstat~ed.at the public study session, the`E,.xht't~it macaaately~depicts uniform~.5ll.over-the:entire site~arith:a24- foot iieteitiiag wall ion;tbe edge `of the site 'As N1r. Mcliuron e.~cplained, the amount .of fill aver~~rc.sitc vaties'~rom.mmimal ~ill~in the center of#hc site,,&radua't1.Y mcscasing to ~a.maximum of Z3 ifeet ax'the edge ofthe site.; `The retaining wall to the "soutleastetn comer Af the site is only __ ._ _ . , 'three, and abets only 40liect of the site. -Tfi~e:'3Q /o.compression ideatified:in.the DSEIR `:~s no~`based on sdentific'~testiag or rich raslilts. 'Tv1r. Mciuron`tisss that #hc potential ,_, compa~essioa is abaitt ~ 0°l0 or l "foot. ' F1norc, the ci~tcnt of compaction dep~c~s, on the :. .._ amaou'iat of the fill. ;`Since: the amount of fill ::' ~ ~ ~' vanes over the site, ,the. degree of ~Y_,. ;. compaction also will vary. -Since .the potesidal compaction is 10'/o aQd :covers .only Limited rtdns::of the site, the' of the. fill and lams not... :cant. P° :: t . P~P~ ~ P _ _ : ~.B~ _ ~, . 13.47 The~"DSEQZ's`proPosed mitigation tQ eaccavabe the. rte for~data iecovrry is improper under and-shrnild be deleted. ;~3nder:CEQA excavation"for a oats :only is ... _ -~ ~, permuted v+ihen~n.arc`lieological ~srte_is destroyed or removed thcr+e hasbeea insufiiciem ci~lific study~aad~documentation of~he srte;(PulliclZesources Code'~'210832(d)`Appendix K 'VII`C and~D).'Neither~ofthese~conditioas~are met `'Thce'is ao'sub tantial`factual evidence to . ~... _1 .. x. . -~ - off .a >~ . ~suppvrttha~concluswn'that~te-site-will lx' -d~oyed. As~esca'bed~above,'tho extent of ... ,: .. a coai~actton:due to~the fill°will'>be a maximum of l~% over only `a portion of the site:.Also, as `~ `ids is the`DSEat ~t''has already been sagm~cant and snffiaeat sac~fic ~huiy and doci>mentation of the site under~te=:1989 excavationsbp Holman & Associates ~aad the recording of the site Please note that the,assa»~ption in the DSEIRahatahe datasa~ovcry.:program ; ,~ ~. :. :. rxom>acnded in'thc report.by Holmaa~t Assoc>ates,is,pert of S.unChase s~applicexion is ._ , ,. _ mcornt;et. The Holman-report clearly was not pmt of the..appLcation.;~SunChase simply funded :. ... , ' `this`pdependart~study to be used as partof ~ environmental nwiew process: As we have .i i i Ba dt M'~rT'L~!'. _i Mr. dim Harnish Augtist 12,1998 Page;15 13.47 -`p~Y informed the .city, SunChase objects to any excavation on the site due.to the potential advetse impacts from excavation and objections to excavations from the Native America com~nuaity. Therefore, the DSEIR should be modified to eliminate any reference to excavation and tie data recovery program as part of the application. 7.;f.4$ The requirement chat the rdatiaaship.between CA SMa-92 and CA-SMa-40 be studied if CM-SMa-40 is capped and filled. should be deleted. mere is imply no co~ection betvueen this -issue and the proposed pmject. If this additional mitigation was included. because of the excavation plan included in the DSE1R, it should be deleted in conjunction with the deletion of the e~ccavation plan described above. Furthermore, at various public meetings, Mr. Chavez and Mr. ~iolmaa have both.testified that, based on study of the two sites and land in between, there appears to be no physical connection between the two sides. Both sites have clearly defined outside boundaries and na additional resoiuces have-been located between the two sites. y 3.2Qb ; With regard to CA-SMa _92, as described above, the site is Located outside the development and.grading area and will not be.disriubed. Therefore, the.Project has no significant impact on CA-SMa :92 and no mitigation is required (see p. 4 above). - ~ Sincerely, 1-~--w.. _ ~~ Timothy D. Cremin TDC~rw cc: Steve Mattes, City Attorney .Adam Lindgren, Assistant City Attorney 'Michael Wilson, City Manager '. .Allison Knapp 6oa9ods.i `LETTERS .73 a and "b TIMOTHY CREM/N, BAKER & McKENZ/E y .. _ ,. . .... .. Letter 13 a (Augusl.5, 7998) - - ;Response-t3.1 ~`.This-comment.and ihe~:remainder of=the~writer's`August 5"letterpresent the,project sponsor'.~s `.`Mitigation.:Plan" and.%reach-'conclusions: about`~its effectiveness ~in deducing :or avoiding impacts .attributable .to' the;project: as;proposed :which the 1998 DSEIR a:identified. ' :Master Response ;7.3,1 presents ahe •evaluation;of-the sponsor.'s~ plan as the Phase 111 Site Mitigation-Plan. Development ~Alteraatiue. -.: .._. ;_ .- :; ._.. Response 13.2 The comment refers .to .the project sponsor's new Phase -III- Site Mitigation Plan Develo merit Alternative which .would -serve to •artl l P ~ p y protect .some of the sensitive biological and wetland :resources ion ~,xhe site. :As pointed out .by :'the comment,--the Phase -III :Site `~rtilitigation Plan Development:Alternative would nerve-to~protect he large stand of callippe silverspot'larval'host plant (Viola ;pedunculasa) aocated at :ahe :=northern edge Hof the "-Phase III -site, consistent with the recommendation.in~l~Iitigation:Measure 4.3=2.: Potential>impacts on wetland :resources still would be ;significant with:~unplementation of -.the -~'hase III -Site Mitigation `Plan Development Alternative, although come :existing .wetlands .would . be -:preserved on the -Phase III site. - Mitigation measures :recommended :in the.1998.:DSEIR- till would .apply to ;this =alternative, even .though the total acreage for replacement wetlandhabitat lost as::a:result of development.may-be reduced as a-result of the partial preservation. A detailed assessment of the potential impacts of -the Phase >Ill: Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative is provided in Master Response 7.3,I. _.. _. _ Response x13.3 The . Phase- III ;.Site .1Vlitigation ,Plan Development. Alternative -:would significantly .reduce .cuts .into .the southern ::part..of 'San;l3tvno :Mountain.; Thinreduction =would contribute to a -similar:decrease°in other.potential-adverseimpacts ;(such as erosion /siltation and•slopestability). -The __ Phase,,IILSife.Mitigation -Plan::Develgpment::Alternative:=also would :reduce:-the area :needed for winterization, revegetation, and rock slide. potential, compared with the;project as proposed. 'Response:73.4 ~2eduetionof otai-two-way•A1vl:and>PM;'peak hour-traffic by the project sponsor's Phase ,ill Site::11~itigation -Plan .Development Alternative compared with volumes =the •1998 DSEIR estimated:for: the Phase III,project is:not:the:only:issue. The:;Phase-III<development analyzed in the .1998 DSEIR -would result <in a relatively seven directional ::distribution =of traffic :during -the PM commute peak hour (49 percent inbound / 51.percent outbound) and a somewhat more directional split during .the A1VI;peak: hour ,(50 :percent inbound _/ 40~ percent :outbound).:- However, =primarily office :development: proposed.by:the.Phase:I11<Site lYlitigation Plan De~elopment:Alternativewould-.have a much.:-more .distinct directional flowduring :commute -periods X88 .percent -inbound / ;12 percent outbound during the .AM peak ,and 17=-percent inbound ;l83 . percent -outbound-during -the PM peak). Therefore, while total two-way .:generation -from the Phase .III .Site Mitigation Plan :Development Atternative:would:cbe:the sa.me:ar.evensomewhat-less than the project-analyzed in the 1998 DSEIR, the extreme., directional: splits ..of lower- .overall ~ two-way<traffic levels ~ could have resulted -in the -same or greaterimpacts..at one : ormore ~loeations.::However,`~based .upon -analysis, :greater impacts'have been :..:mitigated :through..traffic=reductions AVhich would Aresult'~from a'~potential `5transportation demand -;.management / ransportation systems.managemenr-:(TDM /`TSM) plan being'developed by~the project sponsor.as parrof.the,office~:development. ~Tt;should be~noted; though; that a specific'TDM 7 TSM.pIan 1 Project sponsor's attorney. The sponsor's comments are contained in two letters. Responses are numbered consecutively for both letters. Letter 13-1 -Situ Mitigation Plan Development.Alternative. :A specific TDM /TSM .plan would need to be :provided by -the sponsor.:,as •.;part ;,of -the _Phase ~,lll.-Site:,:Mitgation .:Plan .Develvpment.~Alternative. ::Alternatively, TDM /TSM can constitute-one item in a list of mitigation measures the City ultimately requires of the. project as part of the environmental and project revew:process ° ` ~A.I3 ,percent:reduction in commutepeak hour<trips.seems.realisticfor office ~development_if ,there was an .ongoin dedicated . - and ~. ° ~ ,'. ~ `- :.:.- g program, transportation demand ::management::;(TDM) "manager: to ,.promote . ;carpooling :and .:transit :.use : and ~ if this program is :enforced; bye:the: local ~: jurisdiction. This goal also ;:.would be..easier: to: achieve if -only onecompany -or a :few:° lazge: tenants -:oceupied;xhe .office building. Please note that the Multi-City Transportation Systems Management Agency (MTSMA) survey.results quoted for reduced single driver commuters were for. major employers .in northern. San Mateo County, :;.not smaller employers... ;-. - ' Response 13 5 ::The ; grading;;plan •for -Phase III :°site .facilities.:represented ~:by ~.the..:Phase -III .Site :Mitigation Plan Development:Alternative.does not appear..to impose:any::additional •hydrologic impacts compared with;ahe "project as proposed. -~ appeazs~to address;theradical diversion .of debris from the - • middle drainageway south ao>thesouthernmost;debris basin. :The new;.basin=design incorporates a revised.location. that =would .facilitate:captureof such debriswithout°the on-contour:=diversion swale. _ .The:impact identified forahe:project'.s~proposed grading.plan regarding eeped oils: till would occur _ with,.~the :.Phase~rlll -Site Mitigation =Plan.;Development Alternative: ~:•and still :°would require ;implementation of;:Mitigation Measure 4.2-5. Also,. a typographical 'error .is corrected in the 1998 DSEIRtext as noted. .' _ Response :13.6 Comment.noted.:It:is agreed that implementation of the project sponsor's Phase IIl _ .Site:Mitigation-P_lan.Deueloprner~t:Alternative wvould=•notincrease air:quality emissions. `-It also would -:~lot:causeaocal.~riolations of;the.air_qualitystandards:for~carbon monoxide. "q'herefore,the:.resulting air quality.impacts~vvould;be~the;same asorless~;than,those:expectedfrom`implementingthe-:project as .proposed. - Thee;aame.,~mitigation :measures identified in'the '1998 :~DSEIR. wvould .:apply '(Mitigation ~. Measures 45-1=through 45-3). _ `:, - : _ :. _- . , _ . ~~Response'::13 7 ~~=Comment noted. Implementation:of~the project° ponsor's Phase 1IL:Site'Mitigation :.Plan Development :Alternative rwould :result in noise: =impacts' similaz €to xhose :expected from the project. -Theaame measures, identified.an ahe. DSEIR ao mitigate noise impacts of the project would <apply~to-thisalternati~-e.,(Mitgation Measures 4:6-1 through 4.6-4). - Response 13.8 The :South :.San: Francisco Police Department: f SSFPD)::estimates -impacts of new ,.development in;two ::ways. ~One:is toyestimate the a~erage~:annnaL-number:of calls forservice (CFS) -- attributable~to the.project. ` The.other:is<to estimate:~the additional police personnel~required to serve the "}:project. Both.estimates rely on land use-type.an size of~buildings. ' .- ,._- ':The :SSEPD<;uses •~the.aame _CFS. and .personnel ;ratios'for~~office°~and -mixed :use'tlevelopment and .different :gates .for.. other aypes :of-=commercial and =uses, ~<~includii3ghotels, .restaurants; :and .retail ~ - <,development. The, rate.~used :to:estimate-CFS =from office:and.~mixed :use :development`(4:UO.annual <CES..per-x,000 square feet) is: higher;xhan:the~rates for other.:commercial-uses {(see below:and.Exhibit __ .;7.3-I3..in:Master.Response.7..3=I). `This.concept.~is;summatized as:fdllows, assuming~:340,000 square ;feet each of;restaurant, retail, ~ and::mixed use / .office development for comparative purposes: Letter 13-2 >.ComDarlson:.of.CaUs:#nr Service'!w. Cornmarr_Fa- - n~~ i rQa Land Use , . ~ :. Size Calls for Service .. ~ eel CFS/3:000 s uare. eet ~7Vumber.a CFS Restaurant 340,000 _1:10 ~"374 Retail 340,000 1:50 : ~ ~ S10 'MixedUsetOffice 340,000 4.00 1;360 'CFS generated by :hotel are estimated fln the basis of number of rooms rather .than square feet of building azea (0:32'CFS /room). ...: ~ .. In contrast ~ to CFS, 'mixed use /office development requtres the addition of fewer officer positions -than the types_of commercial land uses shown, above This concept'similazly: is umrnaized below, also assuming 340,000 square feet of restaurant, retail, and mixed:use /:office development: ,. _ _ _ 'Ceme9risen .ef lncr~ss~sarl !~`t~ff-ni, Rer....~,..a.,f~ /w ~+....~..........:..~ :~ ~~J ~ r__ _- Land>Use - .; -Size :Sworn OfFicer °Street-Patrol Total s care eet rate .number -rate number Restaurant 340,000 '396;360 0:86 582,727 `.0.58 1.44 Retai] 340;000 290,852 i.17 436;628 0.78 `1.95 Mixed Use /Office '340,000 .:1,759,286 -0:19 2,592,631 ..0.13 0.32 - These comparisons :show .that ,the same size building can be expected~ao.generate :different; numbers of ~~ .calls .for: service: due to.the aype of land- uses; while buildings. -expected to ,generate :a large numbers of - - calls .for service still :may not require ahe addition ofa full officer: position. The 1998. DSEIRestimates both CES rand.;personnel .requirements .,of .the T-errabay ,-project (and ... alternatives) usingS.SFPD-races. The 1998,DSEIR.assessed the.effects.of the,;prnject.and:alternatives using the threshold .presented on DSEIR. page 238 to determine the significance of increased CFS and ..:increased police .staffing :requirements.. This criterion .is :the addition of one full ,officer;position or .a._ ::patrol vehicle. ;Using this criterion, the.1998 DSEIR .concluded that he,.project:and alternatives would not have a significant impact on the SSFPD. Neither the project nor this alternative. would result in a significant impact. - - , Although the Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternaxive would .generate more calls for :service than;.-the project, implementation of -.the :alternative would :require .fewer.: additional police ,;personnel compared with ahe :number,expected with implementation. of -the project as „proposed. This alternative would ,.require .the .combined effort-of about .0.52 additional :officer, -.compazed with 0.91 additional :officer ,estimated "for. the .project (see :Comparison of Estimated .Phase ;IIL Site Police Service.Needs on .the following page). „. - :This conclusion is 'based on -the :following Phase IIL Site .Mitigation Plan Development .Alternative :assumptions of 340,000 square feet of offices (Parcel A),. a 7.,500-square. foot quality restaurant (Parcel ,_ F), and ..150 hotel rooms ..(Parcel G) and the police personnel staff ratios shown above and in 1998 -DSEIR Exhibit 4.7-1 (one sworn officer per 1,759,004 square-feet-of:mixed-use development, .the same Letter 13-3 -rate he SSFPD :uses throughout the Fast of 101 Area and the. same rate the 1998 .DSEIR used for ~' proposed.Phase.`III mixed-use:development and forcnmulative development). 2 _ _ ' _ _ ~ . _: ;:Comparison . of •Estimafed Ahase 111 • S/te •Po/ice Service Needs ,_ ;Land'Use a _. _ .- : maps far Seivieae °, '>Swoom `Of>iraer `:. _ ~:: Strrset Patrol a .;,- Tats/ Need s -Pro osed Phase-ll/ SIte:P 'ect Detre/ meat P -~• -= Siu Rate Number -Rate Number Rate : .Number Hotel 600 0:32 192 1,356 0:44 .1,950 0.31 .0.75 'IViixed'Use • 35 '-'4:n0 ' 140 1;759;286 0.02 2;592;631 '~ `0.01 0.03 Restaurants 18 1.10 20 396;360 =0:05 582,727 OU3 0.08 Retail 10 1.50. 15 290,852 0'.03 436,628 0.02 0.05 :Total .,: 367 _ =0:54 ,: ~~.37 0.91 Rhase X71/ Site• Miti afion~Plan: Deve/o ment Alternative . .'Size .Rate Number : ...;Rate - Number =:Rate -Number Hotel 150 ~ '0.32 48 1,356 0.11 `1,950 0.08 0.19 Mixed.Use 347.5. 4.00 1,390 % 1,759,286 ~ 0.20 - ' .2,592,631 0.13 0.33 :Total - .._ . _ '3;+138 _ - .. -0:31 - 0.21 0.52 a Size indicaus the:amount of space by use givenin nttmber of rooms for hotels and in thousands (1;000) of:squam feet. b Annual calls'for service: (CFS). "Rate shows CFS per hotel room and per 7;000 square fcet of other commercial use. c - Rateshows-need'to employ~one~(I).-additional sworaofficecper the number.of square fcet,given. - -" d ,-Rate shows need.3o assign one additional-sworn officer to strcet patrol-activity per:the number of square"feet given. :,e Number of-sworn officers..and street patrol personnel positions. (Fewer than''1.0-would be ales-than<signifirant impact.) ~- f .:Flex-space and.mixed-use commercial`(the category used by the-SSFPD.for offices). _. ""This conclusion is i:based'~on the .following `Phase 'lll Scte'.~Mingation::Plan 'Development Alternative `_ - =~ :'assumptions of 340;000 squarefeetof~offices.(Parcel~A),•a 7;S00-square'foot.<quality-:restaurant (Parcel ' `F), and 150 hotel" rooms-(Parcel 'G) and the policepersonnel staff :ratios shown above and in 1998 - DSEIR:Exhibit 4.7-1 (one sworn officer per 1,759,000 square feet. of.mixed use development, the -same ' rate `the"SSEPD uses-Throughout the'~=East °of =101 Area -and thesame rate the 7998 DSEIR used for ` - proposed Phase IIT mixed-use development and~or:cumulative development). 3 ' - - Response't3:9 The Phase ~~III site=islocated `in the -Brisbane School -District `(BSD), as is the - - proposed Point neighborhood `on the Phase II site. ' The sponsor's .Phase 7II'Site litigation Plan Development Alternative would notialterthe estimated number of school=age residents of.the Point (82 students)(see Impact 4.7-7). However, the :Phase .III Site .Mitigation. Plan Development Alternative ---- would change the .estimated number of students attributable to Phase III site development. ` The``BSD uses a student; generation `rate of 1:D student -per ':130 to`-240 -new jobs. The Phase-III Site ~! __ `:Mitigation'~Pla-i I3evelopment Alternative corild: create approximately 1;851 'jobs on~the`Phase III. site, as discussed in ~Master'Response 7.3-I. ''-These 1;851 employees; in-noon, could :generate eight to 14 ;- - ' BSD students,' compared with~~approximately 720-780 employees and an estimated.`three: to six new ! _ .students .attributable to the project's Phase III development concept. "This conclusion:is`based on the .same development. assumptions .discussed in the immediately, preceding response (340,000 square feet of offices, a ~7,500-square .foot restaurant, and a :`150-room :hotel) .:and :also on ::the .applicant's employment factors (used for consistency. with the 1998 :DSEIR analysis of the ~:project :and other - 2 Nichols • Berman conversation with Sargent Mike Massoni, Crime Prevention /Planning /Traffic, City of South San Francisco Police Department, August 28, 1998. - 3 :Nichols • Berman conversation with Sargent Mike Massoni, Crime Prevention /Planning./ Traffic, City of South San Francisco Police Depamnent, August 28, 1998. - Letter 13-4 alternatives) of.1.0 employee.per 200 square,feet of-retail, .restaurant,:and:office development and 0.75 ernployee..per hotel.room(see Mgster &espouse 7.3-I). .,.4, _.._~ . ,:; . _ . " Comparison of Esfimated fma/ovment.:and.Student.Generatien :Land Use Size Job Rate' Jobs Student Rate Students -Pro osedl?ro'ect .,. .,... ,..,; . . Hotel 360=600 ttwms`b - "0.75 to ee /room '270-450 ` '1°/ 13x240 'obs ` ''.i.1-3.5 Mixed Use- ° 35;000 are feet ...:. .1:80- '/ Z(10 s feet " I75 T~/"13d=24~'obs `0.7-1.4 Restaurants : 18;000 s uare`feet : 1.00 10 /'200~s are feet ,90 1 Y130-240 'obs' '0.4-0.7 Retail - :10;000a arc:feet 1:00 to /200• uarefeet . 30 1'/=130=?~0'obs '` ` -0:2-0.4 Total 585-765 d 2.4-6.0 ` Phase /l/ Site ~:Miti ation Plan,De~elo ment.Aitematnre Hotel ;150 rooms 0.75- to ees./•room 1i3 1'/.130-240~'obs 0.5-0.9 Mixed Use 342,500 s are-.feet 1.:00 tm lovee /:200 s are feet 1',738 L / :130-240 'obs Z.2-13.4 .Total ~ 1,851 7..7-I4.3 a The project sponsor rdentrfied all the employee. generation rites shown above and.also indicated that the Phase III project would employ a total of approximately 720=780 people, as described below in the main text of this response. ` b The sponsor assumed development of. an average.of 180 rooms. per hotel (for a total of 540 rooms), compared with the 360 to 600;potential moms:reguested by thesponsorin the pending Specific'Plan:Amendment forthe site.' c The sponsor estimated 405 employees. (0.75: employee per-room;and assuming-540 rooms) whereas 360-.600 rooms would .generate 270-450 employees. d The 1998 DSEIR used the range of 720-780 employees identified by the,_project sponsor.., 720 employees represent the sum of 405 hotel employees plus 315 -other employees (for 720 total employees), as discussed in footnotes b and c, above. ::780 employees represent.the project sponsor'. s "worst case".or "conservative" estimate. e 720-7.80 employees would:result in;three to siz new students. - _ During preparation of the 1998 DSEIR, the project sponsor provided twoestimates .of commercial .employees for the project using one set of employment density ratios. and two sets of hotel sizes. The resulting estimate .was a range of 720-780 total employees which..accbunted°fgr: °hotel =:plus other :commercial .land .uses (mixed use, restaurant, and .retail uses) ,proposed for the Phase -III .site.. This ;difference.in oral::employment partly_reflects ;the::proposedrange of 3603600 hotel rooms -and partly :reflects ~a "worst case" estimate.::#or._~the ;purpose of;: analyzing -the :project conservatively. The "conservative'' estimate .assumes total :of X780 <.employees (but does;not account for employees by land use) (DSEIR.page 41.). The .720-employee:.estimateassumes 405 hotel rooms:(~lus 315 employees - a "constant" number -.for the other commercial land uses .proposed on the Phase III site .by the project). The ::FIR .consultant. tested ;the :: project :sponsor's employment estimates :using ahe sponsor's employment density ratios and ahe.:amount:of :commercial development ~:proposed-~(360-600 hotel rooms .plus the other mixed .use, restaurant,. and retail uses). The range in hotel size would .generate -.27,0-45:0 employees .for 360-600,hotel rooms, respectively.` These :270-450- hotel employees>combined with<the-.315-other employees(`.`constant"for:the'-others commercial aand•=uses), =would result in 585- .765 total .employees: onahe-:Phase III site. ;Based.onthese:ranges - 720=780 total employees estimated by=the projectsponsorand.585-765;total.employees++:estimated~by the~EIR_consultant --~and'in keeping .with:;the .approach :.of :revealing. "conservative"'<.estimates, the 1998. DSEIR .uses 720=780:employees althoughahe:density:~ratiosresultin585=765;employees. '.The.DSEIR and FSEIR,analyses:,of Ehase; III::site development:alternatives:-.used::the;:project sponsor's employment density ratios. For the Phase III Site tllitigation_P-.lanDevelopment Alternative's land .uses, the employment density ratios .result in .1,851 .employees. They, in turn, would .generate an estimated eight ao>~14 atudents xo :BSD schools..:The Phase: Ill :Site `~Iitigution TPlan `:Development Alternative's eight to 14 -.new :students :from.:the Phase:IIIaite, combined:with =82 students .from the Phase >II:Point .(a total of .90-96 new : students) would:equal> or exceed `theestimated-numbers of BSD students attributable to both the 1998 .project as proposed (85-88 total new students) and the 1996 Letter 13-5 .: ., ~ ~. :'. : ,, ,. project '(90 new students). ~ Nevertheless, °based on ~ the significance criteria available to ,.make a -determination of. impact, ,additional . students .attributable `~to "the `•Phase:'III 'Site ':Mitigation :Plan Development , Alternanve would not constitute a sigmficant unpact under CEQA, the Stcue EIR ' - ~~Guidelines, and relevant judicialdeci§ions w ., .. _... ...., .. -. -,. ._Response 73.10 The comment-is correct. ,~ia~ards-and~ associated regulatory.requu~ements i+trsulting -_ :from aerially deposited cad do not relate-to ~~evelopment of ahe Teirabay:Phase III site, only to. the site -ofthe proposed:.hook ramps construction and'Bayshore'Boulevard realignment. I3azards attributable - -- _ 'to exposure ao, electromagnetic fields similarly-ado not:;relate to development-of the .Terrabay Phase III - :_ •: site, only to ,the Phase II Commons neighborhood.crossed .by electrical transmission lines. _ ,- . _ _ ,:Response 13.11. Comment acknowledged This comment describes the development concept of the __ ..;project: sponsor's.Phase III'Site Mitigation ~'Ian:.Deyelopment Altenaanve. `:'The.alternative is analyzed • in Master:Response 7.3-1. "The comment is coirecE in -stating that'the ~amouat and location of grading ;vv..ould.be:reduced~and<.would not.extend-as faz north-and-west with implementation of the alternative, compared with where and how much land would be ;disturbed by,imglementing the project. -- - . ._:.. _ Response :13.72 _The signalized entrance to the-northpart of.the Phase III site proposed by the project sponsor's-new°Phase III'Site .Mitigation Plan Deve"lopment Alternative-would'be'located.farther from the hook -ramp intersection .than the signalized access. to the Phase III,.project .analyzed in the 1998 DSEIR. 'The alternative location would be better:from.a~vehicle.storage.standpoint. -The alternative's unsignalized right turn.in-Z•right,aurn::outs.driveuvay_conneeting.the-:pazking~garage ahould .operate -- .:acceptably ::during. most °.periods, although~by2010 nt could ~~experience a :few .periods during the . evening commute when. outbound :movements would;be blocked by .traffic backed up from the hook - . ramps intersection signal: - ;. . ,..,.: - - ~ , . _ Lefter 13 b .(August ,T2, ,7998) - - .;, Response <73.13 :AS :the 1998.DSEIR:indicates,~implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.1-2 through 4.1-6 ~would>:reduce ahe ~•severity. -of:impact ~to3ess-than-significant -levels. ~ ~Responses,l3.21-.through _ _ :I3.26~:present.specific responses to:modifications tosthesemeasures :requested by he:commentor and discuss :the-.effectiveness ofineasures as-proposedao-be modified by the~.project sponsor. Response 13.14 Comment noted. :In .the absence of substantiating technical information, the EIl2 hydrologist,:cannot ;confirm :whetber:in 'fact:the :measures cited (Mitigation"'Measures 4'.2=3 thmugh - - 4..2-7 and 4.2-.10) have,been incorporated~ievised project pIaris: ~~ Response 13.15 The.. -1998 . ~SEIR Evaluation . of ;parking 'supply proposed for :commercial - .development .on the.Phase.IIIsite recognizes.~hat final: decisions have .not been made about the mix of <,office and other•commercial':Iand-~uses:n::Phase III.~For this;reason;~the ~1998:DSElR recommends ~-- review. of;parking~demands once the;land: use .affix -is .defined and recognizes that :there likely :would be ~;.:opportunities for shared-parlang-:with_land:>uses which ~generatedemand'for parking af>different times of the day. It also may be appropriate:.xo .-consider ~TDM / TSM programs,~xeferenced -in .#he writer's '_ preceding paragraph, in assessments .of overall parking requirements. :As :noted .in Response I3.4, such;programs:may be effeetive~svith a~single ~tenant~or several Large tenants ~but•are not as effective for 4 ;`;projects~with many differentaenants. • ' ` .: ., - _ .: _ - ..._. - , .Response:1~16:'The~project should,promote•public-transit:(such as providing~transit shelters and bus •atops,or.tumazounds,;etc). Thee.;.project conld::provide_shuttle.~service ~toahe.pubIic'~to aransport passengers to:majortransitcenters.(such.as to accommodate:office`workers or hotel guests). ` - Letter 13-6 :;Response 13:~77~.Comtnent;,noted. ,,:. _._ ;. , . _....: :. .Response. _13.78 :In>disagreeing_vutth .the.1998~DSEIR's conclusioa'that the ~ill~ and cap wotild have an adverse impact: on the .site <due to>compaction~~he-project=sponsor~~musf -also -be in disagreement- with :the sponsor's archa~ logical .consultant. , (Hol~ and Associates), EIR geologist, and the -.Native ,. _ ,,. . . American'.communi on:this Yssue `'See."lee' o~rse'•3346".for additional discussion',regarding..fill, -~ compaction; and adverse'impaets= The excavation plan•as mitigation was presented by the ponsor's azchaeological consultant in the February .1998 report as a means of tiiitigatzng'impacts of theproject as proposed in January ' 1998. Therefore, it was presented. in the ;1998 DSEIR ,as Mitigation Measure r4.9-1 a -since rt coin Iles with `CE Are () p • Q gwrements '(as does the ;prefetreii alternative ~~Mitigation -'Measure ~4.9-:1(b)) `$ased on'the azguments` presented, the `Lead ^Agency must; decide cif filling and capping' would result in sigtiificant'.impacts -.due to site :compression and determine "the ,appropriate mitigafion~ measure. ; . Response 13. ~9 The new "Mitigation Plan" (Phase .III .Site , ;Mitigation Plan ..Development Alternafive) would be consistent with>MitigationMegsure 4.9-1(b). `See'Master Response 7.3-I which discusses the impact ~ofthis aiteniative. Response 73.20 >7t is'~~true ~ hat the -project would have no direct unpacts on C.4=SMa=92, .since it is <located outside the'proposed Phase'III site develo went and ` p grading area. However,-development of `both the Phase'II and.III sites -would increase public presence of San Bruno Mountairi'in;.general and the archaeological `site in particular '(DSEIR page '296, Impact 4:9-2). For .clarity, the .following ;N-~ revision will be made in~the Certifzed~ElR'(DSEIR page:296 third paragraph): ` `^ ... - Development of the' Terrabay Phase =II and-III sites would Kncrease the`-recreational use of public pazklands and open space on 'San~Bruno Mountain, including-foottraffic ~on ezistiag and improved trails, one of which traverses -this small site. While no direct, construction-related impacts would result from-the:;project,-ls8g-ter indirect cumuiatiye-ampacts are `a possibility. -Even the most - benign <of-,curious .visitors ,,can be expected Ito-.trample,;pick-up ,and poke -around on'a :known :. archaeological site...; .: , _ . _ .: ~. .._ . w The ro'ect s onsor "s. statement -that laciti fill ca in ) ,on_ CA-SMa-92 may 'be .infeasible due to steep topography and difficult access has went.:. Also,.comments on the :1998..DSEIR'from he Native American community include strong opposition to capping either .of the Tetrabay ..project site ,. archaeological .:resources The ;.IIR ;archaeologist .would be ::.comfortable with :=a arevision in - recommended:Mitigation Measure 4 9:2:(DSEIR;page 296) .as follows: . .. ..._ Mlfigation Measure 4.9 2 CA-SMa-92 should be protected :from damage resulting `from increased use "in and around the archaeological site area. The following measures would mitigate potentially significant impacts on this archaeological site: `~$B~~me-R'C~S117$Tt9 ~Alt2r£~~$}~.C 1~1~f ic. ~' h' i. la n A~ nit nn r h .. «-.;a.. - 1.• s. L o ~ D $~813$eAlegiea.~-site: n ». sY... - el 1.' 1. !~ A Ql~d Al 1 ~ • The-~roiect sponsor and- the Countv should develop a monitorin¢ program in which the site is msnected retfularly for damage or disturbance resulting from increased public use of the i.etter 13-7 area. In the event that public visitation is havine:arl~adversc:imnactsorCA-SMa=92. then additional measures should be implemented. .Native American consultation should be _ ;included. Mitigation measures ~a-av :consist •:of ~:feneine. -siQnaee, shallow cappine. and relocation of anv suoarent trails bv•which-the. nublic:has:access to_the site. ~.The,.prolect sponsor{„p~~o~oses avoiding., xhe;;site .and .leaving it untouched t.According to,. the State . .. `'CEQA` Guidelines, ;that:cati_,be:;achieved by<avoiding,impacts,-..direct .or:=indirect, ~:by:considering the Permanent Open Space. Alternative ,:, . .-r ,,, :Response 7321 Zt ~ is understood ,that "about 30 feet", means that ..review of _ localized conditions .:. . ..;.. .. , during the finalgrading may indicate more closely spaced benches.:.The projectsponsor?a and / or the City's consultants would present.such potential modificationsxo.the City:Engineei- for.review and.final approval. ~Tliis review'process is standard for grading projects of this .type and was -used. successfully on Phase L Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 remains as originally identified in the 1998DSE1R. 'Response 13.22'This referenced. part, of ,Mitigation Measure-. 4.1-2 is .not :related, simply to geotechnical `issues "for retaining walls. " It is up to the .City's consultant...to .evaluate -.the project sponsor's proposal from a geotechnical standpoint, but retaining walls higher than ten feet have visual, aesthetic, and other factors which need.to.be approved by_the-City.Engineer,:Building:~Inspection, and . :Planning Department. 1Vlitigation.Measure-4.1-2 remaitls as ~originally.identified in ahe 1998 DSEIR with respect to .the retaining walls on the:proposed. Phase :II and III: sites. ;.There aze;apecific exceptions within the Caitrans right-of-way.which.would require an unstepped:retaining;wall;up.:to,l8~feet high. This wall would.be located .along xhe afluthbound ~Li.S.:.lfll...on-ramp .(hook;:ratnp).. -The,"flyover" would partly :block views. of ahis wall, iiut the visual .impact of an 18-foot high-exposed wall could be .softened somewhat.;through.surface ;treatrnents;r(such.as ause_~;of textures and>/ or mosaics), similaz to ;:what: Caltrans has .done on soundwalls ;elsewhere on :U:S.101: ;.. . r , :_-Response 13.23 As -currently:designed;:;upper~cur-slopes.-proposed for ~the-:~Conunons neighborhood :would~be.l~S~i,in<cover~sediments and existing`landslide matenal~ ''These'~slopes would not be feasible as.proposed and need to be modified (flattened, retaining structures, etc j =Because the upper parts of -the existing slopes are neaz the HCP fence, ,potential modifications .need to be done on the lower parts ,of the alopes. =Such-modifications mayaffect .the aayout of the roads and buildings.' The 1998 DSEIR text has not been changed in response ~to this comment: ' , , Response -73.24 ° It =is`•tnportant ~to review=the conditions -of the cut slopes, afterahey`have experienced elevated moisture conditions: ~~'Gzading forPhase' •I was completed during`the drought; and the slopes were. not really tested .until the 1991 "March. Miracle".:Ideally slopes .would experience an El Nino type'season~after-revegetation has'been established and before homes"are `under,construction at their "base. Tt is not at<ibiguous` to withhold lots below These slopes until -whey .have experienced an average winter rainfall of .about 20 inches. According to `the project sponsor's geotechnical consultant, slope monitoring instruments (inclinometers, piezometers) would be ;p]aced .:on._,the slopes _.to monitor their ':.response to„grading and winter..rains 4,::Similarinstruments:were:used.successfully during Phase I, and some..are still;being monitored..;Mitigation Measure~•4:1-2:~remains~as• originallyidentified in the 1998 DSEIR. The .1998:.DSEIR _identified:Mitigation Measure ~4::1-2(b) ~~to ;mitigate ~~significant slope stability and _ - >erosion ~impacts.~of site ~: development ~.as proposed. ' Taus-measure= is different from Mitigation Measure :.. `Eric McHuroa (IDZ'geologist) conversations witli_ Gary Parikh'(project.sponsor's geotechnical consultant), Parilch '~Consultaats.,`lnc. Letter 13-8 4.1-5(a) to mitigate .significant impacts from,.placement of artificial. fill. for .site .development, despite the..reference to,postponing development for a construction season, as one of several approaches from which the project sponsor can select to .address the impacts-identified. It,is important to, note that it is ~l . the responsibtlity of the project sponsors geotechnical consultant to propose a system of,fill control and settlement monitoring which would m;nimi P the.:adverse impacts of differential settlement of fill areas.,. If,fill.is,predicted. to undergodetnmeatal settlement, then, the,:measures:fisted in Mitigation Measure 4.1-5(a) need to',be;~implemented -,~;If .(additional :settlement is -predicted ::when the fill has _ experienced. aturation, •:due_ao above-average :rainfall:and,I :or, aandscape .irrigation, then additional mitigation measures would:be. required: -.Such.mitigation :m~c~~res.may:inclucie~deeper foundations, ,;pre-wetting=xhe: compleoed;:fill,_montoring ahe:moisture;:and.settlement of>;the::fill,~~:etc. All of these :mitigation:::measures:need.to. be:proposed.bythe:.;projectsponsor's,~geotechnical::consultant for review and approval`by:the City'~s:Engineer and•-City's:Geologist. - 'Response 73.25 `Comment''acknowledged: The suggested modificarion'to Mitigation Measure 4.1-3 has been made as follows: • Mitigation McBSUre 41-3(b) _The.projects Covenants;-Conditions; and:Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall-establish and„provide :for ,implementation ; of a ::51ope Maintenance PIan ;by the -project's ~Propet2y Owners:Associations=(Owners Associations). -•• The project sponsor shall:provide initial :funding-for ae Slope :ManagementPlan, :and the Property Owners Associations; shall -fund lonb ..term implementation :aftea; receiving title to ;their respecfive :private open space wands. : At a ..:.minimum, , e Slope :.Maintenance Plan-ahall. ,provide for monitoring ;and maintenance of _ engineered .-slopes, perimeter.:.drainage, debris slide retention, ;and deflection structures.. • • •For Phase III, the -requirements for -the .51one 'Maintenance .Plan may be met by -.an alternative =~ document xo CC&Rs, such.as._the formation of a Geoloeic Hazard .Abatement District (GRAD). ...~ ' subiect to review and approval by the Citv Attornev,:[ellipses refer to footnotes. retained in,the text __ ' '-bufnotreproduced:here]. .. _ ;. _ _ °Response 13.26 'The modification suggested by this :comment is satisfactory and has been made in the Certified SEIR, as follows: Mifigafion Measure 4.1-5(a) The Precise Plan shall be revised to indicate the measures proposedao mitigate differential settlement impacts~expected fiom~.developmentin..Tenabay Point on:areas,of deep or;varied fills. ..: ,One or!a-combination ;of .the following approaches shall be _.. _._ incorporated.intoprojectplans: _, ~_ _ _ ~• ; Gutsahall:be:over-excavated aoprovide.benches~in.the fill. ;-• Rockfillahallbe used in'the deepest.parts=of canyons. ~• :Fill :shall; be: surcharged :with excess :material to ..accelerate settlement :.or `bv an alternate ,method approved.bv Mlle Citv's GeoloQV Consultant::... Response 13.27' The presence of asanitary sewer Tine on `the Ohlone shellmound, whether or not it ::has-a-sleeve=around it or-an =AWWAC`9U0-pressure pipe is'required, probably would be unacceptable to the Native American community: Objections to fill, utilities, etc. on the site in response to the 1998 :DSEIR have been very clear. ,, 'EIR preparers concur that `the sewer `line should .be constructed to preclude the chance of leakage through he archaeological site..'''Pechnology .is available..to relocate ahe ..proposed sanitary sewer around the archaeological site without having to cross:.over it in , a permanent easement.. Therefore, lvlitigatioti Measure 4.1-5(b) remains as originally identified in the .1998 DSEIR. Letttr 13-9 I :'Response 73.28 :The project sponsor's ~alternaftve to'Mttigatloa Measure 4 2 11 would .be.acceptable • .. as' long as redesign corrected the initial problem. of radical changes .in diversion swale alignments. The mitigation measure has been changed to reflect .this"recognition; as shown below.. Also,; see Response - . ~ .... ;. ,_.: ,: .. I3.3. .- .. _ . M1#igation -Measure ~fi2=y7 ~ :._ ~<- - - - Ei~aav~~~i'e 8hmm9i T~'!B ~e'~g-~y~~~~epese~ m ' . •Thc•vroflosed debris Swale and->retaining :wall °svstem:shall :rbe ~sredesi¢ned ~xo~the satisfaction Hof the<City >Geotechnical Consultant and .Gifu Enaneer. ~.Anv;anoroved redesign •shall avoid<radical.chanees in the diverted _ path of debris flow material en;routeao a downslope debris :basin. !Inclusion:,of -.the, thirdbasin along the existins middle channel alignment would be one possible option. _ - ~IAHg-`° °`~ °~ -$~ ~ ~9~~39 984$ ~E~}$te$Bi:oo ce ~sv `woe oiWO cavgsxr~`t~aavrv 'Response;:1339.:As ,the .1998. DSEIR vindicates in the :'summary }statement ~-on :DSEIR page .154, - -impacts on native freshwater~marsh-and-riparian~habitat and remnant stands of native,grasslands would be significant< Without, a:: salvage component to =the proposed ~ restoration plan,anticipated impacts wouldcontinue to~be significant:.•,~Vltile _=lands to:be=dedicated as open space-under the Habitat - ' 'Conservation `Plan (F7CP) would protect .native- vegetation on -this part'of .the site, additional native cover would'be lost'•within the `development"area'forwhich no replacement mitigation-has been proposed~as part~of-the=project;:ll~itigation `Measures 4:3=1(a) and (b) were recommended to minimi~P -, - the'loss •of ;the remaining =sensitive:natural-.communities -on the-site; and ;to •provide =for the salvage of -nattve:~lant ~-material which`-would ~othervsnse Abe eliminated.- ~".These measures are:required o fully ~ - ,.. . mitigate potential `impacts of:;the :project -on =sensitive .natural.-communities •.nnii ~unportant wildlife .___ .habitat. The intent of .Mitigation Measure 43-1(b) was to.provide'for the salvage of native plant material which would be lost as a result of•development through :transplant and :seed collection efforts -;--~ now .practiced as part of the .restoration .profession. ` :The intent of the measure is .not to require the project -sponsor to save every single .native plant within the .limits, of. grading but o .use them where possible:and-feasible as part of restoration. ~In response to the comment; MitigationTvleasure 4.3-1(b) - - has been revised as follows to clarify the intent of the recommendation: Miff afion'Measure~.3=1 _ _ g (bj <The~proposed Restoration Plan for"the project shall be revised to _ - include. an >additional -component-which provides for the +selective wse se~ve~e of native :plant material.a$cl-seed-that otherwise would be eliminated as•a result-of grading•and development. The scope of the salvage effort shall be determined by the Qroiect sponsor's vesetation specialist responsible for implementing; the; Restoration °:1?lan-.:and zshall•consider _vroven success rates and -- availability from other sources>in targeting ~ specific ;species. =Methods of :plant material salvage .mav -include .transnlantine. seed •-collection _ and ~propaeation; :and use of ~ cutting from on-site vegetation. Transplanting shall :be;>performed with salvage material: during ,the .optimum .period necessary to ensure plant survival, generally in the fall and early spring months, with material stored;in:aaemporary..growing~area;if.necessary-.and eventually=transplanted onto slopes where :;restoration is.:to occur, folio.wing.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. . Response 13.30 .As discussed on DSEIR • page 158,. the, ;potential direct and induect impacts of the _. -project: 'on the callppe silverspot_:would be:considered .significant under .CEQA . ,' In ;his Ietter report contained'in'DSEIlt Appendix'7.4 Biology,' Dr: Arnold states that aduif.callippe silverspot .were rarely -observed within the:.Phases'TI and:III areas compared .with other.parts of the.mountain:but qualified _. ...this by assuming that less`-time probably was spent on monitoring the project site since it previously ,:had been approved for development and was partly; graded. 1998 DSEIR recommendations related to I,emr 13-]0 biology :were ;based - on ahe.. six :mitigation measures ~•:developed ;.by-~ Dr.: Arnold (page S Hof;=his letter report). These. measures .were; consolidated;.intaMitigation: Measure 43-2 which requires -fiilfillment :':af the landowner:/ developer,,obligation.dentified.n-theHCP; complete avoidance of-all of:the larval .host.;~plant ;.(V.iola; pedunculata) if.=,the;;proJect .:sponsor does anot-obtain a.anamendedincidental take :::permit, :and additional ;provisions-::to,-**+;n;m;~p;potential,°impacts of>ihe project.~on =callippe silverspot. These additional;provisionsincludea~oidinglarval~hostfplantsto..thegreatestextent~,possible,~revising the proposed;Restoration Plan;.corequire~::salvage.•and transplant: of"larvalhost.plants and adult nectar plants, installing signs to wam -park users ..against iIIegal activities (such as ,poaching), and using ~appropriate:~dust::control measures. :Additional _measures ~~to°:7nitigate ;potential-impacts;~on scallippe silverspot, beynnd.,the ~landowner/=>developer-obligations of-the.HCP; <are consistent ~with`'CEQA and the .determination:abet-~potenaal ;impacts:.wouldbe significant. The :~iGP and::ts associated land dedication -:and .habitat. restoration ;.provisions :were ?prepared :<to ~;address >the permit requirements of Section 10(a) of the Endangered Species Act, not necessarily he.environmental protectionafforded by CEQA. Contrary to the contention made by .the commentor, additional mitigation .measures can be :required :of .the;project sponsor p»~~a*+t ao °,the:-findings Hof significance under-'CEQA. 'Refer to Letter .l2_for,.comments :and responses..to;concetns expressed.by::the U.S. Fish- and Wildlife "Service .and to MasterResponse;73-9,regarding:the status.:of:the HCP-amendment which-would allow for incidental ;,take.. of callippe~silverspot::and:laryal host;plants withinahe proposed development area. Response 13.37 In instances where preparation of detailed .mitigation plans is not>possible during the CEQA review process, recommendeli,mitigation must be of sufficient detail-and specificity to ensure feasibility sand successful unplementation.: = :Refer ~~to .the Master .Response 7.3-8 on =wetlands for a 2: - summazy addressingahe.adequacy.of=the:conceptual:mitigation:plan'proposed by the~project sponsor's . wetland consultant and.:options .available rto meet appannt deficiencies ~NSitigation iVleasures-4.3-3(a) and (b) were recommended xo. .provide for:protection~of sensitive :wetland resources, with-replacement :habitat:required:;wherecomplete.avoidanee~wasznot feasible regardless~~of~whetherreplacement:habitat ., •is provided on-: or off--site `rDetails regarding the srecommended wetland -mitigation plan are consistent with he-mitigation:-guidelines -rie~eloped~:by rile Corps ,and--would -be required-of'the .projectsponsor anyway.:.:.:Therefore; noinconsistencies<are•:anticipated=between -mitigation requirements° of the Corps -', and 1998 .SEIR, , Land. area :exists •.on the Phase III site :;to =provide for additional ~ replacement of .wetlands lost=as :a-result ofahe:prflject, -and:~the ~lirnits: of development should-!be restricted as necessary to provide for at leastpartial.on-site:replacement>or~enhancement:' The fact thatpreserving the existing :wetlands or :providing at least :partial on-site replacement habitat may impinge on the proposed :approach; to :development :.does not;~mean --that .recommended ~ wetland =mitigation is "infeasible", only 'that revisions:ao theproject are::necessary,as reflected.inahechanges proposed by~:theproject sponsor ,:and.assessed. in Master Response J~ 1 : ~In response: to the .comment, Mitigation Ivleasure 4:3 3(b) has :;been revised: as -indicated: below. to aimply:;indicate ghat on-site mitigation'for>wetlands lost- as--n result ;of :development ;.would be ,preferable :but ato :allow .:flexibility:rin .:meeting .the-.requirements ,of jurisdictionah agencies • and constraints of `;the=aite. This: may.=include creation,restoration; rand / or .enhancement : at :off:.site =locations :-: (such . as .the -Tank -Ravine site) = or :payment =:of .in-lieu fees, as discussed in:Master~Response 73-8~on wetlands. All:plantings~to ~belsed:as part of-any replacement ;mitigationshall:be.restrictedao:nati~e wetlandriparian,:and.adjacent~upland species. ,: Response 13.32 City of South San Francisco.Planning Division staff: gave;.the~EIR tr~cconsultant direction about Brisbane .buildout assumptions to use.for the 2010 traffic analysis to which Brisbane ;City. >staff had no;.objections. ;It s:_agreed:thatihisris::a conservative assumption which may not occur >by-2010.,.:Assumptions:for Terrabay=Phase II residential trip-generation~rates were discussed with and approved by.City~of::South. San`Franaisco;Public>Works Department=staff. ~ City Depamnent of Public Works staff first noted the combination of proposed four- and. five-bedroom units -(many with dens which could be converted to an additional bedroom) and the possibility of extended .families moving :into .the new units (based upon .observed sales :of units. in Ten;abay Phase n which could result in ;I:.etter 13-11 ::::higher than:average=trip,:generation.from:the Phase Ihunits. ; l?revious research `(data`collection) by the >.Institute:.of Transportation> Engineers ;:(Trip ` Generation-Fifth 'Edition) shows that'single-family units with more than <three.residents ado not,necessarily-have~hgherthan :average trip~generation:'However, ,-' <research also.-shows:that.;units :where.-more :than~two~.vehicles. are owned:have°about'30 percent higher -;.than. ~verage,.trip;~generation. ":Therefore~to~piovi+de~aconservattve`<vvorst .case analysis>to ensure that ;~all~;needed.:mitigation-:=measures:.:~re;identified`~residenttai .trip rates'were`-~irojected~to be 30 percent ; - above=average for four-bedroom units:and 40:percent above average for~five=bedroom units: ... .. ., _ ;Response-7333-•The 1998Precise Plan roject~would produce greater si 'npac F gnificant s ts':than the - - }199b' :Sped, fcc .,F,larc project :because the ;Precise Plan>project=was evaluated in the :context of :higher projected .ambient:'::'(background) ,traffic <volumes for=both; year '20UO ;and 2010 conditions. The .1998 - DSEIR updated .ambient:,volume ~projection;EValuationsbased :on•more intense development plans for the East:of:lOl areaahan:consideredin,1996. ~ - .-Response -:13:34-:Fast of:101buildout traffic projections ~nsed in"" he 1998 DSEIR circulation analysis " were::obtained.:from.the City's Department~,of Public=~~Vorks' raffc consultant who--had developed these projections-:recently;for.>.Caltrans and:-"the~City;for the;~proposed south ~to-eastbound off-ramp _ .flyover project.: ;Both Caltrans and:the City approved these ;projections +wlrich- conservatively assumed no TDM.trip generation reductions. However, as indicated above (see Response I3.4), peak hour trip ;- reductions.are;noaongermandated by law. _ ::flespanse 13.35 :,Reducing developmenh:from :the :amount ;proposed was ::.identified . as ~a •mitigation --- measure.in:;order torpresent~ity=decision-makers:-with°one>approach.to•reducingproject-impacts below ;City=approvedsgnificance =criteria levels .The::1998 :.DSEIR :also lists other ;:potential `mitigation - .: measure5.:.(such as: wideningfreeway snips;or:~the:;regionalfreew.ay network) cowards''which the -project,:would be-required:~to;provide:-a fair-share-.contribntion..•~Howaver,.asstated, ~itis .not lmown if ---Caltrans<.~would_approve:xhese improvements -or ~whether•the .rennaining =required :funding-:.could be --- ;-acquired. ,Altogether,<considerations:regarding;the amount of~on-site :development:and they-availability : of=off-site mitigation measures applicable, in;part, to~ahe :project_uitimately nrustbe:weighed yin relation o the,.project sponsor's ;objectives •identified :yin ;the :1998 °:DSEIR ~:(DSEIR page 26)~ which would .modifyahe goalsand objectives -of .the Terr-abay sSpecific:~Plan previously adopted in :1982 and 1996 ..:.and in:view-of•other policies of the City,contained:in.~:the=General Plan. - •Response 13.36 The:comment:-is..correct: The current:flyover design:pro~-ides :column aupports for -ahe:flyoveradjacentxo~both~thenorth-and outhsides ofahe~OysterPoint Boulevazd overpass. Based - -on reanalysisr~of~,possible mitigationmeasures~atahe-Bayshore<-%=0yster`Foizit /'Sister~Cities~7 Airport Boulevard. intersection > with: overpass widening restrictions, •without 'widening the'.overpass, it is unlikely that >sufficient:storage. area ~~vould'be provided -between-;the e.intersectionsat either end of the :overpass to -accommodate volumes :projected for~the-year:2010. 'Even•additional-~~videning on the <<Bayshore Boulevard, Airport`Boulevard,,sud Sister Cities` Boulevard approaches `to'their :intersection .::with Oyster Point .Boulevard to help < cleat :traffic °~ through ~ he intersection more~• quickly could not .;completely mitigate.:.the-storage.~rleficiencies~which=wouldbe-likely with.projected'year'2010 volumes - (including those from- the proposed project). .Revised maximum potential mitigation measures aze -- ,. -: ,presented.in.the:FSEIR,~ as #ollows: :::. - .: <.Mitigation-lNessure4:4-2,(see.~xhibas ~s4=10.=slid 44=1 ~The:project~sponsor!shall provide.a _... _:fair.ahare-:contribution;.towards:_restriping~ the :westbound(Ovster Point $oulevard) intersection ::approach (to provide a sin¢le left turn .lane -two exclusive through-lanes -and a shared through 5 Crane Transportation Group (EIR traffic consultant) conversation with Ron Berland, CH2M HILL (flyover consultant). ~Leuerl3-12 • right turn lane). A contribution also would be needed.towards.a third westbound departure ]ape `(on Sister Cities'BOulevardl which then would merge into the two existing departure lanes iust -`-west of'the`intersection. °In addition:` although not strictly `needed for capacity reasons restripina also is recommended for the southbound (Bayshore Boulevard)'intersection approach (to provide an exclusive right, a shared through / right, a through, and two left turn lanes). ,. ... Based-.upon,aotal:araffic _ _ _ .,. ,growth to .2010, the. project's fau_. share ;contribution :.would • be. 21.~percent.of: the improvement ;: costs. /maser 4:4-3a Year'2010 Base Case Plus'Phases'I/ +"l/! Storage /maacts A/ona Bavshore Boulevard ,' - -_Proiect Phases;~l! + 1/1-'traffrc would result In-vehicle storage=demand exceeding or`beina on the borderline-of;exceedino storaae-distances during 2010 PM peak hour condrtions at threelocations a/ono Bavshore Bou/evarcl.adiacent to the Phase -lll site _fthe Jeft tum.lane on the outhbound Bavshore Boulevard aooroach to the hook ramDS would lack .-adeouate storage• lanes on the -northbound Bavshore Boulevard anoroach `to the hook ramps would lack adequate storage between the Terrabav Phase !ll south access and the hook ramos: through lanes on the :~:.. ::_ ., .. _ ``M/tle7atlon Measure 4.4-3a The nroiect stionsor shaIl provide a fair share contribution towards (or shall adiust the proposed hook ramp design to provide) restripin¢ of the southbound hook off- 'llGa~./V//~l1YIU~P p.1Y II1Vl uav~nw 1llG ~IIVIG .would monitor implementation. _. _, However, it should be noted that :available storage should. be. borderline acceptable :to. the intersections at either end of the.>Oyster Eoint..Boulevard freeway;.overpass :withreduced :volumes..;generated by the :Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative (compared with project-generated volumes), with.no..overpass..widening but,•with all other.:widening.in the interchange:;as-previously recommended in. the ;1998 :DSE1R and -with,the ~intersection::approach striping recommended>~for the Alternative in ;Master Response.7.3-I. : - - , . Response 13.37 :.Please see Responses 13.4 and 13.34. also, the second sentence. of the comment indicates that'"the°imposition of TDM / TSiVL"measures' on"Phase TII to the'noazimum extent feasible" would achieve at least a 13 percent reduction in single occupancy vehicle-trips while the third sentence states that "[t]his .mitigation is feasible".:It is not known if maximum extent feasible TDM measures _. would accomplish she desired results. .?,gain, it also should.be.noted that the :carpool results in the Lena 13-13 __ . .. Slgnlfieance After `M/tigation 'Full imtilementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-3a would reduce vehicle. torage ~imnacts along Bavshore Boulevard-adjacent to the Phase III site to a less-than- significantlevel. referenced "MultiCity"TS1VI Agency's , °1996 survey 'of 'the Northern San'1Vlateo 'County Employers" ; . ~~reflect conditions just after-a time ;when large..businesses were legally:mandated tp reduce commute ;peak trip.generation which is no:'longerahe case. "- .. -, Response 23.38 ,Ties :restnping has -been iacludecl ~n ;;the ,:1998..DSEIR ::as :part of Mitigation :;..Measure..4.2.~required.at:the.,Bayshore %-:Oyster Point /;;Airport.:J`Sister~.Cities :intersection. The comment pis ;noted ~ahat ~,the projectssponsor :wishes to provide- a fair • share -contribution cowards the ~restriping of<the southboundintersection approach. - • .. ;.: -... : , .. ='Response~'f .39 The~comment`is con~ect regarc~i>zg'traffc conditions :`:`Recenf`discussions between the-'City Engineer'Public Works "Depamnent.staff, aad the project sponsor's engineers resulted in a '- consensus on the acceptability of the proposed valley gutter concept, as long as the, gutters are located _ along .the .edge of the normally traveled roadway. Thus, where the valley gutters would be ~ installed along a .:inside. edge of,,parking bays,,, yet outside of _the.roadway .width, .the-City finds them acceptable. Provision for normal roadside gutters on all roadways on.the `Phase 1I: site would result in :significant.grading•impacts_-which would.:outweigh~.any:advantages:~of gutter -installation. .The 1999 - F'SEIR aext has been amended _.zo change -the determination .of. the significance :~of ...proposed .gutter __ •configuration.impacts_'.from significant `to >1ess-than-signifcant:--.and -to.--:delete the .accompanying mitigation measure,-as follows (ellipses (:..) refer to footnotes~deleted from-.the DSEIR text): - ,. ~Impact4:2-1 StormwaterDralnsge Paitems and F/oading Some bf~the streets proposerJforconstruction on the Phase `/lane :would:be. drained.by.concrete V- ' channels•alignedbeiween~fnsettravel lanes and.parlong;tiays. '_This.design.rvvuld:pmmoie the - ,-occasional~cloyging n~ he channe/•~ith.debris.and:votentially could.create.minor flooding . This. would be ales-than -aignficantimpact.=LTS SRS - -,,' . _ ~::.. ... - , . ,' . Letter 13-14 eFS far phase ~ eeveieP~~-~ ~ '- e ~~'Response'73:40 ' :Additional review`by. the City~ngineer. of the backyard drainage systerii:indicates ~that'the-impacts would be~less-than significant.'`The"T999.FSEIR text has~been amended to change the .determination of °the sig~nificance_ of~ncPrl gutter co~g~~~-impacts from-significant: to less- than-sign cant and to delete the accompanying mitigation measure, as follows (ellipses (...) refer to footnotes deleted from the DSEIR text):.,', -:~tmpact°4.2 2 3tormwster~Drsfnage and flooding :Nuisance flooding could =occurin backyard areas ifinsufficient oracles-are not Drovided in`the vicinity of residential buildins:vads. The Uniform Building Code>7UBC) specified a minimum s/one of two percent for.surface arades,in such,areas~to vromote efficientstormwater drainage and to deterstruciural.damaae due- to excessive nroundwater seeoaoe -The oroiect grading and -drainage plans rndreate one percent grades for drainage swa/es-which would be constructed to drain ,resrdent~a/ lots. In addrtron. yard grades leading away from the building Dads towards the swa/es would be a mmrmum of two oercent. Since the drainage swa/es would be excavated into the <adtacent ierrarn. efi5crent drarnaae still would-be achieved Accordingly 8ae~erseAt-slopes ' ;this would be a, less-than-: feteatia~lysignificant impact-LTS ~S .. .., _ _ r r ~,•• t ••,ti, ~ ~42~E-e~e~, Si3B~3 ~a~ 5~6pBa^ iiv~a ave~~fl~c n_- - ..re_ 1.7 ~ .._ . b , >., ~ s - .. ., '==41....:7:.. .. 'D.~4.7:,. ~f,ST,:_`1~.: 'Tl......~.....:...' ..~ # L `.:' ..~. a ` ~ - .... ~ . ~ :. « ~ .:.?-- •~Miffgatfon 4.22 :~No mitigation would be~required ~° ' ''- aA -a ~_,:,• - a r ~=•~•T ... W _ , #er eeekr ae~ghbe~hesd.... .,c -lr s arse. ~~:+: e+:e., T.....te_,.....:.,....s*a•a .' a,r - A.~ ^ ~~ ~ a _ . «~ ,~ ""Y F s ""->mam:e iv ror a - r°. _ Response 73.4.7 :The commentor cites he Uniform Building Code. (UBC)minimum drainage slope of two percent .and then .indicates.,that a.:one percent drainage.-slope is sufficient .according to the standard. This -seems to.be a contradiction.::However,upon further-discussion .with the City Engineer, the :EIR .hydrologist agrees :with the provision: for- the minimum,two percent sand slope in the vicinity Leuer13-15 ~of,the building°pads leading'to local dramage`swales. The`drainage swales couldbe.graded to slopes ofone~percent,-•since they would be excavated toslightly lower`elevations relative to.the adjacent land surfaces. ~`.Therefore, the swales<would -comprise the ,".approved ;drainage facility":;referred to .in .the UBC, and 'the adjacent two percent slopes world satisfy the yard grading .criterion. :This .design :approach would, .satisfy .the UBC drainage ;:provisions. The, 1999 FSEIR text :has .been .amended to .: change,the°deterannation of the:s_ignificance:of proposed,.gutterconfiguration.impacts .from significant to less-than-significant :and to .delete the ,accompanying mitigation measure, .as :shown .in the immediately preceding response.:'' l _ Response 7342. The EIR hydrologist observed that steeper reaches of the existing-fire access roads were in a highly unstable and eroding condition during site inspections conducted for, the 1998 DSEIR. If left in this unstable condition, significant ~olumes,of sediment .would. continue~to:move downslope and :enter .the ,project's . torm :drain. system ;and .eventually may :be transported ;downstream into the Oyster Point .estuary:.This ..could represent:a significant impact ondownstream hydraulic facilities and sensitive::habitats,.tiepending on.:project-related changes in: drainage: and'interceptor detention basins. Careful-desgn~and:maintenance::nf~these~ceess`.roads :could accommodate 'both fire equipment and pedestrian ~access-~wheredesired: ` ~If the road improvement work pis -performed :by an experienced °contractorbased on design and ,,grading plans ;prepared ;by either a hydrologist .or a geotechnical :engineer /erosion control specialist, secondary-impacts of.erosionNand-sedimentation. could be avoided easily. , :The .reference to , the .use . of •the ..existing :fire.roads for .:dual :pedestrian trails in Mitigation Measure 4.31{c) :was recommended. to:.avoid further ~disturbance'to native -vegetation <to accommodate ,new trail construction :and -should not'be `,interpreted as a-requirement°~thaf`roads remain open .for :pedestrian use, as contended by the commentor. Regarding the responsibility for stabilization" of eroding 'fire'.roads, remedial erosion control work on portions of these . roads ~ within 'the projecf :boundaries without similar work on adjoining upslope >:reaches=of the TOads~~m'the:FICP area .couldlead to failure of the-remedial stabflization work. To -'remedy this; the project sponsor should be responsible'for implementing all stabilizing work within the pro~ect'boundaries which would:be required to:protect .the roadways from:.excessive:erosion-lsuch as riling and .gullying).:,. Adjoining upslope .roadway .;reaches w~+ithin .,the,hlCP elands which are eroding actively should be stabilized by the County.in.consultation-with.the.HCP coordinator./ Plan Operator. -This would require issuance of a Site Activity Permit by the County. Such a permit would specify the limits..and methods•of.:the.stabilization work•and.would include;protections for::adjacent sensitive~lands / ,habitats.. The 1999_,:.:FSEIR =text has been :amended . to :reflect >this ?process :and the allocated :responsibilities,of= a project sponsor andCounty in rtutigating this potential erosion'~impact: - ~' ~ ~M/tigatfon~ll~east~re:4:7-~ Two options are-available to mitigate this erosion impact. • 1n coordination with the San °~Brutio Mountain HCP manaeer (Thomas Reid & Associates) and the HCP coordinator (Roman Gankin), .the applicant §hall ubmit an appIicationto'the~County of:San'Iyiateo"fora"Site Activity Permit to .undertake removal: of°the entire `•length of any roadway which -would daylight within the proposed limits _of prpject grading. This option would include .restoring original hillslope - =topography,:'=revegetating ~ restored slopes using native species, and implementing erosion `- ~_control °methods. 'This -is~fhepreferred :option; althoush `this option >also would need to be ~a~proved by the'~County and HCP manager f coordinator.. ` ' ' ' • 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. :This ~-is-.. the inferior .-option.. '~If his option is selected, he `City shall ireguire `long-term - monitoring by`-the entity>:overseeing =debris basin .•performance. The project sponsor also ;would work in concert with the HCP manaeer -and HCP coordinator to obtain a Site Activity -letter 13-16 ~P.ermit-for an-extension of similar erosion :control "work~ionto the upslope roadway..reaches within the HCP wands. to the extent •required 20 -safeeuard the stabilization >work~undertaken :within the site's development atea. .. 'The.'first option would require an~extension of the:Stormwater Pollution. Prevention Plan: (SWPPP) ' `~for`the ti'ect which :the "T996'SEIR revtousl utred as a miti ation; measure -Expansion of PrJ P..~, Y~ .S `the'SWPPP would consist of'the'rlesignation of Best Management Practices ;(BMPs)'ftir erosion =control in the restort;d hillslope areas. This could include broadcast straw-or other surface erosion protection, seeding or -plaming--of native grasses-attd forts, and. stockpiling of amendments to aPPlied topsoil. _ . - . , .. _ $ign/gcante:;~Ifter;Mltlgatfon.:::Implementation=of Mitigation Measure 4.2-9 -wouldreduce this ,erosion~and sedimentation mpactao aless-than-significantlevel. ResponsiblB#yand Mon/todng .The_applicant's~civil.engineer-shall.-revise-the Vesting'Tentattve Map and-Preliminary Grading:Plan" to reflect..the.,option.:required by .the .City as .a.-condition of project approval. `The City Planning .and Public . WorksDepartments .:would :be ,responsible for re~ciewing the Final Subdivision Map_:for-pliance_befare .filing and granting of a grading permit. The City shall consider requiring long-term monitoring (such,as .by the entity .overseeing debris basin •performance) as a -mitigation measure 'shall it require the second mitigation option. -Under thefirst-option, the proiect sponsor would be responsible for coordinating with'the County and:~the HCP .mana¢er'1 coordinator}to 'de:velop restoration measures vivhich'could be matched - ;within the hTCP'lands {that:is. outside-the.proiect site°developmenrarea~boundariesl: The oroiect _s~onsor then -would .implement-.these ,restoration-measures ion' the site.' The':4FICP manat?er / coordinator would submit an application to the County in order to obtain a Site Activity Permit-for slope reconstruction within HCP iurisdiction. The County would issue the permit after consultive with the .HCP mana¢er:/>coordinator ,and :assisttinQ><certain conditions o :ensure~arotection of "" adiacent sensitive `habitat .Under the second option; -similar coordination would kbe rewired 'between a .proiect sponsor; :Count~..and HCP • mana¢er ~/. coordinator. - •The~-County would be - ,responsible forensurins thatthe.restoration/atabiIizatiom=work=occurrine<within:HCP lands met -- the permit conditions. Thisaikely-would involve:oversight~bv~the HCP mana¢er..Thomas Reid & -.1_ ..Associates. The City -would be~responsible for:oversi.¢ht:and approval of restoration /stabilization _~ ': work conducted by he proiect sponsor•within proiectsite-boundaries. ' .... _ _ . Response 13.43 1t is a opinion :of ::the -EIR ,traffic engineer, and is stated-in the 1998 DSEIR jDSEIR pages 196-197), that the 22-foot wide roadway width would be sufficient for through traffic .but raises~concerns:for parking:maneuvers in -front~of:residences. '~1s stated:n he 1998 DSEIR, the concern -is.:that narrower streets, combined with <:parkingon one sideonly, can result in .a greater potential for cars backing out of driveways directly into the travelway (that is, from a driveway. on .the . .. side of a street where'.there is no=:on-street -parking) ~to back' into cars pazked on-street=opposite the .=driveway. -.:The City'satandard.for-publia:residential minor streets (other than the Tetrabay-site which ;:has ,its.:own.-standazds) .is a 36-foot-wide:roadway which' allow'foreight-footwide pazking spaces on ..::both sides , of :xhe Broadway :-and as ::20-foot:wide =travelway `The atreetwidth °-provides for on-street _pakkigg along.both sides;sallowing for.:a parkinglane~width and street~wiath (eight feet~plus 20"feet), or 28 feerof;maneuveringapaceinand out of all>driveways,=compared ~with'the Terrabay ~standazd of 22 :feet total (the: width-.of the travelway only)'for.>.residences on •the side of the street where there would be no on-street parking. Response 73.44 EIR traffic engineer considers `the 18=foot long driveway apron 'length"to be :the .:minimum. acceptable driveway apron length -long enough for standard length vehicles to pazk in the driveway, comfortably close;to: the~:front°face of the garage -while not -protruding=into the sidewalk or ;travelway..."=~~tesponse :I4.2 discusses `1$-foot long `driveway •aprons in-more detail. The response recognizes..thatbothae Precise-:Plan and:VestingTentative`1Vlap conform o e apron'length standazd previously:adopted°by'the :Terrdbay Specific Plan. ...Letter 13-17 - . ~ Regponse;13.45 s:This-:statement :nf opinion is~=aclcno~ledged. ==The ~=~i998 7JSEIR raised concerns . about;~gathermgs=,and.~~special ;event ~parkmg: because on-street=-parkingwould be:aess abundant in this development than in neighborhoods where on-street parlang is provided-on'botlr sides of the street..In addition, there- is no nearby street where overflow .on-street:parizing could be..absorbed because all streets •within'~valldtig distance ofPhase' II Tenabay,neighbo=hood_ s either would.:prohibit on-street ~;parlang'(Soutl San Francsco'Dii~ie) or would have.parlang at most along one side.,only (applies to all - :residentialstreets .proposed'for the-Phase:II site).,:For this.reason, provision for.:overflow pazlcing areas •~is advised. '? '_. Response 73.16 As the 1998.DSEIR discusses (DSEIR.pages 290-291), filling and capping is an .acceptable CEQA.:mitigation.measure if theaoils to be~.covered vaouldaot suffer serious compaction. ~-- It is the opinion of the EIR ,archaeologist ands geologist; =as well. as `the ~projeet sponsor's azcheologist __ _ and : geotechnical consultant, Ghat :at least en :percent compression would occur on the site which would-.result in 'distortion=and`destruction:of the:integrity:of~the'CA-S1VIa~0 cultural deposits. Also, members of the :Native American community, `in response to the..1998 DSEIR, have voiced strong objections~to placing fill on'the `Dhlone shellmound. ... ,: °According ~to'the EIR .geologist, the amount of compression of the azchaeological .site is difficult to estimate and.has varied from en.percent by..the,project sponsor's.geotechnical:consultant to 30.percent , - <, : _ by the sponsor s.archeo~logist: The; given range often to_30 percent:is agreed be significant by both the _ sponsor's and EIR ;archaeologtsts .,The 1998 _ DSEIR ,(DSEIRpages...286=287;and =Exhibit 4.9-1) has been modified to describe..proposed grading,in =the :vicinity ofahe: archaeological aite_:more -clearly, as --- follows: _ The.;project_.p~roposes'xhe~placement of:eagineered~r:~rth!~ill(pla~edand.compacted zn~layers) over - :the°CA,S1vIa-4.0 cultm~al;;deposlts .:t.::~~.Generally,.:filluwould:be~_~7eeper-on'the~eastern than on the --- °~ westernaide of:ahe: site:and. deeper, on,'the.~north:andsouthaides han ~m.theauddle which would be --- °-conioured~into:a~wale.~:converginga>Ytoa.drainage_basin`~Exhibit 49=11. ~Pads:for.parking lots ... . Fill over ~the:aouthern~,2parking:pad would:zange~from;approximately :23 Meet YO :about eight feet ~-- - The southeastern red¢e:~.of~the~~azkine`pads would ~~slope •down ~to the realiened Bavshore Boulevard. "The toe~ofxhis~fill~:would<be sunoortedby-athree- to~four-foorhi¢h retaining wall. All -- ~.utihties, dramage,.landscaping, paving, curbs, etc. would be placed in the fill covering the site, and no;penetration-.ofthe prehistoric cultural .deposit is proposed. ..- ,. :.However, this modification does,not=.change the:SEIR conclusionrthat placing=more:.than two feet.of .fill onthe site-would~result in:compressionanddestruction of prehistoric cultural deposits. _ ,; . .: _ ~-.. :. .Response 73.47;1'he 199.8:DSEIR:does~: not.propose excavation of CA-SMa-40:as mitigation: `'It does .present =siata; recovery :.by archaeological excavation=:as ~a >CEQA=approved .;mitigation alternative - ;;(DSEIR:,page::288):;;project-related:impact. :T1te;1998;DSEIR dentified:Mitigation Measure•~.9-1(b) jDSEIR,page; 29D),:as. the,:prefen~ed ;alternative :which would not-require.~extensive azchaeological .;excavations. -~'he:Perneanent;O,pen.Space.Alternative:also is;presented~nahe 1998~DSEIR. All are -acceptable>means;under:CE.QA~f,mitigating:andJ.oravoiding~.significantimpacts~and:should remain .in the ~SEIR~•so that informed~decisions:can be tnade;by~the i,ead Agency and the;pnblic. - Regazding theissue of whether.or not the site .would be destroyed by project fill, see Responses I3.18 and 13.46. , . ~. :. -. .:. ;.In.its description .of,the-HolmanandAssociates' archaeological:investigations:of-CA-SMa-40 (DSEIR - ....,;pages 278-281,:283-285,..:and:288-295),,;the 1998DSEIR:does.not.state that~.there already has been .:sufficient scientific_study:,of the.site.:.The,Hohnan andAssociates'.investigations':(as described in the fu=n's.February -1998 report) consisted of what is .termed:as:a.PhaseII Subsurface=testing program for Latter 13-18 2 m m 0 m .3 ._ • m .~ ~ ~a .. o `I~ ° • , ° ' ~ . e ` Q ~ ~ • ' - ~~ :~ :. =• :_~ ,~a ::~ ' ~ • :. • :;1 _ 1 .. , :1 ~ • >1: '• ~' . • a do • ~ ~ ~ ~ m m 5 • _~ • f ~~ ~ • •" a ~• ~ '. r paY i` '~..~ ~ t •• 'l. .: - :, f . j~ m O Q 71 U~ V Q m m ~ o .c .~ O C 7 m ~ `:w .~ I~ C a c O c w i m c °m ,~ Y f0 7 tL ~ m ~ ~ m L Y U z m m ° m U O N. purposes of determining whether or not .the prehistoric :cultural: deposit meets CEQA criteria as :an :important archaeological resource. The'projectsponsor'.s archaeological consultant presented a Phase III mitigation plan of excavation in response to he;.possibility of..damage and / or destruction of .the site. A CEQA-required Phase II archaeological testing program should not.be confused with a Phase III mitigation;plan.. ~ . Holman and Associates'. prepazed the February-1998 report for the.;project sponsor for submittal toahe City in order _to .provide adequate :background ~~noaterial-.,for .the ..City .to consider 'Phase III site application materials. From the outset of the 1998rDSE1R`s.preparation, the applicant promised'..the completion-and availability of.Holman and As'sociates' final report io enable the E1R's independent peer review required by :the City.. Because `dolman .and :Associates recommended the activities identified as .Mitigation .Measure 4.9-1(a) in .the -1998 DSEIR to address impacts from .the project sponsor's .proposed .:plans for the ..Phase ]~L °site, 'the EIR pr$parers' interpreted he .Holman recommendation to be :part of the sponsor's plan -for`ahe site. Otherwise, the project would have -proposed no .measure to mitigate the .impacts <of ;placing fill on CA-SMa-40 as part of ..grading operations to create building pads, :parking lots, :and=on-site .circulation. However, .the issue is moot because Mitigation _kvieasure 4.9-1(a) should remalnin .the 1998 SEIR as an alternative as long as -the SEIR examines the January 15, 1998 project (or imilar,project) :which would involve placement of`fil1 on CA-SMa-40. Response 13.48 The recommendation that the relationship.between'CA-SMa-40 and -92 be studied, if:CA-SMa-40 is.:capped, is justified. in the event^that~_theLeadAgency,determines that capping of.ahe :site is part of the approved .project, .the 1998 SEIR,conc7udes Ghat site compression will. occur :and will :result in distortion -and destruction : of the prehistoric ..cultural deposits. In that event, Mitigation Measure 4.9-1(a) Iikely would be the action approved by+the City. ,„ -.Such a course .of .action would. preclude any scientific study of C.A-SMa-40 and its relationship to .nearby CA-SMa-92. Because -both sites could `,be-<subject <to significant impacts as a result of he project (direct impacts to CA-SMa-4U and induect :impacts to CA-SMa-92), then it wou_Id be . an appropriate reseazch consideration to explore inter-siterelationship. ' Mr_ -Holman has reiterated publicly the findings presented in the Holman and Associates' .report regazding the lack. of evidence of any physicdl corulection'between'the two sites. In reviewing the :Holman .and .Associates' :report and conducting 1998 SEIR~ield inspections, the E1R azchaeologist (Chavez &.Associates ).concurs with the Holman and.Associates'•.conclusions. However, Holman and Associates raised the consideration of a prehistoric cultural connection between the two sites, and the ElR archaeologist concurs that.there is a good possibility of a~~cultural.connection between the sites -.and that azchaeological,investigation of that possibility would,_be:an~important and justified reseazch addition to the~Mitigation Measure 4.9-1(a) program,.~if it is ;implemented. .However, if Mitigation Measure 4:9-1(b) or.the:Phase .III Site Mitigation .Plan `Development Alternative are implemented, research considerationssegazding the cultural connection need~ot;be,pursued. Please see Master Response 7.3-5 for further discussion. Letter 13-20 In accordance with your request ofAugust'3=1998=I have reviewed the Project`Description, Summary of Findings and Alternatives sections of the subject document dated July 1998. I-have '`the following comments regarding the'Project:Description ection of the subject E:IR: _ .. x`y4, ~ Detached Units paragraph, page 34: The word "bedrooms" is-missing after the word "four° on ~' ahe sixth~Iine ofthinParagraph- -..: ,, . P p ~ g ~~.28 _ Eahilit 2.3-4, page ~36: Note "f' forahis=ea~~iit describes the ro osed~ a set backs as measuring between 15 and 17 feet from the lot's front property~Iine:'`Althougb: tliis is-stated in the note .and the fact that portions of the vehicles .parked on the garage. aprons, would extend beyond the lot's property is mentioned, it should also be emphasized that the parked cars`would also extend into. the .street gutter or-block the sidewalk,.depending:.on the.street-design in front of the lot. In addition to narrowing the street travel-way by creating a greater °sh -a-way" distance from-the curb side of the.street (due to the vehicle's projecting bumper)~ere is also the .potential for the flow of water in the street gutter to be blocked or diverted, if the vehicle's wheel should ~4-3 extend into the street gutter, resulting is localized .flooding. If the vehicle extended into the proposed.narrow sidewalk, pedestrians could be forced into the street travel-way and wheel chair access could be blocked, violating ADA standards. '~4.4 Residential Street,-.page 44: The second.paragraph of.this section describes a proposal for the Point.and Commons neighborhoods to bedesigned as °gated.communities". These gated entry areas would-require substantial improvements which do not appear on the Precise Plan. In particular, the gated entry would require aturn-a-round .area so that the public, confronted with the gate could return to the pnb)ic street. -Also, there would need to be a substantial queuing lane for vehicles waiting to operate the gate, to say nothing of delivery vehicles, visiting guests and city officials trying to determine how to open the gate so they could enter the subdivision. Also, a sliding gate would require a level area to operate that may not be available. ~4.Zb 'Ezhibit 2.3-12, Residential Parlung Dimension-`Summary,~page 48: Note "b".for this exhibit discusses the problem of vehicles extending into .the street right-of--way when .parked in front of the residential garages dn:order~to:claafythe:impottance,.of:this comment, it should discuss how far the vehicle's bumper would encroach into the adjacent street travel.lane or public sidewalk (which has more of an impact. than. just emending beyond an imaginary line). ~4.Jr Utilities section, page 54: The second and third paragraphs.under this section describe - improvements that would be constructed within P:G.&E. and S_F.W.D. easements. orrights-of- - way. Have these agencies.approved;~the proposed improvements? :If they .will .not approve the use of their rights-of--way asproposed by the developer, there could be an impact that will need to be mitigated. iL~,& Phasing section, page 56c The construction:datesof June andOctober 1998 mentioned in the paragraphs of this section are no longer valid. ~,4 3.2 Significant Impacts, page 72 and 73: In addition to the List of Significant Impacts described in this.section, I-would add "utiiiiy,infiastructure.maintenance access". ., __ _ 3.3 Less-1'~han-Significant Impacts,_page.73 and:.74:-Inaddition to _the items listed, I would include "aircraft noise", °street grades", "public works services impacts" and °park and recreation services impacts". _ _ -.__ .. _ Whether or not these comments .should be incorporated into the Draft.E.I.R . should be decided by the.Planning Division or, if appropriate, the E.LR .preparer. However,. I think that they should at 'least;be considered~or:inclusion,in.the:documeirt,.fthey:are.not already.discussed;in another section:of the:E:LR hat a: have not yet:reviewed. - - ., A\teIIaUayg4~\F.IIItCOMRCH _ , - cc: Cyrus Kianpour, City Engineer - LETTER. ,74, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC .WORKS , . ; Response'74.7 'Comment noted. "The T998 DSEIR Project Description text has been corrected in response to this comment to read as .follows: About half..of ,single family. detached units: would ,provide :four bedrooms and.two-.and- _ .one-half .to ;three-and-one-half.:.bath>nooms .x(66, unixs),. and. 69„units .:would_;provide =five bedrooms ,and three-and-one half ..bathrooms, ~ depending on :floor -plan (four;; plans :are identified). Response 7.4.2 ..'The.driveway apron lengths (gazage setbacks) shown.in F.xhibit_2.3~ (DSEIR page 367 .are accurate aneasurements`from the front face of the ,garage to the property line.. However, the 'Teaabay 1Vlodified Specific `Plan 'implementing :Guidelines -(October 1997) -specify 18-foot long residential driveway, aprons measured `from the :back (residence side) `.:.of the :sidewalk or back, face ;(residence side) of the curb. This-guideline does;not.refer to-the .property line. "Both the Precise Plan maps and the Vesting Tentative Map .provide I8-.foot,. long .aprons if measured as `specified in the Terrabay Modified Specific Plan implementing Guidelines. The EIR traffic .engineer considers the 18- foot garage setback to be the minimum acceptable .driveway :apron. length, long- enough for standard .length vehicles to .park in the driveway, near the front face of the .garage while not protruding into the sidewalk or travelway..The comment is convect in .observing that permitting shorter driveway aprons .raises concerns about pazked cars extending into the gutter or blocking the sidewalk, depending on the street design in front.of .the unit. _ _. , Response -74.3 ff ahe City allows outside _,parking on driveway aprons, the "shy-away" ,distance ~• would appear to be the resulting significant_problem. Tf a car was pazked faz enough streetwazd to ,: • -.cause . a partial or fiill .obstruction of the street gutter, ,then ,the :bumper : of .the vehicle .would stretch ~beyond.the impact area of any;localized flooding~produced by the .obstruction: Thus, this would not .. . ; :... .;incur an additional flood hazard. ` : :Response -:74.4 .It is not clear whether the project sponsor :intends to design, one or more .. neighborhoods (that is,'tlie Point and /:or Commons) as:gated communities. However,..the EIR traffic engineer agrees 'chat, if the `Point 'hnd Commons- :neighborhoods are to be gated communities, :improvements to the gated entry- areas would be required, as :recommended by the comment. This would.result in changes to.the text of the 1998 DSEIR as:follows: -, _ .. , -amvact 4.4-6a ~ Gated.fntrances to Point and Commons-Neighborhoods 'Dimensions.of.gated entry areas.cou/d have insufficient space for aueuino and = ,: , ' ` turnarounds. S The =gated entry azea could •have :insufficient space-for the public. 'when confronted with the Bate, <-to turn around and returnao the public: street and insufficient queuin¢ space forvehicles Ito stack while waiting 3o.enter-the aei¢hborhood. Drivers -unused to .operating the ag_te, persons alaldng deliveries, and other new or infrequent visitors would increase the time for entrv..thus -increasing the need #or vehicle queuing space. Mltiastion Measure 4.4-6a Gated entrances would reouire provision of a turnazound area. and sufficient aueuing,,_space for vehicles to stack while waiting to enter the neighborhood. ff these neighborhoods were not to be gated, as subsequently .indicated by the. project aponsor after receipt of this comment, but if a trailhead were . to be located within the Point neighborhood, public, access .to .the railhead would be: possible, and pazking should be .provided. neaz. the trailhead. )•n this :situation, it is recommended that -four to six pazking spaces be .provided and signed for daytime use by pazk visitors. .Letter 14-1 Response. 14.5 Beginning in -March 1997, 'Brian Kangas Foullc (BKF, .the ..project sponsor's .engineer) _ contacted representatives , of ..both :PG&E and the.: San .Francisco Water Department ... .. . .. ~~,: . (SFWD)..i 'According o `BKF, -neither ntiIity has given `final -approval for project ..improvements r .,proposed with their respective rights-of :way.:.BKF.futther indicates the..following: Z `- .: ,;::_ • PG&E Easements.for power .transmission lines'and towers .and an~abandoned gas.line cross the ,_ ;proposed:Commons neighborhood on the Phase~II site.'~'Based;on discussions with PG&E staff, '~BKF understands that grading;. roadway~constiuction ~~the segment of'San `Francisco Drive ,and Commons' "K" :and "N" :Streetswhich would cross the -easement),' and utility installation within __ the PG&E rights-of--way would be acceptable to PG&.E. • SFWD Fasements'for two water transmission fines are located on the Phase III site.. -The Phase - , 'III development concept proposes :.gradding, .road construction, and utility. installation (but: no ~-- =buildings) :in the ~SFWD right-of-way which currently is developed with, 60- and 44-inch SFWD water "lines. ,'The 44-inch".line is no' longer in .service, .and the SFWD :is redesigning a 48-inch replacement for it. The new 48-inch line would be relocated to the. right-of-way of Bayshore `Boulevard, as realigned. ` ~Bayshore Boulevard realignment .also would relocate the -existing 60- °inch•Iine'to the rerouted Bayshore Boulevard right-of-way.'Final alignments and connections for 'the two'.lines are: stillbeing discussed with'SFWD staff.: - - Response 14.6 Comment noted. _ Response 14.7 This document, as :a "supplemental" E]R, "focused" on specific .issues of concern in relation .to the .currently .proposed project compared :with .the .previously; approved...: development - concepts examined. yin .the:.1982` EIR -and 1996. SEIR.: The..topics. selected for analysis in .this .1998 _ _ ;: .DSEIR included issues of sgtificant .and potentially significant impact -as a result ~of substantial differences : between'~or ubstantially .different circumstances .from) the proposed .and approved plans. ; . . The :City focused ahe" :issues of:utility :infrastructure :maintenance access, ::public :works services .:impacts, and.-park and recreation services.impacts identified in.this comment "out" .of the' 1998 DSEIR. LI EIR Requirement describes this process. of identifying the.scope. 6.4.Effects of No Significance also indicates that. these issues -did not represent significant. or potentially significant impacts. 1998 :`DSEIR Impact 4.6-2 assessed the issue of airport.noise and focused on the compatiliility of the project -- site for .development with the `land .uses proposed partly :in .recognition of exposure ao aircraft • ; `;generated noise. 'It concluded ..that noise levels from.aircraft would not exceed `City .and -State noise - and .land use compatibility ;guidelines,-'including those :for sensitive uses (primarily residential and ~. hotel uses). The'DESEIRincluded:a ~irholenew•evaluation~f:madway~noise,•:and:mitigation measures were~identified~to:=reduce =any-significantnoise'~impacts to:a~less=than-significant level..Road grades were not identified as constituting a significant or potentially significant. impact and were not .-:evaluated-:in'.the..DSEIR. ::The.Summary .:of Findings::only>:highlights the::conclusions of this 1.998 ;DSEIR, and the :impacts listed in:-sections 3:1, 3.2, sand 3 3~only include=topics analyzed in the main ~-- =aext ;(Chapter ~~4 0), -not =issues -dismissed .from analysis as less-thansignificant when initiating _ ,; :, • - _ •:environmental review. , . `' 1 'FAX to Nichols • Berman from San O'Flaherty,-Brian Kangas FoullC (project sponsor's engineer); September 2, 1998. 2 Ibid _ _ Letoer 142 LETTER 15 L~ ~ ~ z 3 ~~~ ~ `-`~- , ~~ ~~o -~. ~ P J i' I ~ S S ~ c?~-v 1j~.0 a Lc.-t/1 ~C"~'~ ~-^ct!''~ C. i $ c.p . J_ a~ ~ i5 ST~~- yyi;~a~. i ~ p ~ D r t -'i~~n.Fi.7k... 5~ ~.Gwl 5 ~o ~ v t' +' ,.~. ~ ~ - 11 ~( r~wv ~pknTC~eh ~ ~,lpr~ v.Olleev~ C~~~-v"\ a uv~~ iS C~.eS ~-ro ~~~ ~ W herd w - eun. J t~ ~o re con s Eder - lease ~`e1P `~ reserve - - aQ uc~ Via.. r e S o ~ v c e.. o-w c Gu,t O~n.~-k. . ~°' ~ `~" ~ .~~ c zb 41 a.5`` `` 5~-- LETTER 75, LILIANA VALLE :.Response 15.y The comment addresses `the' "merits of :.the .project" in view of the site's environmental resources.. However, because it does not raise questions .about the adequacy of -the 1998 ..DSEIR analyses, no response is required. °Inclusion in the :7999 FSEIR will make the commentor's views .available to City decision-makers. Please see Master Response 7.3-ZI. In addition, as noted in Response 21.11 (below), to the extent that environmental documents address the effects of development .projects on schools, those analyses relate to .physical environmental impacts .(such as impacts from .building programs initiated to .alleviate .capacity constraints of educational facilities), not. to the subjects taught in schools. letter 15-I ~. ,. 2 ~ LETTER 16 ~ Z X4-+4 w~.. S ~ ~- .. - ~6.1a ,- D w t - c~+~ a _ 1 ^C {- :: 0. - ~o-, p~,yCt: ~ N r rp ,~-~-,t,, .. ,: ,* r~ ,. -, .: ,_,, 0..v 1N~--~-C~~ s~ __ ~ .. _ S s . .. ~, ~ 1, a - ~ ~ c - c~`'`~-` - v ~ ~- L S ~ zip ~-~.nnt. Y~ C ~ 0.S ~ ~L ~. oLw S K ~~e-ve_ ~ S Q- ~ l a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~' ~ w ~ ~ ~-~ T~ ~ ~~ ..! i .1, LETTER .16, ROBERT.CARRILLO. Response 76.1 The .comment addresses the "merits of the project" .and expresses a preference for an alternative to the project analyzed in .the .1998 DSEIR. Although it discusses the .project site's environmental resources, it does not .raise :questions about .the .adequacy of .the .1998 DSEIR. Therefore, no .response is required. By inclusion in the 1999 FSEIR, .the commentor's views will be made available to City decision-makers. Please see Master Response 7.3-11. Response 762 A thorough archaeological investigation has been accomplished, the results of which -are reported in Holman and Associates' February 1998 report. The results are summarized in the 1998 `DSEIR (DSEIR pages 276-282, 284-285, and 286-295). CEQA indeed requires that important cultural resources be properly. managed, particularly those with Native American burials present. 'The 1998 .DSEIR not only presents alternatives for managing the resources as mandated by CEQA but .also provides options for preserving the site. See Response 30.5 for further discussion. Leiter 16-1 y7, y I am writing as a member of the public in response to the SEIR on Phase Ill of the Terrabay Development project,`:having attended the meeting of July 9 where the report was outlined. I urge youao~ preserve the shell mound as it is and to consider making the native American world:it represents accessible to the public in some form. Although:I am a fourth-generadon~ San Franciscan, I have~Iived for the past 30 years in New Jersey, returning here several times a yeaz. I:used to~wonder,flyinginto~the San Francisco Airport,about the amazing phenomenon of a •mountain;preserved in scrub and grasslands.habitat:rght in the..middle.of the crowded peninsula. "Eventually, I met people `knowledgeable about San Bruno Mountain, and Ihave since enjoyed many hikes over its -~ vaned°terrarn. _ It.seems to me~that.ahe shell:mound is the crowning glory of themountain, because.it speaks of SOOOyears of.human community* livedn hartnony~v~ith~the'natural-world. : This is an important lesson for us latecomers, as for our children sand for generations. to come, if we are to avoid the destruction of our planet .and, ultimately, 'ourselves. Preserving this shell mound as it is, perhaps with a nearby reconstruction of a Native American village .with interpretive signage, could be an .exciting step for South San Francisco. We have such an interpretive site near my home:-:the Leni Lenape Indian Village at Waterloo Village, in the wooded hills of northwestern New Jersey. I have taken many groups of children from a .summer camp I founded ,to visit .this reconstruction of a Native American settlement. They react with curiosity, wonder and delight at discovering the ancient .self-sustaining society preceding the world they know. Think of it: there has been a human community in South San Francisco since the pharaohs built the pyramids! I don't know any other place that can boast of such a-large and long-term settlement in the Bay Area. I believe people would be fascinated to discover this site. Would we permit its destruction if these .were "our". ancestors? *This information comes from the Holman & Associates report. You -have.befare you an opportunity to preserve.a precious piece of the past. :Development of a nearby interpretive: site wouldn't have to be -done now, or even in our lifetimes, but future. generations may better understand he shell mound as "our" heritage, not "theirs," and value. it more hdghly. Once 20 or thirty.:feet of fill~and-:pavement have been added to it, the-shell mound and the world that it so,~pognantly.represcnts will.be lost to human awareness.. South San Francisco has a chance ao do better_ I urge°you to give-yourself this chance. -With every good wish for your future-- - - _ ~Betsy-Burr ;:9~.Canterbury Way. - ` _ - _ - -~ -:Momstown~NJ:07960 LETTER 77, BETSYBURR Response 17,1 The comment addresses the "merits of the project" and the environmental resources of the Phase III site. It expresses a preference for (and suggests other variations on) an alternative assessed by the 1998 DSEIR but does .not raise questions about the adequacy of the DSEIR. While no ..response is.required, inclusion in the 1999.FSEIR will make the commentor's views available to City decision-makers. Please see Master Response 7.3-1I. Response 77.2 Comment acknowledged. Leuerl7-1 LETTER. i8 Testimony on the Terrabay Phase 11 and .111 El'R 1~.1 y:8.2 My name is Patrick Orozrn. I was .given the.Indian name of YanaHea, One Who Yawns. I live at 644 Pear Tree Drive, Watsonville, CA. 95076. I am tribal chairman of the Pajaro Valley Ohlone Indian Council representing"320 people. Our tnbal affiliation according o .records kept at Mission .Santa Clara is Ohlone-Ritocsi, a'~known- to the-early padre ta-Teresa Hills people. I am also registered as a Most.L.ikely Descendant with the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento. Although most of our people died during the_Mission era,,yet some of us have survived #o maintain and revive our culture. It was dangerous to be Indians. for many years, but at long last we .can speak out .for our identity and ways. Our organization was formed in 1975 in order to protect and preserve all sacred sites of our ancestors. We realized that they were being destroyed at a very alarming rate. My people and I have served .as Indian monitors with archaeologists when there is a possibility of graves being disturbed.. When we served as monitors, we made sure that all measures were taken for .preservation even though most of these sites were very much disturbed. The San Bruno shell mound is intact, which-means very little disturbance has occurred there. As I walked the wand, I could feel the presence of the .ancestors that are buried there .and the hundreds of graves there. In particular the area between the large and small -shell mound is likely to have. isolated burials. Fn my experience as a monitor, many isolated graves are found outside the main impact areas. Also as I wall,ced the land, I could see plants that were used by my people, such as hiyatay (soap root), plantain, to shu to ya (buckeye), willow, curly dock and rushes, I would like..to see all. this.Property Preserved and protected and even returned to-its natural state..We are not comfortable.when wehear.that they want to put top soil or:parking lots over the shell mound or surround it with.buildings. In the Indian's eyes, this is disturbance. The entire area should be left intact. Recently, I read where a state congressman was asked, 'Zf they want to dig up our 16th President's coffin to see what relics he was buried with, what would be his answer. He said he would say, "No, Ixt him rest in ,peace." The San Bruno Moutain is sacred and we ask that you support us in protecting it. To disturb it would be a violation of our religious rights as American Indians.. And we ask `that our rights be respected. Many prayers were said over these graves by my ancestors and .myself. Respectfully, Patrick Omzco LETTER 78, PATR/CK OROZCO Response .78.1 The commentor's leadership in the Ohlone community and experience of many yeazs as a Native American monitor are aclrnowledged. Mr..Orozco's statement regarding the potential for off-site burials. is carefully noted. A mitigation plan for .such .possibilities is discussed in Master Response 7.3-6. As also noted in response to this comment are Response 30.5) (response to Exhibit Two) and Master Responses 7.3-5 and 7.3-6 for additional discussion. .There is. no archaeological evidence to ,prove or disprove the commentor's statement .about the presence of off-site burials. There is no practical way to substantiate or .refute the claim, short of .digging up the-entire area. However, as an Ohlone spiritual leader, the commentor's statements must be given serious consideration in determining what is the preferred project alternative. Response- -782 The comment addresses the "merits of the project" in view of the site's environmental resources but does not raise questions about the adequacy of the 1998 DSEIR analyses. Inclusion in the 1999 FSEIR will make the commentor's views available to City decision-makers. Please see Master Response 7.3-II. L.euer 1 &-1 Re: Concerns Regarding Terrabay SEIR _ 1:9.'18 As avid sportsmen, we are very concerned about the. significant ,impacts that such a large residential and commercialdevelopment wfll..have on the .Oyster Point.Estuary,, he Bair:Island :Wildlife Area.~and the:~raters.ofFoster,-:City as a result of heavy .run-off, erosion, :pollution and siltation.+::During he winter months the -water clarity in the Oyster Point .Estuary becomes so bad Ghat the _water,is a miaky,_murky,color, and: akes several>months,.into~spring~to clear-up. These impacts are:.not discussed mthe-SE1R. ~~ ~s' The_San Bruno Mlountain .supplies large volumes of .run-off ~nrater ao -the San Francisco `Bay. 1Nith the level of :grading, .soil :.disturbance and losses of wetlands, due .#o this development, sgnificant~erosion pollution and iltation will reach the ,San.,-Francisco Ba alVater.~ iltation is; :a -very.sgnificant y., pollution source to -the waters .o# the San Francisco :Bay ,A healthy-bay ecosystem, requires..cool, clean,,oxygena#ed water entering.the.>Bay.. '411 fish, fowl .:and . se_a .creatures .depend on <a .clean ~~.Bey. .The ;Oyster ,Point :`:Estuary y9.2a supports a significant herring fishery, hat attracts 'halibut, .stripped -bass, - salmon, sturgeon, Bay fish .and is:a;ma}or~staging,:area::~for.the carayas:back ~: duck and other bay diving-ducks (as a result of habitat<,hossestln :other parts of .the :Bay). A public fishing .pier, the Oyster Point ;Marina and the :Bair Island Wildlife -area are .nearby. These .all provide important commercial .and .recreational #ishing opportunities, as well as -view .areas for Bay birds and migrating waterfowl.. Clean unpolluted water is essential for healthy habitats for the fish, fowl.and.sea. mammals that:use this area and;<the nearby wildlife . . refuge. , , This .project calls for significant grading that xaivill remoye_ .:.existing wetlands, springs and disrupt stream channels .that. help purify~and filter siltation from the run-off -water .that flows into'the San Francisco .Bay. Much of this project will have all of the topsoil and existing vegetation removed down to. bedrock. 19. yb ! If -this occurs there will be no filtration of she run-off -water and a .greater ~~~ 'C~:OC'c~1i S S ~o-C~t 19,1.f,~ ~ pollution .potential from the run-off water will result. ~:With all .the topsoil and vegetation ;.gone .there...would .be r;essentially , no rainfall .,absorption. With development the run-off ~firomthese .areas will greatly =increase and will `- require: precise engineered drainage systems that sometimes do-not .always - work as :planned. Mather .Nature has.. provided these wetlands and stream ... .. . .. <_ _ . ~channets for~this purpose. They must'be preserved! - .. ~ ~ ; ,. 19.Zb :San Bruno `Mountain has always .stood, out as a` :jewel ;of open.-space .and. a source~of:.freshwater run-off. into:#he~San Francisco'Bay. 'Since development has ~ begun .on this project .there has been a noticeable dec. line..; of .the Bay ~, fishery and.fall :waterfowl populations'in this area:' The ..proposed developments in Phase `11 and- Phase 11I of-Terrabay will surely - cause more degradation of Bay water quality and water clarity. The fish. and _ wildlife that depend on a clean Bay and :provide many :recreational __ ~opportunitias, as well ~s a `:commercial fishery -(herring) will ~be ignifcantly effected ~by further degradation`of water quality: in the `Oyster Point .Estuary. These~~impacts~~have not~~'been addresses° in``'the `SEIR. ~ We are requesting that ._ -, - they'be°'included. ;, :. ~. :.- . ~ , , '19,3 Do not ~overlook`:~he 'value of the remaining wetlands 'on his project. Unfortunatelysignificant-amounts ~of wetlands-and ~sp~ings~~ware filled and graded: away during the initial grading .on this project: in Phase I.. You must " be much more _caref~l~yw~th the °wetlands and ~pfmgs`"thatremain ,and .:you -~ ~~hould ~aiso~~arsk~~-h~s-developer ~to~ ~restore~'the wetlands in the `development -` wherever :possible'. :Some of =the' important functions' of the ,wetlands are: _ .. _ - -sediment retention, water "~clan~y,floodwater ~starage, ~ reduced ;:property - -. . , _.. . damage 'from ~flnodirrg and mudslides, 'wildlife`~habitat, ground -inrater re- :charge, ~reptenish drinking~~water supplies,filtering`pollutants, °mairtenance _ q ty q nd maintenance of fisheries. of~water uafi - ,support fora vatic life, a : ,. ,- 1For'these reasons we' ask that `the remaining wetlands snd springs on this - ._.. ., :, site be saved! . -, . _ _ :_ :. ~C: ~``California~~Regional"Wa'ter Quaiity~Control .Board ., San Francisco Bay Region.., .:2101 `Webster Street, Suite 500 ' `Oakland,'CA 9461'2.3060 `~ .. _. - City Rod & Gun Club 1. - P~ ES-i ~ ~'~T 3. rrn ~ lr e L. m~ Do.,~t~ 4. ~~ 5 ' b. ~ ~.` 7. 8. 9 ,: 10. - ~~3~~- 11. 12. 13.. ' 14. 15. J 16. ~-EJw:xY 0. XiCw7J~ue_ - ~~1'~ ~a:e,+« LETTER 19, FOSTER C1TY ROD AND GUN CLUB Response 79.1 .The -1998 .DSEIR .did :not :analyze water quality .because the City determined that project's .potential .impacts would not change substantially from those .identified in the 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR. -The mitigation measures contained in those reports would be required of any project site development. These include complying with the City's "Stone Water Management .and Dischazge Control" program .and five-year.: management ..:plan, obtaining : a National ..Pollutant Dischazge :Elimination System (NPDES) .permit, and preparing and implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Regarding site runoff, erosion, -and downstream sediment yields from the project site, it must be kept in mind that existing site conditions are extremely degraded and highly erodible. ,In view of existing site conditions, project implementation as proposed .generally -would decrease site erosion .and sediment yields. -This outcome would be enhanced further by Mitigation Measures 4.2-8 and 4.2-9 to remove .fire. access .roads and. restore original site topography outside of .development areas. Also see Response 13.42. Response 79.2 The comment refers to the impact of the ..project on wetlands and the effect of .grading on erosion and sedimentation in downgradient azeas, including .the sensitive habitat of the .Oyster Point estuazy. The 1998 DSEIR (DSEIR page 160) discusses .potential- impacts of the .project on wetland habitat and acknowledges the potential for degradation of waters located .downstream from .the site. Soils exposed during grading and construction would contribute to increased sediment loads if adequate erosion control measures are not implemented.. Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(c) would require preparation of detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan, and Mitigation Measures 4.3-3(a), 4.3- 3(b), and 4:3-1(a) address the potential loss of wetlands. As noted by the commentor, grading and construction would contribute to degradation of the aquatic habitat of the Oyster Point estuary unless appropriate .measures are taken to prevent sedimentation (see :the immediately preceding response). With implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the 1998 DSEIR and .1996 SEIR, erosion and sedimentation from the :project site would not significantly affect the aquatic habitat of the Oyster Point estuary. Response 79.3 The commentor's concerns about the potential loss of wetland habitat are noted. As the 1998 DSEIR discusses (DSEIR pages 156 and 160), this loss is considered .significant. As indicated .in the. immediately preceding response, several mitigation .measures have been .recommended to minimize the loss of wetland and riparian habitat, provide for the creation of adequate. replacement habitat, and prevent the degradation of downstream .areas as a result of erosion and .sedimentation. Grading performed as part .of Phase I .and .the construction of Sister Cities Boulevazd was authorized under Corps of Engineers Nationwide .Permit No. 26, issued on April 20, 1990 (File. No. 180525), together with the intended grading on the Phase II and III parts of the site.. Restoration of any wetland habitat ah'eady eliminated during previous grading activities is not .warranted and should not be required of the project sponsor as a condition of approval for development of the Phase II and III sites. Letter 19-1 RECEIVED 20.1. _ LETTER.20 pI AIVNtNG :San Francisco, CA. 94107 Fred Rinne .1029_ Carolina ~. To wham it may concern: 'I am writing about the .proposed TerraBay develognent at the foot of San .Bruno .Mountain. With the passing of time, San Bruno Mountain is :increasingly celebrated as an environmental and aesthetic treasure in -the overbuilt Northern Peninsula. I .feel -.that the .South San Francisco ..planners should retain the shellmound.area as ,part ;of San ,8runo :Mountain State .Park and scale back TerraBay .from the fringes of the Mountain. South San Francisco has ~ oPP~~-tY ~ Plan develognent arui parks in the area of San Bruno. Mountain in an attractive and profitable manner and there is no excuse beyond greed and stupidity for more ugly ticky-tacky sprawl. South San Francisco .could learn fran communities that abut .major open space :areas, 'like ROSS, Maria county, Or Kensington in the Fast Bay, not to trash up their vistas with .ugly sprawl. Thank you for .your time, CC, ~~. Cc~M~MisS~ e~ LETTER 20, FRED R/NNE Response 20.1 The -comment addresses the "merits of the project" and expresses a preference for. an alternative.to the project studied in the 1998 DSEIR. However, because it .does .not-raise questions about the adequacy of -the DSEIR analyses, no response is required. Nevertheless, inclusion in the 1999. FSEIR will make the commentor's views available to City decision-makers. Please see Master Response 7.3-II. t.~ 2ai LETT~f~ia 'San Bruno.Mountain Watch • PO Box AO Brisbane, CA 94005 ., "Dean"Ivir: Harnish, 21, ya ; Following are comments and questions about the July, 1998 S.E.LR. for Phases II and ..III of the Terrabay project on San Bruno Mountain. `We are.-strongly opposed to the project because as proposed utterly disregards the site's broad range of ... - environmerital "historical` and .cultural values. ,_ The -City of -South San 'Francisco should not allow development on the human ,, "burial cites on the South Slopes of.San-:Bruno Mountain. (Phase III). "It is morally and ethically wrong`to employ different standards for Native American burial remains - ,. then `would be used for other cemeteries. __;, Further, the project will .erode 'the biological integrity. of San Bruno Mountain. We are -incalculably fortunate to have in our :backyard one of the world's biological treasures -- its .survival is tenuous and our stewardship:responsibility is great.` The bold measures _we .take now to protect .and .expand: the ecosystem's viability will do ;_ far more 'for people .one hundred years from now than. one hundred hotels: The Phase III Permanent Open Space.Alternative, according to the S:E.LR., "would be contrary to the development assumptions adopted by the City (p. 301)" in 1982. We ask the City for the archeological:information .used in the development of __ - assumptions and: agreements`between the City and project sponsor be reexamined, and that the- City take."the initiative in preserving the~Phase IIL. site .for all time. °We also urge the City to not develop the Phase II cite. The ~S.E:LR: concludes,'"it theoretically would be "possible to develop the -types and amounts of residential and commercial.land uses proposed.'..at other. ocations (p: 304)." `If these wand uses are 415=467-6631 ':page 1 .Z~. ya indeed needed,. they should .occur elsewhere than on San Bruno Mountain (and - probably could at far less .expense). This .said, the following..comments nonetheless .address a variety of issues in the S.E.I.R. We ;appreciate ~~their inclusion for the record .and for consideration--by the document preparers and City officials. I. '.BIOLOGY . ,, 2~:2 i Mere site specific surveys are inadequate measures of the .project's impacts .on .the Mountain's biodiversity, including- but not limited to its "special status" species. The :mountain ecosystem, surrounded and significantly, permeated by: development,.. -- is 'in particularly .dire need of ;buffer zones to :preserve the integrity of its core habitat J reserves. Degradation of buffers such as the PPhase lII site, deemed "marginal" habitat because it has been disturbed and may not support special tatus species, will ~- .significantly impact the ecosystem as a:~nihole. --:Even the highly:disturbed Phase II - site serves a buffering role. For evidence, one -can look to.the theory.of,.island __ -biogeography, established 3fl years :ago by world-renowned entomologist :and ..expert in conservation biology; ~E O Wilson.:Stated very simply, the theory holds that an '- _., _.. , ecosystems.number of species is proportional o its size.'~The"Phase II andlII sites - are still very much a ,part of San .Bruno Mountain's highly compromised and endangered ecosystem. :Prof. Wilson, in .The Diversity of Life, highlights the mountain as one of eighteen:, global biodiversity''hotspots "deserving immediate ~ - attention due o their .precarious states." ,._ ,, :. _ .__:.. _ Therefore, we. vigorously disa ee with the statements on p. 338 regarding impacts. 2~.3 ~ to`animal Life (5b,"Sc, Sd), an we:doubt the possiliility of viably recreating the- destroyed perennial spring for its wildlife values (p. 84, 4.3 - la). ; - ,_ 2~.4 ~~ Further,, both Johnny-Jump up (uiola ,pedunculata) surveys described in the S.E.LR. missed specimens located between ,the two shellmounds on.-the Phase III site. The Joluln~=Jump-up ~~s the .host.,plant for the rare and endangered .San Francisco .. Silverspot, (Callophrys~ Mossii 'Bayensis). "`These were unmistakably sighted in spring. and aummer:,of '97:and '98 and. are indicated on the enclosed map. _ :Lupine . (Lupinus 'bicolor) ,with .rare and endangered ,Mission Blue .(Icaricia icarioides < =- missionensis) eggs on .the: leaves have been found this summer .above the large shellmound-and along the dirt roadbetween the two mounds. The presence of -: -41.5-4G7-GG31 =Page 2 San:Bruno 'Mo~cncain Wacch • PO s'Box AO~ ~Brisbanc;"'CA 94005 ..;.. 2 ~,,¢ ,.,,:..Johnny dump up, lupines, San ,Francisco . Silverspot ;and Mission:: Blue. must. be ` verified and Terrabay's impacts, through grading, trail establishment,,and . ,.~ ..otherwise, should be analyzed... _ Zy.S . ?,lso, the status under C.E:Q.A. of .species listed in Appendix 7.4, "Potential` Special Status Species for Terrabay, San Bruno. Mountain," -should not ,be left .undetermined .: .. _ (i.e:; those .marked `"State: C.E;Q.A.?") 2y s Given the sharply differing views of the intent of the San Bruno .Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan and- its effectiveness in protecting the San Bruno ecosystem, precise mitigations should `be developed .and submitted' for review for all instances of grading in HCP open space beyond;project boundaries.-(Exhibits 4.1- lb, lc). Further, despite the S.E.LR. preparers' apparent sensitivity-in many.respects, the HCP is not, as claimed, "fully described .and analyzed; (p. 52)". in the document. It is .. the stated 'view:.of numerous, legal .and environmental advocates: that :RCP's, ~' including he one~~ for San Bruno Mountain and :hundreds of others .now in effect :~_ _ . nationwde,'have~resulted:in net habitat losses ui nearly every case, and that despite the policy's- title' and .any good initial intentions on the part of its framers, RCP's represent more than anything a destructive legal.. loophole -that -wholly :betrays the ` spirit and intent of the Endangered Species Act. While the S:E.I.R. is :not the appropriate forum to discuss the (de)merits, of the San Bruno~Mountain HCP, a balanced assessment of ~the.policy's mitigative effect on proposed developments should acknowledge this controversy. 2~.7 ~ It is; moreover, ~~inappropriate #or the firm .enJoying substantial HCP related contracts to be 'given powers of review and approval of the project's RCP-related provisions. This conflict of interest .involving Thomas Reid and Associates originated with the HCP itself (p. 7) and apparently is alated to continue (pp. 28, 55, 70, 83). :: ;, _ . 11 7oss_ ; Zy.B While the project sponsor's. employmentpredictions' (p. '42) are explained, they do not appear to be independently validated as -the document.. guidelines mandate (p. 6). °'41.5-467-6631 - pagc 3 - San Bruno a~IountainWarch •-P,O:Box,AO`Brisbane; CA 94005 ~- j-- ~~,$ ,:.Moreover, the issue of .employment is_ inappropriate within; a discussion of _- `environmental impacts, until the "City decides to adopt a Statement that. economic considerations outweigh the `significant adverse impacts caused by~ the project. III. ~ TR.AFFIC , 21,9 We ask- the-"City to demonstrate .that the project is' adequately coordinated with. other ^- projects in South .San Francisco and state that-this is essential if the 'freeway system __ is going to work. We are restating this question for the record and .are concerned ~~ because, if'this is anyindication of the answer, he S.E:LR. describes;(p. 49-50) parking within the project itself : as quite inadequate. - IV. AIR QUAIrTTY - . , ,_ 21,1 ~ `'The statement, ~"The Bay Area remains as an ozone maintenance Area ;(p. 214)," :. needs to~~be corrected since 'in June "98 the:Bay Area was redesignated as ''non- _ ,. :.attainment"for ozone ~ This "is of.particular :concern_since~Terrabay s unpacts on __ _ __ . long terni~ regional air quality are :predicted to be significant: and unavoidable: How - ` does the Bay. Area''s redesignation affecf condusions7predictions in .the report? - , ._ , V . IvIPACTS ON SCI-TOOLS 21.1 y Given the high priority of Native American Studies in schooL.curricula, and the -- _.. _ _ ` scarcity of `locales for "'1lands-ori" experience~'like the Ohlone ~She1lMound, the _ .. . impacts "of Terrabay on urea schools strikes us as very understated :in the report. _ Having taken students `.there for years, we° know firsthand its educational value: F Even with.,-a landscaped .park and interpretive, signs, development as proposed for ~- Terrabay"Phase TII would essentially eliminate one of the area's most potent ._- _ ~ ..: educational resources. _: _ ; ,.VI. EASEMENTS _ 21. y2 All easements .and their :potential effects. on grading plans and development sites should be determined so that. development..accommodations to the easements can be examined for;potential im acts ( 55 . - _ ~ -- . ) X415-4G7-GG31 P~ 4 :San Bruno'Mountain'V~atch~~.'PO•BoxAO'Brisbane~"~A94005 VII. GEOLOGY _, ., - -._ ~i,. 73;; Because the, project,proposes to .replace a substantial natural environment with an engineered .one, clearly altering the. opography::and (sub)surface;drainagepatterns and processes, and because the project site is naturally geologically unstable, with several types of "failure" processes currently at work, we seriously question :the project developers' :and report .author's optimism,. (pp. 121, .123, 125, .126).for mitigative success. Also, development of Terrabay Phase I demonstrated that there will almost assuredly be unanticipated problems, including the potential:for slope failures. .. Zy ~,¢ We submit that "scaling" of or placing metal netting on rock outcrops or slopes outside the .project area are ecologically unacceptable "mitigations" .and should be ~~~ deleted from the list ofoptions..(p. 79). Y' ~ The, discussion of possible impacts on the, geologic ,environment. surrounding the ?1..1v - _ `project is inadequate.: For example, there is some discussion. of ..the possible need for _: 'modifications to prevent minor debris flows and failures just up-slope of the project _ ;area in isolated ..spots, but there is no :discussion. of the ,potential of the. project as a whole (namely, the disturbance Hof a large area at the base. of large, steep slopes) to ` '' cause a larger, more deep-seated landslide or rockfall in the above -slopes? ,.. 2y. ~6 It would also be helpful to .have an estunate of the amount of debris .that could pile up in the debris basins and deflection structures,.proposed.~eproject sponsor 2y. ,~7 should at least submit .for review the precise number of, and detailed plans .for, :.:Phase. II and III.debris basins. (p. 54, footnotes 61 and.63). _ _ _~ 'Seismic hazards are addressed rather briefly in the report. The project developers 21..:18. . . and report .author again express .optimism that engineering -can deal with rockfall danger from- earthquakes along -major faults even though he rockfall potential is still .under study! They also seem to think that building to ~UBC seismic code standards.. will be adequate. , What, however, about the performance of engineered and differential fills in this situation? Would shaking during winter, when -the ,,ground is saturated, also contribute to potential for .larger scale ..slope failure up-slope from the project area? The S.E.LR. should address ahese issues. 415-467-6631 -Pam 5 San..BrunoMounrain Watch_~:P..O Box:AO.~Brisbane,.CA94005 VIII. ARCHAEOLOGY By .and large, the :report :preparers displayed appropriate and welcome sensitivity to .-- the ..presence ~of `human burials at the Phase VIII site: ~ There are a fewpoints, 'however, - of great concern which need. to be•addressed. ~ ~ ` . , _ , ... :, .. ... --- ~.. 21.19 `We disa ee with the conclusion 'thatsettlement remains are confined to only 2.2 acres out of the'broad expanse of 40 or more acres at :the eastern base of the Mountain. '`As'the site was occupied for nearly 5000.years. 'The~broader.area has not `been .well-researched, and until it has (though many, especially ~in 'the `Native -- American Community abhor. disturbance of such sites by archeologists), it is grossly .inappropriate to plan large scale development-related disturbances on most of the _. site, monitors or-not. : _ _ At the :S.E.LR. -study session in July, lvir. Holman cited no conclusive' evidence ` _ whatsoever that the Mound's boundaries are .indeed .those .that have. thus far been y delineated. 'He only offered~his own authority and experience and a promise:of a ._ . small `buffer and monitoring' (p.:288): .This` is iiuufficient. 21.20 'Similarly, wedisagree'that CA-SMa=92 'is unrelated to ~CA=S1VIa-40 and feel strongly _ ._... ,. `that prior~to any approvals, the connection between them should be thoroughly `" studied for .possible designation as an"'important archeological district" and - "important cultural resource" under CEQA (pp. 282, 286). At the very east, any approved mitigation plan must substantively address `-the relationship between the ., .. , _. ~;_ 'two sites (p.'~282, `footnote 268). Zy,21. Gaping of Indian burial grounds is unacceptable at this-.location. 'This appalling _ measure has led to .the decimation of numerous important sacred sites in he -Bay ,. , ' Area alone: "We also oppose: the ~"development of a park with lawns, landscaping, -.._ _. ' pedestrian, paths,'and interpretive elements'[as] ... accepted practice [and] appropriate - :'[and] :aesthetic '(p: 288)':,, .. _ 21.22: Similarly, we differ with conciusions 18a & 19a in "6:0 Impact Overview," p. 340. __._ 21.~3~ Minimally, the project sponsor should submit 'for environmental .review aprecise 1 desi for the "ca ;" includin surface, subsurface, and erimeter drains a laps. At ' ~ P g P g P -415-467-6631 Pam 6 -:San $runo 1Vlounrain Wacch • PO Box AO Brisbane, CA 94005 21.23 21.1b the `S:E1.R.atudy-session, a report preparer described the potential .that acidic groundwater would likely damage lower portions of the capped area. 'This .should be addressed as well.. Also,'the project ponsor should submit .specific ,guidelines -for .proposed "park" maintenance by the .Building Owners .Association (p. 61). :Reference to .legal provision~is insufficient togauge if .maintenance will be appropriate (p. 62). If the .park is to be managed by such an association, it would be a :minimal courtesy to the Native American Communities, whose forebears are buried there, to publish proposed Articles of Incorporation before development commences. DC. SUMMARY In summary, we believe strongly that the Phase III Permanent Open Space Alternative is in the .long=term best interest of .the residents of South San _Francisco. With the increasing commercial development on the-east side of Highway 101, and the increasing density. of .housing along Sister Cities Blvd., the question of ''who needs the. Phase lII commercial development?"`becomes more pressing. _:.., Perhaps the .out-of-state developer benefits by .his project.:But for the .residents of South San Francisco, :it seems that the .added traffic, .congestion, pollution, and loss of important open space, which is home to both endangered species and prehistoric archeological treasures, is too .high a -cost to,.pay. .Sincerely yours, 41`5=467-6631 Pam ~ Siiralt/He BJo/o Ieal ~~~ . - -,• . - - ___ s.- f ..~ , _ ~~ ~: ,•~ - _ •~Jr '• • ~ f' 'c ~~ ~~ ~.! ' f , ~ ' ` .. .. ~_ _~ _ ~i ~-'... tr C. ~~ ~ COAObOfipy~ leger~ 7 - - -.. ,(x, 'POputation a~ vaota pedtsta,lata with ~ ,.: Lupisk/Misalon -.Blue i ems • estimatesd ntanberol.ptantt `~tendsf luriedidional,weNands ~~ ~- Johaay ~~pwa/Gei23ppe Silwerapot i ei~ ~9Y Vicki gQymoltis C.~ +~~^~ Potenial iuradiesionat vreUands mapped by EnvironrneMai Coilaborat~re .:. - • •- U~ Potential juri~onaf waters - 'lstream cl~niwis),mappce by•Victo Rernotds . •• ~ Um-egetated pot~+tliai jueis~tional waters (stroam channel}~~ppad:by.Etmronn~ortq! - • Cotlaboratire e~ PerenMel spring ~~:.~. .. ,r ~.: _ __._ San aruno Mountain Watd~ 9 Sep'tem~er_'19.98 21.24 r. Jim Harni-sh ., _ Planning Divi-lion - City of South San 'Francisco r- P.O. Boa 711;. _ : _ __ .._ , ,_ So San Fr...ancisco., ~CA x.94083 -Dear 14:r. Harnish, Our recent comments in response to the DSEIR for :Phases II and III of Terra- bay contained an error.. Following an inspection of the Phase III site, we re- tract our claim that the .Report preparerfs biological site urvey failed to record lupine <specimens that support-Mission -- Blue butterflies. While we ..stand 'by the rest of -our comments, we regret this error and would appreciate-your forwarding of this note to the DSEIR prepa.rer. ~ „ Regards, Phi ip Batchelder San Bruno Mountain 'Natch`- ,. LETTER 21, SAN BRUNO MOUNTA/N'iNATCH Response 21.1 The introductory and concluding comments in'this letter~address'the °"merits of the :project" and express a preference for an alternative to thepmject analyzed in the 1998 DSEIR in view ~~of-the site's~environmental•resources.?;Information on the~effects of=the~projecf•on sensitive resources -(such as •archaeology and: biology) . an'd the': relationsfiip to the ~-overall ,integrity of .:the .mountain are ''addressed in various .sections of the `7998• DSEIR and previous :EIRs. The .commentors' .questions about the adequacy of..the.1998 DSEIR analyses are presented.and.responded to_below. Response 21.2 The commentor's concerns:about thesensitivity of the ite and;the azger San Bruno Mountain area are noted.. The Effects of No Significance listed on DSEIR page 338. were taken from -;the ,Initial. Study ~/ :Environmental -Checklist fqr the :project-which . hen were.-expanded as a result of responses.to-the:Noticeof Prepazation (NOP) and•the public scoping session=for_the project. As the 1998 DSEIR's biology section discusses, numerous impacts of the ..project have been identified .as having a significanteffect on.biological.and:wetland resources. ''These include loss of sensitive native ;vegetation,:.callippe: ilverspof butterfly,- and seeps and •other wetlands. As stated on DSEIR page 156, while he project would affect `-local °:populations -~-f wildlife -species, .restoration and open space proposed on `the site and: as part °of -the HCP would t~ni,,;~ ,potential impacts on .general wildlife -°resources. -- Response 21.3 As the comment. indicates, it is questionable. whether the perennial spring refer ed to in Mitigation: Measure 4.3-1(a) .could be .recreated sucpessfully _, The 19.98 DSEIR. (DSEIR .page .160) .:acknowledges the difficulty_of.recreatizg•this~.perenniai spring,-and~for this reason Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(a) specifically-requires the spring~to:be preserved:•and:a~m;ni,rn.maetbaek;of 50 feet be provided azound:.this.:feature. The Phase~ll Site:~Mitigation.:Flan Development A:ltemati~ue assessed in MastET Response 7.3=1 would_preserve:thesource~of7he~pring~:and :restrict:~grading~aT*~inimum of 30 feet from this .feature, providing an indication of .the feasibility of its. preservation. Response 21.4 -The information; provided by the commentor about the presence of larval host plants :for callippe silverspot and mission :blue butterfly within the proposed development -area is noted. As :discussed ~an °DSEIR gage 138, `ahe ;San `Bruno `Mountain' 1Yabitat Conservation 'Plan ~'~(HCP) is - >considered to `fully address -potential impacts' of anticipated `development on 'mission `blue 'butterfly. `-The Section 10(a) permit issued for the'HCP authorizes the taking of some mission blue'butterflies as -aresult of ;;development ~with`~ihe =-understaniiing -'that implementation'`of the HCP ,provides the `framework to-ultimately enhance the:~overall survival `of this protected species. No additional mitgation'~is considered necessary,-although the proposed salvage of°native.plants recommended in Mitigation'1Vieasure 4:3=2 could benefit this species'as-well. : ` - - The .1998 'DSEIR (DSEIR .pages ;151-132) `•provides background information -on the ~ status and habitat characteristics of callippe silverspot. This includes the results of mapping on .the -site `by the :project ponsor's vegetation specialist of the distribution of lazval foodplant - Johnny .jump-up _ (Viola • pedunculata). Dr. =~rnold :independently `-verified ~e •mapping'• effort for the :7998 :`DSEIR which indicated~<that~the mapping°generally was accurate 'If seems highly tmlikely-that any ;large stands of ~.johnny jump-up -went -undetected "during ithe surveys conducted this'~lasf spring and ~ summer, `but there is ;a-::possibility ~thaf' small :clumps" of'yohnny jump-up =occur in •'the'"'locations`;indicated by the Mitigation .Measure • 4:3-2 would apply ~ to =all stands of Johnny 'jump-upwithin `the -proposed ,development area, including =.those identified .:by'°the commentor. ' `Supplemental -surveys would be ..:Letter 21-1 :necessary during the spring flowering period to confirm whether any larval host plants occur in the locations indicated by the commentor. The.need to prevent.construction-related distturbance to stands ` of Johnny jump-up to be preserved also must>•be :addressed~as;;part=:of Mitigation Measure 4.3 2. In _ .response to the comment, the 1999 FSEIR has been revised to include the following provisions as new ~ - aecond and-third:bullets in the measure: ~ = - - '. ,:-._ -_ - -;r -_ _ ,:Mltlgetlon,,Meesure 4.3-2;~'he.project sponsor:shall be,requu~ed to fulfill.the:landowner-/.:developer .obligations :identified by the San.Bruno Mprauain Habitat .Conservation Plan. with respect to.the site. ` - If'San Mateo~County does not obtain an.amended incidental take .permit which includes the caIlippe silverspot butterfly, the project must be redesigned .to avoid all larval host-plants..- If;the.permit is amended to include calli §ilv ` ppe erspot; :the `landowner -shall` incorporate any. new permit conditions .into :the .project The following measures also shall be implemented to further minimize potential ;impacts ofahe project.on-the~calIippe silverspot: , • Project`plansshail be:redesigned~to auoid.disturbance to:and:developmentof areas supporting populations of the;larval:host;plant (Viola,pedunculata) to the;greatest extent:possible:.:. -- • ~, A supplemental survey should be conducted .in spring 1999 .to werifv the presences or •absence -of .any .larval .host -plant (Viola aedunculatal .bn .the Phase •III-cite :in ..the vicinity of the '- ;.perennial springy and.:upslope from the existing access road. If .aarval host -plants are _ encountered, they should be avoided to prevent an illegal take .under the:Federal .Endangered 'Species Act unless an :amendment of the incidental take Hermit for the FICP is obtained. in which case their loss would not be considered significant and no additionalmitigation would be required. - - " • Ah stands of larval host tilant which~are to be preserved on thePhase"'II and'IlI sites should be adeouately protected -from =construction related =disturbance: '"These'aocations should be ~ _ identified~as~a"`no~disturbance-zone" :~on all:grading~ilans. '"The perimeter of stands of larval host :plants within 2100 feet ~ of proposed :grading and construction should ~ be ^fenced_prior to ,initiating of grading to:prevent possible~damage>andaoss: -= • The ,proposed Restoration Plan shall .be revised to include a component to salvage and transplant existing ,larval .host plants;and adult nectar plants .... _`-- - _. Response 2t,5 The status of .,plant .species,asted .in :DSEIR .Appendix 9:4 .'Biology.::s :identified _ .according to listing under the .State: or Federal: Endangered.: Species ;t~cts •or: the California Native Plant -- Society_s.Inventory :of ,Rare -and . Endangered,,..Vascular Plants, o, f California. As •.the !1998 -DSEIR ,_ .. indicates ;:in :defining special-status species . (DSEIR :.page 149; footnote 126), .species ;maintained on Inventory lists,lA,:1B,.and 2 are considered,to-be of special status. Plants.<maintained on.dnventory list _; 3.and.possibly-'list~4.still.may be considered of special-status:.under.Section:15380.ofahe,State CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines), as indicated by-.the.question:mark:in theaist-.of.potentialspeeialstatns species :- contained .in Appendix 7.4. None of these species of concern was encountered within the proposed _ development, area.:during systematic -surveys of the site, -as concluded':for ;the :1998 DSEIR {DSEIR _ , a e 150). . P S. _ Response:21.7 A consultant, ;Thomas Reid:.~ssociates, asunder contract to<the -City;=San Mateo ,County,.-and .the U.S. ,Fish .and Wildlife .Service;{USFWS) hto,:oversee _and.monitor,„implementation of the HCP.,.pursuant.to.:the agreement<l~etween;these entities which:establishes:.the~HCP.:That:agreement gives ahe HCP..monitoring consultant ;(the "Plan -Operator") .the .authority ~to review::activities covered - -- by the. HCP for consistency with the .Plan on behalf of the signatories. The proposed Terrabay Phase 'II and III project is subject to the agreement, the 151CP, and review by the Plan Operator. The Plan Operator° s :contract .is • to perform thatwork..4ny question about the appropriateness of the consultant :- _ to_perform certain cervices for the City, County,-or USFWS, :whether:n selation.to this 1998 DSElR or Litter 21-2 the :pending:,project, is =an .:.issue .:.outside a scope of.::the ..:DSEIR. ;:but, ::instead, :is : an =-established .. regulatory,~parameter:of the.project_which is. reported in theDSEIR-assloted.in:the comment. Response 27.8 'Environmental documents do not.verify-applicants'.project.descnptions.but instead ..present. aspects of projects.as ,proposed. ~,.EIIts' topical analyses then address:.aspects;.reIevant to the .. _.. analys>s of .projects' significant ;or.potentlaily signtficant ;impacts. This zs .because..ElRs do .not take positions on;projects . Therefore,.project descriptions .must be allowed to "speak for themselves". A careful .reader may draw .conclusions .about projects on the basis of EIR project descriptions and / or the topical analyses. Information presented in. the _P.r~. ject Description's .footnotes is,desgned to assist readers in that way 1t ..is .anormal expectation ' of EIRs : on :.employment-generating .development ;.projects o-identify.ae :estimated. number ofemployees in the project :description to:fully ,disclose .the intensity of the. proposed~:use,.and :-provide. a :complete ..description _.of post,project~ conditions, if approved .and implemented. In addition, a number of :physical environmental impacts analyzed in EIRs according to CEQA and. the ,State CE.Qf4, .Guidelines +(Guidelines) .are directly ;or :indirectly employee-based, ;such as. traffic -and_parking impacts. An:ancillary issue discussed in the 1998 DSEIR which is ;partly employee-based _(but_ not a ;physical :environmental ...impact under CEQA and .the ;Guidelines-is-.increased school :enrollment.. See Response I3.9 .for . an additional discussion of ::employment. it should .be: noted that.the_ density factors identified .by theproject aponsor aze typical of =.the proposed,land,uses,>although:.the sponsor's estimate of future employment:with;implementation of the.,..proposed project is,_higher;(more `.`conservative",~ ;than ;the number :of jobs ,expected xo :be created based on the employment ratios. .. . Response:21.9 -:The question: is not cleaz, :With regard ao adequacy of on-site pazking,; please refer to -Res onse:l3.I5 concennm azkin -ode ac for.Phase 7II.commercial~de p ~ g P g 4a Y~ velopment and Response 13.45 concerning Phase II residential::development._ v; 'Response..21...10 At ;the.: time ahe 1998 ;.DSEIR :,air-;quality analysis was .::prepared, the :DSEIR was ,: ,_.. corTect,.and:.the.Bay ~irea was an ozone maintenance ,area. The:analysis was,peiformed :before the region eras.redesignated as an~ozonenonattainment area; in.June 1998,,_ even though the :DSEIR was ,,,~ published :on July. ,1,.1998..::The:EIR.consultant anticipated this.,redesignation,;and•the..redesignation does not affect the air quality predictions and conclusions presented in the,1998.DSEIR. The region's air quality attainment strategies address .the more stringent California ambient air .quality standazds. .As asesult,.the_redesignation of the::Bay;Area..as:anon-attainment area.forozone;:under he Federal C1ean.Air Act did..not change the standards>of significance:used in -the 199.81)SEIR. Response 21.1:7 :This comment addresses the: merits of the. project. To the extent .that environmental :documents address theeffects of deyelopment;,projects onachools, those .analyses .relate:~to physical environmental impacts (such as impacts from ,building programs .initiated to-..alleviate capacity constraints:of:educational facilities), notxo thesubjects taught in schools.- Response 21.12: As described:.above in ..Response.I4.5, the.;project_sponsor's engineer contacted :representatives ~of,.PG&E .and ,the San Francisco .W.,ater. Department (SFWD), both of :which must -. >approve ;development,.. ;.including :grading to .build ,.toads and -.install .:;utilities, :.,proposed with their respective rights-of--way. A:PG&E.easement..is located.on the Phase II site, and.:a:SFAPD:easement is .. aocated on: the Phase :IlLsite. :?,ccording to the.sponsor' engineer, :;grading, :road construction (the _ ., segments of San Francisco Drive and Commons' "K'° and "N':Streets), and,-utility..installation within the PG&E rights-of--way would be acceptable to PG&E.. Final alignments .and cormections for the SFWID's.two water transmission;Iines still:are being: discussed,with _SFWD-staff, but both a .existing and a :new ,line . (being upgraded by -the SFWD) .would be relocated ao the right-of-way .of Bayshore Boulevard, as.realgned. ;; .: Letter 21-3 _.. , , .. _ ,. `:Response:27:13 Phase IsiteA grading replaced a substantial'natural environment- with :an engineered _. one. !Tliis replacement was completed in pan area of °greater 'geologic'instability than has -.been mapped on -the Phase II and .III sites The engineered. slopes above ;the Phase I site. have .been subjected to ;- significant periods ~of.wet.weather. A5"the 7998 DSEIR states,'~~these conditions have`°led to a few minor slpouts which are concentrated near the°bedrock % cover sediment interface:' Minor slipouts are ;:°an copse ce_of-mass, expected. quen = grading . ~liase II and lIIslopes would be ~sublecteii`to a slope _ ,, ..: `maintenance plan and slipout mitigation~simrlarto what`is being done.at~Phase L ' Response 21.74 Potential work outside -the projecf area is always suliject to review by the FICP • momfonng consultant `(Plan = Operator). -The proposed rockfall -mitigation .on the Phase I site was 'reviewed recently,'-and-work above the' ~PICP :fence was not allowed `dueao -sensitive habitat.. Similar reviews-would be conducted on-a case=by-.case basis'for Phases II=and III: - `' Response.2.115 As 'with` Phase 'i, -the geology of the `Phase II 'and III sites "'has been studied .for evidence of potential ~ slope :failures. 'The -areas of -mapped`"landslides (in the Woods:West,'Commons, and• Point neighborhoods and Phase IIIsite) .are proposed to be mitigated using `standard engineering methods. 'The proposedmethods ,wouldinvolve•removal and°replacement {with drainage), buttress :keys (with ~ drainage); and retaining. walls (with 'drainage). In ether areas; where'landslides have not _ 'been:fidentifiedbut`buried-valleys aze°present, subsurface exploration was conducted to look for slide .-- -planes~wifliin~the buried-valley`fill. `No slip planeshave•been observed in the.exploration pits.. Slope stability analyses .have been conducted on .representative .slopes of .the :proposed development _„ ~areas.J'These :analyses assume water=.at the -surface, and the factor of safety ;is :at or :above the 1.5 ' ° ~ = required by the project. `'Slope monitoring would be°required #o evaluate-the stability ~of the slopes and the groundwater.conditions during and after°excavations: ~Response`21.78 The~amouat of~debriswhich may accumulate in'the debris basins .and .deflection -- ' °str'uctures would be `a function of `many ~ Factors; 'the '.most important 'being weather. ~ B ased on the ,- experience'=of°last'winter;(1997-1998.), the volume Hof material :which came down in the'five existing - debris basins ion the `Phase T site was:few cubic'yarcls :in total..Each' basin is designed for .more than ' amount. _. _ '`i00 tunes that ~ ` - _ :~Resportse27.77 1998 DSEIR'Exhibit 4.2-3 and 1Vlitigation".iVleasure"4:2-1T address this comment. The design criteria~'for the debris basins on `thePhase II and'III sites are the same as used for the Phase ~- I site. In brief, the design .calls for the accumulation of debris in the drainage from previous debris _ flows,'futtire debris flows; and a""safety factor" :of'100~cubic yazds.' ~'he'Phase':T debris`'basins have •:performed as :designed for the'last .nine.~years; including periods of significant runoff.- `During these - :nine years, themaximum -amount= of material in any one of the five existing Phase °I :basins. has been only a few cubic yazds, as discussed:in`the`immediateiy preceding response (Response 27.I~. Response 27.'18 .The ~~potential •-for rocl~all impacts ~wonid be mitigated using • various options ~discussed.in.1998 DSEIR-Mitgation'Measure 4.1=4. 'This measure would'be necessary :regardless of how the ~=oclcfalls pare "initiated: "Standard engineering pracEice ~s'to evaluate' he foot:dons of. force _ _. ;;predicted from various'~rocks rolling~down the carious slopes using'the "COlorado'ROckfall simulation ' program: The~:~predicted forces then are Bused to recommend an appropriate retention structure. This ...::......... •:recommendation is reviewed .by the"City for approval ptior to construction.: ... :Engineered fill is designed to~perform under seismic loading.' `All cut slopes are analyzed-for static as well as seismic loading. '-The mininrum safety factor for project slopes under seismic loading is 1.2 seismic and 1.5 static. These are common .parameters used throughout the'Bay 4rea. L.eaer 21-4 - - , ~Response21.19'The~EIR-archaeologist:-reviewed:~theHolman and Associates'sl~ebruary:;1998 report ...Nand. found the exploratory.and-.evaluative methodologies=and-.conclusions; regazding~the_nature and extent .of CA-SMa-40 to be well within the :bounds of CEQA-mandated. professional archaeological `:::practices ~Hohnan & Associates used-standard::archaeological:test excavation~methodsand.procedures in ilete***>;n~ng the vertical and horizontal'boundaries of the •shellinound:•site <:Holman`hasan M.A. in archaeolo gy and Chasbeen conducting archaeological:~.investigations~ of this ~nariu~e yin ~••the=Bay Area for 30.~years and •is -qualified ~in <:making =these :judgments . =EIR': archaeologist>Chavez Chas :an M.A. in .-archaeology =and '25 years ofexperience in yarchaeological ~ iz<vsstigations ::and is -=well ::qualified in assessing-the _ accuracy and reliability-of aechnical archaeological ~work..Thc~ broader area .has been subject to CEQA mandated research and field-inspection several'times~during the.past-two,decades, as sum*nari~~ by the 1998 DSEIR (DSEIR pages 278-282).. The `:EIR archaeologist 'has no comment; regazding a difference •in :opinion. concerning ~V1r: Holman's <comments at ae 'July SEIR study rsession .and •the' writers'opinions gas 'to :what meets CEQA -:requirements for establishing •the physical- boundaries "of :an :azchaeological site.- Mr.-•Chavez' .critical review of Holman and Associates' 'studies at =CA-SIVIa=40 are based primarily ~ on the- February 1998 '-Technical' Report. - :Response 21.20 :Physical proximity -suggests a possible :cultural connection -between -the two sites, - -CA:~Ma-40 and -92....There;is:;no archaeological evidence that'the two..are;physically;connected by cultural :deposits :above or-below -ground. ; By presenting mitigation :measures for potential project -impacts to:both sites, the 1998 _DSEIR.; assumes that -~ both sites :meet CEQA .criteria , as "`important ,_~ =-=cultural resources". _ - - - The SEIR need. not establish -the .cultural .relationship between a two .sites . or determine if an azchaeological;district:is present. ':Those.determinations .would snot change ~the,1998 DSEIR;impact and - mitigation -conclusions :and::::recommendations yin meeting '-CEQA:cultural -~resources :management requirements. ;.: Native <American :response io.::~the 1998 DSEIR has .expressed `concern ~for.ythe , potential :for -off-site :prehistoric.:burials:..Archaeologicaland Native-Americanmonitoring~is~recommended for all project- - related.grading.and::excavation>w.ork. Please eeMaster-;Response 7.3-6;for;.further.discussion. :Response.~1.21 .The complete eliminatron.offill as.>well~as-any.;pazk~or.landscaping=development on the site would be compatible with Mitigation:Measure 4:9-1(b).:.See.Response.3D.S.for..an .additional discussion. The Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative would eliminate .all construction activities on or within 30 feet of the boundaries..of-CA-SMa-40. Impacts of :development would be totally .reduced to aless-than-significant level and would be in keeping with CEQA's emphasis on preservation of significant archeological, historical and .cultural resources. PIease see Master Response. 7.3-L for a detailed discussion of the Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Development .Alternative. Response 27.22 The continent expresses an opinion and. does not .present a factual basis to support its different conclusion and to demonstrate that the 1998 DSEIR should have addressed these topics. As described above in Response 14.7, this "supplemental" DSEIR focused on specific issues raised by the cuaently proposed project versus .the .previously approved development concepts .examined in the .7982 EIR and 1996 SEIR. The topics selected for .analysis in .this 1998 DSEIR included issues of ..significant and .potentially significant impact as a .result of .substantial .differences :between (or 'substantially different circumstances .from) the proposed and approved plans. 'The issues of aesthetics (18a) and recreation { 19a) identified in this comment were "focused out" of the 1998 DSEIR .through the process described in LI EIR Requirement and 6.4 Effects of No .Significance .because they did . Letter 21-5 i ` ° snot. represent :new , sguificant:or potentially ~gbificant impactsattributable to~.the- currently proposed <.Project or.impacts;notpreviously-analyzed:inahe.=3982 EIR arid1996,SEIR. :; ~~ ~ ` ~; ( ; - ., _ ,... _ .. _ :Response~2723 The,,project;sponsorsubmitted,;grading and .utility ;plans to,ahe City:.as. part of the ~:" _ _ - .~pending,;application. ' Those:plans are on.:file~~a-ith ahe.Planning Division.and~areavailable for public - -~review:~-~The.tiproject sponsor,~did.not snbmit,.more detaded.,pIans or,specifica[ionsto the~ity regarding :a "cap" for `CA=SMa=40 or .a :park an part of thearchaeoIogical :site .as ;part of ~ the ;proposed. project .analyzed in ;:the1998DSEIR r(b~ see .further .below). - •>The -project sponsor did ~:aot `submit draft -; covenants; ~ conditions, and :restrictions ~(CC&Rs) •:for :either the - •Phase II or .aII sites ~:in time for ,.-. Preparation. ofahe:1998DSEIR-(or;1999~;~F'.SEIR). - >, ~ . ~ . ..:. _ ; ,,,,. ; ._. -. . . .These omissions should be .seen in. several contexts. First, the proposed.Phase III project requests ;approval=~of ; an amendment:: to the :.Terrabay:,$pecific :Plan. to alter-:.the ::approved development concept ---- for thePhase III site,,althoughit also:is important.to acknowledge that the ~prnjectsponsor also seeks =approval of,grading;permits o :immediately=create building=pads-.there..Second, the<.City :must review ;and approve. anyJ.CC&Rs .as,part=.of pits overall :consideration of theentire project. ~CC&Rs provide additional procedures beyond the basic .requirements of City zoning ordinances or :conditions of :approval the City may :require of the project (if approved). :However, 1998 DSEIR mitigation -- measures ado not _ rely >.on implementation of ;as yetundefined- CC&12s Ito: reduce =the significance of -;impacts.:identified. ~CCBr.Rs:and=the legal.documentsestablishingproperty-owners' ~/`building owners' associations-would ~be;public-,documents when submitted to she City and,thus,.availablefor inspection -- _ Eby ,the ;public. :Deficiencies of ,these and-:other'project~.application documents.:;identified by the commentor relate o he merits of .the project :and City considerations whendeciding°xo approve, ;.conditionally approve, or deny-the.project. - :During;the:pnblic review;period on the -1998 DSEIR,`the project-sponsordentified anew °development ~- concept =for Mahe :Phase .III: site,;~different ;from r the :conceptanalyzed :in ~ the ,1998:DSEIR. ':That new concept is described and :assessed in .Master :Response :~ 3-l. as the Phase III: Stte Mitigation Plan Development Alternative. That alternative assumes no capping of.CA-SMa-40 and no development of - °:a:park~on=the~archaeoiogical site ~a?lansfor:a`cap and::guidelines>in CC~&Its:forpark=:operation would `~~ot be necessary; if he•City. approved.and"he sponsor:~implemented .the Phase~Ill:Site~lKitigation Plan `- Development:Alternative. ;However,-if xhe Cty.:approved he pending:project for.:the:P.hase IiI site, the DSEIR assesses .:impacts of that .proposed development concept on .the archaeological -site .and identifies: Mitigation "'Measure ~ ~~44=5(b) Ito .address :•significant groundwater -:and surface- :drainage `impacts :excepted to~occur as;:a result .ofcapping~thesite. :.... Response 2724 ~ Comment acknowledged. JN1NM~ld 3 ~ rd4f Cf. _~~l .l _~ 9nd Sav- ~rci ti sGa~ C~- 9~(I Z'{ a3A13~321 LFTlER22 ~''`9~`~°- iq4~ . - , Dear °Mew~oers ~ ~~e 5ou~'S~ Fra,KC;;s~o ~a,vtini-+1~ ~ePt., ~k~s I~et'ker _is in resPe -~ ~~~e dre-~ _~s=~~. ~ei''~'din~hg ~o '`~ezra ~ _ , ~evra °P""1e~ ''Phc+se `IIt, ~ -Will - nc~ ~ -~~e~t!~ -~ ~G ~i c sectia~cs `~ ;j _ ::oF ftie. ;;~1~~ , '`bud' ra4'her ~ c5~nerc~ envirov-.wtew~u~ ac~i5. ~ .c~~-'an ; Pict u,ddress E=tom. -pracedu~ w~tic.~ ~:I =bel.~e~re.>~r~e;#~~rne~d'a1 -b `~~ Publics` ,~''~ ~° prd-ect' . _ ywd'ecruj cuad k6~ rig -.r~so~m.~es . - ~ne ~reod'e~- evwi~rov-rv~er~'a1. t~~. W~l~ `be -~ ~'hc . ~Pli~.~,~ G~lane 22.1 ~ u~tlage 5~e. xlocaf~d wiv- ~4-e `~rropwedt~eloPw~errf: ~e ~tle. ~~ ~ . G~~ear euide.~nce of A wa~-~. ~ . ~uf' ~ ~ ~ wrr S,Cxo t~ecerS G~, .s~uriv~t -1'Itie -fh'-~ c~ -~ESne °C-r~t P~r~nia~s~'.. ~'. ~earr.:ns ro- ,~_ ~. ' S~~ of'her ~i~ in '`~1~ .Ev~wr'e~ ~~ prea, , I-F_:s5 .~ ~i~,~ca~~' ~1~" -~" vnu;6f' be. pro~cr~rc1 ~ ~~r~e~rtt' a~cl `~ure °c~v-er~,#~`ov~. ~'~a~r~= ~'._ ',;~-o Dave. ~'''~ ., b~~ - 'vs ;p-ed ~ mikes . -as ' . M,e'~iov~. ~`~ l~-es , ~~r_~' n ~ vii', '~d~~ ` fit: 4; er. ~.. ' ~- ~ c~ khes~ =~fnces ~+c~rG ~n~whe~ near -.as ~Id_ ~ - `~aelie+re -4f~e : c~~f- '~: BIZ ~~ .v-o{' ad.l~'~ ~-G ~4-isE'oricGa~ 61~r11~~caMl~. tl~ ~~ ' S1~"G oMd:~e_rv-eens -, !~ TDI'~ 'tT. ~ ~P ~ - ---~ --- 22.2a ~~~ ~ -~~ Eli does not addhe~ ~G,e 106 ° ~,.l,[~~ ~r~enue. -~a#' mould doe., ~~ -:~~ a. we1;(- d~I+~Etxi~ park ~Gewise,. ~ c sc. `6~u(~,Yt~u '~rov-'t ~eatb~+ ~~C)'£~. n.~.d ~CUn":~ai"ec`Goc~v~`;~5 woad ~(oa~n~' .. - _ ,. ~ :~t~Yn.:SclC~l. a ~h15Fm~ ~n ul~idn ~e SiPI'6~ n Dh[r~~ t~ ~ :l`~e wns `''1'~lX~'rd Jti ''~ 'YI'l.arinG' ~c~ =QS 'M,i~ ~~~i -~.~R~'` ,~Qe~ or -fie. ~ 1Sh-~ v+l~la8e-af' ~ak ~it16 i~iendl ~r ,~ese ; re~c-ivc ~isr~ b~ 6ludev~~s .tam -ff~rot~'n~~' °~¢.'--~ '~a~er mce,-u~. ;s trt '~'h.~ S~VSt)-:are =t~cv~Q:.-~: _v-fbi~"~.8e-sus :~D ~Pf~~rr~~-fir eccm`cu.i,w~+n b¢ca.,~e; -~'aris~r~'c~'-can c~s..are so=~hi8~: ~Iri-~,~rera~ s~,adl~w a Gass : a~ "~ ~ _ _: ~~ " ch ewes :: ~~~ o0 P- ~ aP . _ :,~&c,~-o 'I~!~-r-., s ~PS~ie, ~ ~x;i~lic. ~c,~!.~h~'- . a.v~ d_~~ic- 22.2b ~ h~slari~l s~ :-fix s~ev~ ~~ ~i~~' • ~u~--!- .~d~ __ad~r~scd ~,viir~s c~ere~cd-~ ~r 'local sell dis~'ri ~. fat' ~~eab~d ~be ab~ ~~ vi~t~' ~e. s~ u6i~,c pubs;` -Eravts~orf'~dor-.~~ --- -- - - -~ - --. _ .. .-- - 2 ~~ -3- 22.6 ~•- a;-~ ~'u"al ~-i r»~ a.r~ c~, t~e.~5 0 ~ ~eS ~D ~-~, es e ~ . Cr~}-~ a ,~l an ~or ~'h e res~rxa+io~, ~ ~- ~- e . a-r~~ rh a.~s ; r,~l~ucl ~r~~ l c ,~+ ~-~r a.~~ is ci,,,,d 4, G~ rt~~or~ed ~h (flv,e V ~ l ~~e Q`ac.Gme _© Y t 5C~'o rs c.ev~~4--er .co u~ d ~ des; ern ed , - _ a.+~b~, ~` `~o~ ~o~ur -~i m e cw~ d r~si ~er~'4'1. ~ as a na,~iv~ re5 i d~.v~f' ~ +h.~. `~~ ~sc~ ~ ~a for SO ~ea.r5 ab wit ( as a,r- g~ e ehvi rro-h rn en~t1 . u..c.a,~~dn +~ ~,r' ~h Vic, ~.v~ ~-ctMca,s~o ter ~ ~' e.p~ SSG, c~ ~i s~rc c# ~' ~ - ,; a'•- \ - LETTER 22, MlSHWA GEE ` Response'22:7 "The:7998 DSEIR adlresses~the'"historical /archaeological 'significance of .the site (DSEIR pages 280-282.and 283-285).. Master Response'~7.3-4 and Response 30:3.provides additional discussion : on the .importance .(significance) of .historical .resources ;The 1998 DSEIR .presents ~~Mitigation''Measure~~:9-1(b)'which would protect the stte'from the destructive'forces':of capping and 'would require very'little archaeological excavation on the. periphery of the `site'IISEIR pages 29D-294). ' °Also, he 7998 'DSEIR ;presents 'the ~Perma~ient Open :Space Alternative (DSEIR page 328) as the environmentally. superior .alternative "for :.archaeological resources. "`By"'implerrienting `the latter approach, .the cultural resources at C,A-SMa-40 would be preserved. and managed .in tact in an undeveloped. landscape. The Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative would eliminate all project activity on and within 30:feet of the boundaries .of CA-SMa-40, resulting in preservation of .the site. Response 22.2 ;EIRs aze intended to analyze the significant or potentially significant environmental impacts of projects. .The Stare CEQA Guidelines define a significant environmental effect as a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the physical conditions which exist in the area affected by .the proposed project. 'Economic effects of proposed :projects, including the costs or ..benefits . to public :finance, do not constitute environmental impacts .according to .this .definition. Therefore, the 1998 DSEIR is .not .required to .address :hypothetical. revenues or cost savings. In addition, as noted in Response 2I.Il, to the extent that environmental .documents address the- effects of development projects on schools, .those analyses relate to :physical environmental. impacts (such as impacts from building programs initiated.to alleviate capacity constraints of educational facilities), not to the subjects taught in schools. Response.22:3 As noted in Response I9.1, the impact of the :project on watershed sediment yields .and .subsequent contaminant .loading to the: Bay would not be significant with implementation of .the mitigation measures identified. in the 1982 EIR. The 1998.DSEIR.did not reevaluate water quality impacts identified in the 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR because the current project would .not alter potential impacts or required mitigation substantially, including City "Storm Water Management.and Discharge Control", .National .Pollutant Discharge .Elimination System (NPDES), and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (3WPPP) requirements. in view of the site's extremely degraded .and: highly erodible existing conditions, .project implementation . as proposed ..generally -would decrease site erosion and -sediment yields. implementation of 1998 DSEIR Mitigation Measures 4.2-8 and 4.2-9 would reduce site erosion and sediment yields further. Response 22.4 The commentor's concerns about the -loss of habitat for callippe silverspot -and mission blue butterfly are noted. Refer to Master Response 7.3-9 on the callippe silverspot: for additional information regazding the concerns expressed by this comment, status of the amendment to the incidental take permit for the HCP, and need for appropriate measures to fully mitigate .potential impacts on the callippe silverspot. -Response 22.5 EIRs on proposed projects are not intended to evaluate the. financial feasibility. of the project or development concept but, as noted above (Response 22.2), are intended to assess their significant or potentially significant. physical .environmental effects.. EIRs are expected .to take other reasonably .foreseeable ,:projects into -account in order to :assess a,project`s effects in .the context .of cumulative conditions. The cumulative development projects identified for analysis in the 1998 SEIR are listed in section. 2.4 Cumulative Development. -That list does not include .redevelopment of -the Candlestick Pazk site in the City of San .Francisco. This is because impacts from such redevelopment Leas 22-t i .. -would be too speculative to assess in relation:to:the effects of the~Terrabay-Phase II and III project due ._ :both to geogratphic: distance from the Terrabay site and a lmown or,projected.-time rhorizon which would permit. analysis with any degree of credibility. The hypothetical failure or.abandonment of the ;project similarly would bespecalati~ce.It..isaot.~ppropriate:,(nor:,is:it expected) for EIits:xo~.engage in "sheer speculation" and "crystal ball inquiry" , ,,,. - ' •.,_ Re onse 22.6 The .comment addresses :aspects of. the ,project's merits and planning process. The sp ~commentor is.referred~to Master Response .Z.3-ll;but.also::should remember that iheproject site.has :been designated for :development by ,the Ccty .. of .South .San Francisco -Generdl Plan,, ;zoned .for , .- 'development,-and approved for development since _1982.. ~:.,::- .LETTEl4.23 ~~~£RICI~ `I~H~E~S ~R£LIGIOHS ~£LI£FS ~'8~H S~Y~ i~lli tom! Y8~ ~E~ ffi t~Y ~£ tB£Y ~88f~ 60 i8 t~£ ~YEI" ~ 'S' ~3 ?~II~~S ~Y fit, Eta i~ SP~'t l~dY~ 9EC~ t9 £dB~. ?~S B i~ ~S~ ~SY I~Id~S B P~C~ ~ B9Nb~ 6 ~~ ~~~a ~a~~,, u~s~tcs~ ia~~~a~~~tsa~s~ ~8 i~£ SP~R1l3. ff iS~ t~S ~ t8 8~ ~t~B ~! ~It~ t~£~i! ~98~8 St~Y II ~YB@F. ACS ~3?~ ~ YIEt' ~ . FB~B~B~1f I~tB i~ ~B~B~ DES S@ ~S ~8t t9 ~~B ~ B~3ti~ $~~ ~ aII£~IC~'S £aR~Y Y£EHS. ~S ~ YY PSaP~ F~ B~~ dal, 1 C~f6T ~CCQt ~~a~a~~-~~c~~$a ~C~I, '~L!'~8 BSS LETTER 23, -WILL T'WO BEARS Response 23.7 .Comment aclmowledged. Leger 23-1 ;~Ci~y of-;South=San Francesco =. . ;,, - P~lanni~g ;Department x . ~ ~ . .. ~~ 5 Maple Ave. ..I:~ETTER 24 . ~.: ; . .: vP O: ~Box~:71> ;: ~R ~-C.E ~ VED South..San Francesco,~OA 94083 .. - _ : ,, . .. AUG 14 :~98, August 11, 1998 - - ', _ _ .. _ , ._. ,.: _: ~.. , . s.Dear Sirs: ,24. yap; Please,~enter ;the following comments; about the draft -SEIR for Terrabayflhase'llcend III=:into ~e=record As~:a ~citizen•.c~f ~SanMateo Courrty, -a:,frequent user andadmirer of~San Bruno Mountain State and .County Park, and a commuter, I have ~sevecal .areas ~of.:cxancem ~ataout<the..proposed;P:,hase I.-1 and~Jlhplans,-~whichi will ~try~to'~JCeep~~brief.~ 1. There are several .quality of life problems associated with .this development for those who live ~and:work.in;Brisbane arui South~SanFrancisco, and #or those who~use~Highway - -~. One of these_isalrpotiution=caused,by.the:.increased traffic to:thearea. The SEIR says>several imes-that the,~addednumber of_cars-thatwould come:into°the ~area:on~ar-daily basis~wouldincr~asetheairy:;pollutionbeyond:acceptabie standards ~set~f~ythe':B/~AQMD. There is no .way to mitigate this.problem. More traffic, .caused by more development,- ; - :~mearas~.more:air:=pollution.m~the=area: ..An~tfaer~p%blem is~.the-Increase -t~afflc°itself. =Even with the Toad improvements, more cars means more sitting at~top.li~hts°~{3:~signaiized~~irrtersections~areplanned~oc Bayshore~l3ivd.~~~and-moce.~time;~elays~to:~c~set ivJr.~g~~nearby ;,Wee=all-know_:haw incxease congestionand~carame~:rlecxeases~o~.~uality~~f:life ~~n~an-era~~:when-mostpeople~feel that they don't have enough time; ~rhy-:actao:~t;oursgr~aiity-o#~J~femore~ _ ran ~.Hwy:~ Ot~raMic .~-111°~ncrsase~:y ~atyleast fi96 during°the rush :hours =(p.208) aNo mitigation,measures~cane-be-taken~to~alter~~his ~n~an.acea where~:fceeway ~~co~ngestion'isaiready~aproblem,.andother~levelopments,~l~keaheAirport, willmake~it worse. 24 2 : ~ Yet. another quality of life concern is that the protect .may Induce .more growth. ' : ;Page.335of tithereporxatateaF~at~iess3~eWe/ merrtawas ro - - se~ai. op p . po pecrticaliY to reduce off..: site.:rmpacts.aiiributab/e to the;prior~deve/opment:aoncepL ,Tfi~erefore, ~reduc~a- . dev~elopmer,~t~at.<itae.Derrabay_site=~vorald~nat>produce ar.:xl 'opportu-~it}r`: oaddar~tec~uivalent complement of~de~relopmentels~e-where in~he;regior.~.' ;:This statement isNOT:a sound iogicaltiargument: - _ , .~ ~ If~l r~planraed tashoot~.two birds~r~d then~.c - hangelmy mind andonty~shoot~one,~ahat ;doesn't .praevent~anyr.one -eJsefrom -shooting the other..bird. ;Likewise, scaling .back: they plans °since :199fidoes:NOT~~protect the:prAject frominducingmore.grAwthznearby Th~s:~plan will set limits on Terrabay=land; but~other:`prarperty~nearby:could well bealteredbytheirrfiux of workers, travelers, and consumers into the area. ,.4.1b People who live and work-in this .area will bear the :brunt of ~the ~ .- :problems hfs development creates. It is time .for this government to decide in favor of :protecting the quality of life of its citizens. - - - ._ 24.3. I1. There are.several biological. problems with .the .proposed plans, ~ many of which :boil down to whether the loss of .habitat can be mitigated. Through grading, paving sand 24.3, building, habitat will be~~lost for all species .that currently )ive n;the~~area ~ Contrary to~the conclusion reached on page 156; i believe that,plannedrestoration measures ~nd~open - . space provisions will NOT make up for~the ~cr~es that are lost. =' ~ ~ .. , ~kMariy''habitat mitigation measures", d[ke transferring .one. type of habttat to another . location, simply don't work.:The attempts to create good~Mission,~biue~~and-Siiverspot .~- butterfiy taabitat on the .gorse infested saddle, after.building on the. good grassland habitat `-` on the northeast ridge, 'is a prime example This. project. proposes to :disturb :the habitat of two`pederallylisted endangered species.(misston blue and Siiverspot) as well as~dcain a : - wetlands. The small flesh water marsh, although not a potential habitat for the =fed=legged frog or San f=rancisco garter snake, never-the-less represents an important resource for. ~.wildlifs~wn;~thearea, ~including~Fvanious ~peeies ~of4~birds; ~he~Pacific":tre~a;#rog ar~d the western r Goad. :Obviously., aMe;~eradar~gered butterflies:.cannot,afford,habitat~aoss, {vrtaich~~is their . • -::primary.threatao surarirral. ~ ~ _ ~-: ..- .,, For the enYironment,~iMe BEST=alternative fs ~n:o new bulldings,~~no~more - trafflc, no hook ramps. - - ~ _ ~. 24.10 dll. =The~two shellmounds on thesite~suggestahat:the~~area---the whole vaNey,~:not~just :- the mounds themselves--were fiome to the Ohlone Indians. With so little known of he way ~_ _af ~.iife of :our_~predecessors-in :this~area, ~~it:~is,;unthinkatile:that; a valuable site `likethis would __ t~e:.destroyed°for~yet-morehotels,>rastaurarrts=andshoppmg=~centers. ~M°muchbetterLSe of '~this.~land~:would;be:some.aype.~if~pceserve,°honoring and:exp~ain'rng the heritage~of~the Ohloneapeopfe ;.: - Even saving the larger mound itself, and. bufiding:~acoundat, `it.not.a~good.solution. '!•t~e #wrrtaole~walie~; :.with~he spring;~narsh~arad:~smallershelimound, should :beFsaved. 1t is AL~~the.~sae ofOhloneIndiana~fe~foc-over5000:years.: - - thedescendants.flf_~ta~a~~htones can:r:~eally~speak-about~he:~bltural~and religiousasgraific;ance`~of~this~alley,~but~fact that:~hurrtan~-remains have:beera:found means that the area°shou~d ~eyrespected~ asp sacred:~place.:- - _ This;area.shouid~be~isaved~~r..~#s~~lsto~icai,~cultural~and~reli.gtous sign4ficance. =There 1S Aa ~:great4deat.~~o.~earn were, ~~both for.. our generations and `~ tfio~se to-;come, gas ~weN ass ~~an xobliga~ion ~to~respect the: heritage of the Ohione peo,pie. ~~ l commendahe~Citq of.Soeth~~San~Frar~ciscofor.'#his~.S:EiR,:awhich.~makes:~a careful study ofxhewarious~~altematives~o tf~e=project~roposed by the devekaper ,t=endorse the _ ~Envirorunentai ~.Prafarred~Developcnent~4tterraafive::which .~s, as a: ~ understand pit, a connbination of ~Phasell , r.::f~educ~ed,:r,+ersidentia/ fleve/opmer~t~~Phase Ylll ~eduoed Commercial:Development Alternative. This t~toice ailowsfor some:development: iman area __ that~is~:a~ready,:~disturbed, °thus~leavingtalone^~tae~rcheologicalsites and :valuable wetland :atad,grassfarxl°fiabitats. pit,also;reduces#~~uafit~r=of~iifs~problems-<iisted~,above ~t~:the ~sarne;~me;?it'ieaves.the;Cityrwitk~~sorx~e~neededxbusiness~'tax~.revenues~to~~offset the-~c~ty --- .~ services ~it:wiil:~provitle ;to the;residents<+of~the=new:housing developments. Sincerely`°: .: -. -. ~ - P~-c - - Ken McIntire - _. - ._ :235 OId ~:Ranch:Road Woodside, CA .:.':.94062 ;: LETTER 24; KEN Mc/NT/RE Response~24 1 ,The comtnent:addresses the:"merits:of the~project" and expresses a.preference for an ..P J alternattve to the.. ro ect assessed .in the 1998 DSEIR The•:comment-:discusses some;af the•project's .~ significant:environmerital:effects and.other.topics:besides,physical,environmental.,>impactswhich EIRs are nat.mtended.to analyze .Because~the comment does;not raise ;questions about;the adequacy of the DSEIR analyses, no .response:is, required. Nevertheless, inclusion •of:~the commentor's .views in the 1999.FSEIR :will.maketthem.available:ao.City decision:makers. Please_aee Master.Response 7.3-II and,Response.l3;6lnegazding au..quaIity .The ~998;DSEIR,:lists o ect`freewa 1 .(DSEIR a e 790 , Pr -j y-:u~acts -;Impact 4.4 P S )Impact 4.4-4 (DSEIR page 194), and .Impact 4.4-13 ..(DSEIRpage :208) -and intersection impacts -Impact 4.4-2 (DSEIR. page 191) and Impact 4.4 3 (DSEIR page 193). Response 24.2• The comment. is mcoirect..Among the interrelated .actions, requested by the project sponsor is an amendmentao the'Terrabay.Specific.Plan. The purpose of 5pecific.plans.:is.to establish ,:permitted land-uses,and,set ~~ ;~~m~o"~,~le densities of development. Once a apecific plan is ;implemented, the area-covered by the: plan is `.`built out". Buildout means:.that.available and is fully developed,.:.San .Bruno .Mountain County Park, is the only:_undeveloped.land .adjacent ao;.the project .site. `That parkland:is.permanenfly protected as undevelopedrpublic...land..No gpportunities:for growth _. aze .available .there. .Undeveloped parts : of the project _site, uphill.;from .proposed. development azeas, ultimately:would be dedicated.to xhe .County park.as;.part of,implementing the.proposed project. This is ,a requirement of. the San,Bruno Mountain. Habitat, Conservation P..lan: (HCP) .which, provided for ~, -aimited development, including qn the,.project.site, in;exchange for..preservation-of the.,pazk and:HCP .lands. Thus, no opportunities for, growth aze available there. Proposed residential-lots .could not -be divided and redeveloped in the future without City .approval to create substandard .lots (lots smaller -than minimum required..sizes)-or without illegal-"spot zonin " g . Opportunities.to redivide or increase - development on commercial lots would. be limited by.pazking requirements. The pending application proposes to reduce .the amount of residential and commercial development on -- the Phase II and III sites, respectively, compared with the amount presently allowed by the Terrabay Speck Plan as amended in 1996. -The proposed amendment demonstrates that it is possible to amend plans once approved. Therefore, if the proposed plan were .not implemented, it .possible that a .new amendment could be proposed at some in .the.future. However, another purpose of specific :plans is to ..provide for accommodating near-term development, usually expected to be completed within two: to five .years.: Specific ;plans do not .provide for long-term development which is .addressed by general ::plans. It is a reasonable expectation that approval of a specific plan (or specific plan .amendment) would result in implementation .and buildout rather than delays and reconsideration which could result in more development than, previously anticipated. :Future off site development opportunities .are located primarily in the. East of 101 area of South San Francisco ..and in Brisbane and secondarily west _of '101 :in South San .Francisco's El Camino redevelopment corridor, as identified in 2.4 Cumulative.Development. Recent land use trends in the East of 101 area have resulted in intensification of development compared with.the amount anticipated by the East of 101 Area Specific Plan. The 1998 DSEIR.used updated development assumptions to reflect this :intensification. 'The 1998 DSEIR assumed :the most intense .cumulative development .scenario in Brisbane .considered by the :City's General Plan ("Scenario K"). ,:Projecting additional growth beyond the cumulative development assumptions shown in F.~chibit 2.4-1a and 2.4-1b would be speculative. Apart from potential intensification taken .into. account by the 1998 DSEIR's cumulative analyses in the respective topical sections, anticipated cumulative development is not equivalent to a project's growth inducing potential. Growth inducing impacts are those effects which result from Litter 241 opening an area to development (if not designated .for development) or doing so prematurely (if designated for development some. time in the future). ~ . , P All ublic utilities and infrastructure for the .proposed Terrabay project were built to meet roject • -:demand -only and were not'"over-sized ;to` meet any growth' beyoncl~that already;approyed under the `general •plans of the-Ctties ~of Brisbane ~d South San Francisco Construction of~the hook;ramps and •~ !.`the widening bf`BayshoreBoule~ard,~in partsciilar; would not'have a~growth inducing impact because those activities are -necessary to address regional growth ali'eadY approved by'local 'general plans and -°also to address the project's<impacts The hook ramps. and'the widening of Bayshore Bonlevazd also are .necessary o address the projectedunacceptable 'traffic• conditions expected'.to exist even if the -projectis •not~butlt, givengrowth anticipated by-the •general plans- of both_~the Cities of Brisbane and _,- 'South`Sari'Francisco.' _. ,_ Response 24.3 The commentor's concern .about the effect of the•project on sensitive biological and °wetlandhabitat is noted. "The reference ::made on .DSEIR °page-:'136 was ~to 'the Restoration -Plan "proposed as part of the•project~which does appear to provide•-a feasible•approach to establishing native `grassland :cover on'graded`slopes. `However,'-the Restoration Plan -would not mitigate ~-the loss of 'sensitive ~iatural communities,'wetlands, andhabitat for •5pecial-status species: "Thee-1998 DSEIR ~recoinmends mitigation measures°to preserve-sensitive resources'to the maximum-extent:feasible and provide for>their replacement wi-here avoidance' is notpossible. ~ This includes appropriate .revisions to <the proposed Restoration Plan to :include asalvage-component, as called for in'Mitigation Measure 4:3=1(b). Performance •standards` and~~confingency measures -would .be `required for -ail. mitigation involving creation Hof :replacement'. habitat ao ensure the success of .mitigation `(such as the .provisions " called'for under the third bullet in~ivSitigation: Measure 4.3=3(b)). Fetter 242 ~:aoo c,~na A.nuue,:P: o. eoz zit, sa~ch saa Fraac;isco, cA 9aoso 25.1 Specific .Commissioner .Comments _ ., The:foIlowing are specific commoents made by commissioners. While some of the comments respond directly to the.$EIR, others speak to issues that w>Zl be addressed.at a later stage m the .planning Process • - • :Leaving the shell monad untouched, while allowing comDOercial .development to the south and north, is an ac~p~b~:~PProadb' "Untouched" -means no foot. paths, no ~~aP~g, and no fiIl unless deemed necessary to :protect the .site. No road, even for urgency access, should .traverse he sheIl,m~imd. (Vieira, Y p~Po risers mpre.acceptable .than .the o sed .three The proposal fur a single~gh .low rise buIldisrgs at the northside of.the site, because it aIlows less overall budding foot .,print. However, this budding should be tucked into the ln7lside, with the parking structure placed in front, to reflect-the surroimdimg topography..(Viers) . ~ maintenance prog~ should be required to keep aIl trash .and foreign material out of of the.sl~eIl.mound, as weIl as,to.mini>nize.xhe;potentialfor fire.(Nieira) :the tY : 'the.Cammission,supports_an.effort to list the sl~eIl:mound.on the National Register of :, `` - -- -HrstoncPlaces. (Vieira)...- __ - sed 30-foot.buffer.betweenthevsheIl mound=and:any,commercial.developmem The:propo .is :a good idea. (2.emke) ; ,; ... . the north.side-of.the.sheIl:mound, as indicated:in the • No de~elopmeent on - `.`Env~mm~n>~Y ~ferred Development .Alternative" .may. not :be:.necessary-and seems .; . ~ a; development for :the bard to~ustrfy; leaving the sbeIl:mound.untouched, ith-comnoercial rest of the. site, is accePtable..(Zcmke) Enstu'e that surface drain,age from ~ commercial developments ~rains.away fromthe st~eIl mound area. (Zemke, Mowat) ~bove..aIl else, ~~the~lvstorY, henmge, and~eav3romnental significance of the. sheIl mound aite.should be~resen-ed.4{~Iazks). ~ stun of . .. should serve as.a shot.in-:time to-give an nnpnes 'L~e . sheIl mound .and vvcmity , ~P _ how.the_area looked andwhat::ocxmreda]~ere in-thepasti ;(Harks). - . table.. arks) ~~nviro~oentaIly Preferred:Development:~~na~"-~ ~p . - ;'1'he.proposed::10- Cory, bw~dm$ 8t.the.wp ~Qf ahe.h~his~t .acceptab . ,, ~, the scent sheIlmound site.(Harks) . :obtrusNe~~d.ne.$at~lY = _1'henorthside of ,the develupment_site, .as welhas~the shell mound,: should be~left :untouched. ;O. :_ ., Alternative" .is preferred, but .development T'he "F,nvira~entaIlY~Preizrred:Develapnoent. - .. also (1~eudale) :_ - ~f me,northside ~is acccptab~~ • ~' 'potential development impacts to the sheD mound site should be identified and mitigated ~5,~8 based upon. the new_3uly Alternative presented- (Mowat) . • The edges of the.com®crcial development should be treated sensitively to avoid negative i~apacts ~ the sheIl mound (demolition, grading, drainage, h~8~ paving, walls' landscaping, etc.). (Mowat) If the north parcel is developed, the native viola species (food source for the endangered t should be replaced. CaIlipe Ss7verspo ') :;400 C3rand Avenue, P: O.,Ba~.711, South San Praacsco, CA 94080 25.1 • `Building design should be sensitive.to the sheIl mound environment, and should be reflective of the site; for example, a high rise that shades the site all day would be unacceptable. In.addition, the site's archeological and historical.significance should be conveyed in the site layout, g architecture and the site amenities. {Mowat) • The commercial development should not ignore the sheIl mound; it should instead .embrace it .and capitalize on its historical and archeological significance..-There. should be .some cognitive relationship between the sheIl;mound and the commercial development reflected in bwlding architecture, site design, interpretive elements, etc.. jMowat) • An effort needs to be made. to_ propose more creative design. ideas for the sheIl mound site. For e~le, simply fencing it off amd..letting the weeds.take over is not acceptable. (Mowat) • The proposed additional 200,000 square feet of commercial floor area is acceptable as .long as it does not increase,the site impact. (Mowat) Conchision The Commission understands that, based on scheduling issues identified by the developer, the July Alternative may rely on a final SFIR that can be ared by late August The Commission believes~this to be too .short a time period to aIlow fouate review ofthe alternative, which 25.26 should inchrde a thorough analysis of archeology, geology,. biology, traffic, noise, and air gush"ty.~ The .Historic .Preservation Commission supports the essence of the -July Alternative as described herein because it . appears., to be the alternative that. attempts to avoid any :negative :impacts to and ' preserve the integrity of the sheIl mound site, whsle, preserving the economic interests of the :property owner. However, the SEIR does not inchide an analysis of the July Alternative1and 25.2C such an analysis is expected as part of the Final STIR if final support for this alternative is to be received from the Commission. If, upon thorough analysis, the July.Alternative is determined to either not be feasible or cannot preserve the sheIl mound :site as discussed, then .the Commission would support the Environmentally, Preferred Alternative identified in the SEIR RestpectfuIly submitted, ~,,~ Mowat Commissioner Feudale Commissioner Harks ..~ C:I~ . _..ll ~ p. Commissioner V' ~ ' Concmissioner 7remk4e x~ C1Mp I~cs~GlLettasCT~ab~q PL~se II ~ III SEL4i oammmc 2 (ievisad 8/14/98).wpd 400 CYra~nd Avenue, P. O. Bay 711, South San Francisco, CA 94080 LE'TTER.25, .:CITY OF SOUTH SAN FfT•4NC1SC0 HISTORIC RRESERVATION COMM/SS/ON Response.25.1 The "Public Comment":prepared bythe City's Historic Preservation Commission expresses the Commission's. and Commissioners'. joint .and .individual positions about development on the .Phase II and III project sites, focusing on .preservation of 'CA-SMa-40. 'The Commission's .comment indicates a preference for an alternative to the project's development concept for the Phase -III site -the .project sponsor's new Phase. III Mitigation Plan Development Alternative.: assessed in Master :Response. 7.3-L The individual. Commissioners' comments also provide direction -for the project. sponsor on .features recommended to be included in a Phase III site development concept but omitted to date from either the project or the new Phase.lll Mitigatian.Plan Development Alternative (such as .the-need for a maintenance plan- for the archaeological site and for drainage plans for adjacent commercial sites). As with similar .comments submitted by other writers, the commentors' views will be made available to City decision-makers by inclusion in the 1999 FSEIR. Response 25.2 As noted in the immediately preceding response, Master Response 7.3-I presents an assessment of the project sponsor's new Phase III Mitigation Plan Development Alternative. The .assessment covers all the .topics discussed in the 1998. DSEIR (5.0 Alternatives to .the Proposed Project) and at the .same or greater level of detail as -the 1998 DSEIR alternatives were discussed, in order to be comparable to the previous analyses. 'This assessment will be added to the 1999 FSEIR text. Leaer 25-1 °"°' _ CITY OF BRISBANE ga~ss,~, e F 50 PARK t.ANE RECEIVED .BrisbaneCaUfomia :94005 ~ " 5 ' ' (415) 467-1.51.5 AUG 1 4 1988 ~---- FAX,(415j 467-4989 cAUFORN~A _ ' LETTER 26 Attention: Allison Knapp Wollam PLANNING Re:.Comments on.Draft.Supplemental Environmental Impact:Reportfor Terrabay, Phase II and III• . .Ladies and Gentlemen: _ ` ;,. _ Thank you for the opporhmity to :comment on the I?raft ;S.upplemental Environmental Impact Report for Terrabay, Phase II and IlI. We have comments on several issues: 26,.y A. Hook Ramps and'Bayshore Boulevard Realignment„ ' We note .that the.1998.DSEIR covers the ,reconstruction of the .existing southbound US 1 O1Bayshore Boulevardoff snip;,construction of a.newsouthbouad US 101 on- ramp, (hook ramps) and the realignment ofBayshore Boulevard and that the construction would be fimded liy-the Terrabay developer and local public funds. The hook ramps .are included in the .development.agreement£orahe Terrabay project and .the'98 DSEIR does not indicate whe~theralus,provision will be ietained in proposed :amended development agreement. "The'D$ElR should.hsclose.the requirements regardingahe"hook ramps m~the proposed amended development. agreement as compared to the,regiiirements'in ~he:origmaT development agreement„ The "98 DSIER further notes (pp:22=23) teat the.hook ramps constitute part of the .:. proposed. project as distnct°fiom.interrelated ttansportat~on'improvemeats including the :Point Tnterchan Oyster. ge and Flyover.. `The docuae~ incorrectly claims that theseprojects (Interchange and Flyove) are independent of the project covered by - this T998;DSE1R.-Construction ofthe hook ramps was- made:a'condition ofapproval when `the :San Mateo `County Transportation'Authority author'izei additional finding 'for the Oyster Point Interchange on iVlay 4,1995. Resolution"'1'995-5 states: `BE TI' F iJRTT3ER RESOLVED that as a condition. of this additional Measure A `:finding authorization, the City. jof South San Francisco] agrees'to~#heplaccm®t of an on=ramp liom'Aiiport ~Boi~evard`to southbound:Highway"10'1 `north of the :~[Oyster~Pomf`Interchangc]Project andrthe reconstruction of the existing exit - _ .~._ ~6. ~ ~ -- ramp, which work will:be Yncorporated-into .the City's capital ~mproauemmt-: ,progn;m as a Project~separate:from its Oyster Point Project, provided-that4lhis ..ramp constniction nnd~reconstniction work is environmentally feasible gad that _ ~ . ,.. riY ,. the funding for such ~_ ork:~s~egvtiat~d between the Authority and~ahe C'. ~f , ` . ; . - South San.Francisco and ~ - BE IT FUR.TI~R RESOLVED. that as a:condition of this additional Measure A - fuading authorization, the City also. agrees. to include the.ramp construction as `described in the above paragraph, as a condition of approval or amendment of any conditions of approval, forthe Tenabay Development Project..:" - - The final EIR for the. Oyster Point Interchange states: "A special analysis in the=EIlt ~Stagmg'Option~'#1) conc~Iuded that ilttmately, the Terrabay Hookramps redesign will be essential for the: proper functioning of the - new Oyster Point-inter-t,ange"(page V-9). _ As these earlier documents indicate, the hook ramps and the Oyster Pointe Interchange are.interrelatedprojecta. This relationship should be recognized'in the DSEIR - Other issues regarding the'hoo°k ra~nps`that need to'-be addressed in the':DSE]R are: • The DSEIR fails to note that, in the 1982 and 1996 Terrabay EIRs the hook :ramps were listed as a mitigation measure for the traffic impacts of the Terrabay project with the responsibility for their :construction placed on the .developer. Can we assume .that by-.now descn'bing the hook ramps as part of theproject,~the developer's-responsibility~~has not~~been altered? ...;, • ;Clarity 7s ileedeB~ia regard to the 'issue of fuading for the' hook ramps.:The `EIR should di ' , ificall the .Terraba .Bevel ...... 's ;contribution to stingu~sh spec Y ,y -`the project and Ydeatify whether"it is sufficiept to construct the hook ramps in a~timely manner "Ihe funding and tinzinig should be set forth°in~he ,.. ;. development agreement "Since the project description includes the hook ramps;~their finding and construction schedule need to lie delineated in the DSEIR • The DSEIR does not.adequately discuss the tuning and the :interrelationship of ..: the hook.ramps project with the.Phase"III commercial Be~elopment. Which will bebiilt first - the hook ramyps or"Phase`III,development or will they be built tagether~ ~If not constructed conciu=+cntly, what will: be the traffic and coon impacts? 7f PhaselII'is consfcucted;before the hook ramps, the DSEIR should analyze how;that developmem could be.serviced by the. eXsting Bayshore`B1vdJScissors ramp configuration. • It is our understand that the-East-of lOl .area,plan wasanalyzed under the .. assumption#hattheliookramps,~would~be constructed before the'Terrabay _. ,;Project was completed. ; If t1i~ Terrabay,'Phase II.and III,proceed without the hook ramps: this would require revisiting the prior`EIIt for the Fast of 101. . _ ,,: :urea. -- .. B Grading. - 26.~ . _ W,ill,the 85,000..cu.,,yds. of export material from Phase III .grading (chart p. 60) be used as fill. for the :Baysbor~ Blvd realignment/hook:ramps,;project? If Phase III ~procceds before the Bayshore Blvd. realignmentlhook ramps are constructed, will this Z6.2 ~ ..material have to be exported off site.? If so, the impacts and .location of disposal ant :the impacts of the additional truck traffic should be addressed. 26.3 C. cultural Resources We note that theplacement of up to 23 feet of fill over CA-Sma-40 will essentially destroy the. cultural resource. Miti ...relatively small amount of the site Batton Measure- 4.9{a) is madegnate due to the been constructed, the site proposed to be investigated;. Once the: project has will, .for; practical. purposes, be unavailable for: further investigation even if the weight of the fill does not destroy the resource, The .City of ``Brisbane .continues to support the preservation of the shell mounds for future ..generations. Sincerely, ' Robin Leiter City Manager/Acting Planning Director LETTER 26, 'CITY:OF BRISBANE Response 26.1 The transpvrtation improvements (hook ramps and Bayshore. Boulevard realignment) . covered by the 1998.DSEIR would be retained in the Development Agreement.and not changed by the amendment currently requested by the sponsor of the Temabay Phase II and III project. The remainder of the comment is noted. :The distinction :the 1998 DSEIR makes between the .hook -ramps -.(and Bayshore Boulevard realignment) and .the other constituent parts of the Oyster. Point Interchange improvements in the. introductory discussion 2.2 Project Background is for environmental review- purposes. The interchange and flyover were analyzed previously in .the Oyster -Point Interchange EIR, but .the .hook ramps were not .assessed. `.The FrIR addresses the Phase II and III Terrabay sites separately. Doe reason is to permit discussion and.:consideration of the environmental effects and :respective merits .of implementing the development concepts proposed there. Another reason is to recognize the different levels of .analytical detail, possible -for .the Precise Plan and Specific Plan proposals. The hook ramps and Bayshore Boulevard realignment similazly aze separated. This does not change previous agreements and / or conditions related to ahe transportation improvements. Response 26.2 The specific grading sequence would be worked out during the final stages of the project and would be coordinated among Phase II, Phase III, and the hook ramps. As the 1998 DSEIR states (DSEIR page 115), the location where excess material would be used would depend on the need for.good .quality .fill at the time of the grading. Depending on the sequencing of .the hook ramps construction and Bayshore Boulevazd realignment, some excess materials from Phase II and III grading-may be .used .for. the hook ramps. `If this is not possible, the excess would need to be exported :from the site and material imported in the.future for construction of the hook ramps. The proximity of the project site to Sister 'Cities. Boulevard, Bayshore Boulevard, .U.S. 101, ..Interstate-380, and Interstate-280 would be .expected to .m;n;m;,p the .need for truck xraffic .through residential neighborhoods as was prohibited for Phase I development. Response 26.3 The comment .expresses a position about the "merits of the project" .in relation .to proposed Phase III development and preservation of CA-SMa-40. °It does not raise.questions about the .adequacy of the 1998.DSEIR analysis, and no response is required. By inclusion in the .1999 FSEIR, .the City of Brisbane's views will be made available. to City of South .San Francisco officials for their consideration in making decisions about .the project. 1998 DSEIR Mitigation .Measure 4.9-1(b) presents an alternate approach to mitigating impacts on CA-SMa-40 by preserving the archaeological site. ~ a.~-i __ =:City of South San Francisco p~pNNING -~1S`Maple'Street ' _ _ __: South San'Francisco, CA'94080 :Dear Ivls. Knapp: _. _ ` Re: 'Terrabay`PLase IIand III=Drs~t SEIR , _ _ .: `Thank you'"for including ~the'California`State Deparmnent of Transportation (Caltrans) in the reviewprocess.for the above-refcre~nced pmject. We forward the following comments: ''I3ydrology and Drainage"(Page `129): M1 . 27.-~ '1. .. Basod on~a pncvicuserstan~ing/agree~ent~betwcm Caltrans aQd`Clear water .. ~Iydrology ~ consultant°for Tway Development, `the czis~ing ~crnss ~ciilverts 36", 48" and 60" reinforced concrete ~ . P1Pe (RCP) were~sized~to~~accommoiiate ultrmateburldout of the Tecrabay site. (Please sec attachment .Caltraas Hydraulics Section. for details). However, ..~ .- 'theproposedsystems forPhase``III-Site:development-are~not~~matched~to the above .. , ,_ , dramage-systems e~ccept~a~48 RCP. Please clarify and provrde:backup calculations for .._ "2. All roquired drainage ~fircilites_in order'to reduce or. eliminate thc'for+eseeable localize _: ' ; ' erosion and downstream'sedimentation shall be addressed-and to'be included in the 'improvement plan=lnor review .and comment. 3. ' A.S part of an approved `StormwaterPollution Pr~cvention Plan` (S~VPPP), appropriate erosion~control measures~ecommended~by project-sponsor's Civil~7rngineer-Brian Kangas Foulk ~(BK~-shall'be ~nchrded~ aad~reflectod on improvement plans. _~ ~._ .. _.. o.. _,. 4. Page 139, second Paragraph, aad second sentence, "Furthermore, he current.proposed 27.2 protect represents a roduction in the percentage of developed area within project site watersheds tributary to.the freeway culverts." It is not clearthe-basis for this conchision. :Please clan 5. Caltrans .shall .make speci5c comments on the improvement pLms once the final. ones are submitted to Calttaas during the Permit process. - f Traffic-and-Circulation (Page 162): - 27,$ ;, 6. Page 190, Mitigation Meastu+e 4.41 suggests that the developer reduce. trip generation by 64%'In ohder tO re~uce~he project impacts to ales than significant IeveL IS the,project . sponsor, planning to do that? :Similarly, on: Page 194, Mitigation Measure 4.4-4, Will the"trip generation be roduced by ~9'/o by reducing the pmjeot-siu? 7. On Page .191, Mitigation.Measure 4.4-2 requires that .the Oyster Point fi~ecway overpass be :widened and that the project sponsor provide a fairshare contnbt~tion.for-this improvement. Would the City of South San Francisco plan: on widening the structure? ,-- 27, 4 8. 'Page 204, .the .year 2020 Hook Ramps PSR/PR Environmentai Analysis should discuss <whether there would be ~aay .posstblephysical constraint..:Specifically where the hook _, , ramps cannot meet Caltrans design sfandands, and whether certain vehicle sins, such as semi-trucks, .are o _be r~estrictod from-using these ramps based on.physical constraints. -- _ ~: 27.5'. 9. Page.207, first paragraph,~thie -text indicate that ".:storage on he proposed hook off-ramp >would~be adequate;to.preve~nt:impact.on mainlme.fi~eeway.,fi~om queu~es.attheo$-ramp intersection." However, page:209, Impact 4.4,14 fates that the southbo~md ..:Route,.:101..F.neway.ofl~amp;;to.Bayshoie Bou~e~d where;:dive{ge.traffic Clow would"be -. - at~L.Q,S-F.,:~th..theonly,>few'ble.alternative~mitgationmeasure.identified is "not to .construct" ~#he,pmject. ;P~lease.clarify. ~ - ,. _... w .. -. 27,6.. 10. Pago=208,.Mitigaton l~Ieas~me 4.41?,:intenconnoctingsgnals,;will:Caltraas be.responsible ~, for:.interconnecting thesgnals,onBayshone~oul~;ard.or will.#hat~be~ahe reslwnsibility of he pmject.sponsor? `Has 3ho Signal Operation Branch..hf.Caltrans:beeneontacted? --- 1.1. Caltrans' Ramp Metering De~.elopment Plan (R1VIDP, J:~ludes the Route 101,coaidor - 27.~?~ _ . between theSaaMatoo Couat~-.and.the,Saa:Francisco.County, lines,;a.conidor where ramp ~ ~_-- mctering will be implemented .within ahe next ten;years...Therefore, ,the analysis~of project .impacts for years after.2010 should includeramp metering at the northbound and .. outhbotmd Route.:-1D1I:Point,on-,ramps:and~the:,future;Routc ~101Bayshorc Hook :. .- on-ramps. ;If.the analysisshow.negative,impacts,then-mitgation~su~chh as widening the on- ramps:forHOV b~pass'lanes,:widening for-:mixed:.flowlanes~°adding~storagc lengths to the cxishng on-r or local street 'approaches should bo considered.. `~ _ ai )l ll. ~(. ~! l ~!~ ~~~s a~t-y v/}s~l'/~T~ 4~ede/ODrjipi, .~. b ~ ~-~- ~__ _ ~ •` rl ~ ~ y` :. .. ':. ''_. `~• h ' ~ ~.. ~ e. T_ . P ~C^pa ~ _ - - - ,..- -~ ! ' _ ~ +Qf . ~' 1-_ J~_ ..fir ~-~ . , - :- ~~ j -\ E- >I T - `- -- -- _ _ ~ _ - --- ~ - _ _ - -- ! _ ..: ~!lO~~~ Ij -~r'~ _ - _~.~~'~ --'[few +kiwv~rE~ _ _~ ~ ...::. ~ : 1ltJ ~ r »t ~~~ .._ _ ... _ ~~ _ __ .. _ _ r~ ,, ._ _ ~' "..:__ „~ ... .- - e.. _ i~. e!:. `ter .f "7:~ " Vie, -~_-~~.~ __ • ~--- ~ -_~_ ~ h ~ 9' =s. ~~M _ _~ -- -- - - -~ ~ - ~.. - ~~ _ . ? ~r .,: ~.~ a. - T ~ ..;. .. r, ,. _ ~ ,~ ..... svr_ .,~,~ .~~ •C' i. ~~..l.: ~ . _- - ~~ ~~CIrIC R IL .. _ r~ _~_... ~ ~- - ~. ~" S7L-T!E `' _ - ~0 0 `3 t " i~ s. f . ~i" ~~ `= R ~ ..~ ~~ ~ ,: _ ,, ,- n~ ~ y ~~~~ i Fr I~ ~~: /~ ~~ ~i ~ ~ __,~ _: __ ._ _ 0 - v Z ~~~` - - - ~;. X'. ~~ .•^•~. ~-... - ,., ...~, ~ fie; ~ r^~ _.~ .. .• . . t `. _:. ~_ •, s.P ---~~ ~t~~-=-~-ter---- '- -- ~~ ~.~. ~'~o` . ~~ar' ~, '~'~'~ _-'- ... r -T- _ _.._ _. __ _~ _ -- ~ _~. - -- -- - - - - - - - - r_-- _~~. ~~ _ - ~ ~~ - ~ - _"'~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ -~. ITT- ~ ~~r•~ .. _ _ -- -- - - _ _~. _ _~,. r _ _ _ - - _. - .~ G .^~ ~~ • ~ ~ ~~~ ., - ~. __ s~:. '= b_ Zn ~raulrair.p~~ M y ~nVAGE :PLAN :ems. ~ ._..__. :-- y j ~_-~ ~. ~ ''t ~----- r~ . C ~ I ~ . S i f~ ~~~ ~~- ..~ ~ ~~ a ._ 0 a ~ ~ ~¢ Z O ~U O Z O~ O¢ ~ ~' ~p~ "¢ z `z :3 Z~ g ~~ ~ wi 1~ Q ~'.~.1~ ~ O ~ ;;LLI 4~ m °° a :° w ~ ¢ a ,_. J=~Z a'_~ ~Q~ ~ ~ ~ a ~-., :., v''~ ~, a ~' o o ' O 0 a~ ~w °- ~ ~ N O O F ~. ~ i~t !~I E ~~ ` ~ ~ r _~. ~~~ ~~~ _, i f ., ~ =d: ra ~ ~ ~ '~ I~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ' ~ s A ~~~~~~~~~~ #3 #u ~ d6 b E~~ {{ _«..~i««~~IgiiSR e • ------ m 'n ~. o- ~~ ~~ r ~s ~_~ E E_ s' ! ~ ~~ ~ s ~i . , .LETTER 27, CALIFORNIA, DEP~I RTMENT;OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRAN$) • Response.2T.1 ' The commentor has :confused Clearwater Iiydrology.,,(the `EIR hydrologist) with • _; Brian..Kangas.Eoulk,(BEK, ••the,;projectsponsor'~:engineer). .The references.ao;the.4$-,:30-, and 36- -1nch.diameter•freeway.cnlvertsidentified.in.the 19..98-DSEIR.represent,bath field:inspeetion.by.the EIR . _. _ _ hydrologist. and consultation ,with BFK:staff who :verified the..existence of.the culverts..as indicated. Follow-up ;field .inspections :by ,BKF _located .the , b0-inch .culvert ,::inlet ;:buried :under freeway :. _ , landscaping :adjacent xo .Bayshore..:Boulevard .The culvert-currently ;does;_not .cross Bayshore :_Boulevazd, ; Therefore, ..its future use would .require.-an .addtttonal tie,-in ,across the roadway... BKF ... '. submitted hydraulic computations for the, project storm =dratn .system. and fore. the _project sponsor's -Phase III Site Mitigation Plan `Development :Alternative to the EIR .hydrologist. -.The- computations verified.that the Phase .III 100-year :peak stormwater :discharge could :be .handledadequately by the existing culverts under. Bayshore Boulevard,-all of which•discharge into-the open channel to the east of U.S. _101. Furthermore,under :.the .Phase aI1 Site-.Mitigation :Plan Development Alternarive, which includes a.reduced-de-velsgaient areaao.avoid.:grading within the: archaeological ite, site runoff would be conveyed in the existing 48- and 36-inch-culverts -as -..well ~.as the 60-inch-culvert. _ The 60-inch culvert .would be. extended across Bayshore :Boulevard and,, would accommodate :construction of the _new.hook ramps along the` west. side of xhe freeway. ~Sirnilaz hydraulic-computations. forahe Phase 111 Site Mitzgation. Plan Development Alternative also verifiedits adequacyto convey ahe.100-year peak dischazge .,(for reduced development .density-and impervious surface coverage) with .satisfactory freeboard. , _ , • .~ _... 'The commentsabout.includingdrainage:.facilities rand. erosion. control measures required xo minimize site .erosion -and -downstream sedimentation are noted. ;.Subsequent project site improvement plans ~should::reflect.~the :comment's: erosion:T.controlxmeasures..and ahe 1998 DSEIR's- additional mitigation nneasures,.addressing .erosion..and sedimentationimpacts. - ..:: Response 27.2 As discussed in the 1998 DSEIR (DSEIR page 138, ;third paragraph), •BKF's original :analysis for. full buildout :peak flows from .the. Phase II and III watersheds assumed an impervious surface .area :of .50 percent::The; EIR hydrologist;determinedthat xhe,:proposed;project-would -result in impervious•surfacepercentages of 39:and 18 percent, respectively. This represents:a-decrease in the proportion of impervious (developed) azea on the .Phase II and III sites. Response 2T.3 These ::are :.the development:reductions required ,(assuming nofeasible or fundable ,;physical mitigations .would be.available) in.order.to:reduce,,projectimpacts beiow.Citysignificance criteria levels. As indicated in Response 13.36, proposed column locations for.;.the-south to eastbound ..:flyover off-ramp .will .preclude widening the Oyster Point Boulevard overpass. This issue is discussed fully in.Response x3.36, Response 27..4 .:According .to.:Brain.Kangas F.oulk, the :firm designing;:the :hook ;ramps, no .design ,. exceptions aze incorporated inahe..cturent:hook;camp.tlesign.•1 :Therefore,. any-aize vehicle legally allowed on California state highways would be able to use the new hook ramps. ;Response 27,5 :Operation of :the hook. ramp intersection with ,Bayshore . Boulevazd; combined with ;proposed off-ramp storage, would preclude off-ramp traffic backing up to the freeway mainline (based 'l Crane Transportation Group (EIR traffic consultant) conversation with Brian Kangas Foulk. _ 'Letter 27-1 upon yeaz 2020 volume projections). -The southbound off-ramp diverge operation at the juncture of 'she off-ramp fromahe freeway mainline is .projected to ;operate .at LOS F. conditions . in the .year 2020 _.; , ;with or withont'the ~pro~ect: '=Wth`the~project°off--ramp volumes are estimated ~to increase. `by about 11 - percent. due to the proposed hook ramp design {the design would allow-right turn .movements from the ~. _. off=ramp ~which=would' be iiifficnlt to :conduct: with the current off-runp alignment). Therefore, based on the significance criteria used in_the'7998~DSEIR, agreater than~onepercent increase~in traffic at a _ =locatiori. already experiencing unacceptable operation is consdered~a~ significant impact. '°,Operation of 'the diverge -`area 'should shave no impact on'available storage ° on ..:the approach to 'the ..off-ramp . _ =-intersectionwith ~Baysliore`Boulevard ":However, unless •the new: hook ramp' design ;precluded right r- tum movements at Bayshore"Boulevard, which.'theoreticallywould reduce increased .off. ramp traffic 'below a one ;percent ~increase,'`the -only ':other :~altemative ~to maintain traffic below she one .;percent _ ... ., ,... increase level on'the vff=-ramp at~the diverge area would be"not to construct the project. " 'Response 2T.`6 The~Cities~of Brisbane and'South San Francisco will be responsible for determining which party (or parties):would~~fund interconnecting signals along'Bayshore"Boulevazd at ..and in the vicinity`of the new hook ramps intersection. The project ponsor's-access plans to the .Terrabay-Phase -- III site from BayshoreBoulevard'have been~in~flux'(due to a`proposed projecrand anew alternative). :However, consultation -with the''Caltrans ::Signal !Operation "Branch hasbeen ,part of ;the .,project ~- -" -development :process.' ~Caltrans would °need - o approve'-the .final plan "for signalized intersection _ operation at and in'the vicinity of the= hook ramp `intersection: 'This requirement lias been added to 2.5 AdministrafiveActrwns, as'follows: ~ _ . _- -• : California .Department of :Transportation ,{Caltrans) encroachment :pernut (hook ramps construction within -the right-of-way of a State -highway) and signal operation approval __ signalized ~intersections:at and in~the vicinity of.the hook:ramp intersection) ` : _ Response ZT 7 Based 'on discussions :'with .Caltrans `District 4 staff 2, :;implementation of on-ramp metering could produce moderate to ~significant-~:vehicle;-backups onto the local :roadway -system with -traffic volumes .-generated by full area development. The particulars about on-ramp .operation with -- ;amp metering;are.as;:follows: . • Metering=can be designed to :allow either one or two vehicles per lane to proceed with each green ::cycle. _, • The number of vehicles which can be processed at a metering station ranges from 240 `to 900 __ ' 'vehicles per hourperlane~with'operation allowing one vehicle°per green cycle to'proceed. With ioperation allowing two•wehicles per-greencycle to proceed, capacity increases to 1;100 vehicles `- perhour'perlane. :'- • Metering capacity is assumed. to double with provision of a second on-ramp lane: _. • " `When'HOV'bypass=lanes are~provided at=7neteiing`locations,' Caltrans' .experience has shown that ,: ` 15.xo 20 percent of total .on-ramp vehicles qualify to use~t6is~lane: • When Caltrans .installs. ramp metering, its initial desire is to .provide. storage. for vehicle backups `from`the:metering lights entirely on~the on-ramp: If this`is not possible, `Caltrans `will work with 2 Crane Transportation Group conversation with Ms. Chan Newlander, Senior Transportation Engineer, Traffic Systems .Department - :. r ." 'Leger 27-2 the local jurisdiction to provide additional storage area on .the local. surface. street leading to the on-ramp. Caltrans' primary objective is to preclude on-ramp traffic .backing up from a metering .location to impact flow. of local surface street traffic not bound for.the freeway. ~ Caltrans would not provide metering only at the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange. Its current .plan, when funding becomes available, is .toprovide .metering .concurrently .at all interchanges along U.S. 101 from State Route 92 (S.R. 92) to the San Francisco County line. Review of ;projected .volumes contained in the 1998. DSEIR .shows that, at maximum metering acceptance rates and assuming the metering stations would be located on the two lane sections of both the existing southbound on-ramp from Dubuque .Avenue and the northbound on-raznp .from Oyster :Point Boulevazd, yeaz 2000 volumes (including full buildout of Terrabay Phases II and III) could be ..accommodated at acceptable levels. However, this. assumes that the metering operation, which will encompass all on-ramps along U.S. 101 in :the County, will allocate adequate time to the Oyster Point interchange on-ramps.' There is no guarantee that this will be the case -because most on-ramps along 101 will have heavy demands during peak commute periods. With projected year 2010 volumes, and .the maximum .metering allocation time, the northbound on-ramp would have PIv! peak hour demand greater than maximum two-lane metering capacity unless a third (HOV bypass) .lane were provided. The southbound on-ramp would be approaching maximum two-lane metering capacity during this same PM peak time period. There is no room on the two-lane southbound on-ramp bridge crossing the freeway fora (third) HOV metering bypass lane. The southbound hook on-ramp from Bayshore Boulevard would have commute ,peak volume levels well below metering capacity limits in the ,years 2000 and 2010.. This on-ramp is .programmed .to have two lanes at the :metering station, one of which -, would be for high occupancy vehicles. Letter 27-3 ':behalf of the'Loma Pieta Chapter of.#tie Siezra ~QubLant subuutting the'fiollowing ;, .aomm~enls on~the-DSEIIt'TerraBagPhase II°~.~ General Comments 28, y inadequafie Review of 2vfitgahoris -=~Nithsame.ez . aeptaorts, we°find thatthe document did an adequate job. of identifying impacts. However, its discussion of mitigation measures . lacks deta~l~and does not analyze ~e potal impacts~of thos~nitigations ateasures. This ~ especia~ly~true forahe °autigations~fio address-adaitiar-al road width-and parting, and the ~arpacts to~wetlands:~~Et~A and~the~G~ucZeimes~require thatmi~igatios~s~be fuuy desrn'bed, deterAnined if feasible, and if likely ~ itself cause a significant impact,'thase impacts must be reviewed although in,,less detail than he significant im_pac#s of the,praject. While..the flourts usually:deier~to°~e_agency's coenclusionthat~a autigatiort will be effective, tt~e~y~sttll require . mat the°~su`bstantiaY ~s~upporting~eviderce`~be provided. ~4n adequate'l~°does not. rely on vague,°maomplete; oruntested autigation measures. .: . - Webelieve°tha~~there~should~be substantiaY work dove on improvng:the description of the `, ntitigations~measures the analyses `of theirpote~ntial'impacts and~,~'feas~ility of such `~ .measures: ~iiowever~utattypo~ thesenutigations would~rLOtbe necessaiy"~f a.modified Reduced Residential (the Reduced Residential Alternative as descrribed in the alternatives .,plus a reduction of some houses .to acaoaemodate additional road width and parking) and . the 4pert SpaoP alternative were~selectied ~as the project alternatives. elf. these:Altematzves °' were c~o6ez~;'tfiere would be ~1ess need~fas the additional detail. > . 3911 Eat &iyshcre Rrnd Suite 1A4 Falo Alto, CA 94303 415.390-8411 ~'y''"~ FAX 415 3~-8497 Printed an IOd96 trez free k~euaf p. ... ;; - :~~ Z :. - ::- -- .- ~ t . 28.2 )~SCriPtiO~t of the Prv~e~ - 'Ihe Stesra' Club stc'enuously Objects to the Clwosing`an alternative which resembles_ the"'duly" 'alternative unless the draft SF.II~, with the alternative fully. descsibQd:an analyzed, is re-rlrcu]at~ed. We nxge tltis for marry reasons. The project has not beesi fully descn'bed anywhere. While it may be somewhat snsilar to.the Reduce _ Commercisl .Alternative, there are also some very. significant iiffererioes m~cluding type and scale of use, parking and circtilati~on req~uremer-ts, and visual ianpacts. Further,'the alia~snative is being offered as a way to autigate impacts to the biological, wetland and j anheological.resources..H,owever, a full analyses of the effectiveness of the mitigations has _ nat had the bestief t of public review. This approach has Policy impficatio~ns which far exceed five project The foundation of CEQA is ~stent and fully descrs'bed project, and adequate public review. Wh1e it is understandable .tliat.pragects can and wi11 be modif3ed,per the information gereezation during the review`period. and`that sternatives offered as part of this review will _ be r~~ponded t4 the FEIR, it is not expected that a substantially new alternative will be _ developed. 28.3a ..Alternatives. -'The Section an Alternatives is very:confusing and wesuggest that the entire :-- . _ . - se~tionbe re-w~attert`for clarification.: Coauerns are detailed atier~in this comment leteer• . SpeciSc Comments - - utiduded..in these #otaLs? - 25.4;:. PaSe X11: -_239 -.Isjparkmg.f°°tpi'nt. Pali _ _ -- .28..5. 45 =- Has the.applicant a~nsulted.with fan Mateo County Pazks and Recreation _- - _ _ Divisiatt abo~ut:.thLS,ttailhead? The Coun#y is updating:the Park's MasterP}an. Input should,- be provided now Can this be counted as a.mitigatioat if there are ruo assurances that. it will ' _ - occur,? _ -- _ - .-_ Owners` Associaiioa:and.~kRs are.not:availabLe farreview. -- .28.6a P~°`'~ .- T'heProper~r:. _ ;; :Iutuch a~:tbemitgatum.i~d~entifiedan.th+e.docunnent.isbased-.onactivities which wfil be _ recx~rded in the CCbrRs.. ~Ha~vewer,~witi~out a:draft o~py.of:tiyese, subject to any changes based on envirananental review and perautting, the reader can not tell'if tine CC&Rs are - ad~equatie,do.implement.,the.ntitigatian..At a=minimuan,ahese-must:be provided as part of ;thee Miti~atio~_and.I~rianitoring:P..lan. ;This .comanent applies every me a mitigation idenfifies,that a.cantrol ~ or-measure w~l~.be ncarposated into.thQ: pralec~s CCF~Rs. .28.7a ~~Pa~ ~ -..yH~w wit the mnuanent noted in.foottwbe "a":be,addressed? 'Ibe mitigation _ iden#i5ed insedioz~ 4.3at!e notspedfic~enough bo addressahis 5dentified:in~can~sstency with ~ H(~. Please correct this table and include a mitigation that plants -not :approved by the HCP will not be allowved as any planting by the master associations, he homeowners' assoaatiaat ar individuals. . wapa~~Ca aacaa L.a~ar{ICt ~.~IiiW~CSaip ~~" 5 28.22.1 Page.144 --.Hrtlgatwns 4.2.9. :.T~1e C1ty~3hOt31d ctoase.the ,.. am P~~ ~, ;; COR1~USed~~l~Clit.,t~1tSII~ti~dti0I1. 7t.:t~11S1paC13Z1.~a1tdS.tD,1~ eC~ed ~ ~' .. .. .. buffer zoa~ed. ~ will it encroach into the HCP"lands? If the inferior. alternative is chosen and it encroaches, would there creed. bo be an is--kimd replaceatent? '28.23. page 145 - mitgatinn:4210 -~Has.the;aanpact:o~ftlus additional: water on the=storm drAin systiem.been ~calcula~3~ .::: . 28.24~~ :146 --.mitgaticm 4.2 11~:} ~o~w high willahe retaining wau.be? nHow.:Iarge .will the basinbe7 What:impacts w~11~be.causedby:the actwities bobuiid~.and:mzintain this dQbrs :basin? _. , . _- 28.25. Page i54 -Biological Impacts and I-~tigations -'17~e document doe`s not adequately ;analyze ;anywildlife corridors or~pacis on wildlife~augrations.-:Area-thereany .corridors in for:de~ela ~ - P'~P~'d P 28,26 Page 155 - Fachrbit 4.3-~ - ~he~reader:~is unable .ta .determne where the proposed building footprints are on this map.. TN~ttwut this information, the.deaision makers cannot determine ~~ aresped~ic~fiootpruats which shauldbe~eliminated .tuprotect.bola~iral resources. " 28.7b page 156 -Landscape Coatp~atbihty -• `The statement "No highly aggressive plantings..." is ' *~:nat~c~oa~sistent•withfootcrote`:"a"ronpage;51.~ ~. . , :.- ~:28.8b Page 156-7 -Mitigation 43-1(a)~T'he'HCl';RestorationPlan is iderttified~as°a-~uutigation. _ Whi]~e the document on page 15? indicates that the plan has been analyzed, the plan is not ~~ <previdea `for public -review nor pis ~a<ata about where =fi~heplan can-be reviewed. Public review of this plan is critical, given the that a nutigatio~n (43-1 (b) is required' ba improve -the plan. It is also indicated that this plan was,,peered reviewed.. Whn did this review? 'Has the co~ty~ HQ' ~Coordir~atar -reviewed ar~d approved the plan? , ~ = When ws'11 a derision be madQ a~n.annesuding the HCP? : If this is not lalowu, it should be .assumed. that there yvill nut~be an amendment and the Project should be r+ed,esigned. If there will be an amendment, a measure which zedesigns or elialinates the development in the.Co~nanons should be included in the aneasures to further m~ni**+»p the impacts on the calliPPe ssiverspot 28.29: p~ 160 - autigation 4.3-b Where and when will this mitigation occur? Wi11 a bond to ensure performance?. What will be the impacs ~ this restoration? .28.30: p$ge 185 - Fxlubit 4.4-11 -`White the square footage four the uses adds up, the .uses identified for affic measurement are not consisfient with the chart on page 41. Lumna Prieta Chapter.C PaB'e 7 t.vaia meta ~w~rr ~..u~uu~~rasc~ Pa8e 8 ~ _ . 28.45. page 300 - exiubit 5.0-i -.adding tfie information about the.descn'bed proposed. project (i.e. the table on page 3a3) would add cta~rity 28.46.. Page 304 Et 314,323 -.:ttaeze is riot a tha~ough discussion of the variation of the Reduce Coateerc~al-D~elopa~eant,~4lternat~e, an alternative wcleazl}~-deer a better job of aueeting the goals of-both the applicant and avoiding significant impacts than does the Reduced Commercial Development Alternative. 'these should have two different names and better evacuation. page 318 - Is this tablesupposed to be the.Phase III$ Commercial Site Plan Acternative? Also, .this asap would better show haw impacts wereavoided if the sensitive biologicac and wetland resources were also shown 28.47. Page 319- Fxlubit 5.4-2 - is not consistent with the table on page 41. While the totals may add up, how one gets to the total is not consistent and very coa~fusing. Further, it appears that there:is actually more development in tfie reduced commercial alternative, most likely because .parking is .riot included in the table on page 41. :8.48 Pam 3Z8 -Environmentally Preferred. Development Alternative -This section should be re-written to clarify that it is the a~ariatio~rs of the Reduced Commercial Development . _: Alternative. Also, Exhibit 5.6-2 would better show how.impac~ts were awided if the sensitive biolo~gicat and wetland resources were also shown. .28.49. ~~• ~ ~Pa~ of pad 3 under this alternative on the shell mound should be _ reconsidered >It will impact the mound by a disruption of the experience. Are there some treatments such as rE~taining walls, landscaping, reducing the .footprint or adjusting the orientation of -the building which reduce even further impacts to-.the shell mound? 28.50.._ summary -- We urge that the` Reduced Residential .and `Permanent Open-Space Alternatives ceded. They are the best alternatives as they avoid impacts rather than mitigate ..impacts. Avoidance, if feasible, is the best way t~ go. 'Iltancc you for yotu .careful onnsideration of these comments. y submitted, ulia Gott Chapter Director TOTAL P. 16 LE7TER28, LOMA PR/ETA`CHAPTER,`S/ERRA-'CLUB °Response.28.7 The 1998 DSEIR's'°mitigation'~measures `weie :designed from -theoutset to be -effective,'• consistentwith ~ the'intent-of the California•:Environmental'Quality Act (CEQA) - to fully .. .. . . , 'disclose ;projects' -effects" anal ° the ability .~to irednee"or elinuriate `significant ° adverse ~-impacts. -'The measures 'presented aze'~considered realistic°:within'the=timeframe of;•project~phasing •and / .or the environmental -anal ses, 'rovould be fully or ~ partly successful in .reducing ~ the °magnitude of impact, y ` would `be .appmpiate in `'the.`context :of established `City .policies or zoning, and °would represent standard practices of the `discipline(s) =involved ~in analyztng the ~ project'(such • as geology or traffic The effectiveness of each 1998 DSEIR .mitigation :measure is disGUSSed immediately .following the :description of `the mitigation -measure -itself: `: `This ~is 'because =some measures .partly reduce the magnitude of-impact or, while theoretically could mitigate-an:mpact, could not'be implemented for -reasons-beyond~the-control.of the~aead-agency~or project~sponsor. This also is because implementation of °unexamined mitigation measures potentially can .dead `'to unintended secondary'environmental effects. Where°secondary impacts would-result`from-implementing all orpart of a measure, the 1998 ':'DSEIR identifies and characterizes the significance of those effects.' The discussion of secondary impacts from'implementing`IVMitigation Measure"44-6, related to 25-foot - road' widths ~on -the'Phase.:`II -site, indicates 'tradeoffs between devoting more `land 'to :roads (thus less to `residential lots) to widen roads from=22 ~to:25 feet",-on one °hand, and disturbing more land, through "grading and`/ or building °higher retaining walls,' ion the other hand >This discussion ~f Mitigation ' '1Vleasure 4:4-6 further aclmowledges that thePrecise "Plan proposes 22-foot'wide roads to avoid these °types~ of secondary effects, stating-that "those previsions were: to reduce the` extent of development and accompanying ;grading, thus *n~n~**+~~P he footprint ° of disturbance" tigation Measure 4.49 on overflow;:parlang=supply~identifies~the secondary effects~'~in`the measure itself, -indicating that housing units could be eliminated''to -accommodate additional°parking, ~ut'omits~ repeating'this in -summarizing the Significance after Mitigation. Therefore, 1999'FSEIR:textrevises the`Significance after Mitigation of Mitigation Measure 4.49 as follows: significance=affer?Mitigaiion `implementation-of Ivtitigation =1Vleasure 4.4=9 -would eliminate _ ae impacts raised by the absence~.of overflow parking in;' he.resideatial neighborhoodsand reduce ae,aeverity -of .impact ;to a :less-than-significant aevel.:Because ,implementation could require - additional land to accommodate-overflow -narkin¢ This -measure ~ also could eliminate housing <units at least in the near term until.monitorine indicates the adequacy of Phase II•site parldn¢ and demonstrates that land area.reserved for parkins can be developed with housins units. ,: ... _ The comment .does not present substantial evidence -that implementation of Mitigation Ivieasure 4.3=3 on wetlands would .,result in significant secondary .impacts. .DSEIR mitigation measures to protect sensitive habitats.on the project site would prevent secondary impacts in he event wetlands were to be `replaced on-site. Wetlands Ieplaced on-site could not infringe on sensitive habitats without conflicting with he other DSEIR mitigation measures. , _ _ "°The.comment appears to~be internally inconsistent. It suggests that mitigation.measuressiiientified for the project are inadequate'but concludes that the same. measures would be adequate. for alternatives, should the City approve the Phase °II Reduced.Residentidl Development Alternative ..and Phase III .Permanent Open .Space -Alternative. :Although additional-response 'is not possible in. view of this ambiguity, the commentor is referred to DSEIR page 302 which. states that: Letter 28-1 ' ~ - ~' For the purposes of this 1998 SEIR's analyses, both the Reduced Residential Development and Reduced Commercial .Development "development .alternatives" are .assumed .to :incorporate relevant mitigation measures identified•in:ihe.preceding:ehapter._ _ iResponse.28.2 .An'::analysis. of:.the;_projectaponsor's:=new Phase,Ill.Mitigation.P.lan:;Development _ ._ _ :Alternative: is;presented.in ;Master. Respo~rse, 7..3-I: and;has :been ::inserted .in:S.D .Alternatives to .the .. - Proposed-Project: in .the-,F'SEIR~text. ;~'he;.project sponsor:-has not.revised or:ainended :the :application .- ,.pending; before: xhe-Gity ;Thus, he .Specific. Plan,Amendment. remains the .development concept for the _ .::Phase .III site:,:(the.concept discussed,in 2.3: Project.Description),.:and ahe Phase ,III:<Mitgation Plan DevelopmentAlternasive remains -analternative. =iCEQA,permits,lead agencies to. approve. a project or .---. .alternatives :.analyzed ;in environmental documents and,unlike documents;.prepared;;~pursuantto.the National Environmental Policy Act. (NEPA), does -not require :EIRs to define :and. assess;,projects -and :alternatives in the same level of detail. Master Res once 7.3 2ex lains that the-deve p p lopment concept .descabed by .the prod ect sponsor' s new .;Phase_IILMitgation ,Plan .Development.;Alternativeis,covered by .current:and prior ,environmental .::,documents.- It represents a variation :on .:and: a combination of development .concepts .evaluated in the 1.982:EIR,1996..SEIR,:;.and 199,8 DSEIR..The 1998 DSEIR;(DSEIR,.page.:299).e~plains that "EIRs are ;._ _ ::.expected~:to .address .a .range..of.;reasonable,altematives,.-not ;all ;potential .alternatives". Identifying alternatives for analysis -:in <EIRs typically . involves .establishing .a range: of ; ypes -and intensities of .- :.development to no development which `:`brackets" :reasonable or suitable land use concepts. The 1998 1JSEIR .evaluated variations of :the;proposed Phase II Precise.:Plan:and:Phase III:SpecificP-_lan concepts as. a `.`focused" :EIR.: "Furthermore, -the 1998 DSEIR also ~ is :a "supplemental":.environmental :document - which.is-tiered•off.of.the;previously-:certified 1982 EIR.:and.+1996SEIR,both.of which areincorporated ~byreference{DSEIR pages 6 8).:::Eor.these::reasons,-ahe;1998:DSEIR;.together with-:the:~1982 EIR and 1996.:SEIR,:;provides~adequate::nformation~about.,project,site;conditions, ~the.sgnificant~effects (and _-- :measures .to ;,mitigate ~~those -effects) of .the „currently ;:.and..;previously .,.proposed ,;projects, and the potentially::$ignificant :e~£fects„of ~ltematives .:to..the.-currently and :previously ;proposed :projects to ~__ Enable-City officials and:members .of.the; public to .determine .the,}~otentiallysignificant. effects of the .. - . :new,Rhase~IllrMitigation,~P.-lan:D.evelopment,:Altemaxiveand:make decisions:about::the pmject and all. _. :alternatives :without recirculating..the .1998 DSEIR. -- In .further response . to the commentor's representation that the new Phase .III Mitigation .Plan Development-Alternaxive.is a `.`new. project'.',,::the..currently-.proposed developmentconceptfo" the .Phase ;IIi~site consistsiof:anaamendment to ;theTerrabaySpecific•Plan.-~Rather:than-.being a substantially new concept,~#he:Phase:_III Mitigation PlamDevelopment tl~lternative: is somewhataimilarao aspects of the mm '~TerraFiay~Specrfic,Plan ~:pre~iiously~.~pproved::de~elopment~~eoncept. ~From,Yhis perspective, the new -- 'Phase ~1I1 1Vlitigaton °PlanDevelopment A'Iternative :could ~be interpreted •as'~:a :refinement of the _. ._ . _. a roved`Terrab~ ' S ee' c Plan: The ~i - _ _ ,. pp ay `- p tfi ty requiresapproval ~of precise •plans •-for sites covered by adopted specific plans before any development can proceed, Precise plans, as on the Phase II site., ngt _.: _:. only define'the' land use and development concept in. more detail than do ~ specific plans but .may. also - require additional environmental review -'in :the event the` precise.,plan concept departs substantially .- 'from"that previously approved :in the pecific plan, should environmental conditions have changed substantially ~'in 'the "intervening :time; or should ritgation ~ 'measures or:alternatives ,previously not ~-- considered or considered infeasible become feasible (see~l.2 EIR'Detdil and Objectivity). For these reasons,,public review and comment would .not be precluded now and would not be.foreclosed in the "future ~m`~the .event 'the new Phase :III lllitigation 'Plan ^72eve1opment~ Alternative :were to evolve -- ... .. .... stibstantta`Ily differently han ,presently defined: 'Wherefore, the :City is not required to recirculate the `1998 DSEIR (also aee Master Response' 7.3-2). i~ zs-z 'Response 28.3 : S_O Alternatives-to'the'Proposed Project describes asequence of tasks. conducted to 'fulfill CEQA's legal mandate :anii informational expectations, =beginning by discussing the reasons for .analyzing alternatives and summarizing how the individual alternatives were formulated for evaluation in the 1998 DSEIR.:The 1998 DSEIR the .cam ~ai;;aIly_...pres.nts .a t~l;ic-by-topic discussion of each -.alternative compared v~nththe effects of the;project as.proposed. In the,past, environmental documents :did not,~_compare .alternatives .among 'themselves ~-and ~ ~detennine `which one :'alternative,which combination. of_ alternatives, or <aihich ':variation on one or ::more .alternatives was environmentally superior - supenor eifher to.the other a'iternatiyes or.o..the project,- as'ESe State CEQA Guidelines %(Guidelines") now~require. '`The"1998`DSEIR's°Environmentally Preferred Alternative :identifies which __ , , development alternative.among those considered in the~EIR'has been'selected as superior. In recognition _ of the .different parts of 'the Terrabay site :(Phase II and III sites), the 1998 DSEIR first ``formulated and independently :analyzed alternatives for,fhe"`Phase II.and ~ sites, econd selected the respective "environmentally superior"-:alternative for each site, and third_presented the results for the two sites as one combined Environmentally .Superior Alternative. °Those steps :reached two conclusions. One was that "no development" .alternatives -.the .No Development Alternative on the Phase II site 'and the Phase 'IIL.Site Permanent Open. -`Space Alternative -would result in fewer `environmental impactsthan'`-`development":alternatives. The other conclusion was selection of the environmentally superior`"development".alternative. That "development" alternative also consisted of 'separate .land use and `development concepts for the `Phase II and Phase III Sites, as noted above -the Phase II Reduced Residential Development .Alternative and the `Phase :III Reduced Commercial Development Alternative. ,, ,, ,.. 'Additional review further refined 'the .environmentally superior "`.`.development" ,alternative. .This ;; :identified a variation of the Phase 111 .Reduced Commercial Development Alternativeland -use .and _ development concept site but no change.in the Phase 7I Reduced Residential.Develapment Alternative. 'The 1998 'DSEIR 'identified resulting land use and `development concept ;as the "Environmentally 'Preferred Development Alternative". ~~ ~The~ result .ts ~the~ Environmentally` Preferred Development 'Alternative.' Exhibit 5.6-2 only illustrated thePhase VIII ,.,part of `the `Environricentdlly~'Preferred Development Alternative, :comparable .to Exhibit 5.4-1 which showed ahe `Phase` III :Reduced Commercial .,Development .Alternative assuming .full .development north ,-:and .south of the archaeological site. _ ; _ 'Numbers in the text and exhibits in`S.0 Alternatives to the Proposed`Projecf have been rechecked in response o this comment and found rto be consistent and accurate'. `'~Withouf further elaboration by the commentor,~the source of confusion is speculative, and no further response is,possible. "' `Response 28:1 "Square. feet of developmerrt.proposed on the Phase'lII site are 'for total building area. ':The -project sponsor did not identify pazking area 'for he project description. That azea would be determined based on the number:of pazking spaces.required .per square feet of development ultimately proposed by individual pazcel owners. Building footprints and pazking area .would be confined within :the parcel acreages ~ identified. ~ According ~to the project sponsor, the parking lots or structures would :<be locatedwithin the. graded pad area identified on plans for the'Phase III site:' . fiesponse 28.5 `As part of the overall planning process'for the `Tetrabay"Phase `'II and 'III project -continuing -simultaneously-with preparation-and publicreview of the'T998 `SEIR,-City staff members and representatives. of the. project sponsor both have consulted with San Mateo County.staff and have visited the project site as a group to inspect and preliminarily agree on...potential-trailhead locations and trail alignments. The existing Terrabay Speci, fic Plan, .approved by the City in 1982 and extended in `1996, requires provision of trailheads .and Grails on he.project site. .:The .1998 DSEIR!s Project Description . (DSEIR; pages _ 44-45) -.discusses .,proposed location ~_changes. .The -;City :would ensure t 2s-~ ;provision,.of ~trailheads and trails onthe site..in the same manner that.City .staff would monitor other 'features of the,project proposed-by the sponsor,or required as conditions of approval, as.has occurred ,._ -. . and.continues to;occur on;the-PhaseT-site ,: - -- .. .... Response.~8 6 Three -?998 DSEIR :mttigation measures. require the .project sponsor to insert the - ~::provisions of thosemeasures in::the`Covenants, Condittons and Restrictions (CC&Rs)`:for- the project. _ This `.is.,precisely ao ensure their implementation on along-term basis., -The 7998:DSEIR requires . .~:: .. incorporation of ;these provisions .in any CC&Rs :(draft or final). ~'Tf draft CC&Rs had been -available during preparation of the '7998 DSEIR and if they"had included .these or equivalent provisions already, 'the BIlt preparers could have :reviewed the effectiveness, of -the: relevant..provisions, .and the SEIR mitigation measures.may not have been necessary. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan to :be published:in :;_ the :Certified .SEIR will .not contain CC&R provisions. The. Plan will .contain .mitigation. measures ;initially presented.in the;:1998DSE1R,modified-(if necessary) in response to comments. Conditions of `project approval would ,.require .the sponsor to incorporate relevant mitigation _measures (and - .. - ; monitoring responsibility);into CC&Rs. _-. :, Homeowners Associations :(HOAs) collect dues regulazly, normally on :a monthly basis. 1 :Mortgages on residential,:property: include ~HOA dues,: in the manner that mortgages include property : axes, and - " these:amounts are:pro-rated in.mo~hly mortgage paymentsfor,.the. erm of he. mortgage...(after which _- -time homeovrners.must-pay their HOA,dues and property .taxes _directly). Through inclusion of HOA - .dues ` in mortgages, prospective home buyers who .qualify. for, .mortgages would be deemed to have ` - adequate financial ability to pay : ,_. State: law;reguires,that HOAs must be established in.compliance:with:.Califomia:Department of Real -. .Estate regulations..:°CC&Rs,provide for the Establishment of HOAs, identify membership,procedures, ~ - governingboard .composition and antfiority,..methods of enforcing,;provisions. andsesolving disputes, and' mechanisms. to raise funds` to carry out. HOA activities. :Such methods-can :include :individual :_ single-purpose"levies (such as to~.pay -for emergency repairs;of common ~facilities)..The Department of -Real Estate..reviews provisions of`CCBRs related to: he establishment and. operation of HOAs before :. approving the incorporation of..HOAs. . ; .;.. - ,. South San Francisco would continue to-have the authority to enforce .all :applicable:-City ordinances - (codeenforcement)-and conditions of .project approval (if approved) through its normal police powers to protect the. health ,and safety of its residents.. The .project HOA(s) would enforce provisions of ;CC&Rs, .,Enforcement.by the'HOA can rangefrom HOA.action on behalf of its.membershp (with -the 6 associated costs billed to the .:member(s) responsible for the action taken) to ,;placement; of. liens on property. HOAs can hire individuals or organizations to operate or maintain commonly-owned land or - ;:facilities ..and can employ specialized -consultants .to_ perform routine, ,:periodic, .or, :when :necessary, _ occasional,tasks;(such.as in an.emergency). ,:The City has.the:right to enforce-.certain. provisions of the CG&Rs as drafted. - _ - '- ~- .. Response 28.7 - .As the discussion on DSEIR,page 156 indicates, no;highly,:aggressive species are proposed in plantings neaz.the. interface :with undeveloped.: hillsides where xhe;;potential for spread into -:open space lands would be greatest. `Undesirable species (such as acacia) are proposed as plantings in -developed areas,.as shown on. Fxhibit.23,13,;:(DSEIR.page SI:), -which the Habitat ..Conservation Plan . :. ,(HCP} motutormg consultant (Plan,..Operator).has.determmed.~to.:be unacceptable. The HCPplantmg 1 ~ - ,. 'The following discussion refers to "Homeowners ~lssociations"(HdAs) which is a generic term 'However, this term can -~be usedinterchangeably with "Property Owners Associafion"-which would be formed on'the Phase III site. Letter 28-4 ~restrictions.::are. ncorporated:~in ahe:=CC&Rsfor:ahe project which ;together.:.with-:~FICP, ::monitoring ..: consultant ;/ ~Elan_Operator .review .would ~ensure,,:appropriate:-,plantings ,;: As discussed in 2.5 Administrative.Adions~on.:~DSEIR page ~70;Y.the :HGP consultant) Plan-',:Operator would. review the :pro~ect;far compliance .with. the hiCP :This ~ would be :a eparate~actiond'rom-City:.consideration of the :.project;(andSEIR).•wSee:alsoResponse:2L8..- .:, ;., , ,>, ..:Response 28 8 , , The 1998.-DSEIR (DSEIR page..I36). summarizes the. purpose .and. adequacy of the ,project's;proposed=RestorationPlan.:~;;This,plan consists of six~oversized:mapsswhich:identify proposed reatment:areas.: on:graded :slopes and specifications for .sitepreparation,:zerosion .control and seed application, container,plantings,maintenance,°monitoring;success_.criteria,3and~~emediation. The EIR biologist reviewed its adequacy, the Habitat.Conservation Plan monitoring consultant /Plan Operator reviewed :a .draft ::Restoration Plan,.:::and :.the monitoring °;consultant L";Plan . Operator ~ eventually must =,approve the final;plan, ;.The Restoration'Plan;is, part of ahe;project s application,materials:and is on file with.and available:for;public review~at the City's>Planning Division,as;dentified on DSEIR pages 7-6. >:Response:28.9 :.:Retaining walls are-:proposed to be`built-throughout';thedcveloped areas of both the Phase II and Phase :III sites.:Them<locadons:~are <mapped on the -,proposed ~Ve~ittg Tentative Map and ,Grading Plan-and ;Grading .and .Improvement :Plans submitted: to the:City.:;as 4part -of -the .,project application and available for public .inspection-.at ,the Planning Division duringnormal °business hours. .The scale of maps submitted to the City .and used by the -FIR preparers to .conduct :their technical analyses:cannot be reproduced.;at report size:;and:::remainreadable: T:his:inevitably:~results::in selection and simplification::of~information~to'illustrate;iareports. •However, all ~application:materials, including ;.full size::maps and,plans, are,part:of•the;publicrecord. ,Although application materials;do not describe how -.retaining walls .would: Abe ueated,lVlitigation aVleasure A4 l-2(a)-which:-refers .xo -retaining walls on the Phase-II-:;and III.sites,~equiresathat.~retaining~walls:higher-than,ten feet "shall.notberiesigned as' _ :.;poured ~in:.place structures,:but-shall,;provide.step backs :or.::cribs planted,; with ~egetation:and .built with Trough-stone orearth~colored=materials" -=It alsorequires`that "the<project,sponsor:~shall.subnait plans for -retaining ~walldesign for::;walls>higherthan>ten'feet:~=forCity=-review"..~~,hasedIIasite;retaining walls would :be built after site r_grading which tithe ~roject~sponsor;proposes;to initiate:::immediately after project approval, if.approved. (.Also see:Response I3.22~which discusses-:Mitigation'Measure 4.1-2(a) in relation to construction of retaining walls of up to 18 feet for the U.S. 101 on-bound hook ramp.) .'Response 28..7x' The :Planning Commission ;and ,City °Cotmcil;must-;-determine sat.;the :::1998 SEIR .:;:contains sufficient information : to :make weir respective'-decisions:~about gall .aspects •of the project, including ae 1998.Specifzc;Plan:Amendment,before °the-:Commission recommends:and::~the Council certifies<the SEIR:.as;complete.:-~The~City.requires:projectsponsors.to>revseapplication.materials as ;necessary .to;-conform with City .procedures.; .:The Councilawould not consider :;applications until .:completion = of > ;needed :;revisions. .:Throughout ?.the plannmg'.:process continuing .;:parallel to environmental.review,>Citystaffhasperformed:countless,.reviewsand;critiques of~such:materials and ~has~provided-the;;project:~ponsor :with specific :direction:about:.whatadditional; ~expanded,'or revised :information must.be provided before City officials deliberate on the merits of the project. Response`28:;11 Amendment=ofahezoning ordinance•would be:required:for.anyaspect of.the.project _- which, ;withaut.:::amendment,: ~-ould:..;conflict ;:with -~~existing .~City...,~;code ,.requirements ,~ or zoning :regulations. ' _ As =identified- by she: ~ comment, .:the .: amendment would rinclude:aections :20.63.030(a), ' ~.20..63:050(a), .20.63:070(d)(;1), .~0:63.080(A)(1) and (B)(3),.: 20.63..-12Q(E)(I); ;.and>20:63..140, -among <others. . ,. _ . Response 28.72 Each;pernut granting agency has rts own procedures and schedules -for _reviewing :.and acting on applications within its respecttvejurisdiction. 'While these .agencies may use this 1998 SEIR to .some .extent in .making :relevant decisions, some agencies have specific ..additional L.eccu za-s ~-- 1 - i requirements :viihich : mnst~.~be znetand;.5in turn;°~vvhieh iwould .tiffect: the~mmg ~ofi.permit review :and =-'. approval. `For : example, ~the-~~7:S ~ Army Corps ° Hof Engineers ~ would regtnre. the .project sponsor to - submit a ~wedands:~restorationplan fio.mitigate the loss of jurisdictional ~Vwetlands.Therefore; it is .not _.. ;.:possible ao ::estimate ~ when::all ~~approyals >would be received'::and :permits ~wnuld :be.~~granted. ~ These :agencies would not require changes to ahe projeef..per.~se~`but could smake: peimit.:appriwal conditional ~ - on specific mitigation requirements, such- as a wetland replacement ratio Incorporation of required _ ~~mitigation :measures ` on-srte'could'cbange - fhe pro~ect~~ndireclly. `%Howeve, ~iecanse `regulatory agencies ~•usually :provide >different =options for on =end Doff--site mitigation-~-such. as ~.~a~~°lower in-kind - replacement~atio~foron_-site:=mitgation~and.:a higher~ratio for off-site mitigation), tis~not considered aikely that:agency.actions=would changeahe~project~substantially. ` - ,::Response 28:73 998:DSElR;,Fxhibits 4:1= a Ito l.c~show=building'footprints .on existing topography ,and ~at :a cale~of one.inch-equals 200 .feet ~:1"=2U0'). ~Site:geology:{Exhibit 4:1-2)>is shown on the ,•- same topographic:'base .map abut at aFsma`11er scale.` ~;Simply-overlaying the :footprint>onto the .geology map would -not .indicate azeas .which. should be -eliminated but, rather, indicates -areas which would ` ~ need _ .to the ;mitigated. =~Plans;• showing :proposed grading -and 'mitigation of °potential < geotechnical - '<~hazards are-~drawna~t:a~scale of=one:=inch equals 40':feet~'(1"=40'). ~Z'hoseiplans are:-presented in .the referenced~documents which :are~used=by~the°:decision makers and are available for publicreview at the ` :City :ofSouth San-Francisco Elanning Division. -. .. ,.: .. - . =Response 28.14-'The-.seepsand springs :discussed in:~f.I Geology, Soils, and Seismicity:-are identified .because of sheirmpact on .geologic cconditions:whicl is a different analysisthan ,identifying seeps and _ apringswhich meetahe•atandards'for:wetlands..underia anahysisof.biological resources. ~~'he numerous seeps~and springs shown -on'Exhibits4.1-2~and 4 2-2:reflect:indications Hof ~ground~vater and surface _ ~seepage,anost of~whichxdo>not~persist?:into;the=growing~season=oncerainfallstops. ;This 'fact.generally' ~preciudes;.:establishment=of=wetlandwegetation'neeessary~for~.consideration as~:potential-jurisdictional wetlands -vindicated sin-=Exhibit°ri4.3 1..~ -Whileseveral ;of 'the:=smaller:-:areas:.=rnapped`::as potential ; -- jurisdictional ::wetlands -in =Exhibit ~4:3=i =technically:.=are'~freshwater marshes •associated-~cvith hillside `<<seeps~only the identified,perennial ~spring:~hadsufficient fiows~during the;critical summer months to be -- identified.assuch~m.the1998-DSEIR,.biology~ection. :Response 28.15 .Tn-kind restoration .refers to the creation of replacement .habitat of the same ape <..ratherahan~out=of;ldnd -which:.-means of a.different habitat type ?:Restoration would be=nmplemented on graded slopes-in,~dedicated ;HCPopen <spaceareasas<a •.component.of the proposed~Restoration Plan - - tdiscussed:on DSEIR.piage;156 and~possibly as a component°of~_tl~e =wetland:mitigation<plan referred to _ -in .Mitigation:'Measure 4:3-3.(b)::.~Wetland=:replacement' and l~~or-..restoration <would :be .required if .complete<avoidance of-wetland habitat~;is .not feasible. ,The wetland:mitigation;=plan; which could -- include'~both habitat srepL;cement and :restoration, -would =~be }subject Ito ;:review' ands=approval by the _ =Corps and would:be:,implemented as<acomponent-of the project. •Refer to Master{Response:7.3-8 on - - wetlands foradditi~onai:anfonmation°on~the wetland mitigation plan-proposed by'theproject sponsor. - _- . Response 28.16 Same as Response 13.23 regazding landslide material in the proposed Commons' °- neighborhood= and .on>sthe =Phase 3IIAsite.::xis ;currentlydesigned; •~upper cut=:slopes ~Praposed .for the ,_ -Commons~neighborhood,would:~have;=~`S:i grades:~incover sediments.~nd existing landslide..material. . These ~ slopes :would :notfie feasible=as proposed =:and <need to .be>modified ;(flattened, supported with ~~:retaining :°structures; •ete3: ' ;Because she -upper parts of~~the ~ezisting -slopes .are.: near'.the =HCP:fence, .:potential :modifications need to be done on the lower parts of the slopes. Such modifications may :affect the layout of the.roads and buildings. The 1998 DSEIR text has not been.changed in response to _ :,this comment. ~ ,.: _ .: _... , . - _.... - - z 28-s A draft .of .the :rock slope.stability.:analyses:•wascompleted. in`Iate:June -1998.:The-mitigation measures .identified: in the 199.8: DSEIR (rock::bolts, : hydroaugers, flatterslopes) -Mill-.would be a:requirement of the final grading. The. performan~eof;the slopes.ao:.these ~mitigation:aneasures =would -be monitored using slope indicators and piezometers. Readings from these.instruments would be .used to evaluate .,. °~the:effectiveness of .the mitigationmeasuresand~would,be-crosschecked;with the.results of.the slope ;~stabilityanalyses. _:: ... =~ _ t . :Response•28.:77 ..:Fences .:and- other wimple .zretention ~:atructures ~~uvould be aimited .to ~ihe base of ,outcrops -:and. above::cut slopes and would :not. prevent.movement:byslarger wildlife.:: It is not likely that most°-:wildlifespecieswould;useaheseaocations-due..to~the::extent of~disturbance and relatively .steep slopes. The 1998 .DSEIR >(DSEIR page 154) acknowledges <that :wildlife would :be: eliminated and displaced at least temporarily from areas encompassed by development. Response;28.:78,:The. 1998 DSEIR .text (DSEIR :pages :286-287):.will Abe ;revised :in the FSEIR, as indicated:in Response 13.46, as-::follows: The project proposes:the_.placement of~engineered:earth.fill:(placed and:compacied in layers) over the CA-SMa-40 culiural,deposits. ....,Generally,:fill would,be deeper-on.the.eastern: hap on the western side of the site and deeper on the north and south sides than in the middle which would be contoured.into:a swale converging into.,a drainage.basin (Exhibit 4.9-11. Padsfor,parking lots ... . -`Fill over`:the. southern parking pad would range -from approximately .23 feet to about eight feet. The southeastern edee of the parking Wads would slope' down to the realigned Bavshore 'Boulevard. The toe of this fill would'be supported by a three-,to four-foot high retaining wall. All _- 'utilities, drainage, landscaping; paving;'cucbs; etc: would be placed in'the-fill covering the §ite, and -, no penetration of the prehistoric cultural deposit is.proposed. , Response:28:19 Exhibit 4.2-2 is an~~existing conditions map--and,thus, does not show~future (post- project) site conditions.:Proposed-development footprints:are~~overlain on'Exhibit 4:2-3 which depicts .; ca combination ~of existing ~: and:proposed debris `>basin locations :and ~is :drawn 'to °fihe same scale as ~_ Exhibit 4.2=2. • `.Both exhibits show the .development=boundary outlines for each part ~:of the .project. - "Thus, the`~locations of iheproject structures in'Exliibit4:2-2 are easily-discerned by-comparison of the two-without-an:overlay. .:..:. ;, - Response°28.20 As :~iVlitigation Measure 4.2-3 :.indicates, the : grading ~ plan ahould be -revised to promote drainage toward the =debris'~basin ratherthan ao =the southwesttoward its currently shown .:outlet -onto-an =unprotected:~hillslope.: Thedebris basin -is :proposed to"~be located yin the opposite =direction;(northeast)-along the designated contour. ~=Contour:=ditches would~be partly=grouted, and, with ,;.proper-:energy -.dissipation- at the :outlet, gas provided for ;in -the recommended' SWPPP, -the drainage Cwouldnot.have any econdary.hydrologic impacts.. - - Response 28.27 The freeway access ramp embanlmients would be constructed at the .lower edge of °ahe~PhaselII site,:immediatelyadjacenttothe existing=Bayshore~Boulevard-alignment.:Interception of ~:upslope.=seepage :would be implemented at roughly =the same elevation as -the °existingground surface sand:ahould not.createsignificant~5hallow.;groundwaterdrawdown~for.more~than~a~~few?-feet upslope (westward). of the subsurface drain inlets. `'Some of the willow'thicket-acreage!~in'this area would be lost.due<to construction gperations, as indicated.in 1998 DSEIR section=4.3Biology.Otherwise, most of ;the :impact on :upgradient seeped;Zones -:would- occur::as ahe =direct result of ! hillslopegrading and .drainage modifications undertaken in association with he construction ofrproposed'Pareels ~G and F. - For instance, although:Exhibit 4.2 2~indicates along-strip•of seeped hillslope parallel•to'ahe upper edge -of the: colluvial deposits on':the Phase III site; the 1998:DSEIR .biology assessment indicates that only part of this. mapped extent. supports sensitive .habitat. .Moreover, all of the .seeped zones identified .Letter 28-7 upslope .of: these ~ two :parcels `would: Abe-obliterated ;by. billslope grading, so::dewatering:rmpacts would be: moot 4 3 Biology:-:identifies~hese :laiological: impacts:~and: the:~impacts :~o -the ::downslope willow thickets as significant~impacLs•.and=quantifies the resulting losses: . ,. .,. _ ; °The only-:other::area-of sensitive ;habitat:~impacts •identified =which conceivably =could be ::affected by subsurface slope drainage would be upslope of the hillslope..grading identified for :the:.northernmost _ developed .parcel on the. Phase III. site.. ";However, the.-steepness of the drainageway and .the near surfacebedrock-tiominant:~in:the-:-unaffected habitat zone.upgradient'of the ~hillslopegrading .would -' make vpgradient dewatermg, of ;this .:habitat unlikely..::Seeps ::in his -;area ;occur +through bedrock fractures daylighting•.on the_hillslope,;and such >seeps ~typieally arenot=:connected hydraulically with _ %; similarsseeps~~farrher~downslope. ~~ ,- <.._ ' Response 28.22 The access road this comment:refers to.extends:from the project site .development area out::into the:HCl':sands,.beyond the project boundary. "Thus,:the restoration :effort (first option) -would require the: involvement and support,of the HCP manager and=coordinator.(Plan Operator). If :the .less preferred option were adopted, only the on-site ..roadway segment would be stabilized as part - of-:the project. ~Additonal~roadway stabilization°would-be<nndertaken where necessary by the County under the provisions of a Site activity Permit`(see Responses.13:41 and:19.I ). -- Response 28.23 Yes The storm drain system`has'`been' designed `for °the cumulative development ` rwithin each of the .development areas, assuming :full storm drain extensions .within the impervious 'surface area. : In addition; °the ~initias. design assumptions of impervious surface :acreage were very _ ;.conservative,' so ':the system ~.is somewhat ...over-designed. ~:ompared with .the .;:magnitude of flows expectedfrom.development as.currently,proposed,(see.Response:27.2). _ ~Response,28.24 The:design-criteria for.the;.debris,-basins:>on..the Ehase II and-3II sites:are.=-.the same as - .used ;for she. Phase> I ,site., ; .The .details : of the .debris basin,.-design :were.: studied .and approved .for construction:during the.environmental:review;process-andpm-construction-design ,phases of.the Phase •I.project which..ah-eady~is built.:_:~'hese>design.procedures,~including sizing and configuration of the ;basins, can be found.in:.Compilation of Dacurnents.Rertaming..to:Terrabay.Development-Debris Basin Facilities prepared by Carroll / 'Resources Engineering and Management (CREM),:':September 1988 -- (DSEIR page 139, footnote 119)..This document is available :for review at the City Planning Division. Tn.;brief, ,the design -calls ;:for heaccumulation. of debris in:.the :drainage from':previous debris flows, future : debris ~ flows, :and a "safety factor": •~ of .100 ::cubic ~ yards: ;The Phase ::L debris ;basins have -- ;:performed: as designed..for the last =nine. years, ;including :periods ;of :significant runoff. '~ During these _- nine ,years, the •.maxmum amount-of <material :in any.<one .of;the: five:existing:Phase I basins .has been only.a~few cubic.yards,;as discussed in_Responses:2l:Ib-and 21:17. The 1998_DSEIR 4.1 Geology -- analysis provides further information on the.:impacts:of:debris;basin construction and other measures designed to stabilize landslides and potential debris flow source areas. _.. ~Response28.25-There:;are-no .established .':.wildlife :corridors".on the ite-.which would be directly _affected;by;:proposed~.:development, ass result: of which the:1998 DSEIR 4 3 Biology:.:analysis does not .~provide:aseparate discussion=ofttris=topic.'The projectsite•isaocated at the southeastern`:fringe of San _ . ~~Bruno:•Mountain.and-is bordered.by.actively:-used roadwa3~s~and freeways, with no~:connection to other ::open space or-undeveloped lands .which would::draw wildlife across the site. -A discussion of wildlife :use ofthe site:isprovidedunder each of-the :various: habitattypes:(DSEIRpages 147-'149) which points out-importantresources,(such as:areas~of~dense cover and-springs). ~:- ::Response:28.26 : ;The: relaticroship and effect of.:proposed. development on biological :resources can be _ ;determined ;by- •reading :;the 1998 DREIR's :assessment of impacts (DSEIR :pages '154,763) and, as .Letter 28-8 _ necessary,:comparing Exhibit 4.3-.l;io.relevant maps:of.ae site;,(such.:as,Exhibits.:2.1-.3,::2.3-14a, 2.3- i4b, 2.3-14c, 4.1=,1a, 4.1=1.b,:and 4.1-1c). :, , . Response:28.27 :The -commentor's ;concerns ~3about :the ,feasibility ;:of adequately.--..protecting .and ;, possibly.::recreating the- perennial: spring -on=•thePhase;~III site.>~aze noted ;;,Questions ,:raised .by the commenter .over the location of. and access to. any recreated springwould .need to be;fully addressed as :part of a proposed .wetland mitigation .plan .which must be approved byjurisdictional agencies (such as :::the _U.S.Army Corps of Bngineers,~and California:Departmentof ,Fish and~iGame). '~The:1998.DSE1R ,.(DSEIR; page .160) -acknowledges the=+diffiiculty..of=recreating the;perennial. spring, :and ;for. this reason `:MitigationMeasure43-3(a);specifically~requiresahe: pring~to be preserved.and;a~minimum setback of ,_V 50 .::feet .to-~be;,pro~ided::around ths.feature. ,-'This is °considered -an;+adequatesetback, assuming preservation of .the spring.. and ~upsloPe hillside~and ,maintenance. as part :of ~ahe-private <or public open -space lands. None of the other springs or .seeps on the site had perennial .flows during the critical summer months,-:andspecificreeommendations~foraheir;preservation was.not;~considered essential to protect the: wildlife;habitat value of e:: site<and the relationship of the;perennial spring to the adjacent -open :apace wands... As =discussed :yin-lKaster ;Response 7..3-I, :ae .::Phase VIII SiteMitigation Plan :Development :Alter.native... proposed .by -the -.project sponsor :-would preserve : ahe :perennial spring and :restrict grading a minimum of 50 feet from the source : of ahis :?feature, -:consistent -with Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(a). 'Response 28.28 Mitigation 1Vleasure-4.3-2;provides clear options.:on areatment.rof-suitable habitat for the-callippe<silverspot,.and dividing.it.into two separate:measuresis.not considered necessary. A final ,,, decision:has;not:been:reached>yet:regarding an amendment~toae incidental takepermit for.the HCP to include the callippe silverspot. As defined.in =Mitigation;Measure -4.3-2,2f ;an.:~amendment is not obtained, then.the project-must be..redesigned to :avoid all larval host plants, including the stands _- encountered in-.the~Commonsarea and.~-other:aocations on hey ite. ;Uue•#o -theirrelatively small size compazed with '-the lazger :stand ..at .,the ::;northern -:end >of : the :Phase :3II -site- ;and .with • other -larger -: populations .: on ::the:.Tnountain., ,preservation ;Af :;the:-stands .gin the' :Commons .area..~was ::not :considered .: :significant if ahe amendment..is secured from=the ;U:S, Fish:.:and :Wildlife :Service ~{LTSFWS.). :Salvage _ ;: -rand: replacement~plantings of Johnny jump-ups~to~be~provided as part:of~~the_proposed::Restoration Plan - ;..for,the:project~wasconsidered.adequate znitigaton_for the anticipated lossof.°:approximately 400 plants in the Commons .area.:. -However, comments;received ;.from.:the USFWS (J,etter ~32) vindicate that the Service would prefer. to .see the host plant .populations in the Commons neighborhood ;preserved as _ :yvell..: Refer Ito >ae .Master :Response 7..3-9 :on callippe silverapot :for additional information on the status ofthe amendment tothe:.incidental:xaice permit:forsthe HCP. - _: ::~Response.28.29 The.need for:a:detailed wetland mitigation would.depend.on the degree.to which the :proposed;.;project: is .,revised Ito: avoid =jurisdictional, habitat. As indicated in -Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(b), if complete avoidance is not:possible;(asseemsakely),=then a~wedand-mitigation plan would be required. This plan must be completed and approved .by jurisdictional agencies .before issuance of ;, ~ }any :grading . or.zbuilding permit .for=the pproject, ; as ~~.indicated in :Mitigation':Measure 4:3=3(b) (DSEIR ;:.page;l61,::7hird:buTlet) As~defined:in_xhe>.measure,;;any~replacement.wetlandhabitatpreferably would be.located on the Phase.: site .and ryaould~be ~implemented:during the ::initial ,::Stages of project :implementation .A bond typically.as.:required:~for;all :habitat<restoration:andaandscape improvements to-ensure successful implementation, and:appropriafe:performance criteria~and contingency measures -would be defined as part of the detailed mitigation plan.. Refer. io Master Response 7.3-8 on wetlands ..::-for;a•.review.of:the:conceptual mitigation~plan=:prepared the projectsponsorand the need for additional .provisions to adequately mitigate identified impacts. .:Response 28.30 Ezlubit 4:411 ^shows ~ 600 hotel=rooms, as aloes Exhibit 2:3-9. Exhibit 4.411 also shows that 63,000 squaze-feet of other retail /office /restaurant uses .vrere used for the traffic analysis i.etter 28-9 • r. i t, (the .ma~cimum~potential) asdoes =Exhibit 2:3=9. •'Exhibit 4,411 showsfour Testaurants gas does Exhibit 2.3-9. Specific assumptions allocating office versus •retad use ~in =Exhibit 44-1'1=were .identified. by -City staff for the detaded DSEIR traffic. analysis. This. detail is not contained.in.Exhibit 2.3-9. The r__. ,.,:: , combination`~of uses *for Phase `III:was~`chosen'~by the ~Cit~+'for traffic :analysis'purposes .to create the - t~maximurn~:potential traffic ~ generation: for-:Phase `=III °in`=order •~o .ensure `:that"the DSEIR :analyzed the , -:worst case scenario~for'traffic: - :~~ - ~ ~Response•38.3~ The: maximum }development .potential ~was~ used >for thecommercial site .traffic analysis;:inorderao;.dentify:maximnn~ potential:aritigation:needs. ",This-is`-standard practice.for CEQA .circulation .analyses. ~ As ~ expiamed. in ~Ihe =immediately-.preceding ~~esponse, :the City .chose the - : combination of~uses :for~Phase:III analyzed' =in~~°Ehe .DSEIR ~:to' anticipate the°naximum potential .traffic generation~for'~Phase III in.order::to:ensure an'assessment~of~wvorst case'traffic-impacts:'`'• ;19esponse:28.32•The-comment •is ~correct.in stating-that=provision :of :wider roads would :require _ redesign of °the> development and :.reassessment. of • impacts and mitigation measures ~ throughout the 'affected areas of ahe ;project rte. Provision =•of :~overflow-=pazking also would :require. thorough -- environmental review of: affected:areas :within :the site. The DSEIR identifies the secondary impacts of - ;`;both: as discussed ins-Response 28.1. ., - Response 28.33 The comment is correct in stating that further review.of pazking for Phase lII will be .;necessary when~:themix~-of~land:uses:is defined. Response I3.I5:diseusses this;issue."~If the number of - •.parking °~spaces :required ;for-_the 'type ::and -:=intensity :of -.development proposed =could not be _ `; accommodated; with~or-without.agarage,<the;~City•.would require-the.projectsponsor o,alter the land :usemix :or:reduce ahe amount• of<development con-site. - . `Response28.34 :The =IIR. traffic -engineer -,agrees with ::,many , of : ahe :.concerns raised by -the. ~ _ cotnmentor.: ;,After }San :`Mateo -County.staff::menibers: haze ::finalized'the `~>location Hof .ahe trail .and - -- ~trailhead, this,.-issue':can:be.nddressed=ink-greater:detail. ~~iowever,~the EIR.traffic.engineer.is.confident that sufficient ~parlang ~~could:=be.provided ~eaz ~-a;arailhead aocated =on<•the Phase VIII _~site :and that -- :commerciallotsiwould.have~sufficient ;pazkingfor•ahis::use.during~imes.~of=greatest~trailhead use (on weekends and: after work°hours on weekdays): The.question --~coneerningneed for: a;special walking or :biking path:would have`.to be addressed ~nce:.the~trailhead site-isidentified. sResponse.28.35 Same:;as ::Response 21.1.0: -Af. the rime ~~ahe :'998 DSEIR salt quality :analysis was •-- :prepared, the Bay Area was ~an ozone.maintenancearea _~ However, -ithe; region~was redesignated as an ,_. -ozone nonattainment area in 3une .1998 -(after the July 1 DSEIR went to press). The EIR consultant ::anticipated ahis:~redesignation, sand -the redesignation •does=note=affect the •air ~gnality `:predictions and -- >conclusions ,presented ::in the 1998 DSEIR " Theregion's air.:quality .attainment strategies address the amore stringent:California ambient:,air:qualitystandazds. ~Response,28.36.998 sDSElR ~Mitigation'Measure ~4.5-3::reeommends :fireplace :.inserts -=which would :reduce;particulate tiemissions~ abstantially. ~ :Gasfireplaces %:would reduceparticulate.:emissions only :_slightly.more,~than:fireplace~~inserts Therefore;rsu~ch a~small'benefit:was .not considered sufficient to require gas:fireplaces.:+-Nevertheless, Mitigation::Measure 45-3 has been revised-inahe>°i999 FSEIR to ~.encourage:installation ofgas;_fireplaces,-as•follows: - _ _ , • . .: :: _ , ;- - !. . • ;Fireplaces shall •~be .equipped with :certified tvvood ;burning ::fireplace inserts which meet .Federal ^ _ emission standards..'It is difficult>to assess ;ihe- overall ::effectiveness of this measure due to the infrequent use .of fireplaces. However, the measure would reduce .PM~o emissions from fireplaces by up.to 90 percent. Installation of natural.ttas fireplaces isencouragedao,:further reduce particulate '_ __-. emissions.... L.em~ ss-io _ ~ :Response.'28.37:The.;1998 :DSEIR noise:,analgsis used the most-~recent~:noise:-projectibns available from;the`San Francisco International Airport (SETA). :The airport ~was~nade aware of this project. The .: sirporbreceived° and~.nn:~~eptember X19, x:1997 responded aoahe~ City's?Noticeo~ Preparation:(NOP), as noted~.bn;DSEIR..page 3. 'Since the airport:has>notanalyzed-~noise unpacts Fof-~a~planned new runway configuration, it is not possible.for the DSEIR to predict noise"levels~associated with~thataction. ;~Response:28.38`The sound=walls would~be relatively~small~compared with'the~heights of buildings '-behind them. ~Senn~-wsfls-would ~~~L~to Irassers-i~y'-but~vould-not be visually~rominent. This is because graded slopes and structures would `be visible uphill behind sound `bamers due to the hillside .site. _ . _ _ - . 'Response-28.39 The City of South San~Francisco Police~Department"(SSFPD)~spokesman stated at 'the August '13 .Planning `Commission study ession that SSFPD .review of theproject assumed no enforcement of traffic laws and parking regulations on the site, only responses to criminal activity. z The SSFPD has not -conducted .research since that: session .to verify staff's .initial response that expanded service required 'for traffic..and parking enforcement in :fact would impact -the.department. 3 Nevertheless, 1998 DSEIR Impact.4.7-1 calculated the.;project's.estimated regtiirements for both street service and traffic control personnel using the . S.SFPD's ratios, respectively, : of <:1.18.. and 0.09 officers ;per .1,000 residents. Impact 4.7-1 also .,used conservative,:persons.;;per:household..(pph)-.estimates to ;reflect the greater number-of bedrooms per unit.proposed by, he pendingPrecise :Plan compared with the number originally approved for the Phase IIaite by;:the,.1982.Terrabay,Specific.-Plan. (and extended 'in 1996). .The DSEIR .analyses concluded that .impacts on police cervices would be less-than- significant. Response 28.40 Police communications~.equipment wouldbe mounted.on.the.roof of.the,first project , to proceed (whether an the Terrabay Phase IIIsite, Ameribay Suites:Hotel:at,Sier_ra.Point,: or Bay West Cove building in ;the Fast of _101 area). Installation and .maintenance of such equipment ~+ould not -affect .natural .resources. :.: .. ,, .- ._ ... Response 28.41 'The 1998 ..DSEIR estimated .the number of additional public school students _.. expected .with .project implementation based. on the generation rates :provided by the respective school districts, and -.used by the districts .for their. planning. purposes. These .data reflect conservative rates for calculating .potential impacts. Testimony. presented by a representative of the .project .sponsor at . a <Planning Commission study. session indicated.that the number.of school-age: children whoave on he _ - ..Phase I_site is :lower. than would .be estimated using:the: districts' _current rates.reflected in the. DSEIR. Evidence presented by theproject ponsor's representative for.the:.Phase:I ite,supports the.conclusion ithat.the districts' (and DSE1R's) data are conservative:.and:are,appropriate,to~use,for estimating student .generation. The DSEIR :found that xhe.;project's..impact on _ schools .would .noi :be significant under . _.. CEQA. _ , ,... ;. Response 28.42 The 1998 DSEIR (SEIR .page 2) .states .that "[t]he .Initial Study /. Environmental Checklist focused on identifying differences between the .1996 and 1997 projects and on -identifying 2 Sergeant Mike Massoni, City of South San Francisco Police Department (SSFPD), speaking at the Planning Commission Study Session on the Phase II project, August I3, 1998. Sergeant Massoni is responsible for crime prevention, planning, and traffic review for the SSFPD and both provided input for and reviewed the 1998 DSEIR. 3 .Nichols • Berman conversation with Se;geant Mike Massoni, op. cit., September 16, 1998. According to Sergeant Massoni, if the SSFPD provided traffic and parking enforcement services on the site, the Ciry would require the project to redesign streets to meet citywide width standards (wider than currently allowed by the Terrabay Specific Plan). Letter 28-1 I ~:.poiential Sects not~covered:(or;not covered;adequately)Eby,prior~environniental•review"::It continues '; ao :aist'the:aopics:.:analyzed,-including :police. protection.;:(&EIR;:page -:3).~and omitting~:fire .protection, :atating :thzt "(b]ased ion -.xhr ".~tial: Study,- the `:City: requiredahe preparation: of : a. focused Supplemental - _ EIRxo:ev~luate~potentially:§gnifiicant;impacts~.related,to"...: "--=The 199.8:DSEIR;(SEIR,page.3) further ~ - :•e~plains.;(in the;-xext>and fbotnrlte.5j :-- ..:. •comments and:requests for:"analyses wereaot_addressed inthis;:SF~t ifpriorenvironmental documents, .~dequately..,analyzed":,:those :aopics, ~ ae;..=concerns -. involved '-environmental " .:consequences of :tt-e.;project deemed insignifican~..under_.CEQA, .or, if the :issues related .to -the . nnerits of the, project or subjects beyond the scope of an EIR. The :;1982 .EIR"analyzed the impacts,-of the :project:an fire safety:- The; project was: required both to ` ""build and :fully .equi! a fire: station which was completed. as .,part .of Phase .I and to:.maintain a buffer - zone "between the; edges of the development area and the San.. Bruno.Mountain open space. •.- . `The-Sister Cities Boulevard /sSouth San~Francisco Drive intersection was construeted.as part of Phase I development'-and • is proposed to' become fuuy operational, with implementation of the Phase II project. `'The intersection -configuration. includes a break in the median and would accommodate left- 'turns~ into the site'by vehicles traveling-eastbound on'Sister'Cities Boulevard `(across westbound traffic on'Sister-:Cities'Boulevard) 'This'mtersection would provide the only.direct.access to the Phase II site. `Indirect access ~ would' Abe available via' `South San 'Francisco "Drive at ..the :Sister 'Cities Boulevard / - ~, .Jefferson'Street-intersection°in the Phase I site. Response 28.43 'Same ~as Response.13.46, (and Response 28.18., above) Revised Exhibit 4.9-1 is .presented after the responses to .Letter l3 : and .:also will be :::inserted in :the Certi, fled . EIR. _, .: '`''lvlittgation`~Vleasure 4.9=i~(b)-~discusses .an :.alternative.Bayshore .Boulevard :realignment design ._ ` :using spier-supported~bridge .or`flyover (DSElR page 293): `' - Response 28.44 The SEIR is .not obliged to address issues regarding the National .Historic -- Preservation Act .• (NHPA) or `National Register of :Historic Places eligibility.. Please :see Master Response'7.3=3 for:fiirfher discussion. "'`: - For'discussion ~regarding'the potential for off-site burials,' please see Master Response "7.~-6. ` The' Lead 'Agency atust'decide°~what ~is the appropriate project -altemative. In tight of strong Native . .. .~ American concern 'for •-the archaeological sites : and the greater .San Bruno `Mountain setting, the best `'alternative ~may'fie peananent open'-space`>for the'Phase`'III ste'~Phase`°IU Permanent Open .Space __ A-lternative) ` ~ `The Phase: IIF ~~ite'-~Mitigation ~Pian 'Development Alternative would eliminate all '- construc~on `activities on~.or within `3U feet of the boundaries of~ CA=S1Via-40. Impacts of, development Mould be .totally reduced to a .less-than-significant level .and .would be in keeping' with CEQA's :emphasis on preservation of significant cultural resources: Please see Master Response 2.3-1 for a - `detailed `discussion of the Phase III Site 117itiganon "Plan Development Alternative. Response 28.45 Comment notCd. This information, ..presented in .the :Project Description, is - combined on: the following page. ark will be inothporated in the Certi, tied EIS: Lean 2&-12 . _; ` , ~;~EXftib/t 5.0-1 Comparison of Alternatives' Assumptions Altern.atiwe `_ • - :*Pcocosed ~ .:, ;`Proie+ct ti:_ : No ,. ;_ ~DeNelopment;. : <.Ezisting ? ~ .;:Speclfrc:Plen; Reduced `"Resfdential : _~~ ~evielo melt ~ ;Reduced ,. lrommercie!' '' Deve/o meet ` P_ennanent. "Dpen Space ' Phase 11 Residential Site fhousin wars) ' Point 181 0 1.81 181 ` Commons 32 - . . - 0 , ,` 47 ; 0 :. ::Woods 1'35 = ;0 '204 :. 235 ~ :_ Tonal 348 0 -432 .:316 ._ e . Phase 111 Commercial. Site (s uare eet, esce r hotels) Hotel (rooms) 600 0 400 .380 0 Mixed-Use 35 000 0 0 30,000 0 Office -0 57,500 ` 0 Retail 10 000 0 0 6,000 0 Restaurant 18.000 A 5,000 12,000 0 Other 0 0 268;000 ° ` 0 0 0 18,000 0 0 0 0 0 1,624,788 8 Total .63.000 `- 343.000 ° 0 348,500 `- 669,300 d 48,000 `- 293,000 ~ 1,624,788 a ~ High technology- center. f offices could be one component of mixed-use development. The Reduced ~- b .Health club. Commercial Develpment Alternative assumes second- and third-story c Without hotel offices above restaurant and retail uses. d With estimated hotel area. g Pen~nanent open space within "development area". The project and all e No assumptions for this part of site. alternatives would prescrve.:open space outside the development area. :Response 28.46 The variation of the .Phase III Site Reduced Commercial Development Alternative (the "Environmentally Preferred Development Alternative") .was identified :after analysis of the •~ originat Reduced Commercial Development Alternative. It is not necessary to .analyze .the "Environmentally Preferred .Development .Alternative" in additional detail. As the 1998 DSEIR explains (DSEIR page 299), EIIts are expected to address a range of reasonable alternatives, not all potential alternatives..... Analyses of a project .and alternatives can cover subalternatives or variations of alternatives without assessing each individually by.providing sufficient information to enable readers to reach conclusions:about such alternatives. :Exhibit 5.4-2. (DSEIR page 319) presents a `Phase III Reduced Commercial Development Alternative Development Summary"..The title of Exhibit 5.4-1 (DSEIR page. 320), "Phase III Commercial Site Plan .Alternative", has .been revised to "Phase ,TII Reduced Commercial ~ Development .Alternative" for clarification. Because Exhibit 5.4-1 .is conceptual, additional detail would not be .appropriate. .However, a description of .the Phase III. site's resources .considered in formulating the land use concept depicted on this exhibit is presented on DSEIR pages 302-304. Response 28.47 Exhibit ' 5.4-2 (DSEIR.. page 319) presents the "Phase TII Reduced Commercial Development Alternative Development Summary", part of the .analysis of 5.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project. Exhibit 2.3-9 (DSEIR page 41) presents the proposed Phase III project, part of section 2.3 Project Description. -The fifth column in Exhibit 5.4-2 entitled "Size" :in the 1998 DSEIR will be relabeled "Development" in the Certified. SEIR, comparable to the third column in Exhibit _ Istter 28-13 r-- r -- :Letter 28-14 Laar Office :of :... ; Celeste 'C . 'Langille .. _ P . O . Box ~5 64 9 -Berkeley, 'CA.. , 94705 _ , (510) 420-1253. VIA HAND DELIVERY LETTER Z9 August 14,..1998 Jim Harnish -_ 'Planning ;~Divisiori 'City of .South-`San 'Francisco P . 0 . 'Box 711 South .San 'Francisco, .CA 94083 Re: Comments of .San Bruno Mountain Watch relating to the July 1998 Draft Supplement Environmental Impact Report for Terrabay Phase II and III, San Mateo County Dear Mr. Harnish: Enclosed please `find our:;c.omments on'°~the Draft Supplement Environmental 'Impact `Report ("DSEIR") `for' Terrabay :Phase II and . :III . fihe' attached .comments are 'intended : to incorporate and supplement--.comments independently-:submitted on' ~behal:f of -ban -Bruno Mountain Watch, as :well as comments by other members of the public, .and .should be .considered :in context with such other.comments. `Please include the above-noted address and that of San Bruno `Mountain Watch, - c/o David Schooley,' P . ~ Box AO, '.Brisbane - CA -94005, in :any :further -communications to "the publc'~by "your office on this proposed project. - "I_~am particularly .interested `in learning=the dates on which the San :Mateo.County 'Planning `Commission, the Board >nf Supervisors, anc the Historical Preservation Committee will hold .public hearings and ;formally_:consder thus issue. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. `.Thank ,you for affording ns 'this opportunity to comment. . Very `truly "yours ._ - ,~l/Vt j Celeste G. Langille r ; cc: :Brian Gaffney, ;£sq Charles M.. Miller., ~ ~:Esq ~_:: _ - ... . .. :.:.:. David `Schooley, :~:an~ =Bruna'Mountain <Wat~ch , :David .Wright, U._ S . .:::Fish ~. Wildlife .Service ~ . , ... _ ~- _ - ;.~ -` I. OVERVIEW _ i__ The conclusion of the .San Bruno Mountain Watch, after review of .the 1998 DSEIR ..for .the .proposed Terrabay -Phase II. and..III +`~ project, is that :the .draft document is legally nadequate~because it fails to sufficiently discuss the`following issues as required by ..the .California .Environmental .Quality Act ("CEQA".): -- Project description, - Significant environmental impacts, ___ ..:..Cumulative, impacts., ;:Mi.tigation, - _ :Alternatives, _ Inconsistencies between the project and the general and regional .plans. ,, ..Failure o .adequate.ly,.,analyze:.each of these ;issues will result in violations of ~CEQA, -the -NationalEnvironmental ::Policy Act , "NEPA");, 'the:Na.tional ?.Historic Prese,rvation::Act ("NHPA") , -the ..:Clean Water. Act (:`CWA"~ r, .and .the ; ;federal .:Endangered Species Act ("ESA" ), . _ . .., .._; 29.1 Under CEQA, if .significant anew information is added to an envir.onmen.~al r.eview.::.document::after the commencement: of public _ review, Mahe lead .agency must .issue. new ~no ice ,and :mus.t recirculate ::..the .revised document,for :additional:commentary.;and-:consultation. (Pub. Res._Code §21,09.2.1; 14 Cal. Code Regs.:§15088..5'{"CE_QA 29 2 Guidelines") . In ,addition, `there does not -appear to be any >re.ference of submission of . his DSEIR to .the State -Clearinghouse as required ;under _ .(CEQA .-.Guidelines -§§152Q5 and 15206 II. TAE PROJECT DESCRIPTION -CONTINUES TO CHANGE -'THUS - PREVENTING ACCURATE ANALYSIS OF TAE PROJECT'S IMPACTS 29.3a An accurate, stable, ..finite project description is an essential-;:element of:-:an informative and aegally -sufficient -EIR ~- under CEQA. County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles, (1977) 71-Cal. App. 3d 185, :1-9:2-193. ;;(Emphasis added) CEQA .requires an EIR to . describe the proposed project .in .a way that will be meaningful to ---- the public, to the other reviewing agencies, and to the decision- - makers . :(CEQA `:.Guidelines ~:~15124) . The -project description for .Phase IIL is vague and incomplete. It is lacking a general ~ ~- 2 _ .._ 29.3a description of the proposed:-:project's echni.cal., :economic,. and environmental .chara.cteristics. The DSEIR itself admits"the= shortcomings of the .Phase III..projectdescription on .Page 5c . ".T.he actual design of the .buildings ,and the,.specific .uses .. _ _ -:for -:each iden ified ,buildi:ng ;pad are ;not .provided :at ;this time. A,poaential~remains that .further~envir.onmental review `could .be. required ~~on a .pro.~ect-by-pro:j..e;ct basis when :Precise Plans ;.,for :..specific development .;proj.ects .pare :submitted to the City -.;for ;the :Phas.e LII. site." - 29.4 Moreove.r., the :fact that the project description is inadequate _is further ;..hi.ghlighted ,by the :fact -chat .SunChase/-Ster ing :has ;proposed an ~-entirely new site :.design, including -new building ` locations and •design pecifications, :on the .Bha~se :III site.. It is noted,.for the record :.that -a study , ession disclosing the„ details for the ,:new, "potential alternative" Phase ILI site is scheduled for .August 27,' .1.998, after :the -comment .:period ..for 'the DESIR closes on August 14, "1998. "No extension `of ;time ;was ~g:iVen for .,this comment period as it had been for the 1996 SEIR by the City of South.: Sari Franc-scc.. -~9.Jr. Even without -ahe ..obfuscation ;,created by the ;post-DSEIR ,release ~- announcement :o.f .an :entir.e.ly :new "potential ..alternative" .:on Phase:: ,~ ., ~._ =~- ILI by the project spoonsor:,; ;the: draft ;SEIR, ;atpage 288,., :;recognized .:the need for ;;clarity .and ,questioned : he -ability :of ;..this. document to ro be .:used as ._an :informational..aool by;.the,,,decision maker :and- tfie .public.: _ ,_ -~ [D]_ifferences :in .,application ::materials.'. descriptions of ,. proposals for .::this ..:site ahould :be , denti:fied to--enable the _ _ project..sponsor :to clarify precisely what is proposed and .when to ..enable. ,public =officials to make .decisions about the project ... _ 29.3b - Phase..,. III is :.a .si a :with .unique :biological ;and :important _ - _. cultural .andarchaeological:.resources. ,Each .new.building..andits .:. _ placement .;on ;:the :site ...must :be separately :.analyzed for .its ..potential for significant:-and cumulative-adverse impacts-affecting the -.environment. 'Without full disclosure of the extent :of he project, the :.public .and -decision :;makers. are--.:deprived >of .;assessing ahe :full ,potential.:for .significant .impacts, ...including the, potentially ubstantial ..:adverse ~:aesthe.tic .;.impact <of ~ a ~ ten .to twelve story _.; _. _ .building on ahe :Phase.., III aite.. ;_ -.. "Only through an accurate view of the project may .affected -outsiders .and ;public decision-makers balance the:..-proposal's benefit against .its, environmental :costs, consider .mitigation measures, ,_. _.. assess the advantage of erminating the proposal and weigh other 3 29.3b alternatives in the :balance." County of Ingo v_ 'Gifu of Los - '~ Angeles, . (1977.) `:71..;,C.a1 ~ ., _ ' pp 3d .::1'85- `1'92-.1,93... ;. .,. . .:. :. , . .. -- .: ~. Without a finite .and static .project ,descr ption 'for Phase III, . _. _ there can be no ;analysis. Hof thesignificant :impacts to this. site. '- ,. Therefore, 'the :public .can .snot `independentl-y assess the impact, wYiich may be , si~griif.cant ~Agiven the resources ~in ahe :vicinity. __ ~` Because the .specific acreage,' ~~building. site ~location~s, as :well -as ,. every 'other project =component i~s :absent from 'the ~DSEIR for ,Phase ~_ III, :the DSEIR'.s entire analysis -pertaining 'to °Phase 'III is __ undependable and .inadequate. The `'DESTR a`-lso `:fails' to ;:account ~ for reasonably foreseeable 29.6 - future phases Hof =the prgposedproject` on ~both"'Phase `II -and..III. See :Laurel -Heights, x(1988) •47 Ca1.'3d'`37~6, `393=399. Because of .:_ _. ` these omissions,, important-ramifications~of the ~proposed_:project .._ `' remain hidden `:from 'tYiis discussion and thusfrustrate 'the goals of CEQA: `Santiago =County =Water ``District v. County of -Orange, (1981) 1.18 Cal . `Apg.~3d `°818. ;830 , . :III. TFiE DSEIR ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING DESCRIPTION IS INADEQUATE ~n EIR must .describe the `""'environment 'in :the vicinity of 'the 29 T - • project" gas ~~t.exists ~hefore the -commencement of "the_=proj ect, from `both: a~ loca`1 and ':a regional ~ ~perspectibe ~ `- "C"CEQA `.Guidelines §15125..) .. `This" description °i~s intended 'to" ~establisYi 'a °~basel'ine :'.for :analyzing ' the ,project" •s en ~ronmental ~°e`ffects . '~`.(C£QA-'Guideiines -'15125 (a) .) Here, .'the DSEIR fails to give an :adequate description of the -- wetlands 'and/or !riparian -`hab-tat `-on 'both 'Phase 'II and III, fails to disclose .the spe~cific~=location and `extent :-of riparian :habitat .in `- close -vicinity to yahesite, :unde•rstates 'the 'signi'ficance of the project `location:-'t~o'i"San Francisco Bay,' and ~~doesn't-.discuss .:any nearby-:wetland ,..preserves.. - ~~- ' • y`°Exhbit ,-4.3-"1 •-delineatesboth potential jurisdictional 4 wetlands `-:mapped `by Vicki Reynolds and also delineates ' additional `- potental~.jurisdctional~.wetlands":mapped'by Environmental _ Collaborative. ":'But; `":there ~is no :othez .re'ference provided for Environmental Collaborative "as to :the tinii:ng or methodology of -- their -delineation. and -no .discussion -°under `Environmental Setting of : these "`additional •potentiai jurisdictional wetlands", or o-f the - potential mpact -to ':them"by `the project `As.-stated above .there is no discussion .of .wetlands and/or riparian habitat from a local :or regional .perspective. In addition, there 'is no''regional or "`vicinity" :description of -plant species Hof concern, animal species of `concern and/or -their 4 .29,7 foodplants . ~ ,Due to changes, in environmental conditions ~-.and ' he - ._ ` ..status ~o;f different species of .concern, previous environmental _. , . . ,, ' review documents ..are not reliable,sources~,of information to .qualify _ - for baseline review. ;Without :.the..abo.ue .information ,,provided in the DSEIR :`there '.can ~`be no .baseline `for, analyzing -.the pr.oj ect,' s .. environmental effects. ., ' IV. ~ `;THE DSEIR IS~:INADEQUATE ' BECAUSE ~ IT FAILS TO ADEQUATELY DISCUSS SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL II~ACTS 29.8 A draft.,. SEIR_ must identify and focus an possible significant environmental mpa:cts ::of :a :proposed prof ec.t.. ::The. analysis. ,should clearly 'iden.tify :both direct and indirect impacts.,.,as .they occur in :< - the short and Gong: term. (Pub. :Res. Code :21000:• CEQA Guidelines _;§ 151.2 6 .) ' An agency should not be allowed to hide .:.behind its own failure to .gather data. Sandstrom .(lst:`Dist. 19.8.8;) 202 CA3d at .:.311.. A. INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE ,PROPOSED :PROJECT AND .GENERAL AND :REGIONAL .PLANS .29.9- Inconsistencies between a proposed project:.and.. __ ;general/regional plans are normally:considered.,signficant:mpacts. ,~ The.'CEQA Guidelines:state that an EIR is required to-..analyzenon- T compliance of he`projectwith he adopted environmental~;plans, ::. such as the HCP, where, non-compliance. represents a significant new ... _ _ . environmental impact.. `{CE"QA `;Guidelines, .App. G,:(a})..(Also;. see p. 93 ,:. of 1.996 Final SEIR) . _ _ _ 1. INCONSISTENCIES::BE.TWEEN .THE .PROPOSED PROJECT :AND -:THE HCP - _ Habitat restoration, revegetaton, - and.,..maintenance of the status of ail. species of concern have.not been successful in various portions of the .project. area ~andin areas._.adjacent ;to the projectarea and are not-in ..conformance wththe .county's ":Standards for determining .successful revegetation especially for disturbed -areas` being reclaimed for :conserved.:habitat and .to be _ dedicated `to 'the. County of San;Mateo in, accordance with. 'the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation :Plan." The evaluation of .the .` failure of restoration efforts.. specified in the,:HCP.is necessary because it has occurred :aver_a `long period of time, and this fai"lure has contnued''far 'longer -than just being- part of the "process of Tong=term restoration plan implementation" (1996.FSEIR, p93-94. The failure of mitigation/habitat restoration/revegetation is not part of the process of.long-term .restoration.-plan 5 29.9-. implementation, 'but :is .a clear :message :that ahe 'HCP .`non-compliance ` has ,resulted `.in .a. prec'p.itousdecline :-in ahe :endan.gered, - - <.., ahreatened, `and sensitive` species Ghat .'once `thrived .on San Bruno Mountain'. 'These species `have been adversely :affected :.by HCP non- •compliance "to the extent- hat this :is .:a _sgnificant-new - ..,. environmental impact, ~°which was notanalyzed. 'in -the -1998 %`DSEIR. :- Add: to -this the fact that the project sponsor is proposing plant ,; species on :their_.,Landscaping -Pa an .:P1ant:.List-•which are not allowed ,-- under the .HC.P due to .their •invasve •~nature. ~,t(DSEIR, p51, footnote .. , a) . Failure of habitat restoration was ident.i:fied'~in the 1996 ._ .:. : DSEIR as:Supplemental' :Impact `VW-1" (1996 ~Fina1 =SEIR .p. `197) (regardless of-'fact `that;•recommended remediation work was :completed •--_ 29.1.x. by Pacific Open Space in 1995.) 'The "1998 `DSEIR states on page 55, footnote' 68, that appl-ication idaterials :from he .project sponsor currently do not .reflect an increase in `HCP 'land to be dedicated - for inclusion in .San Bruno Mountain County Park .. . , . :: 29: ~ ~ " An additional conflict with the ~iCP which.. was not .addressed in - _ .- the DSEIR,as a significant impact 'is the fact that the HCP :cannot be amended until December of he year :.2000, per the .terms of he __. HCP itself . This conflict will :continue _'for he next two_ years and , -- ' needs .to'~identified :as -sigrilficant. Page ~b2 of; ahe =DSEIR mists the required "amendments~toprevous approvals; :the -Specific P1.an " Amendment, 'the 'Zoning District `Amendment, rand ..:the ;Development Agreement '-Amendment . - There is no ~':mention of the necessary ', amendment to ` the "`San .`Bruno '°Mountain HCP . - 2.. INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THEPROPOSED PROJECT.AND .._ - 'SOUTA SAN FRANCISCO'S MUNICIPAL '.CODE 29.12 Phase III, as :proposed, is .inconsistent .with, the requirements _ - of theCity of 'South !5an Francisco Municipal Code. Page 62, footnote '77; references the fact that the'pro.ject sponsor :is seekingapproval "of an `"Initial 'Precise Plan" ;for the Phase III ..: ~ ~.: site and~`furtherproposes..that "Supplemental Precise:Plans"-will be ~: forthcoming `in 'the`'future'~ for ~Phase':III site parcels. `.The -.City o_ f :South. San :Francisco's :hluriicipal ;Code does -not contain ,any :_ `provisions for-.ahe planning hierarchy and terminology which:ahe project sponsor 'is propo-sing. `Therefore, '-the project 'sponsor must amend the:DSEIR ao conform their site;-development planning: to the _ Municipal Code in order to meet the ~speci.fic project ,application ;requirements for City consideration .of a.precise,plan..: 6 B. AIR :QUALITY AND DUST :29,13 'The .project, as proposed, would potentially result 'in significant ;impacts to ocal ~air :quality :::by v;io. sting ~~Bay Area a~:ir quality standards, potentially contributing °s~gnificantly.tc existing :air > qualit.y violations, .sand :,potential>1-y exposing <se _sitive receptors o substantial ;pollutant :concentrations. ,The :finding of less than :si.gnificant impacts ,to =changes in;,;l:oc,al .long-,term air quality is .not.:in sync._with :recent re-,evaluation of Bay Area air quality and the ;realistic.-.effects-::o'f rproject ;implementation on both human ~ and :animal residents . There _ is no _ substantial evidence to support the ,:,assertion :that the -,proposed project .would :not ':have a ..substantial :..adverse impacts on : ocal long- erm Nair qual.it,y. 2914 Dust .has been .identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a .threat to she adult -.and early .s ages of, .the -endangered and candidate ..speciescf butterflies on_San Bruno :Mountain. In his proposed project :there is no :discussion of -;the signific-ant,, cumulative-::adverse :imp_acts .the increased heavy machinery .;tra'fic, .and .removal o f thous ands o.f cubic yards o f dirt :will have -tc the butterflies of the .Mountain. ~~.. C. ,LOSS -OF WETLAND .HABITAT ~::- _29.1.5 p oposed pro}ect urea contains °wetlands, .including :areas -• of sensitive :freshwater seeps, .riparian habitat, and a perer~-~ial - spring, .unique :both :on -a local _,and regional°:~scale_ The basis for -: discussion-of significant impacts on wetland habitat .fails.:to address..:.both.;theunique .and, irre_placeable~:~-characteristics of these wetlands, and location :of :other :potential we hand Dhabi-tat located on he map at :page ,152. This-map :hghlights_wetlands o_cated by Environmental Collaborative, in •adda:ion to:those ~delneated:by the pro.j ect sponsor, ..::but there .is :~no; ,.other.:-,ment.on of ;them .in the __ .. DSEIR... There: is no .refer-ence to -when. ;the :surveys .for the pr~j ect ,area was done :and ;who :or -what. ".Environmental -Collaborative" _s . No delineation...done Eby Army Corps .: ;: . .The importance of these wetlands and riparian habitat is :: summarily .dismissed •,on page 154 by stating that "The -Corps eventually .will verify.:the ,preliminary.-wet and delineation -.a__d determine the :::actual ,.:extent ~of jurisdictional habitat :.on the site as part of its .-permitting .;process.." -:There 'is, no discussion in the DSEIR regarding ;the ocation `;and significance o.f thes.e =we.tlands on .. the ,project site,~to .other rsaetlands in ;the wicinay ;or •:region. 7 1i D. -CALLIPPE SILVERSPOT:BUTTERFLY AND .ITS 'HABITAT L9r. %•b8 ='The ;:callippe silverspotbutterfly was ?listed :as endangered on December `"b,'=1:997 " (62 •~Federal Register~'b4306) -due ~.to a ongoing ` ~ ~dec3ne ,in the =status =:of =this'°~species `'The -U `S. ~•Fish and ':Wildlife _ - .. ... .: Service stated -that the primary cause .of `the -decline in'".thee cal-lippe ~5iaverspot butterfly is--.the "doss `.and -degradation of habtat•".: (62 ~'ed. `~~Reg.. at'°64.311-64312.) The :DSEIR .fa.ils 'to _ re:cognize -the ,role `:that =habitat - pres.e.rvaton and -:restoration .plays in '~~the' survival -sand .recovery Hof thisspecies, 'espec`ially 'in ;light -. of ahe 'fact- than -;portions ~of =the prof ect >area "were proposed as critical' habitat''for 'this =species. `(`43 Fed. Reg.' at 28938 'and 45 .Fed. Reg. at 205.05) ` Section `9 of the "ESA .prohibits any ,person, including any federal, atate or local government entity, from'".taking"~an endangered -or threatened -species . (16 TU.'S .'C . '~§§ 1532'(13) , `1`538'(x) (-1~) (B) :) '".Take"" -•is "defined as "`harass, =harm, pursue, hunt, - shoot., wound," kill, trap,` capture or collect or to attempt 'to engage in .any .such conduct . " (16 U: S .'C . §1'532 (19) ) ° Causing indirect .harm to an endangered species through habitat modification or wand management techniques constitutes a taking within the '- .meaning of the ESA. Babbitt v. Sweet Home Cha ter of Communities, (,1995) :11.5 S_,-CT.'' `2407. ~-- ..- - ,_ _.: , .- - `Page 4 of "the evaluation `by =Richard A.Arnold Hof project 'm: ants Ito :thy` calk _. p ppe ,,in 'the '-DSEIR appendix tates that earlier grading of` portions of =-Phases ` II and IiI ~"probably -resulted in .some - - direct loss •:of the •grassland 'habitat, 'including larval and :adult foodplants, • ~~plus a:ome' _individuals of the Cal.lippe Silverspot." :His evaluation `goes .on to ~ torte : - - - "additional ~~grad'i-ng, which will be :necessary to complete the _ proposed development°s of ahe~Phases~II and'3II portions of the '~ Terrabay -project site,`will also result .ins^the direct `loss of -- grassland.:habitat, larval and adult ~foodplants,':and. individuals :of the endangered Callippe Silverspot Butterfly." °There .is ~a mandatory' :-finding of significance if there is a reduction =in- the 'number =of a listed species, as ".this would substantallyaffect the -callippe i`lverspot butterfly .and -its °- hab' at..` ` `(CEQA ~GUdel.ines, App . ~=~G (c) :) ' `To `the extent •the :DSEIR conflicts -with the .-HCP :"because incidentaltake .of ~Callppe 'Slverspot Butterfly =will -occur 'and no provision in the HCP :permits - :'.this incidental take, this needs to be identified in the .DSEIR as significant impact under Appendix G(c) of CEQA Guidelines... `The `'.evaluation of significantimpacts completely ignores Arnold's - -- 8 2~. ~d~ findings .as , to .the ;occurrence :.of ncidental ::take o:f -.callippe .::and his, findings ;as ..to ~:ndirect .harm :.to ahe aallppe_ The.only -way to ;avoid .incidental take =o.f he ~ callippe ::under :ahe .ESA ~i$ o snot ' implement the project. .; _. `The DSEIR is also :inadequate :because ,<there :is :no discussion of disturbance., i..e. harm or harassment under the ESA, to this species or other species of -concern :from-=>the~:.eff~ects .of '1"fights, air quality/dust, temperature changes, .among many potential-adverse affects 'to ,sensitive .apecies that..would=:occur- fr:om---permanent - - dis urbance :of heir -habitat. : In ..particular, ',the :cal.lppe silverspot .butterfly, and -other butterfly species, are :~hilltopping species ~ see ,page 151 =and <Arnold' s callppe :-letter .yin .:Appendix) the permanent -alteration Hof its :hillside habitat -will. ;likeay <have a -s.gnificant:adversempact. _ E . OTHER :,SP.ECIES ' OF CONCERN `~~ ~- The .:DSEIR _summaril :dismisses an y ., g LJ.11 Y y 'potenti-all s ni£icant -or significant :impacts .on he :other especial-status .but.terfly species. On page 84, it states that.: the HCP "fully addresses .potential _ `impacts of anticipa.ted::development onmission blue",:without any _. , ;analysis -_of the :current s atus •of ibis °s.peces nor including any ._ information. :as to ;;the most recent -.surveys :::for:-this species..; ;The -- project .fails to discuss :.inconsistencies between:;th.e-project and recovery plansforthe listed .plants and species. (See also `1996 :Final ,SEIR, >USFWS ..comment ;let-ter -:date.d ;2/:1-5/96..: .:;F. ~MISCELLA'~]EOUS.:IIr~ACTS _ _. Ly.:/~ From -a a.ocial -and -:economic :aspect.,:. the project •as ;planned and implemented adversely .mpacts.p.eople :of a~ss.er <~economi-c :weans. The residential-housing on the-Phase II site provides no rental housing. (DSEIR, ..:;page 34. ), Also, :because `the average ?price of a home .on .Phase I. was we.ll.:over ;$300,D00 it could ~:be :assumed .that Phase _II :housing ..prices will be in excess ;of ;that ::amount.,:- well 'above what the. .average xesident of South =San :Francisco. would be able to afford. <There is no attempt .to:.provide affordab a housing . for'. South ,.San. Francisco -residents . ,< .__ _ ._ _ 'V. THE ;DSEIR IS.:::INADEQUATE:-..BECAUSE .IT DOES"3~TOT INCLUDE A SUFFICIENT .DISCUSSION :~OF:~.MITIGAT-ION MEASURES -~'OR ~SIQI.IFICANT • ENVIRONMENTAL ;I1~A~CTS. _.- ..__ - An EIR :must identfy,,and =.:describe. -measures :needed .to -reduce or -avoid.. each .po.tentially significant environmental. -.effect =of ;the project . (Pub . Res . :Code X21100 (b) (3) , CEQA .Guidelines 9 §15126 (b) ~(3) .;r},,Because the-DSE2R does :not :discuss all >s~ignifi:cant ` . ~ t -adverseimpacts, -as •shown ~abo~e, -:then=the°>discusson •of mitigation -- presented to ~da'te >can ~not'possibly'have ;identified gall `=the ~~specific ~' ~~ ~ ~ mitigation measures which .must be addressed -:~n ~:parti:cular, the Ly. / y: DSEIR fails to .:address ..impacts and :mitigation. provisions for. '!' :pesticides and~iatroducton ofwinvasive species -_ - ' A. "GEOLOGY, =:SOhLS'~AND ~SEISMICITY= -` ~' _ ~= ~y~~(~ :Proposed :mitigation ;measures pertaining to' geology,; :soils, -and sesmicty;are vague ;'and -inadequate. A .:key -.example of {this is 'found on: Page '12'0 which,' `~by way ~•of pan example, 'uses _Phase I implementation .as :analysis towards'.~potentially .mor-e significant `impacts :ahe -"volume ;and areal ::extent :of `:mass •grading '`for landslide ~- repair could be greater with project:implementation than'~cur.rently es imated." It went on to state.:. ". .The .environmental .effects would include disturbance of _larger areas of natural .slopes, loss of more native vegetation, :pot-entially `:i'ntensfed short-term air quality (dust) and construction .noise :impacts and possible encroachment into ?the ~iCP :area-:" . The ;mitigation -measures. :for these potentially additional significant `impacts .do snotaddress the ..above .__ language ;regarding .additional -adverse effect anticipated .from the __ actual :;prof ec implementation. -- -Fturther on,, .page -.12:0 states `that "no::miti~gation 'is °propo.sed =for landsl`id'es identified in the 'Commons '. . ''~ neisghborhood ':and :::Phase .::IiI ..site. -`''The measures °discussed •on ahe ': following ,page ,are -not :clearly .defined. ~, Other vague ~:itigaton ~-measures include ~us`ing placng~'net'ting ' around rock ..features to :prevent :ahem from moving (page 7.9), and building .retaining walls higher ~t-han Caen ~f~eet ~to .''hold back unstable -- hillsides (page 77). --Other .mitigation measures address the need for more -:detailed :soil and -geot~echnical" studywhich `is obviously needed bef:oze ,further :review .::can pz.oceed. - Without fu71 •disclosure --of alI zthe adverse impacts of ahe `~ proposed ;project .and resulting :proposed mitigation `measures, the - extent ~o:f. po.tential <°degradation .to the adjacent ~senstiwe ;hillsides "(HCP area~j- is <-unclear. `The .huge responsibi3ity `for -inspection, _ <monitoring, ,:and :maintenance °of futureerosion =and land movement -- should not .:result in an umfair`~burden ao 'the 'homeowners/owners of the proposed project, to `.the .local government, or to the :public at large.,: due`; ~o ,•'faulay~ analysis,;~of, s~gn~fcant impacts :::and - impl;einentatiori' of unattanable`~-mit:gat~on `:measures . ' ".This .past winter and the adverseimpacts on _~the =steep .sl•opes surrounding the Northeast Ridge project are a clear .indication that the .most .--- ~- •prudent:-:approach pis-'ahe =implementation of -a :project :with .the aeast `amount =of ~disturbanee `to `the -existing environmental ~ conditions 10 ,. . ~~ " -B: CUMCThATIVE ::IP~ACTS .: __ ~~~~f ~ 'The 'DSE`IR's "failure 'to adequately address cumulative impacts does not :provide an opportunity to'address.mitigation-of ..these. potentiaal~y significant "impacts. - An `EIR`>must discuss .a project's cumulative impacts ..when they:are significant,°.tPub. Res:~Code §21083(b); CEQA Guidelines §15130.) and must also-examine -:.: „.. _ reason' able 'options- jfor ~mi~tigating ~or avoiding significant cumulative impacts. (CEQA .Guidelines§15130 (b)'("3) .) .Because the DSEIR fails to adequately .address all the cumulative impacts resulting from this ~~proj ect, it 'follows `chat' any discussion of ., ; . mitigation-of ,'all the cumulative impacts "will .be inadequate. The`DSEIR also fails to address°the cumulative ``impacts of non- comp'liance "o'f °the `HCP as predicate for additional mitigation measures. _ - C. LOSS 'OF JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND.HABITAT L~.~2 Any mitigating measure which provides for in-kind replacement of wetlands on the same localized site from which the .original .,. wetlands: were :destroyedsimply does `not :make sense. (DSEIR, :page . ' ' 86.") `Thin is markedly notable on the Phase III °si.te -which is` := basically wetlands `habitat in -its entirety, especially':during the :winter months . 'The discussion" as to implementation of 'how `no net ' .loss of either `wetlands `habitat values or `.acreage willoccur is ~. `whol'ly inadequate 'because `there is~`no di cussion of where other ` potential `sites containing thesame unique `features might `•~be -. located. The 'lack of potential replacement sites :for project mitigation. enforces the rationale towards preservation .rather. .than degradation. :(See page`153,''-footnote~134.) 29 23 -"In addition, the feasibility :of long-term "monitoring of any and':all -mitigation measure's`~for'sensitive resources. on the -Phase LII site is-questionable"given difficulties in enforcing compliance and potentialturnover-in ownership and/or 'tenancy. 'D. -CALLIPPE SILVERSPOT BUTTERFLY - Gy.~sb As per .the above :discussion regarding significant impacts to the>callippe, incidental°take i~s likely to occur unless the ,project is `substantially °re~designed -to ~avo~id 'any -and all``harm .or harassment to-this .species.. The strict requirements of the ESA would not be 'met by mitigation measure 4.3-2, proposed on page 84, whereby only avoidance "of all larval host plants would be necessary. This would likely necessitate the .creation of a large buffer zone between any building site and callippe habitat to avoid significant obstruction 11 LJ, IOD, of .:.the callippe' s essential behavior ,,patterns ..,;..,:•The ".salva.ge and ~` ' transplant:existing larval host plants and-adult :nectar plants".as ;; a :miti,gat.ian measure would :need to be ..analyzed-:;on.; he ,basis of .. - feasbility.of ahe .different plant species:..toboth r.ecoverfrom '~ ~i ,transplanting and:-adapt t~o new.. and.-different ,envir.onmental ; ; -~ conditions . (.DSEIR, spage _84. } . ;_._, _.. . ., ~-' ::- ... , `JEGETATION , :REI~JOVAL, _ WILDLIFE,... HABITAT -..TABS, AND Z~NDSCAPE ` ;~== ,.E .. _ ,. .COIy~ATIBILITY :,The .salvage :component to the proposed restoration plan -- 29.24 discussed in ,part on ,:page:-84 s_ too tenuous and unp.redictab e o be the predicate action for mitigating the significant impacts to these .- ubstantial and _.irrepl.acea.ble-hiological :resources . The - monitoring~and :implementation :o f., the salvage ,component .appears to ~, be unrealistic and unreliable in terms of the financial .and long- term commitment necessary to make it a .feasible mitigation measure. Creation of a "replicate" perennial springs ;underscores the unique characteristics •o,f this ;irretr.ievable :resource. F. TRAFFIC-AND :PARKING __ S In .general,-the .:mitigation measur.esproposed ao.reduce:'.the ` :29.25 ignificant impacts to traffic appear ;to depend,on:.:unattainable .,goals and .speculative .funding ,f or,.mplementation_ .For .:.example, he ., mitigation measures ,on page 190 .and 1.99 which discuss .the :potential ;significant effacts if .-the development- is not_;reduced :by .64 ..:percent ~ ,. _ - _. and 59 percent .respectively, : depend..entirely on speculative :-future. funding and:>are .wholly inadequate, -in addressing :ahe already.,: -~ unacceptable,.-traffic .levels in ,the project area. '_ _ . , . _ ., ,: _ 29,26 The proposed mitigation measures :for Phase II address the deficiencies of the proposed dimensions of on-street :parking. ~ _ ..spaces, :garage.. spaces,. -and driveway -apron spaces -:are .:inadequate.. :(See pages .195-201.) All the . different,.measures :required .due to 'the y!= .deficiencies in the :DSEIR appear.;.:to, b.e,.;competing.with -.each :other :, ~` for space. As the project is :proposed, -:most .of the...above _ dimensions are sub-standard and do not comply with City codes.. - There is not enough emphasis :on .housing density in relationship to _ street width, parking, and safety-concerns. The .mitigation 12 TAE- DSEIR CIS '-INADEQUATE BECAUSE _ 29.27 VI ' IT :FAILS TO ADDRESS TAE ' ' ` ''IMANDATORY COI~LIANCEWITH SECTION 106 OF `.THE NATIONAL ~AISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT As page '2.79 .of the :'1996 ~Fina1 SEIR for'~ahe Ter.rabay.Specific -'Plan :<and -Development-Agreement- Extension recognizes, ~~that ::if; sites CA-Sma-40 and-CA=Sma-92 -areeligible :for 'listing ~on the National '- Register of Historic "Places_and.a federal permit .or .state<permit pursuant 'to federal"authority .is required, 'National `Historic Preservation-:Act ("NHPA"=}' review :"would :be triggered. - These -two conditionsappear to `be =met"- in the.'~1~998 DSE`IR, =but no mention of `NHPA 'review is included.Page _282 of~ the DSEIR tatesthat ; it is "believed that he site {CA-Sma-40:)=.meets the-criteria fore nomination o the National :Register of =Hi~storc:Places." Page .286 of the DSEIR states -that "Based~on its close<proxmity and possible connection 'to he ;larger -and presumed-.to-be :important ~si~te .(CA-Sma- 40) , '-CA-~Sma-92 =also may have a potential for meeting -CEQA criteria as an important-cultural resource." It also tates`that in the event that further research establishes such a connection, it is possible that_the two sites-could be perceived,as an important archaeologi-cal -district.-" ` -Property eligible for inclusion in ~-the' National Register of `Historic P'Taees is ~no limited=-~to properties that have been officially determined o be eligible, but includes `properties that :may :qualify for inclusion under the `regulatory criteria.' Colorado River `Indian `Tribes v. "Marsh, (C.D.~'Cal: i985)~ `.605 F: 'Supp. 1::425, 1437; ..3.6 -C:F.R. §800.2 (e) , -'800.3 ('f) :"~. "Pages "68-70list ;the .state and federal agencies 'and respective 'permits °needed for -project compfiiance . ` Amonq"ahem :are `the i7. S . ., Army-Corp of Engineers and 'the USFWS. ;Because a Section `4.04 permit, :under the Clean Water Act' for °fi1`1 ofjurisdictional wetlands,.will ikely~be required as well as an Amendment to the "Section 1~'(a):':permit; under 'the 'ESA, for incidental `take of the Callippe°Silverspot butterfly, then compliance :with all procedures and requirements of Section 106 of 'the `NHPA' is '~mandated,'``~including estab`lishment` ,of a Memorandum nr 'Agreement -with 'the State Historic Preservation ''C3ffce that pecifies the mitigation 'required for Section 1'06 compliance. 'An additional example of a 'federal undertaking which would `qual'ify `foi `NHPA -~revi~ew 'is "~ he ` NPDES ;permit issued by the San.. Francisco `Bay `Regional `Water Quality Board :under the-Clean .Water Act. Under'NAPA'§106, federal agencies must take two~actions.before issuing permits :`for activities Ghat may affect ;properties listed or eligible for listing on°the National"Register. An agency°must consider the effect°of the project on' uch properties and must 13 X9.27 provide.. an opportunity <for :comments to Abe made _to the, Advisory , Council .on Historic Preservation. 16 U. S : C. ;::§470.(f) . Both '.the Natonal~~Pidvsary ;Council;~Rand.:~ahe .`State Historic ~Pr.eservaton - .. _ - . ~. Office shave extensive 5.authozity to_rcomznent~_-,ion ~a °p.ermit application. - ;_ . , Until `the exact .conditions of these significant cultural .and -- archeological :resources are ,fully; -researched and <addressed, without degradation; to the she3lmound, .the=e~:can be:_ no:.>~adequate,:basis of - :~ disclosure to-~ the_ public sand ;the ::decision~.maker ~~as - o ahe ramifications :ofd -disturbance or: significant impacts to this site.. -:-Total omission .of any reference to N~iPA review, =as already - discussed. in :ahe 19.96 ; SEIR, >as •~well =as <the ack :o.f ~nvoluement of '- members 'of the Native -<American .community, ;under cores the recognition ;of these: invaluablesites gas both archaeolo.gi°caa and - cultural-:resources.. ~.Compl:ete participation and input `from :the Native American :communityi-s indi pensable to -fihis-assessment, - especially; considering the. `factthat members .:of this community beli_ede :?that :the aarger-.and -smaller "-sheilmounds are linked together.,;pos ibly as one::integra site. Without the above information,, he significant :impacts. are unknown. ~. ;,. VII. THE DSEIR IS~INADEQUATE BECAUSE IT .DOES-NOT INCLUDE AN ,-_ 29.28 AnEQUATE CUMULATIVE .IMPACT .ANALYSIS - ,Cumulative ,impacts are , defined as two , or more .individual . - effects Which., ,,:-when :considered ogether, are ..considerable or -which _ , compound or :increase.°:other .•envronmental~ impacts. (CEQA Guidelines ~:- §15355.): A cumulative~.impactanalysis-must view he ;proposed -~ project in connection , .with .other ;related, ,past, present, and reasonably :foreseeable .probable:,, future :prof acts .whose impacts -might compound .or :.interrelate with chose of the .proposed _,proj act . EPIC v. Johnson, 17.0 Ca1.App..3d 604;, 625. ~ ` ::.The. 'DSEIR .only .discusses the ,cumulative .impacts ..of traffic circulation, fair ,quality., and public... service _imp.acts . .it - ~- ;; completely .and totally ignores the ~umul.ative impacts,,on sensitive ` ;plants and .animals, on :wetlands, ,.:and. on.' historic .,and =cultural ;-- r.esources, :of, .the project.. .::This :.analysis is ,particularly - ;1 important ..here .because of ..the historic .loss of habitat which :has ~- r -led to 1is.ting the .San .Bruno Mountain's ,;plants •and ,animals as .threat.ened, rare., - or endangered. .The DSEIR at page -335 .does make -a cursory .attempt to ,dismiss `: the ;cumulative effect of ,::impacts., to biological,;<and archaeological resources., .abut ...omits any ::::analysis..- It ~r.eferenc.es :the EIS/EIR ` ;prepared ..for the .HCP :in 1982, ;:but..neglects to .address the changes , :::which ::have oaken -:place in he last .:16 years . 14 ..-- .29.28 :One -example ;=of ~a- :change in a:species :status :i~s =the ;aistng -of: ... 'the ca.llippe ;silverspot :butterfl riue sto .=a -;decline yin -population Y'~' over Maheyears ~Anothe.r -example °is the "bay ~ checkerspot which ;was addressed. 'in °ahe °HCP,:.and =had .-proposed cri`tical'- habi at on'=;San ::Bruno. • :Mountain, abut 'twas :-.~ext~:rpated =from the -~HC•P:~iarea uaround .398 6 ..in .:part ~~ ~b,y non-native:::plant .~n~zasion,: -:taut::years pinto •-the rHCP ~- -- - :...: . implementation. (Draft °Recover-y '.P-lan =:for `Serpentine :Soil Species of the :San ,.Francisco Bay Area, February 1998., page II-193). :The Recovery .:Plan for the bay checkerspot states at ,page II-191 that ahe "potential far reintroduction =of 'the bay.checkerspot ~:on -..San Bruno Mountain .deserves investi~gatan"~.a~nd;^on .;gages..~I•-166-168 that ..an site with a - Y ppropriate:habitat.in the-vicinity of the historic °range °of.::the bay checkerspot -should 'be :considered, potentially-: .: occupied-°by the ;butter-fly.~'~ .. _ :.. - ;The .implementation .:of the : HCP on San Bruno Mountain has :`had cumulative significant .adverse impacts on : ensitive plants :-and animals which .must :be considered aspart of 'this EIR. Those .past projects -which must be _cons.dered -:are --each :of the other -amendments to the HCP allowed.aince 1982; '.the-:developm:ents on he=`Northeast Ridge, 8adio -Ridge; .:and :;Pacific :Pointe;- -the failure in '~;HCP funding; .and the inability of he °•Habitat .Manager o either -successfully restore rare plants and plants or to eradicate,invasive non- ~. natives _ ,. __. ~. _ ... h, The present ~ and reasonably.- future .projects nchu~des all development and projects i~xi.: vthe p.roj~ect :area, : zcludng the - ~ NortheastRidge which =had Joccurrences ~o'f ~landsl`des this past =~ winter., and :especially :the'.~'East-~ of 141 area„-;;projects .. The East of 101 area .consists of four distinct subareas, including East of I01, Gateway, Oyster Point., -and :South Airport. (DSEIR, page 64) The ;East of 101 -area `deveaopments =appear to affect :la-rge ::amounts of - - =wetlands -or 'San .Francis-co :Bay-ad3.acent tidehands. 'Yet, here is no discussion of.~cumul.ative impacts on these, ensi-five wet and areas. <These .incremental .yet :.cumulative-effects are exactly ahe `types of projects for .which the:Cal:if.ornia 'State :Legislaturecre-aced_CEQA to govern.. <_ : ~ ; , : -, , _ The ,.omission ~.o:f :.this .crucial evaluation. renders the -:DSEIR - wholly inadequate gas :an informational ::document :for <the ..public and .thedecison-makers':. - ._ ,. - VIII .. '':THE `t DSE IR :IS ~'=WADE ~ UATE ::~E CAUSE ' I T ~~DOE S NQTINCLUDE A .SUFFICIENT _.DISCUSS.ION ~OF :ALTERNATIVES - 29'29 The DSEIR did not .analyze any alternatives for-the :Phase TLI to which did .not as=sume .-construction o~f the 'U.S. 1:01 southbound hook ramps and realignment ;of Bayshore::Boulevard. In:~addition, 1$ i 29.29 -besides, ,-the :Pha•se ZTI ;;;permanent ~-o~.en space alternative, the:DSEIR -~~ -did not :address ':the -;poesbilt.y •of :-are:duced~~°development•-.on 'Phase III -+ which would ~be~?,limited ~ao `the .area south ~~of .both.`:CA-:Sma-40 'and CA- ;~_ Sma-92, :;including ;a ~buffer:;zone -:-Thi altternative would :reduce the ~~ commercial ~~development ~consi-derably, ~~but ~wauld .also aVOid - he ~_` unmitigabae -significant. impacts -to ~~traffic,- ~3ong .t`erm asr quality, •-...and- biological :and culaur.al resources . - - . - .3 r •s . _- . , , , _ .. - - ;IX. THE .:DESCRIPTION °,OF .TANG=TERM AND 'IRREVERSIBLE -ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENC£S:.IS INADEQUATE ~ `. 29.3 This 'project propose to ~e.llow •massive new development _~to occur in he-same vicinity as .,populations of,',among:::other,`San::Bruno, - Elfin, Callippe Silverspot, and Mission-Blue .butterflies. The populations of :Elfin =and-`Mission Blue -continue'to.decline without =any movement 'towards recovery -:from' their endangered status . ".The -- f~urther •-decline >of species -populations is :de :facto _a long-term and ~ _ irr-eversible>envsronmental consequence. The loss~of important jurisdic Tonal •~wet ands can -not be, adequatelymitigated. -Failure ~-- .' ~ao :assess < hese impacts :makes :;this °document -inadequate :as ___ informational ,=document- 'for local ~-decision Tnakers or the concerned public. .. __ •_ - . ,_ - -X. Il~LEMENTATION .OF -THE .:PHASE .II RESIDENTIAL .AND PHASE -.III -. :_pERMANEN.T °OPEN-:SPACE :ALTERNATIVES IS WITHIN-'THE.'DISCRET.ION OF -TH£ ~C.I:TY ~OF-:SOUTH -SAN.:~FRANCISCO .AND s:SHOULD BE `.THE ':NECESSARY .__ ':MITIGATION- ~E~OR'-~~EXT3TING :ENV:IR~DI~Il~NTAL'CONDITIONS, ~:PRESER'~TATION ~. OF <:CULT[JRAh :-RESOURCES AND AVOIDANCE.: !OF ~:UNMITIGP,BLE ADVERSE - _ -< _ :SIGNIFICANT.EFF£CTS ~Pub.~ rtes . Code `21004 provides that -a public agency :may -use 29.31 _ discretionary :powers `provided -~by ;such ;other haw -f.or the ':.purpose of __ mitigating nor -avodi-ng a -significant ~eaffect :on =~~the -environment. The 19.96 :'Pains]: SEI-R .considered ~cul:tural :resources ,mitigation and preservation Lo'f -a ~,por~ton' of °Phas:e --III .as °open ..apace . ';(1:996 :Final SEIR, p293). Any fill or capping of the main shellmound°willlead _ to severe or total destruction of this. important cultural and _ archaeological landmark.. - The :Phase ':I:I:I ~s:rte .contains''important :and =: irreplaceable :wetlands . =~s 'part of she proposed •critical :-habitat for the Callippe Silverspot Butterfly, the -loss of this `habitat and "~ food source will likely jeopardize the continued :existence of this -. <endangered~spe'cies ~:Together with:: the ;=,abo~e sreasons, existing traffic conditions .and .pair .aquali`ty.' maridate``..reduced development •of Terrabay Phase II and III. ~ :•- - ~ , .: ,. _ EIR' are the primary .:means .of achieving the!po1`icy goals that f agencies ".take ;>aTl ';action necessary - a :pr.otect, rehabilitate and 16 29..3y enhance the:environmental quality of the state."' (Pub.. Res. Code §21002.1, 21061 .and. 210.81.) CEQA is to be :interpreted to afford the fullest possible .protection .to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language. 'Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com., (19.97.) 16 Ca1.4th 105. XL. CONCLUSION - -For the reasons set .forth .above, the DSEIR does not meet-the requirements of CEQA and should be revised. 17 LETTER 29, SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN WATCH (CELESTE LANG/LLE) .. .._ esponse29.1 .:Although xhe comment :does ;not :identify _ ignificant ;:new _,mfoimation, the .. commentor,is referred.toMaster Response 73:2,: Response 28.2, and Response.Z9 4 _ .. Response 29.2 Letter 00 of August .17, 199.8 from Antero _Rivasplata, Chief, State:~Clearinghouse (SCH), states that the City has . "complied with .the. State Clearinghouse .review .requirements for draft ,, . environmental documents,;pursuant to-the Califorala:Environmental QuaIty Act" .,, _, . - Response 29.3 ~ 'The comment confuses tfie City of `South San `Francisco's . tep-by-step planning .process .and, in misunderstanding the process, questions the adequacy of the description` of the Phase III site: development concept, character~ng :it as :a "shortcoming";;of the Phase III project. The 1998 DSEIR (DSEIR pages 1 and 2.~ :clearly.: identifies ahe actions requested by .the project ..(Specific Plan .Amendment 'for the Phase II .and III -sites and. Precise Plan approval..for the: Phase. II site). These different step~in the,planningprocess defineprojects at different.levels of detail. The first sentence of he „paragraph ,cited by this ..comment reads: `;"[t]he level of detail - of ties SEIR's analyses is :commensurafe to the detail. afforded: the ;project"., ..The .19.98 DSEIR :discloses this :difference for readers to .understand why the Phase'II site's Precise .Plan provides more detail than the :Phase -III ite's Specific Plan.. ,, . - _.. 'The 1998 DSEIR also informs readers that, as :referred to by -the comment, "[a].potential remains that :further environmental review could be .required on a;project--by,project:basis when Precise Plans for specific develQpmentprojects•are;submitted to LheCity_for the Phase III ite", (DSEIRpage :~. When :_: ~:, - ubinitted in'the future, sponsors of specific:development"projects would be required to prepare individual.Precise Plans in themanner that a Precise Plan for the Phase .II site has been submitted to . the City.for ,approval . ;Each respective.P_recise Plan would.,be required .to show lot.;and building :dimensions, building.footprints, elevations, and. ail other details of..;proposed .development. 'However, ,: ... -the commentorshould note, that :the location of building.footprints:in relation.to.existing:.site resources -would be of less importance and, in .some .cases,, :irrelevant. after ;creation of : graded ~ pads .than the -disturbance.caused by~initial site grading ,,The;pending,project requests,grading;;permits for-both the Phase II and III sites, and he project sponsorplans xo commence,,grading immediately ,after project .approval. ~ - - To date, the projectsponsor has not revised the,pending application to replace the,proposed Phase III .. development.concept with the new Phuse IILMitigation Plan Development.Alternatiue..Therefore, -the 'Phase III project analyzed by the 1998,BSEIR has not,changed during or after thepublicreview period .and remains ,that evaluated.in the DSEIR: The visual effects of a ten-to 12-story office building would ,, , - not exceed oraubstantially differ.from those of an 18-story 400:roomhotel,previously analyzed on the ... `'Phase `III site ' m the .1982, EIR and 7996 SEIR. The :City's ,approved Terrabay Speck Plan would allow uch development without the Specific Plan Amendment .currently requested Eby the ;project _ ~_ , _ - sponsor. .. , ,_ ., Response 29.4 `As described in the immediate preceding response, the project sponsor has not ` -revised the..project description: 'The new "1VlitigationPlan" is an alternative until the application .for the'Phase III development concept is revised The City.can approve:the,project-or:anaIternative. _. _ 'Buildinglocations `for both the ,project and .new Phase ..III Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative :are defined `by proposed.,.graded ,pads (Ezh'ibit 7.3=1). While the new Phase III Site Levu 29-1 . ~ r-- Mitigation Plan Development Alternative. shows office.building and garage locations on a,graded pad, 'the footprints are schematic.. The Planning Commission.scheduled separate hearings and study sessions on the. DSEIR and. project - -_ . `and did so'before the pro~ectsponsor eitheranbmitted the:new "Mitigation'Plan". as a-comment on the EIR (see"Letter"'Z3`).orpresented`the concept at•public hearings orstady sessions.'_'~The public hearing, on the 1998 .DSEIR was .-held . on . July..23, 1998 during the .July .1 through .August .1.4, 1998 . public ,. , " `~.review:period. Study sessions on merits of:the project~were divided into "separate"Phase'.II and Phase "_ . .:. . "' III' discussions,'the'timing of which straddled the' SEIR. public -review. penod ~'It is a `coincidence but not relevant'to the ~?Il2'that~the' Phase II study session was held August 13°("during" the DSEIR public ;review period) and the Phase III, study session was held. August 27 ("after"- .the DSEIR,.public review `,_ period).' .. _ The.: public review period for the ,1998 DSEIR :was 45 . days ~ `long `:Comments did not identify 'significant new impacts` omitted `from the °'1998 lDSEIR or .raise questions :in response to -which ` '`subsequent analyses, conducted after the close of`the public review period,identified significant new ~- ~impacts. ;Zf °either ituation' had occurred, .the :City. would -have `:circulated the new "information for public review and-camment. `In~the: absence:of significant new impacts not previously disclosed to the ` - pulilic, the City ~is not required to extend or reopen public review (see Master response 7.'3-2). Response 29.5 The 4998 DSEIR statement referred to by this comment is 'typical of an EIIt on a ~- specific .plan,, (or specific. plan amendment).. While the.type .of;.definition,aesired by the commentor ;- , would.be.ideal, such detail is .not imperative._'for.reviewing environmental :consequences of and making _ ,_ ,. _ decisions :aliout'land rase and ~development'~oncepts '(or substantially:.changing 'the land use and. '-- p p gram), pecially `with implementation, in the .case cited, of " `,_ develo went ro es ,. 1VIitigation :Measure ., ~_ _ . '~Response:29.6 ~e 1998 DSEIR analyzes"-.both theproposed.Precise::~Plan'for the'Phase"II site and. -,,:. _ - ~tlie..proposed .Speck -'-Plan al~menclment=for'the.Phase ~ -situ. The Precise Plan provides'detailed site, grading, utility, -acid building plans ~ for'the"P,hase `:II :while ,the :spec fic .Plan.. Amendment provides ,-grading and utility`;p1ans~~and a`develnpment''description for°~the``Phase:TII site. "The development identifies proposed'land uses and intensity expressed as a.range of the amount of development which - 'could be~' implemented. 'The"7998"DSEIR :analyses assumed 'the maximum intensity of development and .maximum site disturbance to .disclose conservative: worst .case impacts. ,In the :first case, for instance, traffic .and, associated. air quality :analyses assumed maximum _buildout. In 'the.: second case, ®, _ . ;. ` .:geology :and'biology analyses assumed maximum disturbance of existing conditions within the area .: -. . .;-proposed for, graiTitig This approach "is stapdard practice for'EIRs ''The analyses contained. in the '- 1998'7~SEIR' would not cover specific°development,projects;proposed..in -the future which .deviate .: ,__ substantially`-from these assumptions ;(or assumptions previously :analyzed in the 1982 :'EIR .or 1996 ., _ 'SEIR) anii would not cover refined or revisecl.projects subject to.substantially different.on- or off-site --' conditions: 'contrary to the comment,'the ~1998:DSEIR does not fail to'disclose.reasonably foreseeable _ .,: _ ` `future_phases of the project on either site but addresses full buildout ofboth sites. Response 29.T The 1998 -DSEIR .Appendix 7..1 identifies the.,people .involved in ,,preparing the DSEIR, including `the `biolpgists affiliated with Environmental Collaborative 4.3'Biolo~ summarizes .. :.,, ., 8~ P P g v. studies and re orts re~wed :'~ ~.in ' re~arin ~ e ration (DSEIR page -147), .including :previous .. - p p paring and detailed surveys conducted to confirm -.the presence or ,absence .of sensitive resources on .,the .site ...:Where .relevant, -the biology .analysis >adequately : presents ~ the relationship flf the site .ao surrounding habitat and sensitive .resources, .;:including ~ information on vegetation `.and wildlife .resources, special-status apecies, and wetland "-- J resources. This .includes a detailed discussion :of .the habitat characteristics and distribution of special- Letter 29-2 ::status; plant. and animal species imown from::the B_ay:Area:and San, Bruno:;Mountain vicinity suspected to.possibly occur: on the site. :The 1998.DSEIR also;explains -the,.detailed survey5::and,assessments conducted .by the ;project,sponsor's consultants or~the IIR<biologists under each of.:_the:;respective _ _ ~: subsections.(DSEIR pages 150-153) This.includes a description o£xhe wetlandkassessment:performed by Vicki Reynolds.,;(the;project:sponsor'..s wetlands: specialist) and the peer ,review performed by the EIR biologist. Refer to Master Response ~ 3-8on wetlands,for a y M, ; .,plated information on.verification of .wedandsby;:the.Corps and adequacy ofahe proposed conceptual wetland mitigation plan. Response 29.8 The 1998 DSEIR focuses ,ptzmarily on the .s:giiificant impacts :expected :.from implementing :the _pro~ect~ ::However, it .also assessed .some :potentially significant, effects .which, upon ,:. ; :. revaluation, were found to r'esult.in less-than-significant impacts (3.3 Less-Than Significanttlmpacts), In addition, the 7998 DSEIR analyzes direct, indirect, short-term, and .long-term ~ impacts. The numbered.impacts:.(4.1-1 through 49-2) are the: project's:direct.:impacts. Its indirect:impacts relate to unintended : -secondary effects :of ,; nutigating; significant -.:(direct) ,impacts, -and ,:subsections on Significance..After.Mitigation..discuss .such indirect impacts. where. relevant.:Short-term .effects occur _ ..during construction :and include -air yquality (Impact 4.5-1) ,and noise :(Impact 4.6-1.). Long-term impacts can include otiose during::the "life" of development..(such :as loss.; °lamage, or ,destruction of environmental resources) or :those projected for a reasonably foreseeable time horizon (such :as cumulative tiraffic impacts:.forahe years:2010.and 2020). :Response 29.9. The 1998 :DSEIR's background discussion (DSEIR page ,147) :.addresses. concerns .about the adequacy of the project's ,proposed :Restoration .Elan and .its relationship to :the :San Bruno ,:Mountain Habitat Conservation Pla_ n ,(HCP). The.:1998,::DEEIR ,reviewed ttte adequacy of :the ~~roposed Restoration Plan . (DSEIR .pages ;1 S6-IS?) ,.,and recommended : re!isions. ~to ;,.the plan in .:1Vlitigation Measure 43-1(b). T1~e,...1998.:DSEIR .concluded .(~ESIR;page :156) Ghat provisions .in the ,proposed Restoration-Plan related to eradication of;perennial weeds and; calling,for-,minimum success =criteria for native cover.estabIishment should serve to-address problems previously experienced with _~~estoration.efforts,on the ]?liase.Isite.and..raised:as:a-~oncern:by the:commentor :Further.-review by the ,:'HCP monitoring consultant:<j Plan,.Operator should ensure-ahat._the~,landscape .plant.ast..s :revised ,~:appropriately_and that all.aspects of the protect comply,;.including.restoration.of.,erodedalopes.. Refer ;to Master Response:,7.39.:on callippe.silverspot for,additional infprmation on.:the.adequacy of the .HCP in protection of sensitive species and: unique: resources on: the,mountain. .. 'Response 29.70 The;project's final,.grading plans ,would_determine the total amount and .location of FICP land ultimately .dedicated o_the .San Bruno,Motmtain County,Park. The „project sponsor's >consultants were in ;the ;process of ~refining,proposed.;grading<and geotechnical mitigation measures during. the time ahe 19.98 DSEIR and 1999 :FSEIR were. being :prepared.::After.ahe sponsor finalizes those plans, including incorporation of relevant ,:.(or equivalent) .1999: FSEIR ,mitigation -measures, the >actual location of the HCP fence :and the amount of land .added to the HCP can be identified. The DSEIR,page_70. lists the location of-,the 1YCP,fence as.one topic. the~IICP~monitoring consultant /Plan Operator will address'in reviewing, he .project for.compliance with.:ahe-H.CP for the:U.S.:Fish and Wildlife Service. (iJSFWS). , Response 29.71 Terrabay Phase II and III,project does.riot require~n amendment :of .the.>HCP..The .HCP provides for development on the Phase,II:and IIIsites.:and for.review..of •speeific..pmjects when ` : iiltimatelyvproposed there for. compliance .with the'HCP. Compliance :reports =must, identify. -.the final ~aocation of the HCP, fence, the..project's proposed.restoration;plan,;,and, relevant .CC&Rsections (such as those related .to :pesticide use). ~ The 1998.DSEIR,.adentifies .:.the.need.. for ~ uch .,review in 2.5 .. ._ 'Administrative Actions. Footnote .76 (SEIR. page 62, the:.;paged .noted,:by this comment) refers readers to the subsection on administrative..actions., The "footnote states that "[p]ermits and. approvals required by other agencies are identified at the end of this chapter.(see 2.S Administrative Actions)". Letter 29-3 ~- .., , .. _.. .:. :. ~,-::. ; ''Refer'2o Muster:Response''73=9 on call~tppe°silverspot fora~detaed discussion of this species, the ~provi5ions`~d: adequacyof the'HCP'in=addressing potential impacts oil this:species, and need for.an ,... "`amendment to the'Section'10(a)'penriit to add the: caliippe silverspot as a';Iisted species::Amending the ,Section 10(a)permit appears to ' be largely a .procedural requirement and should not, result in any " . . <~additional regwrement of .the landowner 1 developer `Mitigation 1vleasure 4 3=2 vas. structured to . ~ ;. ... '.:requie that'the project`be °redesxgned ~to avoi'd all larval `host plants of the caliippe silverspot if .an atnended'~inciclental`~take ~pen~riit''is nof--~obtained -prior to protect .implementation,'~with .additional measures recommended to rr,;nin,»P potential .impacts. on this species. Complete avoidance of all ,. _ . ' ": larval .host=plants ~is not considered necessary .to fiilly mitigate .potential.impacts on callippe silver5pot = - ,,.. .: abut is a technical~regiiirement~if,'for some reason,'the incidental. take.permit isrnot amended to include `?the callippe '; - . . -. `Response29.'72`The°City-would not change its established:planning process;fora single .project and does not contemplate doing°so for the'`Terrabay~Phase `II and `III .project.. The revised 'text of the Speci, fic.Plan AmeniLnent ultimately must conform with City procedures. 'The referenced 1998 DSEIR _ :discussion was presented to aclaiowledge this requirement. 'The `City is lead. agency for. preparing and certifying the'SEIR and~isresponsible for making any modifications`'to theaext. ~:._ Response 29.13 The air. quality .analysis prepared on the project`for the 1998'DSEIR`evaluated both ~-" -short-.and long-term air quality impacts. Short-term construction impacts on air .quality were found to _. _ be .potentially -significant =.but ~iitigable (Impact 45-1). 'Shan- and long-term .impacts on local air quality were`found xo be -less=than-significant '(Impact 4:5-2). ;=Long-term impacts on .regional air -°- :quality were °:found'to :be :significant and unmitigable, as is thecase •wth `most large, .development projects in :flie Bay. Area' (Impact '45 3).:..This :is consistent with the~~•regon'~s "current air quality - - ``•at*a-nment~status -~:nonattainrrmentfor~;ozone'(aregionalpollntant) and attaiainent for cai'bon-monoxide ;-_- (a local air pollutant). Response'29.14 `The `"1998 TySEIR (DSEIR :page 158) :aclmowledges-~concerns .about the, potential ___ host-tens impact ~<of dust ~~generation on"larval and adult' ,butterflies, rand ~iViitigation .Measure 4.3-2 ,. _ ' `includes:a~provision°to°mplement appropriate•dust.control measures 'The'1998 DSEIR also identified "- `-measures to'reducevisit?le dust clouds~from extending'beyond construction ~sites:.(Mitigation Measure 4.5-1) and to reduce particulate'=errussions ~(lVlitigation'Ivleasure 4:5=3).' •Other development in the ' ative.increase iii the: amount of .dust particulate .matter '_ vicinity of .the site. may contribute to a cumin ,:. " `found . on the mountain aid :surrounding areas:, although "the distance `between `the "Terrabay site -and "` ather'.large .:projects ,(such `as development underway ~on the' northeast ridge) and .prevailing westerly winds yin 'the' area most likelywould make .any cumulative, contribution:. negligible.' ':The Gong-term _ ' effects'of on-going distnibance`-associated•with`the quarry operation m Brisbane.:and dust generated by >this`facility may be of greaterconcern`to the ITSFWS and other agencies..-'; ~Response28:75'The`1998.~DSEIR'defines"wetlands •and describes jurisdictiorial'habitat.nnae site `- ' (DSEIR pages T52-153):`:Italso :discusses ~the~ preliminary :wetland delineation .conducted for the :_. -.project sponsor by .Vicki Reynolds and the peer review conducted by` the`EIR'biologist'during the :1998 DSEIR's preparation. _ Wetlands indicated on Exhibit, 4.3-1, :.mapped. by :both ;the project- - ponsor's sand EIR'' iiologists, appeared -to .meet the definition .used by the'U S .Army:,:Corps of Engineers (Corps)`''The~:extent~of jurisdictional wetlands_on the.site was reviewed by'.the.Corps, as 'discussed in' the Master `Response 7.3=8 on' wetlands: , It is not clear why ahe. commentor believes the '_- ' 1998 7~SEIR ~reference~ to `'the verification process.: on .DSEIR,: page '754 "summarily dismissed" the `importance.of wetlands and nparianhabitat on the. site .The 1998'DSEIR indicates the.importance of 'these `habitat :types `throughout°~the'liiology~~and other'sections of the .report, and the ..discussion of -_ ?biological unpacts :(DSEIR page I SO) concludes that the `loss of jurisdictional wetland habitat would be . ._, 'a significant~impact of~the project requiring mitigation. _ .,, Letter 29-4 ~Response:29 y6 :The comrnentor's.concems about ~#he :.potential.~impacts..of ahe.project~ on callippe silverspot buttetfly.aze noted. `.The 1998 DSEIR provides background:information. on thestatus, habitat characteristics, and distribution of this :and other species of concern . (DSEIR pages 150-ISI) and :assesses .the.potential: impacts ~of~#he~;pro~ect~{DSEIR .page :IS8) =:The ;comment :does :iiot raise new :information :or .conclusions different: han_those ;presented in the;1998;:DSEIR.. As::ahe -1998 DSElR ;:concludes ~:(D.SEIR:.page;ISS),.:the~,potent<al,.:direct:~andindirect impacts .of the_>project would be .. ',:considered significant underCEQA. Adverse effects-would include=loss=of:larvai host plants and adult foodplants,~~dust ,generated by::construction: activities, .and possibly ~the°take.of.individual.butterflies. The: commentor.is ~.correct:.in~noting;that ;salvage...and:::transplant._efforts recon~mended~>in Mitigation Measure 4.32 would require-.consideration of.:indi~idual:characteristics<ofeach:plant>species and their •suitability for use in restoration. Refer to the Master Response 7.3=9;on~=callippe~ailverspot for additional information on the status of .the amendment :application to .allow for incidental take as ..part ..... . .Response=29.17 ;The1998 _DSEIR (DSEIR_ pages .:149-152) provides a .detailed =discussion of the -:potential for occurrence of special-status pecies:on;the.site,;including~-butterfly species;of concern. As indicated ~on:DSEIR~page. 7.Sl,,the secentcendangered tatus of .the=callippe silverspot raises .concerns about ahe~potential.>impacts :of the :proposed: project <.on. this `subspecies Nand °ahe adequacy of FICP =provisions to.:.address=habitat oss.:Qn the other:.hand;=the: status of mission. blue has -not changed since completion'.:of .the 1996 ;SEIR, sand:::the. provisions =of -the HCP .and .:previous EIR =were considered ..adequate in .addressing ~ahis :species..:Attempts to obtain inputfrom the USRWS during preparation of -the 1998 :DSEIRwere :unsuccessful.. :Comments .received :from the USFWS `(Letter l2) focus on compliance with the landowner /.developer obligations defined in the hlCP.and avoiding larval host "~,,~lantsof the callippesilverspot-which s~recommended bylVlitigation Measure 4.3-2. ,. ,. ..: Response 29.18 'The .comment addresses .the: merits of .the project, not. its renvironmental impacts. Environmental <documents:address; significant ~or;:potentially~significant adverse :impacts on physical ::conditions -which :exist. =in :,the area,.;:affected :: by.:+xhe proposed -•project, snot social >,or economic consequences unless there;is.-a:directtphysical:connection as::a result.of.socialnr..economiceffects. The ~; comment does not ~~provide substantial :_ evidence ::making'auch . a •direct physical :.connection. No ., `-additional:response;is:required. :Response 29.19 The 1998 DSEIR discusses the .proposed Restoration Plan and its provisions .for ,control ~: of invasive species ~(DSEIR,:pages .156-.157) .-This includes an acknowledgement that control .measures may: include .application of_.herbicides which :.would :be=::reviewed._carefully .by -the HCP _monitoring consultant /;Plan :Operator.. >. . - , Response.29.20 ~?he 1998,DSEIR:discussed Area R on the :Phase I site o .provide example of the increased;:area:for..,landslide,mitigation:as,something~wlrichdid~happen:and.couldhappen again during . Phase II and III grading. In that instance, the :area :of;potential: repair for Landslide ;R was ;recognized, and the HCP fence was located above the area of.potential disturbance. 'The same was true in the Area C and D .Landslides. No ,grading stook :place -:above:.the_FZCP Iine .:during ~ the _~ritigaxion of these recognized andslides:;.:Similazly,:ahe,areas of~known<.landslidinghave:been identified on the Phase II - and III sites, :and.::theHCP:fence':has ~been:aocatedito anticipate ahe landslide mitigation:: As stated in Responsea3.23, :it~is<not;feasible ~to:develop the :Commons neighborhood as;presently proposed .and ~~ot,.create athe.;~potential #or significant::regrading,,:including 4~above : he :hICP -fence. ~` -Therefore, the . .:currentplans:needto:be:modified.:~ ,.. ,_ - ,_ See Responses .2L14 and _I3.22, respectively, .regarding rock >slopes and .-retaining -walls. The commentor; also ~is referred xo the full; discussion : of ,these .:impacts;:in the .1998.:.DSEIR :text .which Letter 29-5 - =provides :context :for >the ;determination :of .impact :and ::identification '.of mitigation :measures (DSEIR .. _, :pages 123-123.anda17-1~19,-respectively). ` ~. _ ; . ..,. _. - -. - . ,. - ; - =The EIR geologist .does not -agreexhat`the analyses ~re~anity and:°ihe+mitigation measures ,unattainable. %- Theperformance.history..of Phase :I=grading-after-several significant-winter~~seasons clearly shows .that ~•the design criteria~used~;were~appropriate .'..T.he :phase -~ 'slopes •were subjected to the same'El Nino _ ,::season as;the~Northeast.Ridge pro~ect.~:"The:199.7=~I998'E17.~Imo~:storrtis:caused some:minor sIipouts: in . ° thePhase:~Ldevelopment-which did notimpact anyfiomes.Ar-streets.:The debris flows~which occurred ~rere::all<.contained•within.the~Phase:=lsite debris basins:(eee.lesponse;21.I~;:and:the:temporary.Phase <:II and>III:sitesiltation brims '=The~itigation.measures.:identified for;PhasesTI and'.III are similar to °rthose:usedan;Phase°I. ,. _. - ~ - ,. ._ Response 29.21 The .1998 DSEIR addresses cumulative. traffic, air quality, and public service (police ~- and school) impacts for three time horizons -.years 2000 and 2010,for the Terrabay Phase II and III _ project andyear 2020.forthe hook ramps' project: .Other``sanalyses :took cumulative`=conditions into :account:in::deteranining~the°significance°of.mpactidentified.as:.a:result.=of=implementing the project -- ;(such ~.as ion =archaeological=and =-.biological °:resources). ::2.4 Cumulafiwe'Development, .identifies .the assumptions-used for~the::DSEIR analyses=including-development both:east;andwest:of'U.S. lOl in the City-::gf:South San Francisco and.-inBrisbane. sIn addition°ao'the~'topical::analyses -presented in ___ .-s:Chapter 4.0, the -1998-.DSEIR'sconclusions--pare s»mmari~ed:in -6.T Cumulative Impacts. `Issues - -:addressed there.include=traffic:and circulation-(DSEIRpage-334) air~:qualityF(DSEIRpages 334-335), - public-services {DSEIR page 333), sand biological .and:anchaeological .resources ~ (DSEIR page 335}. _~. _ - _ "The HCP-consultant /;.Plan-Operator.is-responsible.for:~reviewing~the:;project's compliance:.with the :_ . HCP, and the USFWS ultimately.must determine compliance. Doing so is a separate action from City '~~.consideration~=of the adequacy Hof the :1999 FEIR -and`ts ~ certificationsas complete,'as =indicated in .2.5 AdmiiustrativEActions=(DSEIR::Pages-::68-70). The::PlanM~lDperator~(Thomas:Iteiil Associates) and _ USFWS>mayguse.the :1999 FEIR to=make their-.decisions. ~Jntiltheir=respective reviews -pare complete .,andaaJdeterrnination::is made; there,presently~is;not~any:~itwdicati~on~that the.~roject wouldfail to comply ;with the ~FICP: sand=.that it ~would:require _additional.mitigation,. as- his :comment asserts. Both non- compliance and potentialcumulative impacts from such •:purported °:non-compliance :would be speculative for the 1999 FEIR to assess. Also see Response 29.II. - _ ° Response29.22 •~:=complete avoidance of jurisdictional :-.wetlands 'is snot -:feasible,:preparation of a ~ - • :detailed~:wetland ~mitigation~plan would be:~~ecessary, ~•as ,called ror yin kMitigation :Measure 4.3-3(b). _ Both avoidance .of .existing wetlands -.and dedication Hof . additional `land ,area 'to create in-kind ~replacement.habitat would require modifications to the proposed approach to development. As noted - by=~.the ~ commenter, avoidance of -existing ;wetlands °-would be'~fhe preferred -approach to mitigation, althqughcreation.,ofssome replacement;habitat appears• Likely =given'the unavoidable impacts associated . _ -with the realignment of Bayshore Boulevard. - Response: X9.23 ;The Mitigation Monitoring Program :for 'the -project swill consist of ,all mitigation ~~measures;presented ~~in:the ::1998,~DSEIR and:199,9: Fi'SEIR; will Xinclude :any> sdll:relevant measures __ contained °n the-1982 ~~FIR .and ,1996SEIR, ~and-~will :identify ~~vhen mitigation sand > or :associated -monitoring • would ,•be :'deemed ~ complete. > City -approval ~~.of the :project --would be ,contingent on implementation:andsequiredmonitoring=of::whatever~tiuration~(short::;or'long_terin) identified by EIR mitigation measures or attached by the City as conditions -of °project :approval.: ~In ~addition .to .the :enforcement .:powers retained by the City, it could require :inclusion of appropriate :additional :provisions : in CC&Rs =for the :Phase ~ III site.'``Because .CC&Rs run with deeds ~°to property, their _ .provisions .would- continuewith changes in ownership. ~ ~`1Vloreover,'the City will have the :authority to ~- enforce CC&R provisions. Litter 29-6 'Response 29 24 :The :1998 DSEIR :provides:additionalinformation on 'the :adequacy of ahe proposed %':Restoration:Plan :on :DSEIR pages <156-157. • :Although : salvage: and transpiantirrg: efforts must be performed: carefully and timed Ito ensure optimum•conditions"~for.survival iris a•~technique which can ::beused successfully:•as-a•component=in~revegetating:graded~slopes.`=aMitigationlVleasure 4:3=1(b) calls =for revisions Ito the:..proposed RRestoration :Plan ~to•~include pan aiiditional .component for seed collection ~andplant salvage:and~indicates that operations be performed during tbe~•:optimum period necessary to `ensure plant: survival ~ The ~:comnientor's concernsabout=the °feasibility :of Fadequately` protecting and . ,possibly:recreating :the perenniai-spring ~:of :the `Phase <III =site •aze ..noted: `. ='The :1998 •.DSEIR aclrnowledges ~ the difficulty of • recreating the perennial ~ s rin p ' g (DSEIR, page 1:60), °and.for°'this reason '~MitigationlVieasure 4:3-3(a) specificahy-regtiires'the spring to ~be; preserved and •a minimum setback of 50 feet to be provided around his .feature. This setback would . be'~provided :as -currently.-proposed by the Phase 111 Site Mitigation Plan-Development Alternative-assessed in.MasterResponse 7.3-I. '.'Response 29:25'Please-see Response 13.35. Also, the '1998 DSEIR's description of :the Significance After Mitigation of Mitigation"`Measures 4:41 and •4.4-4 recognizes the speculative' prospect of ' obtaining funding-to provide :physical improvements :and indicates that, without major reductions in project site development (from five to '64 percent depending on the impact), °project impacts would .remain significant and unavoidable. 'Response 29.26 This statement :of opinion (concerning the dimensions of on-street parking spaces, garage spaces, and driveway. aprons) isnoted. - - • Response 29.27 The comment questions_ whether or .not CA-SMa-40 .qualifies for :listing on the .,- 'National Register of .Historic Places. ~ The 1998 DSEIR; page 282. states that the site :is believed to meet the .criteria' for` .nomination to the .register. :.The .register is ~ governed by the .National Historic _,. Preservation-Act (NHPA). Master:Response 73-3; provides a det<tiled:discussion.of the.applicability .. of the .to.NHPA to the azchaeological site. Response.29.28 The 1998;DSEIR. briefly summarizes:in the Impact Overview:;(DSEIR page 335) the ~: cumulative impacts of development on :sensitive biological,: wetland,+,and~.archaeological resources initially ':identified and discussed;n the :main text of the :report <(Chipter ,4.0). ~ ',The 1998 DSEIR also refers to cumulative analyses :from,the. previous :EIRs:for the, project.and .theEIR /EA prepazed for the -.San-.Bruno Mountain HCP. development .in>azeas east sand.. southeast .of:;the site would -have little cumulative effect on .biological resources associated .with -.the .site .given; a fact that the U:S. 10.1 corridor currently separates-these two areas. -Any wetlands remaining in the area eastof U.S. 101 would;-be protected by Federal and State laws and local policies defined.=as•.part of the specific .plan adoptedfor`fhe area. ~=.Controls on=erosion and~sedimentatiomcalled•for m'Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(c) -should minimize the potential affects of project implementation :on •the cumulative degradation of =water quality and wildltfe:habitat value of the `Qyster`Point estuary,, As also indicated in Response 29.21, ` the ~ 1998 . DSEIR identifies ~ the significance of impacts "in' :relation to ::relevant cumulative conditions.. Moreover, the pending project's .impacts .aze assessed- in .relation io current and expected :future conditions,. not past condttions. _ ~. _ .. _~ - ~. _ Response 29.29 The :hook tramps :and ~Bayshore Boulevazd rrealignment >were. identified in the 7982 EIR :and ~1996::;SElR;~:on `ahe :three-phased. Terrabay development .project as .part:_of a Oyster Point Boulevard .interchange ;reconstruction, a component:of -:regional ~~~transportation :improvements to -mitigate future cumulative conditions, particularly City of Brisbane impacts. These .transportation -improvements ~also° are ~-~suiiject ~to -an`~agreement~<between the'Cities ~ of Brisbane sand `south .San `:Francisco (Letter 26). •'The currently proposed design for'these''facilities is'itself an alternative to the design analyzed .in the 1996 'SEIR °which ••was :found - to :result "in significant -.unavoidable .adverse .:impacts on archaeological resources. The transportation improvement -project evaluated in the 1998 Lena 29-7 ;DSEIR subsequentiy:.was redesgned:to-.relocate the facilities away .:from the=1996:footprint - ay from CA-SMa-4U: The ongoing Route:•IDI /Rayshore Boulevard.~ook.Ramps.Project.Study Rep rt / Project:l2epon,(FSR /PR)--beingxpreparedfor.Caltrans by the:City's,~engineering:.consultant, . rian _>Kangas Eou1k.(BKF), is.documenting the.pro~ess:of identifying alternatives and refining,.the pref rred alternative `..`project" co~+eredby_ the.1998 DSEIR. Preliminary drawings; to.be<included ;in the R / PR, -are now:.-available -The.;1998~SF1R~ncorporates the PSR /. PR by.reference. (DSEIR: page 9j, and -the,PSR /PR,is ~on_file end: available~for..;public:review:,at ahe-:City-Department- of.Public.;Works.:For _. - ~:.these reasons, .all 1998 DSEIR alternatives to;the,proposed:~'errabay,project:.assumed-.the hook r ps ,and Bayshore~Boulevard~as;proposed:for:except~the `>`No,Development":alternative <The,..1998.D EIR addresses •ahese .:-transportation <improvements yin .=the :;discussion ~.of Alternatives >Considered .but . ::Rejected (DSEIR:page::305). ;- ', ._ , . _ _,.. The Phase III site alternative suggested by the comment -assuming development limited to the p of the site located south of~CA-SMa-40-and CA-SMa-92:including ~°a :buffer zone - is~a variation o .the :Environmentally :Superior . _=Alternative. It was ,.identified: <as rthe, Environmentally Pref rred ::Development.Alternative-ands discussed,on DSEIR pages.328-330. --As discussed in :response to they eomments~and in the 1998 DSEIR (DSEIR: page 299): EIIts are expected to address a range of reasonable alternatives, not -all potential alternatives. ... :Analyses. of a ....project and .alternatives :.can .cover aubalternatives or ~rariations •of.:;alternatives .without assessing -each individually by providing sufficient information., to enable readers to reach conclusions about such.alternatives. CEQA does.not require .analysis of variations` of already considered alternatives where the variations do not,present any„substantially different environmental advantages or disadvantages. Response 29.30 The -followuig discussion will`be added to the Impact 'Overview of the Certified SEIR in response to this comment: 'Protect ~imuleinentation would comIIiit the Phase ~ II and lII sites to develonmenr-such thaf thev =could not`be returned to~taistine ~prevailin~conditions m~the'future. ~Vliile larse-parts of both `- -sites have'been altered substantially bv`prior sradine~and are m'a desraded condition-other parts of the site`contain°resources'which wvould'be'~dama¢ed-or'destroved. The-site'~s-archeoloQical,~ cultural and historical resources are non-renewable If destroyed. -CA-SMa~40:-and CA-SMa-92 would~be lost_ : :. No other non renewable resources are present on the site which .would':be _ lost :due . to :pmiect ?implementation and which future generations could not reverse However.:the.pro>eet also would present both short and Ions teen commitments of nonrenewable .enerey resources to build and: maintain site develovment (short-tennl and for transportation to and from the site (long-term). Noy. aspects of the uroiecf would result in consumption of energy resources dispropomonate to.other similar:development. _ The protect would affect the site's renewable resources consisling`onmarily of_wetlands and .habitat which sugports special status species While avoidance remains supenor to mitiiranonl .~;throu nplacement~and°/ ~orrestoration these`losses would not.'be irteversible-and~ could be mitisated successfully under-CEOA -Nevertheless intact resources have ~hi~her habitat values than altered -~-replaced, or restored features. .. - . The : HCP. rwas formulated .and :.implemented .to :protect the.:biologicalresources • referred ..to by this comment,-as discussed inaesponse:to :other..comments throughout this document. "The incidental take pernrit. acknowledges that site development ,potentially°-could :affect -these species ;but allows such r- I.etoer 29-8 individual losses as part of the overall preservation process for San Bruno Mountain and the species it supports. IIIlts .have not been required to assess the "relationship between local short-term uses :and long-term ,productivity" since October :,1994- when this provision .of Public Resources -Code .Section 2T100 was :deleted. Response 29.31 The comment expresses a preference.for Phase II and III site alternatives assessed in the 1998 DSEIR, and inclusion in the 1999 FSEIR will make the commentor's views available to City decision-makers. I.ctar 29-9 -.'LAW .OFFICE OF Charles :M.:Miller `' '225 :Bush, 5mxi - = ~] 6c6 Floor -_ ... _ ,:.- . ,~, ;San Fruzasco, ACA 94104 ... '.Telephone: (41.Sa.432-83.57 -,, .. .., Facsunilec E415) 439-8358 :LE.7TFR ~D ..:August i4, 199s R E C. E! V _E D _ ~ _ -. ~ . ,. ... - ;. --. AUK ~ 7~~~998 Isr . :Jim Harnish - Planninq Division - -City of south. San Francisco `PLANNING P . O . Box 711 ,; -South San: `Francisco, CA 940`83 ._ `'RE : "'CO~bl~ITS ON' DRAFT ' SIIPPT r~rx~ra~t 'E1~TIROAII~NTAL II4PACT 'REPQRT/'!'ERRASAY .PRASE II `"AMID III . .Dear Mr. Harnish: We are :pleased to-submit the following comments on he Draft Supplemental Environmentallmpact Report/Terrabay Phase II and III Y`:Draft-'1IR"3 • yThese comments are `submitted .by the --Paj aro Valley -Ohlone -Inc-laa- Council` ("Ohlone Council" 1, and San .:Bruno Mountain Watch ("Mountain Watch") (herenafter collectively referred to as "Commentators,":). l These comments are .limited :-,to_ :the cultural--:and =historic preservation..issues r~rased .by the .,.proposed project.2 :.~ . -.The Ohlone Council was .formed in.1985.,a and represents 350 people of Ohlone <,descent. :=Mr..-Patrick Orozco is ahe headman of the . Paj aro,, Palley ~Ohlone .: Indians .and ~:chairman_. , of the Ohlone >~Council.4 (See :Exhibit, No., , l .:attached, "Comments by Patrick ~Orozco of -the Paj aro Valley Ohlone ;Indian :Council ..regarding the 1_ . In . su}soitting, these. comments the.. Qhloae :,Council ;and :Mountain Watch .adopt and ,.incorporate"herein by reference.all other comments •submitted by the 'public, except those`o`f the proposed developer, °3unCliase G.A. California I, .Inc (^3unChase°) and any-:other:.person>~r .-entity: upporting the .project as described in any way in the -Draft. =EIR, ~.oZ :.:presented ;~by 3unChase as a modified project plan subsequent to the ,publication of the Draft EIR.. _ - -2 "The term project, as •used `throughout this ca~went, .refers :to the Terrabay .'Phase II and III proposed deve3opment.~ ' Although a description.of .the.Qhlone Council is provided, no description of 'Mountain Watch is :provided as it is believed that the City-of South Ban Franci:aco (^City") is already familiar Frith Mountain Watch and no description _. .... _. _: i- . - is necessary. ... _ .., .. ' ;:A:headmaa_in traditional`'Ohlone culture i°s aoneev~at.~aimlar ;to the:position of chief .in other. tribal traditions. `Page `1 _ 08/14/98 .. - f ..:~. , San :Bruno Mountain ShellmoundN) _Because Mr.'Orozco is a direct Ohlone descendent he 3s ;particularlyqualified to :comment on :the ,project's .significaat~~ impacts `~on the San Bruno Ohlone Shellmound (Ohlone Shellmound") '.'located w•it~hn - .the project' `Phase III . It . is apparent that ~tihe City .has expended significant .time .-, .and effort in preparation Hof the Draft .:EIR. 'Nonetheless; '°:the . r draft EIR is deficient in several significant .respects ._ . As `discussed more fully below, -the Draft 'EIR fails i.n~ `.the :following :respects.: _ ..:. ~ .. • fails to provide a definite :project , .description -so that the project's impacts can be `clearly understood - .and ;eQaluated:..as,., required:.:und_ er ' he; ..California _ ,-, _ . :Environmental-Policy. Act ;("CE.flP,") {Public:Resources ` _: . , . Code § 21000 et seq.) ; --- + fails to evaluate the project's impact on historic ,,:resources as-..required -under CE(]A; • fails to evaluato the :,:cumulative impacts of the - _;pro~ ect. ion the Ohlone_:Shellmound ,as-:required :under .::CEQA; :..: • =`fails':-to -:.propose•._mitigatons that would reduce ahe ` proj ect';s impacts on ;:the .4hl~one'~~~hellmound to :aess - 'than •significant levels as required under CEQA; ,'-~ fails rto consider whether'the-Ohlone-Shellmound is -- elgible '=for =3isting'=on the ~~California itegster of _ - ~Ii~storc tRes`ources :'(Public ;Resources Code '~ 5024.1 -and '14"{CCR ~ ~ ~4 8,51~j ; _ _`_: ` "• `°fails to °.procde'~'for ,compliance .wth_~_the' National historic ;Pres_ervation .Act ,( `NHPA".) . (15,,aQ. S. C..'~.470f et -:-seq . )., =and-:.:related :,:federal.>slaws,. re.gu3:ations and ;-- ;exe+cuti~e ~-orders ; :and , - . • :fails . to, ;;provide .for ,compliance wiah ..the .:National `- Environmental Policy :Act (:`NEPA") x_(42 =U. S: C. :§-:4321 et seq.). ,. _ ~~ _ - - `These deficiencies are of` such a significance -ao .as .to render the Draft'EIR completely deficient.. '.The:Draft EIR must .therefore :be.::<completely .rewritten. - '.The ~-rewriting.=~of >the>~Draft _ _. Page 2 48/.14/98 L. ~EIR must -be :done in full compliance with -.all applicable :federal and. state:::aa~rs :.:and.:regulatoas .: -:It is :Commentator': s position ., ;; that..:onee:•=.ths is ~r~one :it swill :become ;:~read'ily .avparent that h~ 30.1 project -should not - ,:built. '..The :.documeatedFantz+,; ty of CA-°SMa-40,, :.based on the ..radiocarbon -.dates of •x:,155°~years :B.. P.:, ;~~suggests that he mite may ~be she "oldest -of its ype" on the ..Peninsula and perhaps within :the=San'Esancsco Bay region. Because of :its `long ,prehistoric occupation- _ ~;~.5155 8:.:P.: to •x'460 $. P ) :and the .fact that::~few :such rel~atively:.?,undisturbed . shellmounds :still ::exist in .::,the :Bay Area:, :.~it certsn].y ~-is y+one ;of e:.••best-.. -available -examples" _ :of -'the shellmound-type sitE I-.. 'TSE: =SIC'~CANCE .:oE' `:THE •OffiOI~]E SBELI~DID -There is -no .;dispute :*hat .the 'ahlone •.Shellmound>'.~s a significant cultural.y::and azstorcal site.. Nonetheless it will be useful o briefly ..discuss that significance. prior to turning the .Draft EIR' s -deficiencies -:The historic °sgni'ficance -;of.~~he =~:Ohlone ~Shellmound is dramatically pres-.ented .in ~~the ":Prelimnary.=Report ~~of . ~- . - Archeological Investigations at she :.San ~$runo =;Mountain ;Mound, Site CA-SMa-40,, South San Francisco, California ("Preliminary - __- ___ _ Report".) .,---by :Holman &. Associates ---(December =19:8:9) - : By .:virtue ~:of ::being the ;:oldest -<occuped ~~ste yet :found on the :,Peninsula--the !initial:arrival -of people ~in -°the Bay Region >beng =an. important prehist:oric.::event-and..~by.:_containinq ~~Qdenceof ;:changes < in .:aubsstence:atrategy ::and stylistic .-: - changes _s.over :,time probably ,:related to -=she :. - - replacement:~of the ::.alder ~:~Hokans ;by the amore recent ,: ,Penutians, :.:another ::;important°=hstnric :event, wand by containing .a weary long cultural sequence - :comparable - -- - -.-to ;~;ther-<stes -~-cross aheatate., =-4 0~~s - --.- - --- -- - assocated with .~`vrtuall~-.>all:'~of =:San rFrancsco ~~Bay Region prehistory. wFinaly, she ~d~scovery •-o`f =a very late prehistoric component at the site ties Sma-40 to .the ~peziod~~f ~acontact»between wEuropeaa and. Native- cultures,-an :important `historic-event in California. (Preliminary Report, p. 83)(Emphasis added) ..;This historic ,significance is:~echoed in -the Draft EIR. Page 3 .08/14./98 i l 30. y, ` `' ::Archaecingcnl :sites .approaching the antia+~; ty of ACA-'SMa 4;0 .eke ~xamp~les ,~of -:the ::;eldest ;settlement -and :economic .patterns .yet >found'~arouad ~-trie ::Bay ~'~The .. ~- ,_. site is one :of 'the-oldest shellmounds an the Bay .. __mar~rn .`largely =>due :~o ats._a~nzgne ~.ocation, on the to.e of a steep slope : at 'the edge , of the '.Bay, .which ._ _ ;made -it ess =-subject .tc bur~,ng.. under colluQial: _ . _ .->allu~ial., :.:or _sub~queous sedimentation. .(Draft EIR, p. 284) tEmphasis :added) ':But,-.of :greatest : mportant~ance ZS ~~the cultural and historic -~ significance ~Yof ~~the :Ohlone=::=Shellmound~~~ o =,the°.~Ohlone-;people toda~r. --Here ~atrck ~~roz.co offers_ ncompelling .testimong. In walking ~thi°s :.land, :gone ban s:ee that this is _' first of all, a place of peace. In looking at the terrain., I °--found •--evidence of '-EC, ~f~re ~cra~cked ..rock, ^- which indicates that ~~there ..:was ~burning of _~tone .for __ eating Los <:cookrrg. S ::found =:chest' that ;shows'there ~_-: °was;::~manu~facturng -=of :,arrow.:~pont~s... I: `.saw: the richne-sus'- Fo~f ma:dden., .:::which _ t.ell~ ~e ' -that : ,these :.are :burials -.there . _~he ::color aof.the:,.~oi1~~:Mis ~~~dark: . that'=s -~her~e °~ou ;find `~evdence ~~.f ';:occupation ' gar _bt~rials..= "'The :.file-c=atked~nck ~~y_~the stream.=`tehs :_.. me ::that ~the~~~.~wese ~bnrnisig~~the ston~es';~oreweat lodges wand ycoo~ri.ag•:dpurpos~es (used~~,for -coo~cn~-:acorns =dr :.salmon} ~Ttie° ;~vil"lage~ras ~slo~st :1lkely lacated ~._. _ ._ . where ~tthe bayahore' "istoday. _ There °are in _~y :~$opinon :hundreds of ~ gravies.. (Exhibit _1, p. Z)(Emphasis added) `a ;As 'I walked ahe land, I -could :feel the >~presence of {my] .;ancestors 'that ~--are ;buried ~ there and the hundreds-of graves there. In particular the ;area .between 'the aarge°-sand' amall '°Shellmound is akely ao :have isolated ..burials . -. (.Exhibit 2') •: _ °~Mr. -Orozco -?further testifies ..that not Delp -has '.he performed -- Ohlone religious >>ceremones ~:;.at `the'~yOrilone`~°Shellmouad, but .that other Ohlones :have `;probably -.done "the same °in recent` years . (Exhibit ':3,, "Statement ~:of '..Patrick ~.Orozco; :August 14,` :1998h) ~- -- _Page 4 :08/14./98 .. ~. r .: 3~. i 'The. ?Ohlone '<~hellmound, ~ ~:along'~with the valley :in~~rh..ch it sets, ,~~and_ the... smaller ~.3hellmound, ~.wlich :is .;above : ahe ~=Ah7.one .. 5hellm©und, ~.~.is . a ,single ~sacred~~and ~dmport°ant::.acultural .~t~e Ito the =,iDhlone :.peopl-e.. -:(Id.~=) ~.:~he~re..:,are.,:graves ,;not-:only:,~,n::~he :- ohlone :Shel~lmound :but- .also; ,:n::;all .probaba.lzty in the ,land =around ,. the Ohlone ::5hellmound. CId..) s ;'Indeed, ,Mr Oroz~co :has -.only , ~ ._;' recently conducted a reburial ~ of Ohlone remains ~.n an area. near .. , ._ .- `the Shellmound. (Id.) Further .;evidence <that_ the s'alley -;around ,the :Chloae Shellmound -is.'hstorcally andaculturally ;.important;-ito :the .;: - Ohloae ,people :is `:the :ypr-es.eace -=Qf :many :,plants ::used by ahe ~.Ohlone people ,for .rood and :medicinal °purposes.; r{1d.) Mr.. =Orozco -has noted =that ~ in his >walks ,:over :this <land~, ` .he •has _s~een "plants hat were .used .by my .people.,..-such as .hyt~ay { eoap..:roat) ,, ~~plantain, to shu to ya ~'.{buckeye;) , ;willow, :curly dock and .=ushe .-" °(Exhabit :2 ) Based::on his --experience nand ;-:extens:ive :amowledge :of rOrhlone culture and -.history, :Mr_ ~.Qroz~o believes .'that. ,there .:is ~ _hgh probability .that the valley .around the Ohlone ~°Shellmound- _was also used for ceremonial purposes and contained a traditional ~~hlone sweat .lodge. .r(Id.)' ~, :nbc~ously _~the ~Ohlone- ~~Shellmound, <and :,the ~~alley,, ~zn Bch ~; i=t:ats<, _:s ::once ~o#:-the._~mos3t_~-mportant.hstoric.;~and::~rulaural: '. -s2tes, yin:,the :Stat.e,of.:California...,::As .a:;~~iOQD; year :;old :burial 'site., .the :Ohlone YShellmound .zs: ;also . a .•sacred sate ~to _the ~flhlone - :people..., ~- -To cover, -dig ,°nto,' o.r :-.otherwise .:disturb °.the •:Ohlone ' Shellmouad and °:the surround~g :.area yin ;.any ~~way :is :desecration to the :Ohlone :people:.. {Ids) In other words,, this eitea :ahould,:,be . l~f't :slow! _ ,, : II. 'TBE D~RAF'T ,LrIR .ZS :~DEFICITsNT `BECAUSE .IT ::FAILS .°.Ta ~-:~R~OVIDE -A:,DEE:h~tITE PROJECT' :•°DE$CRIPTION 3~.2 ~CE4A Guidelnes6 _ ~:re~11 Te that there be a -detailed ;project :description :in :every.EIR.:~{::CSQA "t~deliaes,;~:S =1512:4) This description must include -,the "precise ;~location:;;and °boundaries of - . _.. . s The presence. of graves and h~an remains in the Ohlonea5hellmound is extensively doctmsented throughout the<Preliminary Report. 6 CFAFi 'G111de11nC2! .=arC .~~rC atoms s a ted >b the. Secret for :--3tesources ~' ~ Y~~ may: ;rTM. ~rsuant to :authority _graatad.;the :Secretazy:-by the State Zegialature in CEQA. - The : CFAA-:G~ideliaes .are. ;to be :followed..-by :all <stater .:nnd :local agencies an California;,in the implementatioa_ ~of.,~CF~QA. - - ,. , -Page 5 08/14/98 30.2 the ,proposed :pro_j ect :[which ,shall be .shown on . a detailed map, preferably =.topographic-~_ -.~CEpA'~C~uidelnes,?' ra`51'2?~'{a).~)' ' . California :courts .have : -repeataedl:~ ~iehd •~3zat;, ~":(~a] n ~~:accurate .abab~la ;;and::•#nita:-projact .~eacrpton :as: abha ~s:na ~~~gna:Vhon :of ~aa inforn~tve ~.and :3egal-l~,- uffics=it :~EIR~;~ ~..(S.ee;~e.: q~, -.:=~ounty_~~of ,ayo >:v..-Y~i~ty~+of=:hos ~:~+iage~.es ,:19.77) ,::~71 `~CA3d ~~].85,`-x;193>~~Emphass added) . ~~he :Draft '•EIR ~-+comPheaely .fails`'~to ~:~e~et- hes+e r' - .. _ =requirements.: .. _ ,:. .:.::The-Draft`EIR,does contain adescription.of.a proposed projeca...°.4{:'See,.Draft: EIR, ~p»_~-,25) •'. However., =ahe =raft 'pEIR then describes ~:~as a:;mitg$toa .~aeasure ~°~{:mitigation': measures ~q:.,'9-1;(b) ) :a _:>:proj:ect.,' ~~wh~ch .is::. ubstantially~adffer.ent ~f-rompthe'-description of : theproposed project:. (.Draft ;ETR. ~wPp - `29:D=X95°)' It :is _ -~ apparent 'that the ;~mtgaton.Mmeasure ~d~s =simply !aa :attempt to °avoid ::CEQA's Nand ,the court'_~ :clear ~~requirement :for a ~^single :project ~descrpton..~:As a ::result a~he :ao-called'=mitgatoa measure is-not evaluated fully in accordance with CEQA requirements. :::phis :makes :mot ::impossible .for ::the =:.public sand -the decision-makers ao be °:fully. and _.~adequately :informed on the project•'s _~.mpacts. ,:. .. -_ 'But .`the shifting project :description ~~.does not -~ op~ :here. On August 'il, 1998, SunChase ;presented even ya -third <,;project ':: descrigoon .to ,die .~Sonth -,~aa _~'raac-s~co ~?City;Council .~ - "This third project. ~:des:crption_.-ncl~uded_~a~d~dit-onal~~gni~:cant -and $drsstic _ ~~changes to :~.t~ie - project plan. e ~~he :~~h~.rd proj•~ct~ ~~les~crgtiob., :no :longer: includes xc:apping: of~:the :~hlone: `Shermound- a~s~:~°dd the :..two pred.ous ;project::des~riptons..: ~ -:Rather :than:.-the de~elopmea't~ Hof three ;;proposed:-commercial °parcels =on sand toy -~the~yaortti ~=of ==the Ohlone<'tSh~ellmound:,{Se.e::<Draft:.EIR, Exhibit 2.`3-8a) ~'t~e 'third ` project description provides for the development ~of`~%a mingle .parcel.north:ofthe.Ohlone Shellmound. This parcel is now to .be devel~aped,as .:a :corpcra~e ~Yieadqua°rt~rs,~=nth;par~CnJ•. < SinrP1Y _ ,,:: -put, what we ''-have is -a:~new';pro~ect description. ;''This- new ~project-`~s not `~tioweQer ~subj~~ected •~to -a :~fu11 EIR analysis, -as `:required: -~y-~EQA.` =~4s .a ~ result,' and 'because -the new ;proj:ect •descript~oa ~~has :only -been ,:presented gat ~ ~pu-b1'c ~meet:ags The proposed mitigation.plaa.is not even considered as .an 'alternative to the .proposed ,project. ~ .:. _ . .- :< .,. - ,: :. ,. . . - s.. , . _ ~ Apparently SunChase also seeks to describe this new third project plan as :~mitgation, "-and ~therebg~:awd :do's .:=a ~~uTl''~IR for _~this~~ newproject: descrptson -::.:,Here it 3s important ~°to "Peep •~.n~~miad "the :important y:~3i.fference "<between :a-project :~descriptioa and ~ mitigation - "; At ~ sa®e point ~mit:gation :can became a new. project descziption, .=and ~-Ca~ntators -;Asd~it that that ' is exactly.v~at has occurred-here. Page .6 - 0SL14/98 _ 30.2; after the publication .of ;:the :Draft .EIR,.,_ahe public : as .well >as:- ~. the ~.deci sios .makers :are clearly. hampered :if :;not .prevented .;from' effectiv . ,. _ ._. ely ;evaluating and ;:commenting ,:upon ,this new ~,proj:ect : 9 .From„ ,the `.viewpoint: of historic ,,and ,cultural sesources., :~all.~of ;, ._ , ., .. -;-:. ,the ..potential impacts of ,ttie `new ;prod ect ;on the ...Ohlone __. ,,, Shellmound cannot be determined '~ ;Yet ; ;Commentators are .:now :. expected to comanent on exactly those impacts. We ?doubt there could.be amore ,effective., means:o.f tr~zinq_out..:public part.cipe,t3.on ur ~ the-- CEQ~i ;process .. `In spite of :the '.:fact .that there .is no single ,,clear _project description, Comtaentators will _endeavor ,to ..comment on what _. . .appear to ,be -three ..project ..descriptions. By ;doing ~so _ _ __ , Commentators in ono way waive their position .that the EIR .lacks a 'clear and detailed project ...description .and is therefore in violation of CEQA. ' ILI .:':THE DRAP"r .EIR IS DEFICIEI+1'P .BECAUSE IT -FAILS :TO EVALUATB THE - "'PROJECT'S 'Il~]hiCTS ON .HISTORIC :RE30URCES. _ $Q,~ It is .as,tonshinq that .the .Draft ::EIR ...contains :no ;evaluation :aof the pro ect' s ~ acts -oa historic :.resources:.. 'There can <be no - ;:. :clearer violation of CE~A. ,., _. , , . ,, , CE,QA: requires .chat ;;an.; HIR ~cont.ain .an .:evaluation„ .of the :project's <~acts: on both :hi.stor.cal ..and ,archeolo cal.. ..:resources:.,(Public .Res.ources :Code ,5~.~~21084., 3 .:Nand ;2:10.83...'2) . <_~'he .. _ - Draft ~ EIR contains .an ,..attempt .~at revaluating the ;proj ec ' ~s- _. _... impacts on archeological resources.. (Draft :::EIR, pp...276-296)10 However, he Draft.`~EIR Only'provides ,a.,.summsary ;~.of :CEQA's • requirements for .evaluation of impacts on historcal~:resources. (Draft EIR, pp. 117-11.8.) ,.:NoNhore,_.:is there, nay evaluation. of impacts on historical resources. `This failure is of great significance`. ~~ This is because CEQA's archeological resources ,,section .requires :less protection than does the section on historical:resources. (See Guide to Ce.lifornia Environmental Quality Act, by M. Remy, et al {Solano Press., -1996) The result is all too obvious. 'The two project descriptions in he .Draft EIR provide for capping of the Ohlone 8 _..._.._. ...... .:.. .. _,. Indeed, at the .August .li, .::2998 ..City :.Council: meeting ;you stated -.that -the City : Planning '8taff :had still not.`had 'the .::opportunity ao. review this .new -. :.alternative and that it "has been a:;.problem:nailing dowa~this alternative." ,. 10 E~rther discussion of the evaluation of .the project's .impacts on :archeological resources is provided below. .Page. -7 D8/14/98 ,:... ~. ,> . 3~.3 'Shel'lmound "~Admi`ttedly, this ^isY ~n approved mtigattzon: 'for - _. .. archeological ~-re~s~ources cinder ;`CEgA (See -Publiic Resources ..Code ~ -.. ., :. . 210 8 3..` 2 (b:) (3)) <However, ~~this -=i s not - an -approved ~%tigat ion ,:.for -;. 'historical {resources . : ~By" ~ ZgnorinQ' 'the requirement °to ;.evaluate the ;project's ~~.mpacts'~ ~on ~•histor'ical. •~resources,` '•the ''Draft -'SIR .is clearly not is compliance~:with`CEQA. It s~ "-conceded that =the, OYilone` `Shellmouad ' s :an ..historical resource as .defined in CE9A: ~'`{See 'raft ~EIR, p . .34"1`~ ~'{~The importance of : CA-SMa-40 is undisputed., :due .,to ..;its :antiquity, _ ;, maize," "locaton,•'.'and ~conteats, ':~i.ncludi-ng Shuman :remains, :such that it ~~qual~ife~s ~~~for "inclusion '•on -`.the `National "Register' •of ~Iiistoric Places :'') ~) -Pursuant °to `CE4P, -the "Draft': EIR` must then contain an .. _ ,.. :ePaluaton of °~whethe='=the proj ect';s ~.mpacts ~wl'1 "have a ~: _. "substantial ..adve~=ae :change .=~ the ~°signifcaacey of `-the` resource. '(Public .Resources :Code ~ 21084.`1') , "As noted above, the significance;o# the Ohlone. Shellmound is its .presence. To the _. ~, San "Francisco `;'Bay .:community its .presence is ~a reminder -nnd acknowledgement :of ~~the region's -tch history. ~ 'To the Ohlone people, its presence is a link to their own 'history, a burial ground .for their ..dead and a sacred site for their,peopie today. _ •~ °The'''~ilone -Shellmound : cannot `be s:gai'~icaaf ~if `'z.t ~ is not ... _ '~ p=went." 'Covering-'tie -OYilone'°~Shellmound is a ~substaatial adverse change :in its significance. '3unC_ hase`'~s third ~pro~ect description does not Vreduc.e in any. way .thus ~substant~al ~sdverse :change . ' ~ :noted, `the third •~ proj e~ct descrpt'on~ ~~.ncludes °~the -cons"t~ructon ~of a 'ten-_ story office `btuldi~g", immediately Ito -thee north Yof the Ohlone Shellmound.l'' " An 'historic resource's significance can be~ adversely ~effecte'd by: `1 an' alteration is its :setting; • `~ ~Ti~ether the "thsrd,: proj ect descriptioar would also'. allow access :ao ;the __ Ohlone ~Shellaeound sby: ~sy'of .path 'or . roadways,`:-,~ether -there would be landscaping of '-the Ohlone `shel].mouad, or other imQacts besides the constructioa:of the .office building is ualmoWn and therefore cannot be ,,, - _ eo*±*!+~nted upon'here.~. .. .. - Page 8 08./1.4198 ~_ :.30.3 ~4 . introduction ,•cf ; visua],,.;:audible,,, :~,nr,,. other ., ,; .: . atmospheric;..elementa., which .are. out .of,;~.charact.er . -:with ;,the property. iz • .Only>a moment of thought is xequired.to determsne~.that 3unChase:'s ~thi.rd ~groject descrspton •~r~.ll =have all +~f .these dverse :a~pacts ~n..t~~e ~Ohlone ~Shellmound ~=~3 ~Th~ construction of a ten story ~•~office ~:buld~nq add scent "to the. Ohlone Shellmound drastically -chans~es . -:the ~~s~etting :: Tndse~-; ~:as-;;pointed <out by =Mr . :Orozco he entire, ~walley ~ in ,which >:the :Ahlone ,: Shellmound. fits :is ' `:: a cultural landscape connected to -and .a part of .the Ohlone Shellmound._ To destroy ;that cultural :landscape is to destroy the Ohlorte :Shellmound;. .__ .. ... The.:third ,project Tdescrption would :result in ahe isolation of ahe Ohlone .Shellmound.. _ A :ten-stery =office .~-building would be built .to ...its ;nor-th,- ,a.:hotel -:and :;other buildings; -would .be constructed ao :its south; =a newroadway .==would :be 'built to its west, and Bayshare would :be elevated to its west. -The third ;.project description would :srignifcantly alter the use .of ~the~; :Ohlone :Shellmound. Ohlone ;ceremonies gat; :the Ohlone _~ _ _ _.. Shellmound'.,must beheld ,din ;privacy: ~ Theconstruction .around the .. Ohlone .Shellmound, will certainly ,.preclude any~~opportunity for privacy, =and ;therefore the :ability °for the _Ohlone ,~to•-continue to practice their,relgon.,:_ - 'The-third ,project :description,s~ould introduce :adverse visual, audible elements which are out of character with the Ohlone -:Shellmound.` ..The :increased..noise :.from~~•~traffic and other human :activity :will .interfere with, if:::not ,;prevent -the Ohlone people from ..conducting :their .-:ceremonies ::at the_?,Ohlone Shel2mound. ..Theconst=uction_of .buildings,nearlycn top of the ~ These .criteria .for •~at -constitutes :°aa effect ~or :adverse.:~effect on a significant . cultural:,,.property, .ouch as -the _:ohlone -:Shell ;1~louad,.-;.are .taken .from ... -the PiBPA:regulations found, at 36 CFR.:Part B00 (gee 36.CFR:§ 800.9 (b) .~ (c)) - _ ._ _. .For. several reasons it is ;particularly.appropriate to 'use these criteria of effect <and ~adverse~=effect :to determine •f his°•project =wi11'~result in a substantial,..adverse-.chaage to'-the historic :resource.. '~Frst,-SCEQA does .not define ^substaatial ;adverse <change."_ -:ThereforE, using the;-NHPA criteria for effect..~and._adverse :effect., »which .are ::aridely accepted;.aad-,adopted, .provides s reasonable-.definition:for Substantial adverse:chaage. Furthe=., the State .frequently adopts 'NSPA statutory .sad regulatory ~>criteria 'in `:it=~owa management of historic resources ;::See +e...q..,' Public Resources' Cody°~ :5024:1 (c) ~ (d), :and 14 =:CCR'§ 4B51"(a)=(1) ) .. 13 Commentators also note that the two project descriptions in the Draft SIR -will-also have these .adverse impacts on the Ohlone Shellmound. Howevez, no further discussion of these impacts .is necessary because they are so obvious. Page 9 08/14/98 Ohlone 'rShelhaound~ w~.11 dras'tcally =a'l~er the :~~sual :setting of =:: "the" ~'OKlone ~Shellmound `~e'ither'~or =• omeone:" =looking 'at the ~hlone "' ~Shellmound, or to an Ohlone religious_practitoner at the Ohlone -Shellmound. ... - - _ ~- - ` IV . " TA& DRAFT ~:EIR IS` ~~RFICIEET'aBEC'1~TTSE IT = p'lil+8 TO 'CGESIDER _.T~ `PRGJECT'S CO~I~I~'I=~:.°~l1'CT8 ~1 .THE ;`O8L~3I~ SHE7~I+1~O~ID _ - - CE.OA requires that pan EIR ~considez -'the prod ect' s' 30.4 si fcantcumulative - ._ CJn ~act~s . (CEQA ?Guide line s '.S ~ `15130 (a) _ _ ,. ,. . .-Cumu'Iative imp~act~s ;:[are] two -vr :more .individual effects which, ' w~ien considered ogether., are : __ considerable or;which compound or .increase other ;environmental 'impacts . ':(CEQA ~.delnes ' ~" 15355) =-2ndvdua`l ~ effects '-:maybe changes re~sultiaq``from `a ~- single :,pro j ect' or a number '-ofseparate projects . _ (CEQA'`Gudelnt8 '~ '?1533`5 {a~)) The cumulative 'impacts -from >severa7. groj~e`cts "~a the change in the ~- environmeat which results from the incremental = impact -~of *the ~praj ect -:when '~~added~Y'to ~cther -=closely • related past, ~pres~ent, 'andreasonably foreseeable - future..":pro~~ects : •::Cumailatti°ve-.impacts scan ,result- from iniivduahly ,mznor~-"abut ~~co-11e~ctv~elg'~~~si:grifi~cant - - pro}ect~s ;~tak~q `:;place ,:over ~a_ period -af ime . ,'"(CEQA L~.idelines <S :T5355:(b)) (Emphasis '`added} ~ ` '~ T't has ;been 'held chat, " ,~ ~ - ~ _ A cumulative =impact analysis which understates - :information vconcerning the = evezty :and 'significance ..~ , ... of~<~cumtilatve "acts `°mpedes• meaningful public "" ~ ' ' discussion :and skews the :decisonmaicer'- perspective ~__ concerning the environmental coasequences of -a - :project; a the 'necessity ~fc~r ~"mtrgatoa ::°measures, ~aad _ ,_. ' ;; tha appropriatsnems of projmct` apgraval ::[Citation] ~An `inadequate. cumulative, :impact analysis .does :not demonstrate . to_ an =apprehensive'. -citizenry: -that. rthe _ :; ..;governments]. fdecisoamaker -=has pia ;:fact :~fu].ly ;»e~analyzed ~~and .considered the *eavzonmental ,.._ ~~consequences ~of .its`~cton. `('Citizens toy'":Preserve`- ~__ the 'Ojai v . 'Board of :Supervisors ;`;x(196 5) ,:17:b ;CA3d _ 42~, x.431,:•;: quoting„~:San.~Fsanciscans for , ~teasonable Growth v . City and County of San F=ancisco ~. ("S~'RG `_ Sn) (1984.). .151 CA3d 61, 79)_.(Emphasis added) Page 10 '0.8/14/98 30~,,~ ; ::In _spit:e :of, the ...clear ,-requirement- to -:::consider .,.cumulative impacts, .and the. importance of so doing, he Draft :EIR .~contaias no -;discussion of the project's cumulative :impacts :on shellmounds ,in ,the .:Saa ~F.ranc~sco, ;Bay.:Area. .::This._;s:.;moxr ~_than Y lightly- :=aurprsinq...;~~ •. he Draft E=IR.xcontsns he :following ,:admission: DTearly :;all ~;of ~the approximately ~42~ ,large - ,~shellmound ~ si~ta _ ..recorded :around .ahe. 'Bay ..Area :Early ' in°;: the ;~'0~ .:.::cent have:: been:,~destrQ ed. oz atl" uzY..~ F ~ Y ... _ . ~anpacted :;by ::natural #orces.,:and .modern. .cultural activity.. :.:~By .x197:3, =ur}~an :expans.ion :had ~:d~amaged:.;.:or N destroyed <more..:ahan ~.SU~~percent ;of .';the. ,.est~:m~ated .. _ . .number Hof -;archaeological cites >=(approximately :9-, :675 ) . .in;the .~nine:,-Bay Area :counties ..:.',. A very ~ew,:.:we11 '::known arge ahellmounds : ^suruved .:long.enough to :be :part of the modern. archaeological record. (Draft,~EIR, p. ;:284) _. As -discussed above, ;each; of .the three ~proj~ect rleserptions will result in:signfa:cant ,adverse impacts .;on the ,Ohlone.. ~Shellmound, up to-_:.aad .:including :its destruction. As :a :;result :the :region sand the State will lose =one of the -:few -remaining -:,examples .°+of `:its .<indi:genous .history. `The, Ohlone ";people :will dose sewenr;more; ahey~will :1-ose (another ~~of :their: grave-e ;and.:~ceremonial ~si.tes... .:Yet nowhere :in..the Dr-aft EIR :is there _ :any ;:discussion of ;the ;project's ..cumulative :-impact -on the lv~ : vf ==~;lhlone ~Shellmounds .~ia ::the :.:region in ai.ght .of -the :past :;.destruction .of :'those. ::mounds :nor ,their reasonably .:foreseeable. ;future destruction::~a _ _- D. ' ?H$> DRAFT :SIR :IS DEFICIENT"BLCAtTSE IT FAILS TO PROPOSE :MITIGATIONS 'THAT `<~i~OiVLD : 3i8DUiCE 'THa ~ PRiOcTB.OT r S ` I1~ACT6. ON `THE :OHI+ONB SHELI~lOb~TD TO LESS :TEA1~ SIt3~iIFZCANT 'II~IiuCT3 30,E It is contended:ia the Draft EIR that. the data"collection mitigations proposed .for the Ohlone Shellnwund :could reduce-ahe project's .impacts ".to . a less- han-significant.. .aevel under :CLOA. "' ;,,{Draft .HEIR,::, ;p~ X294 -•~ ;.291,) : _It :.: ia: _-also ,^surprisingly ,contended in -the ;=Draft..EIR. that ;proposed =mitigation ,#.~9-1(.b) .x.11 "^;eli*-hate conflict with, 14ative . American. coacerns for ancestral .:cultural deposits and -butaals ::ice is] , therent/ronmentally :superior Y' ".The .lead :agency:-~st .use `:reasonable ;.efforts :ao :discove=,. disclose,, Aad discuss'.related past, .present,°aad `future."projects:""(CEQA Guidelines .§ .15130) 'Here, the ead agency appears to have expended ao .effort at all. :Page 11 0.8/14/98 ~mz.tgaton ":>(Draft ``EIR, ,p:. 295:j ~Nothnq.;could b~e~:further .from - 30.5 .• _ ,, .the '"truth. : , _ . .. ,. . :. ":Pubhc`~ p$rtcipatv~a . is _:..an .;`essent~:al mart ~f ~•the .CE9P, process:'n.{CE4A-~`~Gudelines 'S :'`152'O:I) .:~Tn :addition, :.the :dead agency .in ..the EIR process:.is:required ao.conduct a.reasonable. amount ~of:sorginal z~search ~..end._west`zgat:a.onq~t.o_.determine 'the prof ect':~s }enviroament°al effects . ~t:Ci'tz~as . to :Preserve the 'Ojai v . =County of Ventura ~'{:1985) `'176 `CA3d 421, '432.);• ~~- :;Certainly :such public .part~cpat~oa-_i:~ncludes-~°.Cal°forna Nat~ive...Americans, and ,. .. in ahis. ~-case .p~stcularly" OYihane :Nature ~~imercans.::''~ .Equally :as certain`.would be `=the se:~,.rement ao `.::consult °n*depth with :'Native Americans end .again particularly -':Ohlone `Native >.A~miericans on the project's ~i~mpacts.. In ~.pte of :these ~zequrements ~'California Native Americans .did :not :-participate in aay ~meanngful .way is this .EIR process. .. , , ,. According to-the EIR, "[i]ndividuals and organizations were contacted by letter, .and ;preliminary .response 'to the project and the .potential impacts to CA-SMa-40 was elicited. Letters and °.tehephnne ~•,cals were ~received~ ~~fromsome of .ahe `Native Americans .contacted."- _(.Draft :SIR, p` 27<6:) (Ea~phass °;added) :=IInfortunately we are snot :,told: which <Native :Amer~cans:,A~rere .acont-acted, "°r~hether they were ~Ohlon~e,~:what hey were t~old,~:- and what rf !~anytYing the ,` .:Native''~imercan~s: told .the ~'E~IR: ;archaeol?ogst ~~ Indeed, ":'it :is . °:doubtful: then ° fe~t_~contacts :.:could `ha've: •:resulted . in; Kant', ' substar:five -cdmm~ents-,-on:the:~~IR ::because '".,[_~3advduals.:dontacted for this ;3995,.:S$IR:'had not yet :dad ~~opportuntes -to..revew the .documents .this .1998:. SEIR'•s ~.archaeolo,gst .-~independeatly :reviewed. Thus., they ~rere ::not :able o .respond fully without ':the ';ability to .read these ..:.materials for themselves .'" :.(Draft EIR, p 285., :fn. • 275) Further, the mail is:not a recommended or .effe.ctivemeans _ ofr;consultin ~r~.th ~Qative :Americans, {See Natonal_°~tegister ..~.:~. _ '' 'Bulhten _38~~. Guidelines ;'for, ~'iw,aluatng `and -Documenting Tralitional-~-Cultu=al,=:Props=ties:., °••:,;pPG=7) ~Cert~nly Mr. Orczco, an `important .and leading member of the Ohlone commu*+~ ty. :.was mot ';contacted. 'As pan :apparent ;'r-esult of 'the :grossly incomplete ::nvest~gaton sand ~-consultation ;Processes, :- he Draft ~~IR is sinnply ~-ronq ' YMitiga~t~.on `<~l 9-1 -~r'11 Vnot eliminate -conflict with }Native `=,Americans~. ` That °.m`iaigaton is =;considered desecration -and aacslege`+. :'what --~beaq the ..case, -?then ~certa~inly ~.cov~rng'the Ohloae Shellmound.with over-20 feet .of dirt :(coupled with .data recovery) --will not .:reduce ..the impacts ~to Tess -than significant 'bevels . It :will ;only `>inc=ease .the °`impacts i Page 12 08/14/98 VI . TSE DRAFT -EIR :IS .DEFICIENT "BECAiJ3E :IT FAILS TO CONSIDER '`THE `oHIAEE :88EZ3+I~iJI~1D'~ "~LIC3IS~II.ZTY ''~'0 ;':~'I~ '=G~IFQR~iTIA :'~REC~ISTSR ;; -.. ., OF SBISTORIC `ItE80RJRiCES _ .30.s 'As .Provided .in state aaw: A California Register of Historical Resources ishereby .:establshed_ '`The ~Ca"forna'`;Regster is '~ •an euthori~atz~e~-guide a 'California`to be used by ?~state• :andlocal ° a eucies, :private -.: rou s.: and g Q P citizens to ''"identify ahe state's` '7iistorical f~resources ~and'~'to indicate:`.what properties are''`;to be protected ~to..~the''ext-ent ``prudent and `feasible, '-from -substantial -adverse -change . :` __ Public "'Resources ~°'Code '~ 'S024.1(a) (Emphasis added) Included on the .California Register°of His`tnric'Resources ("California .Register") are ,properties, whichhave:been determined eligible to the'~•Natona.~tegister of Historic .Places. (Public.Resources Code-~ 5024.1(d)(1)) It is conceded in :the Draft''~EIR 'that the ~ Ohlone' Shellmound is' eligible to. the National Register of Historic Places... ('Draft=~:EIR, p,- 341) ,. = ~In spite -o.f ` he ' apparent ~ eligibility of '.the ohlone Shell~ound :to -thee-`California-"Reg°ster nowhere ~` in 'the Draft EIR _: is this issue ~TLi~scussed. •This ` i~s a sgnificant° ~-omission, because properties eligible to the California°Register "are to be protected` Ito the ;extent prudent and feasible, .from substantial adverse change."` As .discussed .above {see .Section III) , ;any ~°of he three project -designs-~ti11 result .in._a .substantial ;adverse change - o the Ohlone Shellmound. Accordingly, the lead ::agency .:must consider :^`prudsat and 'feasible" .~protect:ons for the Ohlone Shellmoundas done ~af ~~-this ~analys"is °is found in the''~Draft EIR. u In this..;regard, 'the lead ;agency should -refer tothat ~>~fedeza2 case law .which bas interpreted identical language in Section~4f~of~.the Department of Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 1653(f}. _Page 13 08/14/98 ~`TII=• ~T~~ D~RAP:T =E2~t-"ZS ~D$P'_TC2 30.7 '~<8$,.~T•.,~',~lI7.S.->TO.>PRO~VZDB F'OR - li2~`"5283'OttIC "~'RESERVl-TTON ]UC? °Federal-funds -on 'the undertaking_:or prior .to ,'the issuance of any license," ~ as "the' -case may `be," ' ake .:.into .account :the .effect of Mahe .;undertaking :on--.:any district, site, building, structure, or object that in included in or eligible for inclusion 'in the National .::Register.. , NHPA, .~-_470.-(f) (Emphasis :added) _ - _ .In .1992, .Congress amended. ;the NHP_A .and added :a statutory definition for an.-undertaking. ; "IIndertaking",;.means.a rproject•, .:activity, or -., - _ .program funded is -whole ;or,. in .part sunder,; he. direct or_indirect jurisdiction :qf .a Federal agency, including 4. .., _ ,. - - (A) those carried :.out by or on :behalf of =the _.. . • - agency; (B) those carriedout with Federal financial ~assistsace; _ , __ _ ~(CJ, those ~requiriaq a Federal permit., .license, or approval; .and , . . , - -- -_ . _.. _ :. (D), -.'those .subject :;to State :fir., local regulation . administered .pursuant :to ya -delegation . or approval by _ ;. .: •_ a Federal 'agency . NHPA, 16 II.S.C. ~ 47Ow ;(Emphasis added} Aay of the three .project designs for the project will rern,;re Federal permits or aicenses. These include: • a.:permit from .the U.S. Army :Corps of-:Engineers :pursuant :to °Secton X404 .:of ::theFederal -Clean :Water Ac't . , . - Page 14 .'08/14/.98 ~ a ..permit :from the II. S . :Fish ~ 'Wildlife SerPice under ;theFederal endangered .Species :°A,ct ,,Iiabitat,_..;:_. • , Conservation :P-lan , ;far ,.YSan 'Bruno Mountain .;far ;the :,, taking of endangered.`species; • a :;permit from the , Bay Area, Air ;Qualt9i `:Management ;. , ". .~ ,A~str~ct. the ~,~;~ :, - te=~_ i~ a enc ~~or die .~ . .9. ~9. .3~.: , ~',ederal '='Clean A~:r ,Act yin 't`he ~Bayazea; .and .. a permit -.from Mahe • San ~1'rancsco : Bay =Re"gional ,. - -Water ":Quality °Baard ;.approving the Stormwater - °Polluton °Preveaton~ ~Pa~ :pursuant to kFederal law. ie - __ }_... -_ _ ;A{See: ,Draft EIR, p . 7.0) : _ Any one of these ;permits, net along all of them together, _canstitute an underta-k~.n~g: ~as ::defined in the NHPA. Further it makes no difference whether these_pesmits.are issued individually-~or` pursuant o ,a nationwide „permit =program. (See Vieux ::Carte-Pr~_rty~~-Onwers w. Brown ~(`5~ Cr. 1989) 875 F.2d -4 5 3., 4?64~-4.6.6_) ~ ~• - ,: - - .: _ Accordingly; :th! 'NSPA =applies fio this .pra j~+et. There , mcust 'be fu1S -~compli-aace :with ''~N~iPA ;Section` l0b and" its =~:mplementng i6_ .iIt :remains .unclear ..Nhether ;Federal. `~~nc]i~n q_:.or :ea .;Federal ~?Permia' will be _r.e,gaired .fer construction_:of - the. exit tamps :off Hghw~y 101. ; ;;.As ;pointed -out in:a2~e Preliminary ,Report, "it is .not entirely, .clear where ..and .ether. 'Federal Regulations"still,override_8tate;procedures.,":with .re,gard ,to `. construction of the:°ramps. :~(Preli,~nir~~ry Report, p. -7) - _ _ . . 17 In Vieux Carte the court held that "nationwide permits authorizing truly inconsequential activities -are not triggering "licenses'-under section 470f." .(Vieux Carte, at p. 465) ?Y~e count.-based this-holding on the..-belief that Congress did not intend to require the Corps to subject such truly inconsequential.projects to -the ..procedural comoplexities.of section,'47.Qf,' by construing the term.undertakiaq in .9ection 470f•as iacluding`_:any aype.of .-:. permit or license regardless of its consequence (Id.) `'However,"'Viewt Carte was decided before :the 1992 NHPA amendments, which included the-:new definition of undertaking cited above. In.ahe.new definition Congress reiterated .its clear intent that N8PA.3ection 470E applied to ahe;issuance, without qualification, of .nay Federal permit or license. Accordingly,-..even ~'~though .Vieux Caere ~ackaowledges 'NSA appTicat'on to' "the `issuance: of nationwide_permta`~iauthorzing consequential:activities, auch~:as:.we""have.. '° :~3iere Vie~uz'Carse'~s exceptiaa =for natioa~ride'permits `:aathorizing .. - ' ~.nconsequential activities -amsst ~no~w°`be `=set .aside"`in .'3ight "of :she'°T992 3~SPA Page `15 ..: -. , . - ; . , 08/14/98 regulations at '36 ``CFR :part°~OD before any ~i~ederal permit can be issued ~. for the' ~,~ro j ect ~a >In ~~other ~w~ords, ~'befar~ ~-the ;.project can '.be built . z =~ ~ :.:.: - ~. r_ 30.8 vi;i.-.yes ~~u~r ksn~ _=s cz~~~ =s:,.~s =so vms r+c~ - .__~ sss .~~=o~ tea:= = :.r:;,~~r~-~smr .pa~su~r ro ~--- - -- . ~.fT~ ~-sio~uw:; ,..~:,mss ~TEPA :applies- to the project .for .the :same .reason the NHPA applies to,:the .project...=-;:the :~auaace~of-:aeperal..Federal permits, ,~at ;.,the _ ~; *+ ,~*,,,+, :fir the ::pro j~ect, •nvokes. ~~iiBPA .sad . regnirea she ,preparation cf ;aa :.'8nvroamental :Impact Statement - ("EIS" } . Nosrhare is the Draft . EIR is heir ~proviaion for preparation of an EIS. `This is :particularly .important for the project's ..historic psesetvation ,~mpacta,, ":because under .REFA the EIS must contain as evaluation of those impacts. :I7C. ~:IGBI - ,_ : . -- .;:The .ahlone::Shellmousid is :one ~;.of the ~_mo t ~sgnificaat historic :sites -ia -California. ~It ;is slso :;one- .~af'::the ':few..-: - ,,:. ._. remaining -sites of its :ki=id. `gash of the three :project descriptions weuld:reeult an the Ohlont_Shellmound's .:destruction.. _ .:To {permit its ~.atruct~.on`~~rnuld~~aot ~oaly be -- deaecration to the `Ohhne .lpeople;, ~iyut :also mould :::further erode ~. what remains of this regioa'~a visible history. =Co~om4entatora ~=eape+ct-fully ~reque~st° •=that 'the City :of `9outh =3an Francisco ~ma~ce• =an "historic decision of its own, :and decide .: _ not to.`pe~it~'~the ~conat=stction of_,this ..project.. ,:.:Every effort - should 'be`:made to::Preserve she ~Ohlone~~'Shcllmouad. and she .4alley in wh3.ch it sits . 6~e can .give ~ our future .generations ao_ greater J _-. :: :5' 1 ,... _, r ;_ ;. les M. ;~i#.. r - - ~.. .;: .: - ..- ,. __ .- _. , .;' " This ;~ould_.include, aiooaq other .things, :".the ...assessment .of the :eligibility of mll :histatical2y.aignificant_;propertisa : Within ,;the yprojsct~.s ;area ::af. :potential sffe~t, including nearby_.shellmouadss, the .determination; of -whether - .,.additional: eligible , propertiet_ -rich ::are :,presently., .ualmc~n Naze ,.present ,uithia the area of:petential effect; the retention of a~qualified ethaogrspher:to evaluate the eligibility sad related issues, sad a dete~iaation of the - projeet'a effects and advsrseeffects on the historical.aigaificaat :properties . Page 16 08/14/98 - Enclosures Cc: Mr. :Patrick Orozco 3lr.David Schooley .Brian ...Gaffney. -Ssq. Celeste C..Zaagille, Eaq. Advisory Council on .Historic.PreserPation California State Historic:PresBrvation Office Chai=man, National Enviro~ental:;Jnstice Advisory Council 'II.S.:Environmental::Protection Agency, Office of `Environmental . Justice Q.S. Environmental Protection agency, :Indian .Programs Office -Ms. Karen Biestman, II.S.`Environmental Protection Agency, Region:9, Indian Programs Office II.S. Department of .the Interior, Office of American_Indian Trust II.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Office of Environmental Justice II.S. Department of 'the Interior, Reeperof the 'National .Register California Native Americas Heritage 'Coimaission Page 17 08./14/98 E~IIBIT -ONE ~. ~ . . `~Coniaieats by~P~atnclc' .: ,.;' , _ _ .. -. Oro zco .of t~`ie -Pajam Valley ~Ohlone Ia~diai~Councl :regar .ding the San BnnoyMountain °SheI1 Mound.. _ _ ..I;am Patnck<Orozco,atieadmsntt~~the_~,g~'~~~ V ~~~~ `' . 'T._'. ' .aII~/ One ~~II~3ar8.'V IlrranCe.S~or$ -~ 4 t r '~ ~ `~ :came fromahe :villa a arf:Ritocsinear.:Mission ~5anta:Clara located outh-0f ~a%hat'is _:now:San,jose:<I ,350 people- •, ,. atsonvillebut ~are. now b tie state. _ in w ~. Members of .our tribe came to the Pajaro Valley and settled .in the mid 1800'x. ;In 1975 a dispute> regarding :commercial.,development at,:our <Lee Road ;cemetery_aed ,to the formaton:of the Ohlone Council.In order togainrecognition as.aaribal;entty and negotiate our?situation,.we organized ahe~CAUncil-asa ocal:branch~of:the:Northwest .Indian.CemeteryProtective.Association.-Afterahe. tee dispu .regarding.theLee Road ~;centetery was; seftred,. ~~ve formed -an organization ~_caIIed ahe Ohlone Indian=Cultural .Associationwith.tbe help of CaIifors~ia:Indian L- egal Ser-vices. What organization dissolved because of poor leaderslup:T~e ~present.iwn-profit:pajaro phlone:.Indian Colutczl was fornn~ed in 1985, f We :formed the-:first •Indian~ organization in, order ~ o hav-e-tribal , tatus tn_ahe ;preservation and prntectionofsaII areas~that~were~sacsed;to:us but:~main~y the resting places of our.ancestors. At that time in 1975 .there were few or.none who spoke up :n`situations <~vhere.-saccredsites :were, in~the,alids"t-of being4destroyed or:~iisturbed. T:lYerep~asverylittteprotection~then,~as far~~asaawsgo,~on,behalf~of~theIndian peuple.:3hat's still: how; it is today.:_T?hoagh ylaws on preservation were.adopted, these laws were not.preservation.laws;for~the,Indian;people. They were;laws to protectprivate-land;owners.;::.. Since then ten or more Indian organizations have been formed, and because of different. policies and:procedures:3n.~handiing -situations such :as ;the .San Bruno burial mound, a vicious circle has`been created among Indian families. All Ohlone Costanoan Indian leaders should come togetherin;a,good way,as one.people and work-under one policy in preservation and protection of our sacred Indian sites. Certain tnl~algroups should:be :the ones :to handle:aensitive situations in the areas that pertain to them.. But the .big question is, "who are .those who claim :respons~bitity,=and:are they:ahe:rightfulpersons< he3-=claimao:~be?";And if they are, can .they show their intentions are good. We learned of the.San Bruno sheIl mound through the media,.and we were concerned .that.there .would be disturbance of the.graves of our ancestcns.~So we registered our willingness to assist in the prevention of development on this site. San Bruno. Mountaut. is a.. lace that is.still .in its natural state. Some but:not major P r£ ' turbance hasp 'occurred °there in the past ~:In walking. this land, one can. see that: this first of .all, a place ;ofpeata'' In=looking at~`the terrain, i found evidence of. FC, fire asked ;rock,<~n-hizh~`~indicates`ahatthere was`burning- of stone for eating or cooking.. I found;chert~that_shows where: wasmanufacturi~g .oE..arrow.points.::Isaw.thenchness of Wadden whidt tells me that there ar+e burials .there. The color of the .soil is dark; ,.. ..;4„~ ,. ,,.„ 'that's where~you find-~ndence of.oocuPattLOU4or"burials ~The"fire`cracked rock by the streann bells me~that~they were~bunung finestones~for sweatlodge and cooking ~. '.(used'=forfcooku~g ~a+corns or=salnon~. 'T'he village was~~most'likely'located here the Bayshore is today. But-it mustl-ave~b+een~on'higher~ground'~th+en~ because ' ges :were built on high ground. ... ._ _,. ,are in, tn~op~ion ~iundreds of•~graves 'The entire area should be ~left`in place, ~. rote+cting ~ all plant life : anti the :animal habitat. =1t' is a :place -where Indian .people could eventualiy,put together n~ replica °village sand all Hof what ~a village would contain:~vorkshops~such as~foodpreparation,basket weavingt~arrowand bow ,malting, grow=poutt-nianufactunng~as well .as`~arth ~lodges,•~~dance'houses grain <shelters, dance areas`granaries--and a~game-place. I would recommend ~ that all this that:anie have ken be~baken--into d consideration. I think of the citizens of Brisbane who.also need a, place for themselves andtheir children-xo:~o~e,and:~spen~i'time~~there~edaicating=~~themselves inrthe<firaditional ways of the-:peopleahat::li~ed~:here before the~Buropeans.arrived.- . r iNe,~vould~n~rolve~o~ther{tr~'bes as=appropriate-and~eeded. iNe~wotiild~regnest their panc~ipabion:an~d iconsulta#ion~~underswariaus rircuais~ances.~f:we~~need their help in~figh'ting the~development,~we would~.call=on hem `And:~f the:problemsare .resolved~wtho~t~em~-e~ouid~askr#hem~o~cnn:usinaour~anous activities. We :would ask`that they come .and celebrate with us as xthey`have-+calied me ~to dance -with them in their. land. .,pis an outcome of any legal action, we would `like ` o see: -thr graces left undisturbed. - tha~tuhoie area=preserved°rvith no comrncrcial development. ~thc management ~f '~the~ land be~ superaised by an Qhlone`Tndian descendant. or descendants PQ:°lr 2 E~iIBIT ZinTO "Testimony on the Terrabay .Phase 11:and III EIR My .name is Patrick Orozco. I was given the Indian name of YanaHea, One .Who Yawns.'I live at 644 Pear Tree Drive, Watsonville, CA. 95076. I am tribal chairman .of the.Pajaro Yalley.Ohlone Indian Council .representing 320. ;people. Our tribal affiliation according to records kept at IVfission Santa Clara is °Ohlone Ri,tocsi, also known to the early-padFes: as-the Santa Teresa-Hills :people. I am .also registered as a Most Likely 'Descendant with the Native American Heritage Coaunission in.Sacramento..Although.most of our .people-:died during the Mission era, yet some of us`have survived to maintain and revive our culture. It was dangerous to`be Indians for many years, but at Gong last we can speak out for our identity and ways.:Our organization was formed in 1975 in order to protect and preserve all sacred sites of our ancestors. We realized-.that they were being destroyed at a very alarming rate. My people and I have served as Indian monitors with archaeologists when there is a .possibility of-graves being disturbed. When we served as monitors, we made sure that all measures were taken for,preservation even-.though most of these. sites were very much disturbed. The San Bruno shell mound .is intact, which means very little disturbance has occurred there. As I wallced the land,' Icould -feel the P of the ancestors that are buried there and the hundreds of :graves there. In particular the :.::area :between the`large and smallshell mound. is likely to have isolated burials. In -my experience as:a monitor, many isolated graves are found outside the main impact areas. Also .as I waked the land, I-could see plants that were-used by my people, such as ;hryatay (soap~root), plantains to shu to ya (buckeye), willow, curly dodo and rushes, I would like to see all -this. property .preserved and protected and even returned to its :.natural state. Weare not comfortable when we hear that they want to.put topsoil -or parking-lots over he shell mound or surround it with buildings. In the Indian's eyes, this is distiu~aruce. The entire area should be Left intact - Recer-tly, I read where a state congressman was asked,, '7f they want to dig rip our 16th President's coffin to see what relics he was buried with, what would be his :answer. He said he .would say, "No, Let him rest in peace." The San Bruno Moutain is sacred and we ask that you support us in protecting it `To disturb it would be a violation of :our religious rights as. American Indians. And we.ask that our. rights be respected.'Many prayers were said over these graves by my ancestors and myself. 'Respectfully, VFk U ~:o 'Patrick Orozco E7~iIBIT THIS STAT~NT OF :PATRICK OROZCO,_AIIGIIST,14,.1998.: ,_ ::. .. ,.,. _ ., -~ '.-.. ..: .. i .. .~ .. ~ .. .. yw_.. .. .~t. ... ..- .. _ .. :: -.~ My:~ame is :~Patric~c .Orozco, sand 'I am the ~chaizman of 'the ~Pajaro vaT7.ey _OY7.one~ .Indian :Council:' ~On is-everal -~~occa~s~.oas~`=I `°have :walked •over ~~the 'aaea .which -includes `the '~Saa `'Bruno' ~Ohlone ~Shellmound, -~~whch~ ~I -call 'the w Ohlnne `':She'1lmound ~ - Based on :my experience as an Ohlone Native American.moaitor at other construction.,sites and my knowledge .of Ohlone culture it-is my opinion. that :in all probability there are many Ohlone graves outside the'Ohlone Shellmound, and ~n~"the'surrounding =valley.. .For example, it .was :common. for.my people too :bury an enemy. killed in battle, or a member of another tribe who died in their village outside the village shellmound. It is :also my opinion that in all probability the area :around he Ohlone She11 Mound was not only an Ohlone village_but was also used for ceremonial purposes. 'The Ohlone people pray and give thanks to nature and .the aources of heir-food and shelter. Here, the San Francisco Bay would have been :only a few feet from the Ohlone Shellmound. This makes it very likely that the Ohlone inhabitants of the village performed ceremonies near the Ohlone:Shellmound in thanks for-what they received from .the Bay. Even oday I still-know and sing a :traditional Ohlone song :which ..gives"hanks to the Bay.. It is .:probable that other Ohlone groups or individuals have held:ceremonies at the Ohlone Shellmound in the past several years. It is ':doubtful that many would know of these ceremonies because of-the need to keep them private :and confidential. I performed a ceremony three times at the Ohlone Shell Mound this .year. On one occasion I.reburied ahlone remains which had been -held at a local.museum in Brisbane. >These.:remains. were ':buried in an unmarked grave close to but .outside the Ohlone Shellmound in a.place.I .cannot disclose. As an Ohlone, I have been taught that it is desecration to remove even a flower from a ..:grave. To .put. fill .dirt ,of -.any .amount. over the Ohlone Shellmound, or dig .into the Ohlone -Shellmound is considered desecration to my .people. 'The construction of .office.buldings,~.:hotels or :other buildings .to .the :north .and south of the Ohlone Shellmound is ;wrong. The.presence of such buildings, and the-people in them, would make it impossible for us to .perform our ceremonies at the Ohlone Shellmound. The entire valley is part of the Ohlone Page 1 ~. Page ',2 ZXBIBIT 1 (ADDITIOIf~iL 81'ATEl~1fT8 8? P1ITRICK X00) Although our people are located. at some distance ;from .the San: Bruno .Shell .Mound, we`have a strong affinity with those who once ved there, `the.Slipskin Ohlone. "Linguists:.in this cen~ury;suppIied the .name Ohlone to refer to the common Language spoken by`peop7e :who'lived~between the Carmel River and-the Sari°Francisco`Bay.'delta.lNe are :united with the'SGpskin Ohlone'through our .common language and through the cultural sintitarities that exist among Ohlonean people: We:fee] a connection wifh the spirit.of our ancestors who.Ived there. When I visif~the.She11 Mound;'I'imagine the'songs and the;prayers, the crying and mourning of our people when ~they`buried :their dead. :The. Otilonean .people today are like a 'fence to protect;the spirits: of those who ~have;gone. We have taken a strong stand on protection of grave sites..My,.,great grandfather Rios repeatedly adrnonishea unto.protect:tte'graves~ofthe.ancestors. We`have done :. this in the'Watsonville°area and at various-5ltes.in.San Bento,.Monterey and,•Santa -Clara Counties."Whenever development, such'as~schools,.buldmgs...or.;roads, takes place, and there are;grave sites,:I and my people'have'been called on as consultants. At times there: have°been intense: conflicts; and we have stood: our ground and .gone o great measures to protect. our graves from desecration. ,. Now we must speak up about'the San:Bruno Mountain She1l:Maund. It is ahe _ _ largest, oldest and mosf intact'sllell mound-left in .the Bay-area: Slipskin people awed there continuously for 5000 years. Our ancestors must have found .the area verry conducive to-life. The more time we spend on the.mound, the more we :understand how this site supported life therefor so many .centuries. So many:-other mounds have been paved over and been obliterated by buildings, that we have not had such a valuable opportunity to relate to .the lives of our ancestors. San Bruno Mountain. is a ,place that is still in its natural state. Some but not major disturbance has occurred there in the past. In .walking this land, one .can see that this is first of all, a place of peace. In looking at the terrain, I find evidence of FC, fire _~ cracked rcxk, which indicates that there was. burning of stone for eating or-cooking. I find .chert~that shows there was manufaeturing'of arrow.points. ~l see the richness of midden which tells me that there.are burials-there. The color of the soil>is. dark; #hat's where you find evidence of occupationor burials. The fire cracked rock by the stream tells me that they were burning theystones for sweat lodge and cooking purposes (used for:cooking acorn meal or salmon). The.: village was most ilcely, located where.the Bayshore'Highway.~is today ":But it. roust have ~b+een on'~lugher ground.then,~because vllages~were'built on high ground. - -But most of:ell, L feel the.spuituality,.that.is ere, :because.the ancestors are still. there i`feel that any disturbance of their.resting places would release_'.the sacredness of the'mountain, and that it would.`affect the.people'living now who.are'connected :.. to .them mentally-`.and physically. T have always taken aQ measures to.protect and pn~serve the, graves. ,., There are many plants at 'the Shell Mound thathave always been important for us. ,. and used' by our .people for. many centuries: There is. soap root, -which we have used for multiple'purposes,.such as:food,.shampoos and fish poisons. There are.~plants used'for food, such as'buckeyes, broc~iaeas and'the flowers seeds of ::poppies, lupines .and. others.. There are, plants used for medicines 'such as:yerba `santa,Yan:ow, curly dock and plantain At one tune.there. must:"have been :enormous resources.-:for our .- people `from` the all year stream°there that flows fromahe mountain.to .the bay. .., . There are willows still, used by our~people. for building-,.and for medicine. Although`ilus`land'has'been cattle,grazed and:many of the orginalplants;have:.been _. lost, yet_it must have sustained `food,. medicines and materials"~in great -abundance. There are in my opuuon `hundreds or-more. of graves .at .the San Bruno.:Shell .Mound. "The entire area should be leffi.ui.place,. protecting all.;plant:'life and the ::. - -- arumal':habitat. Our:religious life:centers Dr our reverence:for the.dead and our _, - contYnuity~vth them.''iNhen'we are:at.theplaces of-burial of our ancestors, we.ace :connected with our culture end our ways, and we` have a sense of peace..and accord . with life. - We urge that federal ]aws be used to save this land from desecration and #o keep it, as a sawed -site for our people and all people who, have reverence 'for its'.history, .life and spirit. - .. 2 THE .SAN .SRU~tO MOUH'PAIN OHLONE SHELL MOC1i~D :3ubeni tt~d by THE PAJARiO VALLEY ~08IA1+~E' "`INDIAN COUNCIL - -And `_ _ . _ ;SAN - BRLTNO <:~MOUNT~-IN "M~-TCH , . ~ -, ::I . =SAN. BRUNO MOLTNTAZN _ .San ;Br'uno Mount:aa~ pis . located ,just aouth ,of San ~ Francisco on Ban -Mateo .Peninsula. 'The .Mountain is:=.'the biggest ~,urbaa open space in the IInited States,. containing 3,300 acres of ~undeweloped -open-space. The ::::east;::end o'f :the =Mountain slopes down, toaahat =was -once the ::western -shore of :.San ,Francisco Bay. II. 'SAN :BRUNO MOIINTAIN ;,OHLONB SHELL -=MOtJi~ID ':The San .,Bruno :Ohlone shell Mound is ocated :along -this western shore, at the base ~of -:San..Bruno Mountain. -Prior to the European :invasion, the Ohlone were the principal Native American language -group in the San :Francisco .Bay area. -The-=San Bruno Shell Mound has been dated to about 5004 - years :.'ago.:, making .it..ahe =oldest :,;occupied site yet `found on 'San -- ~ Mateo.:Peninsula:. - -Built. pup -:fiver :centuries :-by `the deposit :of _ : shellf°sh :from the :.San ;Franc•sco rBay, :.:ehe11 .mounds ~e~re.used by ;the °Ohlone.:people .:as .;a :-combination <of Qllage,: ;-ceremonial and burial cites .. Such ~.~s. the •case with _ahe KSan Bruno Mountain Ohlone : She11 :Mound.. _ - : ~ _ - - A .limited-atudy :of the Shell :Mound in 19:89 by the archeological fiaaof :_Holman ;~ .;;Associates - revealed -the rp~a ~ rs of rat aeast ;fifte.en people .::.This .find%ag. according ao ':Holman ~ <..Associates, was .a :~ceztaia .::indication *that=:~other =burials -exist at ..this site.. Evidence of -:fires :sand :numerous; .artifacts ;also. were found at the Shell Mound. Holman ~ Associates also .discovered ;;that he .Shell Mound ;-maintains ..its :original :integrity. x. .. There is ono -question :chat the .:San :Bruno ~'Ohlone Shell .Mound - .is =one of .the ;most -significant-kOhlone >wl'~lage -.and burial sites :n : the. '3an Francisco :may. -region.. - :Adding- °°<to =the ~sgnf~cance of this village ..cite is the :possible rpresence of "two other~.;Ohlone shell mounds near San Bruno Ohlone Shell Mound. `Today the San Bruno Ohlone Shell Mound .remains a sacred site to the Ohlone people. Pagel _ _ ,. _ :'III . ' TB$° `'1'ERRASAY ."pROa?EC'T - <Sterling :Paci,farc ~~i~ianagement.hS.ervices of .Phoenix, ,Arizona .plans a residential and commercial-development, called Terrabay, around .the eastern base -of San 8runo:Mountain. The commercial portion of this development would include three hotels containing 600 rooms, 63, 000 square _'feat -rod 'commercial ::space., -- :,parking lots ;and construction of a.freeway.interchange;to _ service `the::new "development.. 'Thus.prof-.ect.would:zdestroy `the San - ,Bruno Shell s~lourid: - . . ; ,- _ ~: .. ._ _ - ,.Based ~~:on :-current .plans, ::-the ;Terrabay ~proj ect ,would °result in -the . ~~coverinq or-:paving ~~over :~of m~cst o~f the -Shell Mound. It is believed that the..freeway interchange would .also contribute - _ to the destruction.-of . _~the Shell' `Mound:. -`If 3"err-abay ..`is built as currently planned possibly the aargest, oldest and most ~-- gnificant Ohlone ~:~she11 mound sand -sacred site -in •~the -.San Francisco "Bay jazeawill be Ydestroyed:. - _IV . :FAILURE TO COLr~LY WITH FEDERAL LAW °.Presently; ~t sling ~Pac`fc nand- the ;City ~of ;.;South San -- Franc~sco ~ a=,e preparing. fore -pt~bli.c ~°commeat ~.a .,draft environmental _ impact -report . ~(~~EIR",) , for-tithe ;~!errabay ~Proj ect' "s -commercial --- --::dev~:elopment.•phase :;The ~~IR:is ~°being;npr+epared pursuant.-.~to the --- Ga~lfornia ~ Envronmentaa Quality Act ;-'.('~CE9A") :. ' -'Cal.:iFub . Res . -Code :§...21000,, et se .) However, there:pis no '.indcaton:'that .any ~-- gover~ental agency let along Sterling "Pacific .intends to comply ._ with- applicable:: federal :law. -.'This ~s '°:in spite Hof the .:fact hat - .federal:: ~fiinds "will-:ice-rtrtanly ~,be Wised to-:construct'the'':freeway - .interchange, -:Further, ;;the A=my Carps"~~:of '~ngia~eers .may::be sei+,; red ~to "~~ssue~ a ~°Cl~n:.::~ater.Act~:Section ~ 904-~permt for .the ~~ ':T.erraba-y commercial development . _ - - Certainly ;such- ~sgnifcant -fede=al >involvement reQi71 res compliance with, among other federal statutes and regulations, - the :National 'Environmental :policy,-~ict x('42 `:II..S.C '``°~~ 4321 to >. ~l37:Ob), .the.;:National `:Historic :~Preservatinn Act :x(16 II-S:C. :§470f, ~et seq.;) , =~a;nd °Sect-on `4 (f) >of ° he department` of transportation `- ~Act _x(-49 ,:,U.. 5:: C.:~~.~ ~1s6"51-5,9.) .:: - Page 2 V . ENVZORI~NT1i1L JUSTICE 1~I® THE OHLOI~E SHELL ~iD Environmental justice requires that minority co~~*+~ties be .consulted regarding projects :.that will impact them.. That consultation has not occurred .here. At no time :has the Ohlone community beenrconsulted regarding the Terrabay Project.`:At no time::has~ he developer or any government agency.performed:an ethnographic .and anthropological-study of the San Bruno Ohlone Shell Mound. At no time has the specific 'impacts of :.the Terrabay Project on the .Shell Mound and Ohlone culture been studied and evaluated. The Pajaro Valley Ohlone Indian Council, a_nonprofit organization representing:350 people of -0hlone descent, and supported by San Bruno Mountain Watch, respectfully requests Ghat the National Environmental Justice Advisory.Council pass an emergency resolution.requestinq that the .Administrator of the II.S. Environmental Protection Agency investigate the Terrabay Project and seek compliance with all applicable federal laws. Mr. Patrick Orozco, Chairman Pajaro Valley Ohlone Indian Council " Mr. David .Schooley,- Chairman -San Bruno Mountain .:Watch .Page .3 THE .SAN . BRUNO .~[OUNTAIN OHI.ONE 'Sf~LL MOUND _. :Submitted .~bY ... :The P~~,aro Valley ~`Ohl:oae °Tndan .Council and _ ::San :Bruno :fountain ~1letch San :Bruno >l~ountain - ,. ~ .'~ San ;Bruno a~auntain'is "located "3ust south of 'San Francisco on' the "San :<]6ateo-=Peninsula.-';. It -ls the 'b`iggesturban open space 'in ',the united "States, :containing 3.;300 undeveloped :acres. -The "' "~" east".end ~o'P' "the`:~ountenslopes ;:down ~to- :ghat was" '°ance .the. wes- ~~ - tern .-shore ;°of fan Franci~soo ;Bay: - - .::,. < _. ~0'hlone .'Shell =Mound _ '~ `The "San '"Bruno Ohlone "Shell .Found ~as `loca:ted oa private land "along 'ahis -western hone, at the base of'`~the :mountain and `next "'to :the :San';ldateo--.State aad :County "Park:. °.Pror to the European invasion, 'the °Ohlone "c-omprised ` he ;princ'ipal Native 'American ":language .group, ~,in `'`the ':San Francesco `fey .:Area. J "'The 'Shell `Hound has` ~~been =dated to .about 5,10:.0 years,, making `{it ~~the oldest ~occnpied s.i'te .yet found ;on .tfie Peninsula. `Built upover 'centuries''~by,;the "deposi.t of °shellf9~ from the ~3av, shell mounds °are the village,ceremonial; and "burial <aites ...., : , of ~ the ;ahlone .,people. ,' `A `limited >~stud~4 of the .:San "~runo bound. ;in 1"9.89. by .the ,ar- _ cheological firm ~of 8olman :and _Aasocates revealed''the .remains of" at "least _ rif`een ':people.. ~ °'T2iis Sindin~~ ~"accordnq to .the °firm's`-~re,part,, :certainly:~ndicat~ed `hundreds or pother ":ezisting ' 'burials.. °~v~dence of `:fires' and ~~numerous arti3Yac`ts"'-were also .found at the Shell Mound ~rhich, 'Holman ..and Associates deter- _ ..... mined, retains its -structural int"eRr~tp~. Given .the site' vast history and is prozimity to e °smalier`` she"l.mound -near the:=spark boundary, .i-t. is probable that the ~:ent'ire <eastern :yells ycontains remnants ~of Ohlone :-settle- ~ment. : hThere is nsufYaent_~:~evi~dence to ~~support':~the archeolo- gi-sts' :~~boundary ~d~elineation >~that ~confines ~~the ':remains tQ only 2.2 'acres ;-out :-of the valley's more ~ than "4'3 : acres. ''' ~= ."`There :.is .no . que9tien that tihe~~an "Bruno .`fountain Shell Found "`is cone sfl? ``the -mo~st-~=sigaifcant ~v~lla~ge °and °-burial -sites in the region. °'It pis :-currently eligible :fornomination at -the :National. Register o~``Fist~orc :places..` koreover, "it remains =sacred ._to the =~Ohlone people . ~ - fEnaengered :~Specaes ''!'he ~~eestern Plank nY 'SanBruno :Mountain; ~inc:ludinq -:.the Oblone`°wi'llage site, is: `elso`'home to,,many plants~~and :animals., ~includinq -`.two =species of''"endangered '""`butterflies, '.the Calippe Slwerspot sand ~Mis-sion .`Blue'::'- The :mountain ecosystem is -cur- -.. ` :-rentlY under itremendous' strain "from encroeclinR development and_ its..,:associnted `~mpgcta,;;_„particularly :the .invasion of ezotic ,~ .,_ ;pa~nnt °speei~es. ''-~foild :renowned ~~entomo~oRiat and ~ezpert n .:con- servntion :b,iology ~rt0. <Mtilsaa,, ,in.~The Di.versit. ~of Ltfe,..high- lights 3an''~'Bruno ~i~ouatain ns :one .o e g een o viers ty hot- spots.in`the:rrorld that.~ere "deserving immediate .attention" ;: >because of their ~:preonrious ~atates, r; -~:. , :. ;,. In =~.982., n :~iabitat :Conaervation"Plan wasapproved to allow .;the .destruction ..af endangered~:spec;ies sand their . hnbitata, "ne'ludanR :other; ~~geoa.ea snot cona3Fdered ," breatened,~ o anke '_ tray !or .resid..ential ;,:,construction,~on~<~an .Brvao >]6ountain. The ~ICP..,:o.ontaned' week ;;pro~siona ~:2'.ort.~abltat ,~preservetion or re- areaton elsewhere ; to ~~his `~d4y,: these. ;•elforta ;.:save .:failed sad the mountain~a endnn~gered epeciea .:are more imperiled than .ever. ~- The theory of ;Island ~HiogeoRraphy, ere1l;;-suit.ed :,for -study of this wholly surrounded ecosystem;' `holds -that ~~n `habitet~ s -- .area ,is .cons.istently .proportional to: the .number of its species. __ `The..eoatinual diminishment Hof 'the ;3an;:Bruno e7Kountain ecosystem ~~has .aed to she ~:e~tnctone,;of ~sa®e ,plant :and animal species .and to. the -dangerously :reduced .-viability ;of ...many :others. :With all ~thi~s ~"n :.heart, and ,mind, further ~ des:truction, ` even of ~°habitat .that is :.apparently :too_mnrRnal to support. __ ` particular apecaea., : is clearly <uawise.. Rather, .considering - -.than :very sew -places :.like- Sea ..~runo ',~Gountain ~rilh-<`.be .left for - '` our descendants ~7in coming centuries,, :, it`* s high ~ t,ime .to rethink urban plaan`ing rso "that 'areasurea -open :~apacee„can actunll stet b.Rger,. ,., t-e .can attempt., to ..restore :SO-called :~ rma R ni~e£ and reintroduce * some species,, ,.and then ~ estaiblish norridors be- .: green open spaces Tto ,.f~cilitate,Mgen~tic ;ezchange;~~between ,pope- --- letions. 'San~~mo"" touataa, -for ;ezemple; -could~be inked to McClaren ~ar~k.'.in 'tike north, .and :to Streen,ey• s:Ridge, an .the west. -- _ ~. k The"Terrabay .Project ~- ._ ___ ` ~ ;SunChese ;G,.A.I ;Californin_.I Inc..;:., whose :parent company as Sterling 'P,acifc J[anar;ement :3ervices, oS ~hoeniz,, :Arizona, _ ~- _ plans, ;.;n residential.;and,,:commerd~al :development called Tarrabay :erouad ;she soutiheastera"`base of ;inn Bruno;~Eountain. `The- aom- mercial ;pc~rtion_would include :three :hotels, :lour =restaurants, and :ozhsr sar.~ices .:=or.~a ~total;of up ~to ~343;,~..000 square feet of ` cormnercia~l spaoe, .plus,;;pnrking :lots.-sand :the :oonetructioa of ~- freeway~~Tamps o >:a.erviae..the :dev6lopment., ,:This `,:;prod act would - _, ':a.estroy ~ahe 'San _?Bruao ::3hell;~ound.. . `Based' on 'current ,plans., ~. the.,~ound .a~uld ,`be ~~cappad," :or -- covered :with as much as ~23 feet of rill, cad then :turned into a small, .`landscaped park :surrounded_.:by.large;:;buildiags. This ~"mitigation" .would desecrate human ~>bur•sls; ate :resulting com- paction would;destroy,~:archeologicnl::..resources.. `It is !likely `that ,the :freeway . constructica would also ;= contribute to :the _ ~bound~ destruction....:~lie ~stand :to~lose she aargea:t, oldest, sadmost significant `OhYoae. ~-shell rmound :-remaining 'in the en- - 'tire ~~Bay Aran,'".ns well :as criticdl.~.endangered species habitat. 'Environmental ,justice requires thatminorty communities 2 be consulted re~ardin~ projects that will impact them. That consultation has nit occurred°here. At no time .has the Ohlone community been consulted regarding the Terrabay.project. At no .time ;has the developer oranp Rovernment,agenc_y performed ethnological or anthropological studies of the.site, and at no time have the -specific 'impacts of ahe.project on the Ohlone :people :been evaluated. 'San Bruno fountain Watch and the Pa~iaro 'Ya11ey Ohlone Indian Council, 8non-profit organization .representing 350 people of<Ohlone descent, declare .that the proposed-project would.severely desecrate a sacred,:ancient burial site. 'The She11 Mound~.s other far ranging values, as critical endangered pecies habitat.., as open space for Peninsula residents,-and as a cultural, educational, and natural treasure for all, 'further dictate that .preservation of the site as undisturbed open -space .is vital.. It is the region's oast such place. The old development agreement between the City of South San Francisco and SunChase_must be~reexamined in the contezt of what has recently been discovered at the Ohlone`Shell Mound on San Bruno Mountain. We must take this opportunity to pre- serve the site, pre2'erably by .annexation to the immediately ad.iacent .San 1~ateo State.-and County .:Park.. We ;must .take seriously .our moral obligation to prevent profit from over- ridins~ the more enduring, imperative values at stake. `Mr. Patrick Orozco, Chairman p ;~'~~~~ (~~"` Pa,iaro Palley Ohlone `Indian Council ~~~~L~~ ll~r. David Schooley, `Chairman `' San Bruno Mountain -Watch c7h0- ,3 .... , .., ,LETTER 30, PAJARO VALLEY::OHLONE. /ND/.4N 000NC/L >.AND.;:.SAN ;.BRUNO :MOUNTAIN ~WATCH.(.CHARLES._M/LLER); .:;~ , _~,._ .: Response•3~ L :,:Please see Master:Response~7.3-6 'Response 30.2 .Impact 4.9-1 ("Damage to CA-SMa-4U") (DSEIR page 288) presents the analysis of the.project as proposed,according to .the 1998 DSEIR Project.Description of Januarya5, :.1998. (DSEIR .. ,page 25). Please .also refer to Master.Response 7.3-2~regarding,the..adequacy.of he_DSEIR' project .. :description and ..::analysis in view :.of the pro~ect.sponsor's_ .new Phase :III ,Site -.Mitigation .Plan Development Alternative. Mitigation'Measure 4.9-1(b) is:_preceded by a.discussion of .the impacts .which the,~roposed project would impose on CA=SMa-40 (DSEIR .pages .286-288). The 1998 -DSEIR (DSEIR pages 288-290) also presents Mitigation.Measure 4.9-11a).identified by. he„projectsponsor's.archaeologist. Mitigation .Measure 4.9-1,(b) .recommended alternative.,mitigation because it would enhance-.the preservation of the. site. - Mitigation Measure 4.9-1(b) contains recommendations for changes in. the project-sponsor'splans in order to provide the public and decision-makers with variations within the same project description which.notonly would meet CEQA requirements but.also-:would avoidahe.compression:and.destruction of CA-S1VIa-40 cultural .,deposits and eliminate sthe need for .mitigation by :means of extensive archaeological excavation.. . ; _ .. . The. project sponsor's Phase III Site. Mitigation Plan Development Alternative is evaluated in Master Response; 73-L ;The..EIR archaeologist did: •not see;ahe,altemative:any.;sooner<than--the ,commentor which was after"publication.of_the.1998DSEIR._ F, _ ,~ ,.. Response.30.3 Please see Master Response 7.3-4;for a discussion of:historic resources. The DSEIR does analyzehistoric resources as`~dentified in and clarified by Master Response 7.3-4. ;... , The EIR archaeologist did not `have detailed "Ohlone 'input which accompanied Leiter 30, as 'further :discussed in Response 30.5. `However, be 1998.DSEIR did anticipate strong reaction. from,the Ohlone .community regazding the.impacts (and .change in significance in the site) as indicated on DSEIR page 292 first paragraph and. page 285 second, third, and fourth.paragraphs. : _ _ ,, The project sponsor's new Phase:Ill Site.Mitigation:Plan Development Alternative would eliminate all project .construction activities on or within 30 feet of .the boundaries of CA-SMa-40. The impacts of development would be totally reduced ao aless-than-significant aevel and would be :in keeping with CEQA's emphasis on preservation of significant cultural resources. Please see:Master Response 7.3-1 for the environmental analysis of this.alternative ~.. - : _. Response 30.4 -The 1998 DSEIR (DSEIR -page°284) su7„mari,ps the: uniqueness of CA-SMa-40 as one of a diminishing number of extant, relatively .:undisturbed, ..prehistoric ahellmounds :in the San Francisco`Bay Area. The documented antiquity of CA-SMa-40, based on he.radiocarbon -date of `5,155 yeazs` before the present'(BP), ;suggests that the ,site may ':be ;the "oldest of its ,type" on the Peninsula and .perhaps -within the San Francisco `Bay region. Because of its .long prehistoric occupation (5515 BP to 460 BP) and the fact that few such relatively undisturbed shellmounds still exist in the Bay Area, it certainly is one of the `best available examples" of the shellmound-type site. I.etoer 30.1 _ ~_. ~ r ;Neazly all. the approximately 4251azge shellmound sites recorded around the Bay Area early in the 20`s century have been destroyed or.:greatly impacted by natural forces .and modem cultural activity. By .. ... :. ~ ;1973.; ~ ur~baa expansion had ~ damaged or<~destroyed ,more .than` °50 percent of the estimated ..number of ;- archaeological sites (9,675) in the nine Bay Area counties.. Large'Bay='fronting she`llmounds have been impacted disproportionately as easily-filled shallow Bay 'flats 'have .;been most •attractive for `- development.. A very .few well knowri'~ large ~ shellnounds'survived long enough ~to`"~be ;part of the _ modern archaeological record. _ . ,. , . ''CA=SMa-40 `zs "directly- associated with a scientifically recognized important .prehistoric .event" ,_ ' because ih is the oldest site- yet ~recorded• on the'San'hrancisco`Peuinsula (the initial. arrival of people in . ._ . .: `ae'Bay region being an;"important°prehis`toric eveaf~''because it•contains evidence'of changes in ~ - subsistence strategy :as well as stylistic .changes :over time (probably •'related ~3o the hypothesized replacement of the old Hokans by the .more recent Utians, another important:prehistoric.:event), and ;- 'because it possesses -a very Tong .cultural sequence compared with other regional sites. '' ' `Shelhnounds containimpressive amounts of`~'data` related-to the' environment and changes in the - ~-environment.' Therefore, CA-SMa-40=contains ~a'record of 'environmental changes as well as how ' human inhabitants -in the region .adapted to changing conditions. CA-SMa-40 is the .oldest site reported on the Peninsula, contains a record of San Francisco Bay region prehistory, and ties the site to - - theperiodjust priorao'the contact of'Europeans and`Natiye cultures. ~Implementation:of-'the project would result in the loss of an exceptional example of the'-classic Bay- __ oriented prehistoric shellmound. ~:Such-an action would result in a significant cumulative impact on the ever-diminishing data bank regazding regional cultural history, as well as an. important'0hlone cultural resource. ... - '':Mitigation'11~Ieasure 4.9 3(a) '(DSEIR page 2~8.) or 1Vlitigation'Measure 4:9-1(b) (DSEIR page 290) _ would satisfy CEQA requirements for reducing cumulative"impacts 'to 'a :less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.9-1(b) .would be .the DSEIR ,preferred .measure. because it .would ,preserve the - shellmound."'The`.Phase`7II}Site'~Mitigation Plan Development Alternative would eliminate all project i -- activity on and within. 30 .feet of :the boundaries of CA-SMa-40, .resulting in the .preservation of the site. "T7ie Phase 111 'Site Mitigation Plan ~Developrnent fllternaxive would' be in "keepinD with CEQA's ~- emphasis on .preservation of ,significant cultural :resources. 'The .Permanent,;Open:.Space Alternative •and the 'Reduced Commercial Development Alternative also would result in the,~preservation of CA- Cumulative .impacts -resulting from direct ".human . activity ~ also will occur. Phase lII commercial - development would lead to increased human activity .throughout the :San .Bruno Mountain azea and could result in' cumulative':impacts to CA=S1GIa-40 (and -92). ~ Increased human presence -tends to put 'pressure on `the` landscape as people are :"forever .curious about, their surroundings and, in some cases, `_ .-are -abusive toward .their surroundings ; °l?ven'af the ..archaeological resources. are preserved in their ':presenf condition, commercial developnent:ui the .area will bring people to the site. (as its existence and location are now common knowledge), and "the resources will he exposed to long-term trampling, __ collecting, and,.possibly, deliberate vandalism. ' 'Periodic monitoring of the:condition of tfie resources~would satisfy CEQA as mit}gation. The use of fencing signage, rock barriers, or other means .of reducing. access may be required:in he future to - discourage: or prevent.:cumulative impacts of this nature.- Letter 30.2 :Response 30.5.:It .appears ---chat his .:comment 'focuses an the , <opinion that :in `spite of CEQA requirements .for ~:public :participation,` :California -Native Americans :did ,not :participate in any ;meaningful way in this EIR process.::. . The;1998.DSEIR;;(DSEIR pages.276.and 285 footnote.275),indicates:.that:EIR archaeologist initiated contacts -with the :Native aAmerican: community .:and.;provided the;.City :with. records ::documenting <communications with ;Native .:Americans .;about the <;project: These :materials :are ;on ° `file with the Planning Division as .part ofahe ;City'.-sproject:file and::include:copies of .the: following-items: ~ February 2, 1998 letter to the. Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento _ requesting mast of Ohlone.:organizations:and individuals. • February 5, 1998 responsefrom theNAHC•including a'list of 11 Ohlone contactswith addresses - ::and elephone:numbers. - - - • February :9, -1998 letters sent to all 11-Ohlone contacts, -including one to Patrick Orozco, which sought comments :and:recommendations,from .the local Native American community regazding °ahe management of CA=SMa-40. _ _ • .Copies of two letters of response, including one from Patrick Orozco, • .Copies: of surrLm?*~es of four elephone conversations. - The comment suggests that the relevant project-related reports and materials were not -available to the Native American community .for .pre-DSEIR review..Public review periods for EIRs are intended to :give all interested,parties the~same:opportunity~to read and,•comment.on-report contents and not to give ,preferential areatment to :individuals; groups, ar representatives :of ` :orgatuzations. Background information used to conduct this 1998 SEIR's analyses but not.published in.the appendix is part of the public -record. Most of that information is on file with .and available .for°pulilic 'inspection at the Planning Division. Unlimited public ..access is .restricted to Holman and .Associates' ..1998 report, Evaluative Archaeological Investigations at fhe~San Bruno~lVlountain'`Mound Site, CA-SMa-40, South San Francisco California, the main azchaeological background report in order to safeguazd the site's resource, but certainly would be available for review by Ohlone community members. -The report also is available at the'Historical `Resources Information'System, `Northwest Information Center. at Sonoma State-University in Rohnert Pazk. - >The `EIR azchaeologist responded 'to' atelephone request'~by 'Otilone `Indian` tribe member .Andrew Galvan and provided information from 'the -1998 _Holman and Associates report, The EIR archaeologist would have provided similar material to .others; if requested. - A;telephone communication with-Rosemary' Catnbra;' Chairperson,'1Vluwekma"Indian Tribe, was the source of the 1998 .DSEIR statement (DSEIR=page'293 fifth paragraph)regazding the control of the azchaeological site by the Ohlone. -The statements made~by Patrick Orozco which-.are attached to Letter'30 as Exhibits One through Five are similaz-in content to'Mr. Orozco's=February'18, 19981etter to the'EIR archaeologist: Nevertheless, =they ,.would have `been .welcome material in assessing the importance `of CA=SMa-40, particularly 'Ohlone sensibilities regarding the cultural and religioussigtiificance-of~the site. The:comment states (page 121ast paragraph) that the 1998 DSEIR•is "simply`•wiong"; `mitigation 4.9- 1 will not eliminate conflict-with Native Americans". This-comment does not reflect what the 1998 Letter 30-3 DSEIR states. .;Mitigation Measure 4.9-1(a) was presented_by .the.project-sponsor'.s•archaeologist, Holman ..and Associates, ;yin that:,,firm's ;Februazy 1998 ;report.: sHohnan and :Associates calls for azchaeological excavation to mitigate the significant impacts which would result°from placing as much -- .as 20 feet .of .fill on the site -:the.fill being part of the applicant's .proposed project. Mitigation Measure 4.9-1(b) recommendsthat ~no more .than •two feet of fill~be placed ion the -site which would >~_eliminate:compression of .the ~cultnral>deposit and:wouldfacilitate~preservation: of ACA=SMa-40 and _ which would =:tend not to conflict with `Native American efforts -topreserve the -site. `~ While .same archaeological=excavation may=be.necessary~at.~the,;periphery.of the :site ,with'Mitigation Measure 4.9- 1(b), the .main .part of the site would remain intact (DSEIR page. 293).. The .comment voices displeasure. with "capping"-, the site with -any :amount :.of ;fill. The complete :elimination of fill on CA-SMa-40 certainly is compatible with.Mitigation Measure 4.9-1(b). The 1998 DSEIR~states .that "variations of MitigationMeasure 49-1(b) aze:possible as long.as he basic premise - of site preservation is maintained and the need for site destroying fill,compaction:and compression is eliminated". The .Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternarive would eliminate all construction: activities on .or; within 30 feet. of he boundaries of _CA-SMa-40. Impacts of development would.:be totally reduced to`a.less-than-significant,:level =andwould be;:in keeping with CEQA's emphasis on preservation of significant cultural resources. Pleaseaee Master:Response 7.3-1 for a detailed discussion of the Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative. - • .Exhibit One undated comments by Patrick Orozco of the Pajazo Valley Ohlone Indian Council regazding the San Bruno Mountain shellmound (page.2,'.last pazagraph). Mr. Orozco.summarizes .that "we would Iike to see": the,-graves-left;undisturbed ~ ;- ~ -,.ahe whole.areapreserved with.no commercial development ._the management:of the~land be supervised by an Ohlone Indian.descendant-or,descendants ..:Response - Mitigation Measure 4.9-1(b) (with .or without: a shallow cap of,fill -awo feet. oraess) would preserve.on-site-Native.American burials. ,. _ _ The .1998 DSEIR;..(DSEIR,pages.326-328).presents.the lead.agency.with an•;environmentally '- superior .alternative, The .report states under archaeology ~;(DSEIR:__page, 328) -that "[t]he Permanent Open Space Alternative would be the environmentally superior of all .alternatives :.from : an -.archaeological .perspective, :including ::the . No .Development .Alternative .and the -- ,:Commercial Development .Alternatives :because ..the site's cultural ,resources would be preserved,and-managed in tact in an undeveloped landscape".. The 1998 DSE1R also presents the. lead :agency with ahe ;possibility of management of the site location by;.Ohlones ,(see: DSEIR page. 293 fifth paragraph). The Phase III Site .Mitigation Plan Development Alternative would eliminate all construction activities .on . or..within 30 feet of: the .boundaries :of CA-SMa-40.. impacts ..of ~ development would . be :aotally :.reduced- -to ;a. -less-than-significant aevel ;and ,would . be in .keeping with CEQA's.emphasis-on:preservation of: significant cultural.resources..:Master Response 7.3-1 - presents a;detailed.discussion of.the.Phase..lll;SiteMitigation Plan Development Alternative. • Exhibit Two.testimony on .the.TerrabayPhase II and IILEIR by. Patrick Orozco .(undated) • Exhibit T.hcee statement:of.Patrick Orozco, August 14, :1998 Lerner 30-4 -• Exhfbft Four, additional statements of Patrick Orozco June .l, °..1998. 'These three narratives_emphasizeaheconcem for;greserration,ofahe Ohlone_shellmound, Native :American burials,.and the protection of the site setting. . p - agency should conside . ~ ,, ~~ . Res onse .The. lead r .these and other Native .American concerns in .::determining. ~:the =prsfen=ed ~_alternatve for ahe:.project, _ BAs stated above, the 1998 -DSEIR (DSEIR ..page 328) offers an environmentally superior .alternative which would ;preserve.':the: site intact in an undeveloped landscape. As an~Ohlone:spiritua]:leader, MrArozco's statements regarding the~potenttal for off:site burials should be given serious .consideration..The project archaeologist: (Holman & Associates) and the E]R archaeologist (Chavez & Associates) agree. that there is not practical .way to determine if, in fact, off-site burials are, present, and an archaeological and Native American monitoring program is .recommended for the Tetrabay Phase III project. See Master. Response 7.3-6 for additional discussion. . Response 30.6 The commentor .states that "it is .conceded in the Draft EIR that the Ohlone shellmound is eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)(Draft EIR, page 341)". The 1998 DSEIR summary statement (DSEIR page 341 first paragraph) is incorrect and will be corrected in the Certified SEIR. It should read: ... The importance of CA-SMa-40 is undisputed, due.to its antiquity, size, location, and contents, including human remains, such that it appears to meet the criteria for nomination to ~~ ~s~sien-ems the :National Register of. Historic Places. However. CA-SMa-40 has not been formally determined to be eIieible for or listed in the National Register and such a determination is beyond the iunsdiction of the city. The EIR archaeologist makes this statement on DSEIR .page 282. (first paragraph) to further the conclusion that CA=SMa-40 meets CEQA criteria as an important. cultural resource. It is important to .realize that .only the keeper of the NRHP in Washington, D..C., with concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), can determine if a cultural resource is eligible for listing on the NRHP.:A nomination form-would need to be prepazed for SHPO review to .begin .the .nomination process. No such effort'.has been undertaken, and NRHP .eligibility remains as .matter of professional opinion and not a statement of fact. It is important to realize that the SEiR is not required to determine if project-related resources aze eligible for nomination to the NRHP. Please see Master Response 7.3-3 fora detailed discussion of the application of the NHPA to CA-SMa-40. 3ust as CA-SMa-40 is probably eligible for nomination to the NRHP, it also probably is eligible for nomination to the California Register, and the .Certified SEIR text (DSEIR page 282) will be revised accordingly, as follows: It is apparent that the~azchaeological research questions posed by Holman and Associates can be addressed through the analysis of CA-SMa-40 cultural deposits. It is concluded, therefore, that the site is an important cultural resource under criteria defined by CEQA Section 21083.2, including in Appendix G, and Appendix g. Under Section 21084 1 the site is probably eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources It is further believed that the site meets -the .criteria for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. As an importance resource, any significant impacts to CA-SMa-40 would require mitigation under the .provisions of CEQA (see Impacts and Mitigation Measures, below). Lena 3as r- i Whether or not the Olilone ~shellmound (CA~Ma-40).,is : eligible .for'listing on'ahe' California Register will not change the .1998 DSEIR's conclusions .regarding impacts ..and mitigation. .The criteria for eligibility~essentially~are`~thesame~as-CEQA,Appendix~K'.(and Section 21832) criteria.for determining ,- the importance of a cultural resource. •. Byapplying °~CEQA criteria,`~the--lead-~-agency in -fact is considering "prudent and feasible". protections for the Ohlone shellmound. ~. - r' 'Response =30J For a discussion regardi>g 'compliancewith the National .Historic"Preservation Act, see Master'Response 7 3 3: ~ - Response 30:8 The Ten abay Phase III ,project is not .a Federal "action" under the National Environmental Policy ~1ct"(NEPA),.and the preparation of an~environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required. Please see Master'Response 7.3 3 ~for~further discussion. `Letts 30-6 . J ! 7 .in(,1,~J.61L,..M~V PJLUe.. - _ _ ' ~~..-`~~ ._ -^`h; ,y _- P. 0. "Box '711 ' . - _ -., . : ~.~;;~;,. , - South San Fnanci.aco, CA 94083 Augua~t l 4, l 94.8 Dean Ma.. ; Hcvcn;E.Q h I am ,gnate~uL :'fan the oppo2tun,ity zo comment on the 199'8 ~S. F. I.R.:~on Pha.6ea II .and III o~ Tewcabay. I _ am neapo-1d~.ng ab a c,.ti.zen and ne.~ghbon o~ -San Bn.uno "Mowata,Ln and' want .to `:be c,Lean ~ha~ I am nod nepneaen~,i.ng my company ~.n .theae commentb . _ Fon .the .~aa~ ~~.5~een yeana I have won(zed one b.~ock ..away . Strom zhe pnopoaed P_o.~nt development , ..cn the l 1,0.0 :b.8ock <os A.ucpont .Bou.eevand. :'The .ca.aueb ;which conce~cn me :an.e .cn ...the ;~o.U.ow.Lng an.eaa :: h ydno.~ og y_, b.Lo.~og y and a~cc haeo.tog y. ::NYDROLOGy . 31. ~ Lei .ct-be ;pa2t .o;~ ..the.necond :that #fte 1.1:00 b.Lach, o~ Adnpoict Spueevand _ expe~c.Lenced unpneceder~ted ~.~ood.Lng and .a.ewen barfi-upa ,a.~~en. zhe chan9e~a :.made :to. ned.i~cect :waken ~.~ow .tn #.he >bui,Cd,u1g d ~ S-ia~~c .C.izcea BouLeva~cd and Phab e I ,o ~ T¢~ucabay . I ~ ..the hycino.~ogy .nepo~ct ;~ on .that p2o~ ect ; paaa ed your .dehuziny a~_~ite -~.tme ~o~ :.ita F.`I.R. L_.wou~d :.au99.eb.t :~ha~ youu :do Sunthen neseanch on zhe pobb.Lb.e.e connection be~ueen .that. pno~ect and .the eubaequent` b.~ood.ing -and beluen back-upb on A~cpont 8ou.~evand, and .to uae what you :2eann 6e~one you .impbement Phaaea II and IIT..In P,ighz o~ what has happened ,he2e pe~rhapa:.rt woad be paudent zo .nod neey on the ,game <hyd2o:bog.iat. BLO,LOGy ~ . $y,~ :..The: mountain .c,a .inc~ced~ib.~y ~c.i.ch .i.-~c bpeciee and. _~.eco.aya.temb. .I .wad ,bwcp~c,iaed zo -Head (p. '::151.) :;ghat the ~moncton.Lng a~ the .pneaence nb the -ca.l.L.Lppe ~aiCvenapot bu#,te~c~.~y (Speyeni.a. cae,Q,cppe caGC.ippe) and mapping- o~ .ita ho.a.t p.~ant ': (V.io~a pedunccr:Caza~j =had .a eemed .accepzab.~e ,44 ~hca ~peccea ; waa Fede~.a:P~y-.i.a~ed ;ab endangered as o~ ;Decembe~i .:1991 ::it.:woued ~aeem.~appvcopn,i.ate :zo :.a.Ludy.~he ;~hab.istat_:.i:nzenaely oven; a pen;tod ;~o~ tyean;a :zo :dete~cm~ne :impact o~ deve.2opment on the 6uttens~.y. I.a :a.ix montfLa enough .t.ime? 37.3: Regand.%ng zfce wet.C.anda M.ttigation Meaacu~ea 4.3-1 (a) , (b) , and `(.c-) , ::my po4.ix,Lon ..ca ~ha~ #Ite wetea,nda .~houed bzay 1008 .intact. According zo Chni,a#ophe2 Swcurth, flucecton o~ .the Jug Say We~andb San.ctuany .i.n Mcucy.~and, "The eci.ence on ' ant' o~ m.ctigaxi.an .cd .in .c.ta .c.n~ancy and much remains xo be .Ceaaned. Compensa~tony mc,Ligated wet,~and a.itea are euppoaed .to nep.~ace .thaee . 6uncti.ons .that are .Coal when a we~and .c,s des#~.o yed, but many ,~ :31.3 be.~enzc.aza 'qued#,~on whether zh,id .i,a necr.P.Cy pob.a.i.b.~e. Same m,iti.ga~ti.on .a.cted have abv~.oud.?y bai.~ed, ;.xurn~i.ng .i.reto .~akea or up.~andd. `In a.ther caaea, a m~gated we~and _may :~oofz ':f.i~fz.e a na~wi.ae .wefi.?and.;. beat does zha~ :mean .c..t .c,b bune~.i.o-tii.r~.g ~ke~-gone? dew .a.tuc(.iea :have add~ceaaed ~h~.a ques~.i.on."1 ~ G~.ven the d~.~~.ceu~ty :off adequcrteey m,ittgat,~ng a :~od.t we~and .I'--~~eet .d~cong:Cy that ~hi.d we~and on Phu;6e .I1I .d.ite, wh~.ch prav.fded wcLteh`~~and habitat ion many ~peei..ed o~ p.~an~ and an~ima,P.a, dhou~d .d:tay st.-stact 'rSa,Cvagcng and rep.~an~ng na~.ive p~antd .i.6':a very .31.4 d.c-~~~.eu~`':~,•ob. ~ Pnopaga~i.on ob na~~ve pban~a ~o eupp:~eme-tit ouch ~ an - e~~air.~t woer~d .6e ~ne'eded. Aa a gardener and member ob ;the . Ca~~onn.i.a' Native P.~arat ,Sae.~ety 1 can axted.t to the d~~~.~eu~P.ty a~ :ticanep~anfi.~ng many ncLti.ve p.~an~ • ~ ARCHAEOLOGY 31.5 I grew up on an :ia.~and .cn the Chedapeafze Bay. Th.ia .ia~and had .a.~x .6he~ maunda wh~eh wen.e protected by the neighborhood ad.dociation. G!e ch.i.edren were not a~awed to eo.P.Beet anti.~acta or othenw~ide d:ia.tunb those ah~ mounds. _,4,penmaner~t museum on the .c,6.~and eonzcu.ned an~cowheadd, potdherdd, ...and atherc ar~i~ aced ` wh.eh 'had been co:P.~eeted '.bong bed one T was ; `bo~n.n. There was ~o 'be no ':bc~.Ld:~.ng on on next #o ~hoae mound,~..aa shay wehe nea- peeted as kemnanta o~ an ancient 'Native:Ame~u.ean cu,etuae.. These :d~he~ °moundd on Phase fiI'T .~.cte cvice nod only ev.cdeneed `:off 3000 yeana o~ "human •aetiv.ity. They :are ~ a;Gdo cemetan,i.e6. Aa :I wou.Ld no# cona.i.der bu,ied.~.ng an or near :graved ~.in 'Co:Cma 'T -woad -expect ~e'`City ' o~ 'South .San 1=rancidco ~o ,extend the .dame .redpeet for the de~,i:eate nema.~na o~ the Oh.~one people. 'Haven' z we done ;enough ~o shed a peop.~e? . ; I can .rmag.cne -zhe'„guea.ta o.b tWO huge ~hoze~a <d~.gg.e.~ig ~~hrough xhe':°.ahel;C mourtdd ~:ooktng Sor :aouve-tiie~ca: Havcrtg ~o`,hQ~ela rand a eorpa~tate headqu~,tena :~eear'by :id eune~y`no env.ueon- •ment =for. dedcendan~ a~':thede :peop.~•e ~zo °v.idit .the'b:ite -zo ;'honor, xhe,uc . anceazana. -~Tfee ""devetopmenz `a~ a :;park with :tcuund :2andacap.t.ng, ` pedebxic~.an paths, :-and .interpnexc.ue -~emen~a" .i,d °a~2nroaz ae .a~~end.~ve a.:a'o:~uti.on =aa capp.i.ng the: mound. - 'CONCLl1SION '_ .: `G.iven .the'apee>i.a~. ~eature,~ ~o% zhe `Phase 'III.~'.cte ~I wet;Candd," :dheP~ mounds, na~.ve p.?antd and endangered bu~,te~c~.P.ie4) T be~P.ieve .,#hat zh.ia ~:ite -,wou.~d be an ouxdtartding outdoor eeade~coom ~a.2 .aehao~d ae.C oven the Bay A~cea. Vo.~unteen zeamd cou.C.d . enadi.caze .invad.ive bpeei.ea o~ ptanta and .propagate . :and p~arit the`~~o.~~a. -peduncu~a~a ;and :other hoot p.Lanza cos .-ate the epec:~ee o~ :~uxten~:fi¢,6 -~wh.i:ch ;vi:ait.:~~'he ::area. ; `O~he~c . ~eamd -cou,Cd '~.ecrnrc >:to ~mon.itan ~h.e- weteandb . In 'X:ighz .:off .:~~he ~:6eu,¢;d wh.~ch I -=have -out~i.n.ed above -and the .i.nti-tn6.ie -va:Lue ob zhe mourita.i:n..:itd~et~ L~:urge you °to _:dePeet zhe `Phase III ::~P.enmanent a0pen . Space ~A~P.te~:nattve. > Th,ib :.cd ryoun ~~un>tque =opporturvcty Ito prea~erve° _.a :~mounta.i:n-:u.rc ,the m~dd# o ~ -:an urban -d etti.ng ~'~ on ~aX.~~ to ~en1 a y and . ; S.i.ncerePy, Sudan V.~g.i 1 Vo.Cunteen Monitor, Vo.~ X10, Na i; Sp~c.t.ng 1998; EPA .Ncctiona,~`Neiud:~e~ttea os Va.~u-titeer Glater 2uaGity Monitaning . p . 7 . LETT.ER.31, SUSAN. Y/GlL Response 31.1 Comment noted. According to Richard Harmon:of the•City'-s Engineering Division, the.1100 block of Airport Boulevard is in a different watershed than the lands drained by the Terrabay -Trunk -Storm Drain .(TTSD) which was installed along what is .now Sister Cities Boulevard. .Moreover, the TTSD was. installed. in its .completed foAn .before--..Sister Cities :Boulevard was constructed, and the TTSD .has enough capacity to accommodate ultimate buildout of Phases I and.II of the subdivision. At thattime, only Phase I was under construction. Some flooding .could have .occurred along Airport Boulevard -just north of the .Bayshore Boulevard intersection :prior o .the installation (by Caltrans) of the principal box culvert which conveys TTSD and other Bayshore and freeway drainage .across U.S. 101. :However, this localized flooding would not. have crossed the .watershed boundary into the southern drainage which includes the .1100 block. The area referred to be the commentor is subject to occasional flooding due to obstructed storm. drain inlets and relatively flat ,grades. Sanitary sewer back-ups also occur on occasion due to infiltration of .rainwater .into sewer pipes which can .overload the .sanitary sewer, as noted. According to Teny White, the City Superintendent of Public Works, some remedial measures (such as backflow valves) have been installed to reduce the :frequency of sanitary sewer backup in the. commercial district comprising the 1100 block. .Response 31.2 The reference to surveys on .DSEIR page 151 pertains to the mapping effort for larval host plants of the callippe silverspot conducted by the project sponsor's vegetation specialist. A -°~ supplemental-peer review of the larval host plant mapping was performed during preparation of the -° 1998 DSEIR. In defining an appropriate.scope for the biological assessment for the DSEIR, the City and Habitat .Conservation .Plan. (HCP) monitoring consultant /Plan Operator determined that field - work should focus on the distribution of the.larval host .plants for callippe silverspot - johnny,jump- up. Attempts to have the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) provide input into the scope of the "_ .field effort were .unsuccessful during preparation of the 1998 DSEIR. Comments received from the USFWS (Letter I2) focus on compliance with the landowner /developer obligations defined in the HCP and avoiding larval host plants .of the callippe silverspot which is recommended by Mitigation .Measure 4.3-2. Response 31.3 The commentor's concerns about Goss of wetlands and importance of preserving existing habitat are .noted. Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(b) calls for preparation of. a detailed wetland mitigation plan, if complete avoidance of wetland habitat is not feasible. 'The wetland mitigation plan .would include .specific performance criteria, monitoring provisions, and contingency .measures to ensure success criteria area met, consistent with the mitigation goals of .the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. :Refer to Master Response 7.3-8 on wetlands for additional information on the .proposed approach to mitigating potential impacts on wetlands and .the need for adequate replacement and restoration. Response 31.4 As the commentor notes, salvage and propagation of native plants can be difficult and require an experienced .professional. :However, use if .collected seed .and salvage material is becoming an important component of restoration work and should be incorporated as part of the proposed Restoration .Plan. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1(b) specifies that salvage be performed during .the optimum period necessary to ensure plant survival. Response 31.5 The comment addresses the "merits of the project". It does not raise questions about the adequacy of the 1998 DSEIR analyses but refers to the project's significant environmental effects analyzed .in the DSEIR and expresses a preference for an alternative for the Phase :III site I.ctter 31-1 Lettnr3l-2 August 14,199s LETTER 32 Michelle Brewer 4141 Cowell Blvd.. Apt. 7b Davis, -CA 95616 TO: South San Frandsen Planning Comatission 'RE: Terrabay Phase II and II, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Members of the Plaruung Commission: I am concerrued about the impacts that the Terrabay Phase II and III projects will have on the habitat of the endangered insects, the Mission Blue and Callippe silverspot butterflies. 32 ~ Although, according to the SEIIt (p.150), provisions allow for "incidental take" of ,,. " ~ endangered. species, t11is is only allowed if the project sponsor provides the US Fish and Wildlife Service with a conservation plan for the affected species. The project sponsor must also enter into a habitat management agreement with the Califontia Department of Fish and Gagne, which defines permitted activities and provides adequate mitigation. It is my concern thatthis provision has not been adequately followed, as although there is an attempt. at mitigation for the Callippe silverspot (4.3-2) ., this are no siaular mitigation provided for the Mission blue butterfly. -32.2 Mitigation measures for the Callippe silverYpot are also not adequate as transplanting adult nectar plants to areas where they aze currently not.living is unlikely to work. How one be certain that the butterflies will find them and deride to reside there? :Also, how can one be certain that the transplanted plants will survive .in their new habitat? .As a biologist, I am familiar with the misty unknowns that ale involved with tranplantation experinnents, and I feel that these is no guarantee that this mitigation will be effective or helpful to this spades. -The best mitgation is the preservation of habitat where the species currently lives. Unfortunately, since there is so little habitat left for these species, there is little other land :left to preserve that is not already.somnelwrov protected. Therefore, it would be difficult for the developers for this;project to provide any mitigation measures that will .effectively counteract the negative impact that the planned development would have on .these species. I urge you to not allow this development project to go forward. The effects of this development project on the aforementioned spades are unlarown and unacceptable. ,Sinn^cezely, l r~ .Michelle Brewer Master's Degree Candidate in Conservation Biology, San Francisco State Uruiversity LE7TER 32, MICHELLE BREN%ER Comment 321 The 1998 DSEIR (DSEIR pages 149-152) provides a detailed discussion of the ,potential for occurrence of special-status species on the site, including butterfly species of concern. As indicated on DSEIR page ISI, the recent endangered status designation of.the callippe srlverspot raises concerns about the potential impacts of the proposed project on this subspecies and. the adequacy of Habitat Conservation .Plan (HCP) provisions to address habitat loss. Refer to the .Master Response 7.3.-9 on callippe silverspot for information on the status of the amendment application to allow for incidental take of this species _ as part of the HCP. The status of mission blue .butterfly has not changed -since completion of the 1996 SEIR, and the provisions of the' HCP and previous EIR were considered adequate to address this species allowing for incidental take under the Section l0A permit. Attempts to obtain input from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) during preparation of the 1998 DSEIR were unsuccessful. Comments received .from the USFWS (Letter I2) focus on compliance with .landowner / .developer obligations defined in the HCP and avoiding .larval host .,plants of the callippe silverspot which is recommended by Mitigation Measure 4.3-2. Comment 32.2 Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 provides clear options on treatment of suitable habitat for the callippe silverspot. A final decision .has not been reached yet regazding an amendment to the .incidental take permit for the .HCP to include the callippe silverspot. As defined in Mitigation Measure 4.3-2, if an amendment is not obtained, the project must be redesigned to avoid all larval-host plants, with avoidance of the large stand at the northern end of Phase III recommended regazdless of whether the amendment is secured before development proceeds. .Salvage and replacement plantings of Johnny jump-ups to be provided as part of the proposed Restoration Plan for .the project was considered adequate mitigation for the anticipated loss of the smaller scattered stands of Johnny jump- up which may be affected by development. Refer xo the Master Response 7.3-9 on callippe silverspot for additional information on the status of the amendment application for the incidental take permit. Letter 32-1 REc;tivcv AllG 1 4 ~~~~ 7 ~'~} ~s ~ . ~~,~~~ /y ~j~ f /i~l - .~- _;::~ , 33.1a ~3 33.7 `33.8 ~~ 33.8 -33.9 1~% i. /m ~ e ~~ ~ ~~~ z-~ ~/ ~~~ , ~,, ~. ~~ LETTER 33, JAN. PONT Response 33.1 Comment .;noted...; ,;;Mitigation: ;:measures :recommended _:in ;=xhe -~I998 :DSEIR are designed to prevent visible dust clouds from extending beyond construction sites .(Mitigation Measure 4.5-1). •:The:most.effective.way.:ao,controldnst-emissions:is:.by:applying water -,a-recommendation of Mitigation Measure 4.5-1. This measure also enumerates an extensive Gist .of ..ways . to control dust. Implementation of those .measures would be effective in reducing dust emissions. Response 33.2 Blasting .occurned ;during ~constTUCt~on :of the: Tertabay .Phase .I:~project, and no complaints are known to have been received (DSEIR page 230). `If construction of the Phase IIand / <or Phase III :project were o .involve .any: blasting:and: resulted.::in .complaints,: the Noise Disturbance -Coordinator discussed on DSEIRpage. 232 would -take steps ;(such as scheduling work-.and notifying neazby residents) to alleviate he;.problem. ;The.location(s) :where;blasting could:be:required cannot be determined ..until grading and: excavation. Response 33.3 Caltrans approved the Southbound Off-Ramp Flyover.("flyover") in 1990 as part of the .:Oyster:-.Point Interchange at which -time -that -.agency:-conducted corresponding environmental .review of -.the .Oyster. Point:Interchange project as. presented-in its Project :Report...,; Because the flyover is .not ;;part of he -project covered :by this 19.98 DSEIR, it only ~•is illustrated on Exhibit _4.42 which shows :the locations of intersection,; freeway::ramp, and mainline -freeway analysis (see ;item 3 on the .third,panel DSE1R page:167).: ~: Response:-33,4, •;The :comment :expresses opinions-about:::design.;;.features:=of:housing :units which •~represent aspects::of_the project:asproposed.:;=Thus,<the•~.commentaddresses the "merits of,the project", .~and;no response~is:required. ~However,inclusionn-~the1999 ESEIR~will::make,the commentor's views .~available;to City~decision:makers.:Please:~see:AlasterResponse 7:3.11. ~Regardingnoise, during final ~rdesign, the :applicant :would::have ao submit;plans:•,demonstrating ~that::;the.,:State :building code :requirements for noise insulation <would ..be:-:met :prior: to :issuance :of=;a building ,permit. Regazding traffic, the 1998 DSEIR discusses on-site pazking supply for residential uses . (DSEIR page 201), as well as potential pazking supply shortfalls .for commercial uses :(DSEIR pages 202-203). Mitigation Measure 4.49, requiring revisions to the Precise Plan to provide six to eight overflow pazking spaces :within each residential neighborhood, would .reduce the severity of impact o aless-than-significant level. In addition, Mitigation Measure 4.410 requires the -project sponsor or individual subsequent developers to submit pazking plans to demonstrate compliance with City requirements.. This would reduce Impact 4..410 to ales-than-significant level. Response 33.5 -The .1998 DSEIR. addresses turnazounds (Impact 4.47 on DSEIR page 197), overflow parking (Impact 4.49 on DSEIR page 20I), and pedestrian and bicycle access and trailhead access and parking (Impact 4.411 on.DSEIR page 203) (also see Response 14.4 regazding trailhead parking). The commentor's statement of opinion concerning parking, emergency vehicle access and sidewalks on both sides of the streets is noted. -The City does notrequire provision of bicycle lanes on private residential streets. .Response 33.6 The 1998 DSEIR estimated the number of school-age children expected to .attend :local schools as a result of the Phase II site and III projects using the .student-generation rates of the respective school districts. These numbers are summarized below and described in more detail in 4.7 Public Services: letter 33-1 ~- i • About 85-88 Brisbane School District students .from the Phase II Point and Commons ,neighborhoods and from Phase III site .development (Impact 4.9-7) • About 21 Jefferson Union High School District students from the Phase II Point. and Commons. neighborhoods and from Phase III site development (Impact 4:9-8) ~ • ,`r .. 1. ,-- ,~+` <About 45-61 'South ~ San:3Francisco 'Unified `SchDO1 District 'students 'from ahe. Phase II Woods neighborhood The .1998 DSEIR focuses solely on estimating student generation. The .1996 SEI_ R addressed -transportation of students to school for the Brisbane'School District only. ' _ . 'Response 33.7 • As he commentor notes, ~ many species of wildlife (such `as ground squirrel and raccoon) ' have ~ become ~-adapted -to ~ suburban habitat ::and' are ~ now ;common . in the `neighborhoods - urrounding the site. -%As 'the 1998 DSEIR acknowledged - (DSEIR :page .154), these other species (in addition to special-status species) may be eliminated ordisplaced from parts of 'the site proposed for development. 1998 DSEIR mitigation measures would address the commentor's concerns adequately. Response'33:8 -The xomment addresses the '`Merits of the project", including use of :project site waterresources-project_site•planning; and housing affordability: `It does not raise questions about the adequacy ,af the199..8: DSEIR: analyses but ~ refers: to the project's -significant environmental effects . analyzed ~in';the SEIR: `While ono response-is required, inclusion in the =1999 FSEIR will make the commentor's views available to City decision-makers. Please ~seeMaster:.Response`7..3-IT. Response'33.9 ~ ~Commenfi. noted. <Thfis-;,document includes `an assessment of the project sponsor's. ;:new <Phase .lll Site.:'Ilitigation -l'Ian: ~Development,~Alternative. Please see :Master Response 7.3-I. ', Also, as discussed in=Master..Response <73 2?project~sponsors often revise or=.modify their .projects '~ _ '''during the planning, ~~and -. environmentalreview .process. ' "They ' do thLS' Ito incorporate mitigation .:measures directly ~:into<theirprojects•or to,:nlter .the :projects to avoid-,causing significant impacts identified :in EIRs and through public,review.and comment. ' ~ _ r . w . --- ~ i 1 1 J -- ,.i '~•;r -i _! .N _. (. ~ ~ !_ :t ~ . , . ~1, :: ~~ . ~o ~-, _~ • % v ' ! _- .__ ~. .~ f - Z ; ~vr - -I .. i _. - ~ ,~. v~ ~..~_ •~ ry .~-- j i. = ) `~ _ ~ ~ 7- p - '1_ ~ `ll ~'~. mar/ -_ -: ~r ?~~ .. rn,;! -- ~ - ~/ . ,~.. V. ~ _. .I ... ,. ~• ~. ~~ _. . ~ ~ w i ~ ~ , =ti ,J ~ , _ . ~ _ I. r ) _. ~~~~ 1 ~ - PRiMER..owseisured : • Charactetitt :Mp current leisure walla only Oar circlamrmsce ahac has inaeased the ::natural, urdis- scraodl dle surface of the wealth ': impocnnce of wedarlds b dteit .rapid and Curbed sredarlds ~ ~ . of ssxivicy and interconrtecced- exceasive loss. Since .the arrival of Euro- to serve as modeh :el.~-,~e~d ~ ~ Jer : : t ness:of this wedaad canpkx- By ` perms, wetlands gave been drained. dom. , . w~ .a • for the restoration of din- monitorint8, I will net m know a few '; filled, keeled, and flooded co dx point curbed .vedards ~ thilr~s about my local enviroaalent is depth. .where the eondnennl US.-bas lost half : •. Deusmitle wluetha or not a `.resoored". &cause.l will need m' make regular obser- -- +''the wetlardsthat exisoed 6ece ia.the .1'I00:. 'wetland t: truly.:meetin~ thr~oab,oEabe,. , ~: - of ,these, w~etlaeds,, l wiU visit them.' vataxrs .,... We art nor learnrits that tha loan of ..ec . ,. rescocatiatt pbm or permrt mote often, and develop a iceerler sense of ~: ~ has reduced related ~finluiooc. Cara- ~ ~ ,' ~" hoss+..`the is behavirla. I believe ~ :: ~.~/rthcutsoild iafocmaticn obeainedfioan .,~ ~ ~ : : dwttidiine" water stroph~ meooi Erse or earmmunitiies ~ . • Char their ~deepe% taore t~ular observe- gls~cicy°aad qualrfir, ard:aitical fish~atd arilfbaawillin~?to ~inveu time.'f. dad tioos~will,kad o~:a~.Qeater wnderscandmB ,' .': .wildlife habitatlob have all tauloed patlp mocxy m aretlatrd pe+otcerian or restoration and communion with my valley. This a rlx from society's :failure m .preserve our ra ~ 'l~ _ snuff of file.' .Some cc~mmooty monitored . ~~ ~'`~~~~' .. .. - , - , pataeneters Coaudin, L. M., ec aL 1979. Gavifieaeror- - "'. pacameoe~ (measurable acaibuces) of Many. , °~ Wetlands ald• ~Wbwr 1aaGiraa of the ' .. ~redatids can provide useful iafarmation oo Department of the Into- . ' 111urad Srases:'US. ,policy-make:: and land-use ~ecisioa-male- nor, Q7ash~gcau, DC. (FWS/OBS79/31) . _ ets. Some that have been monitored by , ~Mitach, ~Qlj., dad : j.G. Gosaelinlc. 1986. volunteer ate: salad:. Van . Nostrand Reinhold New Water leve{a Pock, NY. ,. .. Domirranc veQecadon type ~: 'Smith, -R,D., ec aL 1995. An Approach. for Vsgerarim cover Asressinj Walmd flalcoonr .Usury Hydro- :. Erotic piano speeia alctoadu~mt ;peonwrphiCC~rmtio~e.' Wetlardt, Y; ~ Amphibnos: (e.g., bt«dir-~ saucy:) Ymd F~olcoollai Isldiaes. U:S. Army Corps of . _ - = Mamoinvertebcata ~lraaineas:~WashioQoon'.DC. _ _:, Physicalwrd,~chemicai:waterquaiity ' T'ma,Ralph`W.' 1998. In Scardl o/Ssuamp- _ = '~~~ lmd: A ~almrf.~Soiere6oak dad Fidel Grdde. - _ UmvenlhrPreas,. Piscataway, Nj ~11hy do vve..mooims4~et]ant4t ... - . .~dia`eac ~mpav`°us su:la« _ -,' (~,~°+ iO'O~) ., ._ , ~o serMtd is 1997 as a 1Ylasthnv '~Vhten The Wtima<e.8oal of :manitorit~ ~retkt~s pseserve and reuore~the.fimctiaas n m help T'dat~resarictions (m.coastalwedands) an ~ . _. ..NOAA.Sea'GmntFeflolp;for r6e F.PA Wa- '; ; and valises tbat:du:yoi?Fen:;How:can mosu- :-Watia d ~ppearanceesteru * ( or ~) ' Ialds Dw`itori, condrulesihis..yeor as a ~- atej'e8ow forilleDiiii~elL~His ererrencroie is ro ~ do this? Moniooria8 can pnmde ,in- :forma~ion abouc° how wetlaods`:~fialaiac-, _ _ - A plea f~ to know _wetland: • Psaaooe Isedad [ in Nov Erbland,. ;_ lleasr:rsihr of _Vemlont. Canracr. bated m the how day nee chance. and how•tbeg,zrre aEfeeted ~6y human=;actvuies:Toc~esampk, Above>is a reasoned exposirion of witywet< m . P.O:''Baz745,'d'irori~son, VT OS462: 802/ : - leech ini7oematioa about dlan8a 6r wooer are important dad w-hy they need m la ~g,~53,.nr~rO~O.rteaa.edrs , ,. _ . . drolo~c 8ucaa-tions) can help evaluate ~`(h r.°be monitared.'~ he a~rerfor arhy to ma~~- ,. ~ -• .. ` y the efkets of a~iculdne, 6oraay:rand other mr wetlands, however, ody partly , resides:iin the public policy. realm. `- - _>and,uxs~~aswetiand.°This a'facmaci°r' -we~lwman:live in as iruxeas= " - can be irsedzm ~lldc>1 Po~1• such.as .:ur8ly,hurnaa-developed.. eneaon-:..• ;:.nand-use..~ulatioas oraraoasbed pkns- _ menc, and'''as such, we .can lone .`: _ :Moaitocitc8 elan q[I abo.be used to: ::much with the :natural •mvirao- -` _ ~• .Reveal tse~s in wetland health (improve- ` meat drat sustaist ua. I sometimes '. ..meat or~edine), in osier that appropriate nke ° aralks ~r- ~-the `beaver-created ` - mans~ematt'decirsotw be:made :.wetlands belor.my'house in Ve[-~ • Coctelate• wetland ooeiditioos with load- . mart, andderive pieasueeand so-:.'~ - ~ ,a~psacticessmdetermuie tfyome of these ~teaance~from^ihae.oucmes..:3'hrs i a~edmbe.modifiedahaloed pro ct ic es •.year, ho~wevet. esolved to I am r } ~ ` '- ~ ' 't~~. a', wet- - + ~_ ~ .~..nrloortar.aome atmbuua^O~f:~dmse-•., h nand has ir+sportanc values oo society and wedarsds,,peimarily m Sec to ialow should dsesefore be protecad _ _~them~betoer. '~"'~~ ~ . aeidps .e,lr~ prof. .. 4 / ~/OWNT'iRR MONITOR iM1M 'N ~rA ~ Wetlands Priirier ~ - :. ~. . - - 6p M~rhna w;rtert - W6at's ;pedal about wetlands -for a si~ifiCant potion of the year. above. might be called a'bw-gradient allu- Wetlandt occur on roam, :next to rives One way to cell whether or•not the toil vial floadplain" wetland under the HGM -nod bikes, in Qiacial depressions. in -.the ~ . `has_ been saturated is.to look at the color ..classification:cheme. ,pbnu>:, •ia fotYSt:hoitows, in floodp : lains.:and - .•:aadmucwreof heaoiUnelf=:Gra subsoils y _ - -; ~ ~, . ~ man other areas. occur ai an as- y They ate ~ ' ~ typically asroctated with wetlands. Also us1 - °~W6q.are wetlands importawt to - tonishuts vatiety of typo--from ~~ - ,'~ - i•~ ' `~ ~~ r { ~~Many -wetlaaidt are wntucted '- a cedar swamp m a lily poeid- ~"'?'s ` , to otherautbce wacera (=altwa- thacmaybear Uttk resembbutce .: ~ "'` ` .: .: ; , - ,, ~ ~.ba :riven, and lak ~ and ys, a) m cards ~otiter ~ Q/hac they have ` , , - titase that aer Hoc are often con- a- common is the feanae of wet- =` ~~; aecced:m grotndwater. Because :> °°, . ;' `- of this contteetion. wetbttds of- .Bemuse-they combine several =ten nerve the fistetioet of filcer- hi~sly `beneficial attributes •of . ~ s°d1°'a't• ~na•-std po{. terrestrial and aquatic . ecosys- ;autanrs ~ from water .before it .Lem, wretlands are some cf the ; eaoers their water bod- mast productive and useful cco- `• ~ ~.: ies. (That is why they are some- sy:rems on earth. Where land ~ tirttes called ehe kidneys of the and water converge in the same ~ ~~) =:piace. he lard contributes vee- ; Wetlards that are adjacent to eocive cover and high avaiLtbi{- ~ lakes and risers also act as in of nuaienes.(liom nmaffand or wooer ~ ~- aeunnttiation of mate- -A IVao. i! ainsahatpreveoc 8oodissg by ab- riab) while the-water a trabih ; of , pnwld n _ °.kt~oit~ 1K~4 c~acttc<depasits }{~ cr .muc7t), ; orate wrbsng raisons stoem waters and high tempaature and dispersd of larvae of':fiih, . .which aowmubste on the soil staface order ,tidal waters. ° '_ amphibfans~ std othea . aquatic .,animab~. ,. -- :very wet casditiort:. :. _ , _ , • Mast-wrctlands,whether ac not tiny are , And. df=scouese. plants sad anima4 in a 'lhtodcet way to tell .is m aramuie the ..connected m .odjer~waar 6odie:, provide wetbad3tave ready:-accas.to that.necessicy - °weseotian.;.Based on-.decades ~cf:'field :er- . ~,es~esuaal :wildlife~~htibitae '17iase. that are ,for ali`life, water `~ :, seaueh.'.biologncs" have categorimd .Plants ' isolated feom.othe: surboe waters offer to The result of this combination of aquatic ,.. ~.:ittoo : these that ;tend m ;gtose in wetlands .:r:flora a~d~farma the advantages clan ac~aac .and oe:resarial tsputs>w• a coeamtutity with = `(meatuug they.. usually,, stew in saturated . habitat amidst the forest ar plait,:. .unique :~a.:Wetland soib, be- -aoJ:~ .andLchcee .that tend :.m ;~ow~eGe- ':Many-we ,cause they are~usuill~r of often-saturated. =where.°Wedacdecologis~s ran.k~ohacsoils land font develop chemical properties different from ~and:pbtats oma single.viait to a~site,.and tae Lions provic terresaial oils, which Lire amore aerated. heir aiaervations and 'ben .pofessiona( critical se, Wet)~d i~ ~y ~~ ~ ~*'- , ice' .m determine-whether or scot the vice: Ito ~ht _ ..lets in these.saturated-sorb---fa-. e:ampk. • a,~ea`fiis.ihe defntimi of a wetland. man socier snraes drat can. pump oxygettao theirroots ~ •- 1 m p r n v e duarst-.theirsteaa,.ormot~tesahat am live 'How are' wetlands classified? d:inltis~ :ar: in ehe hishly acidic conditions found in Unfortunately there is trot a single, urti- ter getality (t some . w!etlactds. ~Ceoin smima4, in :.turn. vessaily accepted classification scheme for a ~ reasiit t _ depend on she unique vegetative and hy- wetlands. _The . taost a-idely used in the wetlatrda' fil- Vdtotoests.tst~y dtolosic characteriscia bf w~ecfartdt.-Many United States"i:the'Cowardia'systetn'de. ` aeriuss. `~ ,birds snake .mr: of .the copious piano that by .die U.S. Department of Fish icy) aitd-mitt- emase from matshes~ attd use wetlands as and Wildlife; it is based husdy on vegeta- •- :•cation•ef #loods nee two oft'he most obvious viol tiray sotibrts" Burins misratiotts. Am- Lion types. An example of a wetland -type examples- As podtets of biodivetsiq, wet- Piribesms lay cheer eggs m wetbuds, which render the (: owa[dm system n 'esaanne lands can be the habiot of ..pbma from may offer ,note shelties ftoen dtuutbtntoe and . ~ mtrndal ~oee:ted/shrub' wetlard. whsdt rnedtcine: are Jeered. Fish. provide predatnn than'lalces at civets do. . _ : An ~ . maa:i~y used aiternadve classifi- ,. ;protein for many humans on the phnet, ' Cavan scheme, cite US..~-rmy Corps of . sad mast,of these fish would be unable to What are wedaadsl = Fatsioeers' hydroseomorphic' (HGM) tins- ;reproduce without the praertce of wetiandt. Then are sevesal-defmicions of wetlaridt, 'foctses largely on the abiotic fen- Some of the societal ratites .that corre- but in bq teems. wetlands are great where ctaes of ssedattda and categorizes wetlattda - spored ;with -various wetland fiatctiorts are .the sorb ace sadaated at tic heat the surface by theirfimetiorts. The name wetland named shown in the box oa. the Hatt pecge. aaceiwscs+d as were page vO~YNTtia AONIt'OR tlrleNN1'N / _ l3 ~. J I~- ~- ' , G R /, ~ _. =.: ~u,or-~,, -~ ~P,~ rte.- ;P`~~~' ~ ~~ ~. d'Ki ~ -~` - - - ~.. ~ .. ~ ~:.`' - r1 ~.~ „~ra•. ~4. i/~ r •., r::•e',. aw ~~ ~c! Q~ i= ~O ii -;~Lr ~:'i 'mac-.• i •:{~~'.4•~~=~ ' .s~~~~ s e~ ~ M~~ ~_."„~Y: G'3 ~ ~~;. ,~ '- ha - ,A :~v ~: sit==~~ ~ ar • ~ to .=.a , ~ F~~:~ ~- G ~~ ~- 34. y2 . , s, ,-~~ ~ , ~~ -, _ .~- ,~. ~~ ~ . v ~ `_~,/ ~, ,,vim : ~ ~ °~~ ~~~r P: h~~ T f _ _ . ... .~ , ~{ L 0~ ~ I w ~A ^ ~ /mow L~ ~ / 1 _. ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i 34. y4 ... -. V s ._ -. 34.16. , `~ ~~ . ~. ~,, ,~,,,~ aa.te 19 e a„2 You LI av ~ ,,.~ ~,..~~r,~ .~ f ~+~- pwaa~ ~~y;•e.,~~ ~~ ~~/9s ,:;LETTER 34,:DAN.SHATTUC Response.34.1 The City circulated the Notice of Prepazation (NOP) for this SEIlZ to 335 agencies, organizations,~and individuals. %The: ix.agencies~and-organizations which respondedaoahe NOP aze :asted •.in .LL;EIR Requirement of the _I998.:DSEIR,,.. The; Gity ;distributed,230 ~copies.of the .1998 -DSEIR .(including -those submitted,to; the .State:Clearinghouse ,(see.Letter.00)), circulated a: Notice of Availability:of the DSE1R to.345 :agencies,-organizations, and individuals,.and_published=a:notice of its availability in the: San Mateo County ;7'imes.:The 37.:respondents :who submitted -written comments on the >1998 .DSEIR. areaisted m._72;.Persons :.Commenting.of -:.this :document. :-(Another :29 same or :different individuals made;:comments -at: the City's,;public :hearing on ahe :1998 DSEIR) ,Among those sent copies ofahe 1998 DSEIR were:agencies listed in #his~comment -,'California-State Department of -Fish. and Game,:(CDFG), U.S. Aany Corps. of Engineers;.(Corps),:and U.S.;Fish: and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The City did not receive responses from the CDFG or Corps. The USFWS submitted comments to the City after the close of the 1998. DSEIR public review,period Although the City is not requiredao:respond;to late comments,-.bothahe agency'-s comments and City's.responses are presented in .this document:(Letter.l2)..Distribution;lists~aze on file and available for public review:at the City Planning Division. Response 34.2 =The .numerous springs .and seepage azeas Shown on `Exhibits -4.1 2 and 4.2-2 are based on frequent geotechnical inspection of the slopes by the City's geology consultant during the last ten years. These wet azeas are very .seasonal and present during periods of significant rainfall. Identification of these..areas is •important forslope -stability ~atiderosion control of. graded slopes. As `~?vvas ~~done inPhase ;~ ~ these-intermittent .springs `/ • seepage areas :~shou'ld .be deft natural, ~ whenever , ,,possible. If grading covers such an area and requires subsurface 'drainage' control; drains ~ should be .brought back to the surface to dischazge water for use by the flora. and fauna. =The 'seeps -and springs in 'the ':geology °section .are identified because of "their "unpact -on geologic conditions which is a different ..:analysisthan ~~identifymgs~urisdictionalwetlands which =have some ~fiiological value. Thee -seeps .and .springs indicate `the presence • of -,groundwater and surface seepage, most of which do not.persist intoahe.growing season°onee rainfall stops. This fact.generally precludes - establishment of wetland vegetation necessary for consideration as potential jurisdictional wetlands `:indicated =in Exhibit 4:3-1': `While `several <of -the - maller azeas mapped as potential jurisdictional wetlands in Exhibit 4.3-1 aze technically freshwater marshes associated with hillside seeps, only the perennial spring'has sufficient flows during critical summer.months to'be identified asperennial in a %biological context. ,, . :. _ .. `The project sponsor's biologist determined`~that the ~ detentions basins refer ed to bythis-comment were :man-madefeatures exempt -from' Corps jurisdiction. Therefore; the acreage. occupied by-these seasonal features was <not included in the- otalacres <af jurisdictional wetlands-and other waters on the site. `Refer'to'Master Response 7.3-8 on wetlands for additional information on verification conducted by the'Corps and the proposed approach to: mitigation. - .Response 34,3 The land dedication requirements under the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Terrabay project are the same as-the original agreement~which~the'USFWS-approved'as.part of the HCP. The commentor's concerns are .noted about the need to provide adequate land area for ~replacementhabitat, zf complete-av©idance`of-sensitive-resources is not feasible. =This°includes larval °°host .plants ~ for the callippe ~silverspot `butterfly and jurisdictional -wetlands. 'The 7998 DSEIR's mitigation measures specify preservation~of specific areas on'the Phase III site (suchas the perennial spring and iazge stand of lazvalhost plants for callippe silverspot). Additional °land area for Letter 34-1 replacement habitat also may be necessary depending on .the degree to which the project is revised to protect sensitive resources. Refer to Master Response 7.3-1 for an analysis of the proposed Phase III -Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative and the degree> to ~ivi-hich this ;proposed..altemative ..addresses protection of sensitive biological and wetland resources. Response'34.4 ':The 1998 DSEIR ~;.(DSEIR pages X49152) provides a 3 detailed 'discussion of the otential for occurrence of `'al'status's ... - -- p specs ` - peeie's•°on the site, `including-butterfly species of concern. As indicated on DSEIR.page~131, the recent endangered status.'designation of the callippe.silverspotroises °concerns aboutf'the-potential impacts~nf~theproposed project`.on~this~subspecies: However, the status of the mission~blue butterfly has ~~ot changed since completion of the:1996 SEIR,'and the provisions in .. fhe HGP and previous FIR were constdered ~adequate~ o address 'thisapecies. ;Attempts to obtain input _ from the USFWS during preparation-of he DSEIR werenot-successful.' Comments<received from the 'USFWS {Letter 72) focus on compliance with-the landowner /:developer obligations defined in the --- IYCP and avoiding-larval host:plants of<the callippe silverspot as recommended~by~lVlitigation Measure 4:3-2. - `Response '34.5 The 1998 DSEIR presents focused .analyses ~of the project's; effects on provision of police services and schoois:' The introduction to 4.9 Public'Services ~explams Ghat the 1998;DSEIR: ..:focuses on two issues related primarily to the proposed intensity of development on the site, ;policeprotection and schools ..... ,It updates the 1996.SEIR for,the issues addressedbut otherwise ::incorporates ae 1996 SEIR by reference for other aspects of these and .otherpubIic services. The:commentor.also~is:referred Lo_I:Olnir~duction:for.adiscussion of~ow~the-City--identified the :•focus of.the >1998..DSEIR;.,(--1.LEIRRe - quirement) :and ~informatton incorporated..by reference in .the report:{L3-.InfvrmationYUsedao.Prepare.;the,ElR). Response 34.6 :lnvironmental ..documents :assess .:projects' significant or :potentially significant - physical;impacts. They-.do:aot:address social-or.economic:effects:nnlessauch.effects ;would.lead to a _ diiect physical ..impact.: Lead ..agencies _obtain : information :on-.,projects' .-social or..economic .effects _. _, separate .from the ;environmental-review ,process. .The :City .:required •;the project sponsor to .fund -- preparation,of a.fiscalanalysis which,was-conducted:by;.a=different:City,consultant and separatefrom ahis.SE1R. As :•with: all project materials which.,are,;part of the.;public .record, the,fiscal analysis on .the ;.pending~project_is .on file with andavailable for public:review gat the:City's Planning Division: '_. ,, _ :Response 34.7 This comment.refers .toshe,Phase,I;project,,not.the subject.of:.the 1998::DSEIR (the Phase II and III projects). According to the section on Surrounding Land,.Uses,(DSEIR,page 19), 130 Phase I units had .been completed and occupied, and 156 were under construction or yet to be built as of.:December .:199.7 .:(the dateselected:.for-:.consistency::with. traffic..counts .taken for he.1998 DSEIR). - ;Construction has continued since:that-.aime,;:but:the information has.~not;been:updated;since it is not relevant ao obis document.. Buildout,ultimately will .result:in -.293 :`.housing .units on the Phase Isite - ;,(DSEIR.page=l9.). :Questions regarding City-disposition of..fees,-.asking>ar-selling prices:of.housing units, and .other economic .information relate;;to ,the,"merits: <~of_:the.~project", .not .its environmental effects.. See the immediately preceding response. - _ ,. . Response.34.8 ~=Comment.noted.:.:Refer-to Response 34.4. ~ - .. ., .. Response 34.9 ,The.1998::DSEIR..does not;provide:additional information. and elaboration about the Southbound Off-Ramp. Flyover. ;("flyover") •.because -it is :not .part -:of :she, project ,covered by the document. The..flyover:is.identified:as aplanned.transportation;project:(DEEIR pgge.23),>as_noted by -the comment, because~af.its-proximity~to the project site, because:of its relationship to,the hook ramps, L,eaer 34-2 Bayshore Boulevazd,-and overall'Oyster.Point Boulevard Interchange ;improvements,~and.because:.the traffic analysis assumes ~ that this facility would be in operation in:;identifying impacts : attributable.:to . the project (DSEIR : pgge;-162).- It pis .illustrated on .Exhibit 4:4-2 which shows ahe :=locations;of .. intersection, freeway ramp, and:mainline:freeway analysis (se~.:item 3 on •the Lhird. panel DSEIR,page 16~. _. -. _ -- . Environmental documents~~.assess:impacts of projects. under existing-:and future:cumulative.conditions. Cumulative.conditions include:projects<under:consuvction;but:.not:occugigd, projects approved~but_not built, or ;reasonably ::foreseeable': projects :.(such as •those =pending .and aikely r:to be -approved). ; :The 'Oyster Point.~$oulevard:°Interchange :EIR :was .prepared jn:~19.90: and.~addressed the environmental :impacts of the flyover. The City had:approved residential=development=of the:P.hase IIPointm 1982, although none of the Terrabay project had been implemented when the Oyster .Point Boulevard .Interchange EIR was prepared. Thus, ~the.Terrabay project represented an approved abut yet-to-be<built project .:fore-consideration -in =the ~Dyster -Point Boulevard Interchange .EIR. > Nevertheiess, =the 1998 DSEIR evaluated the Tertabay Phase II and:TII project in the :context of •traffic, =air: quality, and noise conditions expected o be.prevailing in he future with completion of the transportation .improvements identified. When identified , .for analysis ;as -=a :,significant or ;potentially .significant impact, ..environmental documentsassess visual:.-and aesthetic:impacts.ofRrojects and.-how-the,:proposed action would change.. the visual .:character of =a site or surrounding:.area. Such .analyses do :not-evaluate dews-of future residents -of housing projects .or-'tenants. of :office :.developments. $uch ,considerations :,are ::not .environmental:impacts -of::projects.::but are. marketing and.! ~or.project :merits matters outside the purview .of EIIts. - ;Response 34.10 .The comment addresses the `'merits of the;project" and expresses the writer'_s views :about aspects of the. proposed ite; plan..~inalusion;in,ahe 1999PSEIR:;will:roake these ;views available -to City decision-makers. Please see Master Response .7.3-ZI. 'Response 34: t t ::The commentor's interpretationnf the :On. Shaky, Ground,map is incorrect. The map this comment refers to: is she Geologic.Materials, Shaking Amplification .map. The :estimated: shaking amplification.is not HIGH o Y:HIGH:for he;projectarea:but is High for the valley areas and LOW for.the.rock:areas. ;A~better_map to use for.planning:purposes:is.the:Shaking Intensity:map ,. which .assumes a Magnitude :7<1-earthquake .on she .nearby.Peninsula Segmentr>of .the:.San .Andreas Fault. The anticipated shaking from this magnitude earthquake is Modified Mercalli VII-Moderate for the valleys and VI-Objects.Fallforihe;rock sites. _ . Althou the.: ro eet srte s seismtcr. was. gh p j ' 'ty • covered in -.more ,:detail in the 1982 EIR.; and .1996 SEIR, the 1998 :DSEIR --:also addressed . this aopic ; (Impact 4.1-6-Secondary :Effects :of :;Seismic ,Shaking).. Nevertheless, no .damage to buildings on the Terrabay site::is .estimated :from a ,Z.1 .earthquake .nearby (see http://www.abag.ca.gov...eaLegmaps/doc/mrni.html). .Response 34. t2 Fill placed in the approved soil disposal area was approved by the City, and fill .control was inspected by both the ..project sponsor's geotechnical .consultant .and City's geologic .consultant. As the 1998 DSEIR states, the disposal site received excess material from .grading during .Phase I .and repair of the Area D landslide in 1996. Since :1996, the disposal site .has received materials from the foundation excavations for Phase I under. permit .with the City. Some construction .debris (wood, concrete,. plastic, .etc:) and organic material (mainly. spent bales;from winterization)-have been placed at the .site .aemporarily .and ;periodically removed -by.: a .subcontractor. (Union .Pacific Construction) on behalf :of :Centex .Homes.: Grading -proposed for:Phase :II would remove ::and replace all fill placed there ince:-1996. - - rata 34-3 Response 34..13 ~:Redncing dovelopment :from :the -amount ;proposed was :identified , as <a :mitigation measurein~orderto:present City decision-makerswith~oneappmach:io;reducing;projeet-impacts below City-approved-:°significance criteria levels • ;The :1998*DSEIR ~-also ;asts bother; potential :mitigation :. __ measures~(such as =widening freeway =ramps or'~the -r~gional-:~reeway ;networ-k) owards which, he project-would be required to provide a fair share contribution.:However, as stated, it is not known if Caltrans would approve these improvements or whether .the remaining required. funding could be acquired. `However, ~ considerations~~segardiag the amount Hof on-site development: and ahe availability of off-site mitigation measnressapplicable ln:part;to the project ultimately must:be weighed in relation _ to the project aponsor'.a :objectives-^identified~ in'-the; .3998.~DSEIR(DSEIR;:page 26) ~which-:would . modify the goals:':and:;objectives=of~the'T'errabay,:Spec~c~Rlan:-~mviausly°adopted in~1.982~_and"1996 -- and in view of other policies of the City containedinaheGeneral-Plan. ~ • ` Response.34.14 The:~project sponsor :forthePhase II.and.TII.pmjects;"SunGhase G.A. •California'I, - Inc., :was sponsor ofthe_Phase I,development. 'The developer implementing the~Phase I project and - planning to:build proposed:detached.housing units in-the Woods.neighborhood is>Centex Homes.:A separate developer, ~ SunStream, not presently involved ins-:the :Phase :I .project, would build :attached . _ housingproposed in the Commons and Point neighborhoods (DSEIR page 25). Irrespective:of~-the experienceof these firms,:~the:City-of South San Francisco would be responsible.for reviewing and appro~±ing all•plans and permitsfor sitepreparation-and construction of the.:project,- as it is for development throughout,~South San Francisco, in orderto -ensure `that all :requirements are met, whether :routine `City code standards, rspecial conditions of .approval imposed specifically :on ahis project. or an aspect Hof the project, or mitigation measures :enumerated ~:in :the 1999 :FSEIR -.and :this SEIR's Mitigation Monitoring Program.. The City also. is responsible for inspecting .development _ _ ,projects ,.periodically :during construction and for -granting occupancy. permits once complete. ' Mechanisms` avat7abie'-~o the:Cityto unsure=compliance-anclude=delaying granting of<site ;alteration or _ - constructiom pernnits'' (such as "for~phased`-development or=atspecified locations. on:a. site) ,or =delaying _ ..issuing occupancy. permits until all requirements~are fulfilled.`"- In this context,'City ataff and cotisultants..continue tomonitor aspects of}::the=Phase I development in order-to-ensure hat~code standards; :conditions of:approval; development:agreement:~pmvisions, and required mitigation •measures rare satisfied. These'°acti~ities include _ oversight of :slope :stabilization (landslide repair), debris basin performance, and HCR--land restorationsuccess. Tt-e Phase I project is not completely~mplemented, sand, thus; the City'. s responsibilities :are ~ot.complete. - __ Response 34.75 It is not clear whether this comment is :referring'to the `>Phase'I (not covered ~.by `this 1998 SEIR) or II projects (part of the focus of this 1998 SEIR). In determining the scope of the 1998 ~_ SEIR, ttie. City `focused `housing -out of xhe >analysis, based an ;the `finding of:'the 1996 `SEIR -which concluded what "no -significant ~~additional ::adverse .environmental-::impacts have':been ~ identified" and further that ~"no additional mitigation measures are required".: i II EIRRequirement and •6.-4'Effects _ of No Signi,~cance describe the process the City used =to °identify •significant and:potentially significant impacts for analysis and dismiss .effects of no significance from further consideration in the 1998 .SEIR. ,.: . • _ •. , 1 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Terra6ay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension (1996 SEIR),"`VVagstaff and Associates, 7anuary` 1996: `Accotdittg to the 7996 SEIR,'the 1982 EIR contained no measures <to mitigate housing impacts. -The I996 SFdR reported that the asking prices of proposed:housing units to ranged from $200,000 to ~400,000;(in 1995:dollar;); estimated the approzimatasnnnal:houwhold incontarequired to buy proposed units, and discussed the Ciry's fair share allocation of affordable housing identified by the Association of Bay Area Government's (ABAG's) 1989 Housing Needs Determination. .Cella 34-4 The City does not have an.inclusionary housing ordinance which requires a percentage of.new housing -units to be affordable to buyers or renters with specified household income levels. The Terrabay Specific Plan similarly does not require provision of a certain. number or percentage of units to be affordable by persons with very low, low, or moderate incomes. Therefore, the Phase I project was not .required to provide affordable units, and the Phase II project currently proposes none. 'The combination . of :housing unit ..types and :sizes .inevitably would .provide some (if limited) .price differential, even if all-units were market.rate housing (defined as affordable to households with 120 percent of median income or higher). Response 34.16 The Precise Plans for the proposed Phase II project include site plans, elevations for each housing type, and describe building. and landscape design details. The application materials also contained .large .sheets of scaled elevations which .illustrated azchitectural .characteristics of the different residential building types as designed and proposed at the time of those submittals. Those .materials aze part of the public :record for the project and can be examined at .the City Planning Division. The 1998 DSEIR included .Precise Plan site plans (Exhibits 2.3 2c and 2.3-2d) and Summati~Pd all proposed lot and housing unit development details (Exhibit .2.3-4). However, the DSEIR omitted detailed plans .and .elevations illustrating the architectural design. This is because aspects of the project were in flux .and were .continuing to be refined during prepazation of-the 1998 .DSEIR and 1999 FSEIR. Ongoing refinements ..include site .planning changes -which ..affect azchitectural design, thus the appearance of proposed building facades. Consequently, report size graphics showing elevations aze not available .from the project sponsor's and residential developers' azchitect for inclusion in the 1999 FSEIR. Response 34.17 No development can proceed on .the .Phase III site -whether .implementation of the pending project or an alternative -before the City approves a Precise Plan and grants necessary site alteration and construction permits and before other jurisdictional agencies .take the appropriate actions -- within .their respective authority. A .Phase III site development concept different from that described in the Terrabay Specific Plan, amended as of 1996 (the concept analyzed in the 1982 EIR -and 1996 SEIR), would require a Specific Plan Amendment. The pending project requests such an amendment. -_ Also see Master Responses 7.3-1 and 7.3-2. Response 34.18 Comment noted. Tt addresses .the "merits of the :project" .and makes suggestions about .City actions. It does not raise questions in addition to those addressed. above about the adequacy of the 1998 DSEIR analyses, and, thus, no response is required. Nevertheless, inclusion in the 1999 FSEIR will make the commentor's views available to City decision-makers. Please see Master Response. 7.3-11. Utter 345 'San Gregorio ,Environmental .Resource Cenl-er ~ aq, ~, cr<~, ca 9ao>•a aso.n~a~s Fat ~so.r~a.z~ PlmningDivisioa LETTER 35 ,4ugust.l3, 1998 City of South Sera Francisco 40o Grand Avenue R E C E 1 Y E D south Sera Francisoo, Ca saoso Ter: The Sonrh San Francisco PlaaainY Division A~c• .1 .7 a~y~ From: The San Gregotio Enriroamental Resource Center Pt.ANN1NG Re: Comments on SEItt for Phase.3 of the Terrabay pmj~ 35.1 a w° "'OWd~ tv iaclttdc the following as comments to the Sapplementat Draft F.nvironmeatal hrtpact Stai~eat for Phase 3 others TerrabayProjea. The San Gregorio Eavisoaatenpt Reswux Center is a San Ma~O ~'~' ~~ C0~°8'~d ;perms advogry ~P. with ova .loon members in the cataty, iadudiag over 3o in the city of South San Fri, We hold the position that the e~remely rare and threatened habitat of San Brnao Mwntaiu should be preserved for the sake a~f the endangered species that live oa ik~ also heel that the ctvnnlative itttpaas of over-devdopmeat is San'Kateo County will 35.2a I ultimately hurt our ability to protxt what link rare habitat is ~_~++++o, simply because the will be too much pressare to develop those remaiaisg areas for recrrati~ 35.3 ' Th15 project is fixated on son sruno Mountain, the largest urban open space area is the couttay. this mountain is home. to several enaaagered species, ind,~ :event ademic y species, the Cauppe 5ilvetspot and else Mission sine. We believe that the proposed developtneat site is ntrreatly used as habitat by several rare species, inchidiag the two previoasiy mentioned. We fad that eadaagered species habitat will be destroyed, posing tht Project to coattitute a "take".under Seaiea 9 of the Endatt~ered Species Act. 35.2b ;` ' ~e cumulative i of the development must be assessed by the SEIR. sae Brvao Mountain has lost mach habitat in the last s;orty years, mostly frota urban development creeping z~nBthe flaahs of the ridge. Art honor inventory of the area's biological diversity (achrdin6 ahtmdaaoe and range.iafocmatioa) and as assert of the hg-:arse viability of rare species (using the best: available ooastrvation ,' biology) should be wade before Doming to a eondusion about the cnawlative impscx of adding "just one mote" pcojoct onto the mountain. 35.4 . ~ ' ~ uaporhartt demeru of the saa:B:vrto Moumain aologial system is tree. Arras near the Proposed development site have burned in the last 2 yrars. Sias sa assessment ban made on haw the prnjea wilt affect .the 5re regime oa the Mountain? And how wiR the changes in tare .regimes agar important plant species distribution? 35.5 • h has been observed that aD of the other developments oa San sruno Mouatam .have brought exotic plant species into areas which were nataoched aabive plant habitass. The i~rnportance of the native phuot- based habitats are that several of the rare aaiatil depend oa these plants for ~ sad reproduction. This .pzvject, as aII others has done, wi11 make is e9sy for exotic pleats to get s foothold on the eastern flank of the moaatain. 35.1 b ~ ~ with so many problems which will lead m this foss o[biodivrrsihy, we ask Open Spy 111ternative be adopted. San Brtmo Moromtsia is a priceless treasure which can never be replaced. Please eaasider these comaxrus, and include them in the written record We request aoti5catioa of.any other opportunities to comment. Thank you hot your consideration. Chris Larsoq Director LETTER 35, SAN GREGOR/D ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE CENTER Response 35.1 The commeat addresses the "merits of the project". It does not raise questions about the .adequacy of the 1998 DSEIR analyses but refers to the project's significant environmental effects analyzed . in the DSEIR, specifically impacts on special-status plant and animal species discussed on DSEIR pages 149-152 and 158-159. While no response is required, inclusion in the 1999 FSEIR will make the commentor's views available to City decision-makers. Please see Master Response 7.3-1 L Response 35.2 The commentor's concerns about threats to the special-status .species associated with San Bruno Mountain and the cumulative .impacts of development on .the unique biological resources of the county are noted. The 1998 DSEIR biology analysis provides a detailed assessment of the potential impacts of the project on resources associated with the site and adjacent open space lands of San Bruno Mountain. It briefly discusses the cumulative .impacts of .development on sensitive biological .and wetland resources (DSEIR page 335) and refers to the cumulative analyses in the previous EIRs for the project site and .the EIR / EA prepared for the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). Response 35.3 .The 1998 DSEIR (DSEIR page 149-152) provides a detailed .discussion of the .potential for occurrence of special-status species on the site, .including butterfly species of concern. Refer to the Master Response :7.3-9 on callippe silverspot for additional information on the status of the amendment application to allow for incidental take of this species. Response 35.4 A detailed assessment of fire-induced changes .in habitat on the site was not conducted for: the 1998 DSEIR. The City focused. this topic .out of the 1998 DSEIR scope based on the impacts and mitigation measures identified by the 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR which addressed wildland fire .hazards on San Bruno Mountain adequately. In addition, not only does .the .City of South San Francisco Fire Deparnnent (SSFFD) continue to review proposed plans for site development, but also SSFFD .Station 5 has been built and put into operation on the Phase I site since completion of those prior environmental .documents, thus improving the City's firefighting capability in the vicinity of the .Phase II and Phase III site. The project would provide some fire breaks around the perimeter of the .proposed development area, although .access to .upper elevations of .the mountain still could concern fire fighting agencies. It is 'likely that occasional grassland fires world continue to burn the open space areas to be dedicated as public lands under the HCP, as well as other open space Iands on the mountain, and no significant change in the effects of.fire or fire suppression on existing habitat would be anticipated as a result of the project. - Response 35.5 The 1998 .DSEIR describes concerns raised over 'the adequacy of the proposed :Restoration Plan for the project and its relationship to the HCP as part of the background discussion on DSEIR page 147. The 1998 DSEIR also reviews the adequacy of the proposed Restoration Plan on DSEIR pages .156-157 and recommends revisions in Mitigation Measure 4.3-1(b). As the 1998 DSEIR :.concludes (DESEIR page 156), provisions in the proposed Restoration Plan related .to eradication of perennial weeds and calling .for establishment of minimum success criteria for native cover should address problems previously experienced with restoration efforts of the Phase I site. Itaer 35-1 Jim Hamisfi Planning Division tity of South .San Francisco P.O.Booc 711 v South San .Francisco, CA 94083 Re: TerraBay .Phase II and I~ August 14, 1998 LETTER 36 RECEIVED -AUG ~ 9 ~,:; , PLANNING Dear Mr.. Hamisfi: ,~6. ya. The aRemative that was chosen to resemble the "July' alternative is not. possible to analyze unless the draft SE1R, with the alternative fully described and analyzed, is re-c;rculated, It means nothing without the fuN description. The differences including type and scale of use, parking and arculation requindnents are impossible to analyze. These differences are offered as mitigation for impacts on the wetland and archeological and biological resources although there has been no public review to see if the mitigations areproper. 36.2 Discussion of mitigation measures are very weak and do not speak to the impacts Viand feasibility of such measures themselves. CEQA Guidelines require that mitigations be fully.described, determined to be feasible, and if likely to cause significant impact, those impacts must be reviewed. lfRa modfied Reduced Residential and the Open Space Alternative choice were chosen as the project alternatives, there would be less .need for. the additional detail. ' ~ 1 ~. y8 CEQA depends on a consiste~t and fully described protect with adequate public review. i do not expect that a new aitemativ~ .will be developed at the review period from information enerated during the review.. ~ - 9 .36,3. LThe section on Alternatives needs to be completely re-written -for Garrt . ~Tfie discussion about the .impacts on the sprin is not sufficien 9s tly detailed .and how will another 36.4 spring be created.. Where? Wiil it :produce? 36 5 ff there is no amendment to the HCP-the site surrounding the Commons would have to be avoided - .because of larval hoist plants that would need HCP be made? protecting. When would the amendment on the f t should not be assumed that the amendment will be made. Therefor the project should be redesigned., 36.6 The Reduced Residential and Permanent Open Space Alternatives are best because th avoid impacts rather than mitigate .impacts. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, ~, ` '"' - ~. Syivi ..Gregory 141 Madison Ave. San Bruno, CA 94066 LETTER 36, SYLVIA .GREGORY Response 36.1 'Master`Response 7.3-2 discusses the reasons it is not necessary to recu~c ate an expanded 1998 DSL~IR which assesses the project sponsor's Phase~lll Mitganon+Plan Development :4lternative, and 1lfaster Response `7.3-I_.presents an assessment. of the alternative. The environmental evaluations contained. in the 1996 SEIR and 1998 DSEIR cover the different development concepts for the Phase III site refen;ed to by the.comment..Developers frequently revise or.modify their projects in response to EIR findings and public comments in, order to obtain approval. Therefore, it is not unusual _ for the ,project sponsor .to submit a revised or alternative `development. concept, at this stage of the ,_ planning and environmental review process."'This does. not pnvent public .disclosure or review. The City Council will be responsible for determining that this SEIR "is adequate to cover the project and- EIR alternatives before certifying the 1999 FSEIR as complete. This .is because the Council .has the authority to approve the project or an alternative. Response .36.2 As discussed in Response 28 I, .the 1998 DSEIR's .mitigation .measures were designed from the outset "to be effective and capable both of implementation and of achieving performance standards "identified to reduce impacts to less-than-signif cant levels. The measures also are designed to disclose secondary effects (if any) of .implementing them. The effectiveness of each 1998 DSEIR. mitigation measure is discussed :immediately following the description of the measure itself. The n.,ason for doing. this is to avoid unintended secondary environmental effects or to reveal tradeoffs among measures: "Therefore, the`1998 DSEIR identifies.and.characterizes the significance of .secondary impacts likely to result from~implementing all or ;part of a mitigation measure. The City. Council ultimately.-will °beresponsible .for 'determining their feasibility. Development alternatives ..assessed in the 1998 DSEIR .assumed incorporation .of :relevant mitigation .measures identified in ,: Chapter 4.0 of the report. ~ - . Response 36:3 As discussed in Response`Z8.3, S.O Alternatives to the Proposed Project describes a sequence of tasks conducted to fulfill CEQA, beginning by discussing the .reasons for analyzing alternatives .and summarizing how the individual alternatives were formulated for evaluation ,in the 1998 DSEIR. The "1998 DSEIR 'when methodically .presents atopic=by-topic discussion of each ..alternative compared with .the effects of .ahe ,project:as ..proposed. 'The 1998 'DSEIR .:identifies he Environmentally Superior .Alternative, according to `CEQA, and also describes and 'illustrates a variation of -the environmentally superior development alternative -the Environmentally .Preferred Alternative. Without elaboration by the commentor about issues requiring clarification, it would be speculative to respond further. Due to the similarity to Comment 28.3, the commentor is referred to :Response 28.3. Response 36.4 As the 1998 DSEIR discusses (DSEIR page 156), the project as currently. proposed would eliminate all the native freshwater marsh .and riparian vegetation on the site. This is why :Mitigation Measures 4.3-1(a) and 4.3-3 were included in the .report. These mitigation measures call for preservation of areas of native freshwater. marsh and riparian habitat and creation of replacement habitat where avoidance is not possible. The 1998 DSEIR (DSEIR; page 160) discussion of potential impacts on wetlands also acknowledges that modifications.to wetlandsand other waters on the site would be subject to jurisdictional review and approval by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), -the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(b) requires preparation of a wetland mitigation plan, if complete avoidance of .wetland .habitat is not feasible, and specifies that the .plan :must be reviewed and ..approved by Letter 36-1 jurisdictional agencies before issuance of :any grading .or building permit for the project. This requirement would serve to ensure 'that the concerns of jurisdictional ,agencies have :been fully . . addressed before any.disturbance to wetland habitat occurs. The permitting process under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is separate from the City's. environmental and project review.process, and,it . typically occurs simultaneous or subsequent to iaitial,pro~ect approval by a local.:agency. Toomany variables m :the .design and.~poteatiat impact of the project nay change as''the en~-ironmental -review process,proceeds for ahe project sponsor .to be expected to aecure a. _permit 'from'the Corps and other agencies at this tune. However, -the_provisLans :for performance standards,. monitoring..;requirements,' and contingency ,measures'called for 'in Mitigation Measure ~43 3(b) .would .ensure successful __. _ - - _ .,. ,. establishment of any,. replacement,. wetlands ,Refer to Master 'Response, 7.3-8 on wetlands `for a summary of the adequacy of the conceptual mitigation:plan„proposed by.the project sponsor's wetland _.., ,... consultant and options available to meet apparent deficiencies. ._ .. _ ~., Response 36.5 Mitigation'Measure 4.3-2 pravides~for clear options on treatment of suitable habitat for the callippe silverspot butterfly. A final .decision has .not':been reached :yet regarding an amendment to the incidental take permit .for .:the San.. Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation. Plan _ (HCP) to include the callippe silverspot. As defined: in Mitigation Measure 4:3=2, if an amendment is not obtained, .the project -must be redesigned .to avoid .all larval "bast plants, _including .the stands encountered `in -the.proposed`Commons .neighborhood..and other locations on the site. `._Due to their relatively small number compared with the larger stand on the northern end of the Phase:TII site:and other larger, ,populations .on the mountain, ahe, 1998; DSEIR :biology analysis :did :.not :consider ,preservation ofae stands in.the Commons neighborhood significant if the-amendment is secured:from the U.S.'Fish and' WildIife~ Service: (USFWS). `.'Phe'.1998 DSEIR considered salvage and replacement plantings of Johnny jump=ups. as.part of .the .proposed Restoration Plan rfnr the ;project .to be adequate mitigation for 'the anticipated loss .of approximately.`400 iplants in the .Commons ;neighborhood. However, .comments received from the'USFWS (Letter I2) indicate that the Service would -prefer, to see the _host .plant populations in the Commons neighborhood .preserved as well.:Refer Ito `Master Response 7.3-9 on calIippe, silverspot ;for .additional .,information on the status, of; the amendment application. . _ .. .. Response 36.6 The comment expresses a ,preference: for: alternatives assessed in the .1998 DSEIR. While no .response..is :requitred, .inclusion .in :the 2999 FSEIR_. will .make the commentor'_.s views :. available to City decision-makers. Please see Master Response 7,3-11. _ Litter 36-2 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ) PLANNING COMMISSION, ) ..July 23, -1998 ) _- TRANSCRIPT =OF :PROCEEDINGS South -San:.:Francisco, ::California -Thursday,-J.uly.~23, 1998: Reported by: DAWN A. STARK r CSR No. 7847. .JOB No. .3082 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Transcript ,of proceedings, taken at 33 :Arroyo. Drive, =_~outh 'San Francisco, California, beginning at 7:32 p.m. and ending at 10:03 p.m., on .Thursday, July 23, 1998, before DAWN A. STARK, Certified Shorthand Reporter No. 7847. 2 1 r 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 -- 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES: Planning Commission: CHRISTOPHER BARNETT, Chairman • ROBERT MASUDA WILLIAM ROMERO JULIE BALDOCCHI .JUDITH HONAN EUGENE SIM Representing .the Planning Division: JIM HARNISH, Chief Planner ALLISON IQ~TAPP WOLLAM, Consulting Planner .ADAM U. LINDGREN, Attorney at Law 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 'INDEX Public- Comments PAGE DENNIS BREEN 8 DAN SHATTUC 16 BETSY•BURR '22 DAVID SCHOOLEY _ 24 - JULIA BOTT 28 .PERRY HAYCOCK 29 MARY .THOMPSON~ 33 PATRICK OROZCO (by .Lois Robin) 35 LOIS ROBIN 37 .DANA DILLWORTH 41 JUDY _TALAUGON 4 4 -.WILL .TWO .BEARS 48 CELESTE LANGILLE 51 ROBERT CARRILLO 53 KATHY MANUS 54 MI C.HELE SALMON S 6 r.Fr.nivn BED 58 :DAVID TOMSOVIC 59 JAN PONY 63 GAIL MALLIMSON 69 MI SHWA .LEE 71 MICHELLE BREWER - 74 I~.ATHER GILBERT 76 _~ 1 4 1 INDEX CContinued) ( 2 Public Comment: PAGE 3 DAVID.SCHMIDT 78 4 DAVID GRACE 82 5 ELLIOT..GOLIGER 88 6 .ALBERT CANNON 91 7 MARC BATCHELDER 94 8 FRED ANDRES 95 9 10 11 12 13 - 14 15 16 17 18 1.9 2.0 21 22 23 24 .. 25 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 :South San Francisco, California',' Thursday, July 23 , '1998 , 7:.32.P-m. - 10:03 p.m. THE CHAIRM~IN: Ladies `and '.gentlemen., welcome to tonight's special meeting; 'the public .hearing on the Terrabay supplemental environmental impact report for Terrabay Phase II and III. The purpose of .tonight's .meeting is to have the public .render comments on the-draft EIR so they can be put into the final .EIR. Any questions that we have .will be addressed in the final .EIR -- answered in the final EIR. It's basically not much of an .interaction meeting, as .far as the ,planning .commission goes or as the staff goes. Basically, we're just up here to accept testimony from -the public. 'With .that, Jim, do you have any additional comments? MR. HARNISH: Yes. .You might mention -- or I can .just mention it, that's sufficient, .for .people to give me speaker cards and I'll bring-them up to you. 6 ;. f t ~` _.. ~ ', ~.. L... C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .Then .at the -end of ..the meeting, if somebody has:not-"filled a speaker card out ..but wishes to .speak, .they can go ahead .and testify. You and I talked-about it, but I just want to mention '.that when `you. do speak, ` for the benefit. of the court reporter,'f you could, spell your `last °name,just so`we make sure we"have `it - correct 'fnr the- record. We'd recommend that we begin thee-meeting with Dennis Breen, who represents the project applicant, who has some testimony to provide related to some mitigation measures `chat the applicant is proposing :already, in -response `to -impacts :by he environmental document.' - - `~ CHAIRMAN: I'd also like to add, as far as the aiming of the environment~alimpact report goes, `this`-supplemental environmental impact report was made available '-for publicreview on July 1, `1'998, and .the 45'-day review ,period will end on August 14, 1998. After the public review .period-closes, a draft -final=supplemental environmental impact report will be produced,`whch incorporates responses to verbal comments received during the public .hearing and written comments received during the public review 7 1 '2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ;24 25 r period. ,.. ; . , _: _- , . ...With .that., we' 11 .:go .zo ahe .first.:speaker and the-first .card.. ;: Mr . ::Breen., .pleas.e . ~. ~ MR . BREEN : .Thank _ you . .See Letter 13 :Mr.. Chairman-and. commissioners, tonight,, I wanted to ;try _and.do --...:.because L 'know this ;is supposed to be just a meeting for public input on ahe SEIR, is, to just briefly review where ..the project is today, because,.it is a_complex:.project-:with,many parts., and some of those parts.are.constantly.:moving. It's_ difficult :f.or ;any.,group, <yourselves or the .public, , to,:be ,able ao understand :all :.of ,:it in-a short period of time, so what I: wanted to-try. and do tonight .is to bring some context -to the hearing. I think., ,:,as ...you -may know :or ,recall, ..the SELR ..chat is ,.before the_.public -and_.the comments that are -;being ,.taken evaluated..the ..impact .of :the proj~c.t based on .plans that we :had ubmiated in.January-, because .they needed. to pick. a.time period to do that from. .. ...:.Because .it is dynamic., :the .:final> plans submitted :in May.,:incorporated.::nto.them.some solutions to many of .ahe -design >and =environmental- -issues Ghat have .been .raised in the :.EIR itself . 8 • l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 = 13 -= ' 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .21 22 23 24 25 - -.The .solutions Ghat ,were .agreed ao between our .consultants ,:and .the city staff .and then incorporated ; in -those plans :do 'not :-.always :-match. ahe solutions .,proposed by the SEIR.consultants,-nor>do . they ;have . to . -: There :.are :many solutions ~to various problems, .but we .do ;'believe -the solutions -reached represent solid, reasonable judgment by ourselves :and the .city.ataff. _The details on :.all -- on -what is 'in the plans.., the final ;.plans, swill ::be :reviewed in detail in August. I-think there's two meetings .scheduled, for August,;l3th ;and the 27th, ,to -:do 'both; -August 13th on Phase II and -August .:2:7th pn ;.Phase ::III,.; :however., =even - :the :final ;plans still have some environmental :.impacts, and like any =.development;, -you .can't ::have a development without some impacts.. .Tonight., .what :Lwanted :.to .try and highlight was some additional environmental impacts what ~:we may ,~be abl-e .to avoid .;if an -:::alternative .plan that we'.re: `trying to ~-- ,that ~:we ;:will be .submitting, ~n a sense., =as : a response ~ o :the :EIR ^to ;.try and deal with the ;,environmental ..issues--.that have been .brought <up ~f that EIR is <adopted by the :ci.ty. We've been trying ::hard. We've been - :. "9 l 2 3 ~4 5 6 7 8 9 10 l1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 struggling ~to :•do .this, tto ~~figure -out what -kind of a plan works., :;what.;-kind =of .a design works, and:;.how ~~to put a development:togetherthat meets a l.ot .of different ..interests . -- Obviously, we want what's profitable so that we <:can ,make ; a -return cn =our investment , but we also need -.to :meet the myriad of :requirements. 'in:°~the city. ,_. 'The city has requirements that ,provide amenities.,- some of which have been::done 'already, like the 'firehouse.., mike =the recreation -center'~that 'is 'in the process -~of be.ng .;built . :They :<had area `kind of =mitigation:`issues,- like the_~building .at >=Hillside Boulevard <and the contributions -that ~we would Abe `making o 'hook<:ramps: We shave `-to maintain ~ commitment-s that allow for the development that has already-:taken place, and .those ;~comRUaments ;w'th respect to the habitat conservation .plan. _, :-We -need Ito .pravide :anadequate °commercal base for ;the icay, ::,and we need to dealwith -the multiple -- :we <~wanted ;to .provide ~=both ~qual.ty housing and then :also deal with the :multiple =political issues and .constituencies that~.are here-, that, over the last couple of years, :have-.dealt•~vith labor unions:and 10 1 i i C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 their "interests; and the '.historical 'society and their interests, environmental groups.,`Native'American groups, businesses, homeowners; so there's a lot of different _interests that are there. - -Whatwe're `trying' to `coo is .put 'those together 'in a -.plan and in `a design that 'balaxzces those. I know it doesn't ever satisfy each interest, everything-that they would 'like,` but I think we have a good plan that can work. If we don't have any -- if we .don't :make those things -balance, -then we either don't get any profit or we don't =have a plan that -gets approved or we .have a -:plan that gets delayed °too `long 'or "we don't have a 'good plan. '-A11 of those ,-things I':d like to try and bring 'together.-. `Tonight , I wanted to present to you and show to you what is up'~iere a poten~ial-alternate. - The city staff really has -not `had an opportunity -- this is a°week-and-a-half gold, two weeks old. - - We have `identified a'buyer who-cane-make it work under this plan, but-the city 'has really-not had achance -to ~~go through it and see the engineering and the-grading, a lot of areas what need to :be ooked at. They haven't--had that: opportunity yet, because we are presenting it as an alternate°under the EIR. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~20 21 22 23 24 25 We-think..--:we.::believe that. it will .meet the criteria .that .is needed, ::but :that, still .has to be checked :out. ,.: ,: The major .environmental ;.concerns,.,. L . . think,,ahat are.identified..in.:the._EIR..were geology, hydrology,; biology, archaeology and :traffic.. This plan deals with all. of -them..... .......What I'm referring ,to now .is specifically on the commercial site, and .that's ,.the .large one that's .up there.. On ..geology :.under .chat :plan, ..the ..graded areas...from ahe.plans that .:.have been--submitted to the city already: ,are ...reduced from .3.7 acres o .::.about <2:0 .acres.. We've :gone ..:from seven pad cites . to three... In .the hydrology, the-seeps :and .:springs that were •of .conce:rn to .:.people were :deft untouched and -- :as ...well .as :more_of he .wetiands_, :The :graded areas, ::from ;a :biology _ - standpoint, are.,reduced, -and a <large -concentration of the :.Viola, -which is :up :in the ..:north -part, is also left untouched... From ahe traffic standpoint, .,what we are ;proposing to.:build °on -this is .on ahe north:.:parcel, which is the -one to- he -right., an -office .tower that would .be 10 <..-to .12 :-stories . That :tower :has .-even - - 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1-0 11 12 13 I 1 14 _ 15 - 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 C. 25 helps from the traffic standpoint, because you .can -:have:TSMs that ,actuall,y .work as opposed to when you have, a lot of smaller buildings, which was-under the original =plan. -We also „have., -with. this :plan, a buyer., which will allow us to have funds to :pay :for some of the mitigations -that are needed by ..the city. I think what .we can accomplish in here is to avoid most .of he environmental issues that were brought up :in the.EIR,.:not all of ahem. :The archaeology site, which is of great concern to :everybody, is lef compl-etely...untouched, as well-as the ahree..or.four spr.ings:andseepsthat were .identified on the property. -Those _are -- that'_s .our .response to -the EIR -- the;SEIR,_and we ..will:be,.writing that .up in a .full .manner ...and _identi.fying .each of the areas -where .we think this :alternate .,plan mitigates those issues, I hank ..you,. :THE .CHAIRMAN: Thank .,you,. Mr. .:Breen. MR..MASUDA: Mr. .Chairman? :THE .CHAIRMAN: Yes? NIIt. MASUDA:. :Can ,.I just.. ask a question? THE .:CHAIRMAN: .Yes,., you-can. MR. MASUDA: You..saidthere was going to 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 be a 10-story `building. __ Ia that the only 'building 'in'?the northern lot? `~ . , MR. BREEN: Yes -- well, not~the only building.` There's a second 'building that would be a parking structure. `That would `be the--only building _ . with offices. _. ,NSR . MASUDA : .Thank you NIIt. HARNISH: Mr. Chairman, 'before we move on to other testimony,-just so 'the °commisson understands how`the-proposal that just was put before you is going to be addressed,~we pare going 'to analyze that just as `though `-- •as ~a comment 'to the draft EIR, address the issues that it raiaes. You notice ~in the alternatives that we'ue discussed or .that have been discussed in 'the EIR, . ,_ there`°is `load of an envelope or parameter that would _:, kind of include--.that alternative that avoids development on the archaeological site, not quite this exact manner, but we~believe that we zan address this _: within the context of the HEIR that's already been prepared and compare it to the other alternatives. `" '' ':We will be able to ` discuss :and .analyze it, just like we do other parts of the project and the __ other alternatives: We will be coming forward with a 14 i detailed-:analysis ::of .this for ;you. 2 - ;:One :issue, :-chat I ::wanted ;~to .clarify pis 3 that there -::have been:, as ,r:Mr.. .:Breen ::-pointed :out , some 4 modifications to the :.proposed::°_plan for Phases :.LI ,and 5 III from the ..January ,-plan to be.~used a°o ::evaluate -f:or , 6 the EIR purposes. 7 8 9 10 11 12 C 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 C . Those :changes ;-:have snot .:been formally agreed to by ;~s aff . We :are evaluating come... Some -:have :not ;been submitted to us . -:There,have°been discussions aback-Nand forth, but those will be treated as proposed mitigation measures by :-the applicant that are intended to address the impacts. We' 11 :;lay all of this :out for `;:you in .responses ao comments in .our taf f <;report ,-_ ~ so :you -see how the progression .moves :from :the January plans to the :plans that ,are .currently ;:proposed,:°up to ..and _ .including his one .that was just descr..ibed tonight... -There may- :be :subsequent :.proposed changes as a .result of :further..:discussions -:but;.thos.e will all be .laid out .for you in the staff report.. I :just >wanted to :clarify how .the 23 progression is occurring.. 24 We had to settle on a,.fixed;plan for the 25 purposes of a.project:.descrp.tion and ,analysis in the 15 1 2 3" 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1.1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EIR in order to do :all :of .the ~~°traffi_c ~~Ganahys•is .and other things, otherwise, if ~•we :T:kept °changing the EIR as the ;:plans ::changed,- °we :..could never publish -:a document . ~We~ 'had : to ;keep :revi~~s:ing.;' -so that ! s the purpose . :':I :just 'wanted o clarify ~~~that.. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.: ` -.We :11 ego ao =our ~: econd :,card .now, .and may I remind :you hat when you-come up ao- peak, please step up, .state your name, spell your mast :name for the court reporter, .'.and ..also state your address .for the record. ?.:.Dan 'Shattuc., please.. - Mr. Shattuc? - -2,'0 `AMR . °SHATTUC : :'Good.evening . My .name is =Dan Shattuc-, `S-h-a-'t=t-u-c. ' >I live at •907 -West Cardinal ":Drive ' in Sunnyvale .- °~What ;I'd like 'to :inform :you of.,isthat I have °been following thus .Terrabay projectpretty-much from>~the ::beginning. ~.2've :opposed the .project .since 'the :beginning,' :and =T :oppose phis project at this point.. _ I think 'this pr-of-ect s way overdone .and overdeveloped for the wand, that it~'~s .trying ~:to -'.create -a11 of these things . "I' m surprised =that we':re hearing about C C 1 2 3' 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 '2 3 24 25 newproposals tonight . I guessthat' s -well and good, but I mean, `I'd like to -'-have -first,-:page --- ~-to >be able to `look at `it, :aswell -as everybody else. I-guess I'm defending everybody that's -here that hasn't received 'this `'information . I think it's appropriate that we do, so that we :.can :understand it and -see itchanges the complexity of what's " proposed. -You know,this is a very, I think, speculative and risky development, in terms of-the site that we're-on,-the land ,conditions, its .history of slides and lippages -and erosion -probl-ems -and -earthquake-potential 'problems. - - We have>situations that are~:no more than seven or eight .miles from here, in the Pacifica area, Daly City area. They're still°:having slippage over in the .East Bay .:somewhere. A ;lot ~.of these homes -have r~been .:built for many years. They'.re:not just new .homes. You think they'd be fairly stable, probably, in the first few years, because..they are ..really'=scrutinized and everything is .:probably done :right,, but~when-you have the significant development that you have 'here -- in .the `beginning, they :were calking about townhouses Nand condominums~at the :rate of :about six units:per acre. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2.2 23 24 25 You' re -offering :us six ..units per -.acre , but .these units :are :now -duplexes stacked ion ..top of each other. L guess.=three-plexes are the ones ghat are on stop of each .:other.. - You:~have :duplexes ,and ~ hree-.plexes.,. which.. are running .::approximately up to 3,,:0.00 .square feet, four and five bedrooms, .:have : united ::.access.,.. in -germs of the :driveways and the streets being narrow.. ; -The fire truck has to turn around ahreetimes before it can >ge.t <there I :::was -talking Ito mysister tonight . I said, ":Well, ~a11 of -these .people are going : o ..have to bring in new .:furniture and. =a11 of `their ;possessions to move into a :four- ,or =five-bedroom :home. That's a lot of , goods ' " - -::Well,. it' going 'to jtake some :of these vans from the various .moving companies to -- and:I i think"ahey'rebigger-..and longer and wider than your ~fire:;trucks, and ---you .know, hat's what..you'.re looking , at . _ .:You're looking-~at;properties here that .are-very .inaccessible,,=subject to:`..possibly fires°from the hill, :from people ghat:.might miss the :turnoff as they :wake ?the first - or a~econd street - up, ahey_~.end up on the .fourth None:, and they've got tocome ;back :down, 18 f~ C ~, l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 something `like that. I ...mean,. it°'s going to .be confusing. _. I ask, :also, =what-:..does ahis do .to -ahe community? .We'.ve seen a lot : of ::confusion, a aot of congestion, ~a lot a:of : raffc problems, :a -lot of demands on the .:city staff onawhat':s been~.developed so .far,., but .we're going ~ao develop °far more :here, -in terms of ;what's left o~be developed., The traffic ..problems, ;as :you see on Highway..101, are already -at .condition:F. I :mean, they're not going ao <build :any :more .freeways, :::and overramps ;and of framps ::are ;going ao ::cost the city a lot of .money. It'.s;going to cot the developer a lot of _ money:. _, :Can't we .Took at -a 'cost=benefit analysis and .say,. "-Gee., maybe `that .money would 'be -°better -spent in the :community for kids, _for ;;recreation, for :.parks;., for open Space, " you -know, =approving -:a .park -and creating a park that we :can be :,:proud :of and. :respect. L'm sure.you'11-heara;lot about-that tonight.. .Thiss a ignificant piece ,of ground, _ 'and it actually .affects >:all -,of us„ ..'.from .the :heritage and the history. .:You know, I could goon and on. There's 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 22- :23 24 25 700 ,pages in ::thisthing to Gook at :and. digest ,.and .; - comment on,-and I don't-.have any more time, but_::I~ - would' ~def finitely iencourage ~ a strong ;look at no development :or significant yless-:development. This ~sn~+:t ~:a :•traf.fic ,study, that ;you should ~-reduce the development _b 85 .;percent to.:_~equate to traffic, to _be within he °boundar.ies =of :the •traffic concerns ; and then _.n Y:the :housing :night there,, ;you've tripled the housing by_looking:at:what_you have., three times :.greater, at aeast in -terms _of ;units than :what you initially=:shad. -::You shave .a _lot more:;•people.. You're :not `going :ao .'have =enough -parking space..:.: • =We used to -get something - - and rthat's also .kind of .interesting -- .what I would call::a::module' description •of :all of• this stuff.. `How does it fit into the 'little valleys-Nand the hil side? `How :high > are -things and what .>does it ;cook 'like, in :terms of built to ;acale ao that =•we ~can~,visually see :thus development? , All 'we ~aee - is 'paper.. _.: :It looks -okay, I <guess, :::but we don't :know what color it's going to be. We don't know how :high it':s going `to ~be.:'~ We -,don' t ••know xiow .many people have to 'go ~ down this -street and that :kind of stuff . '=That-' s all useful information. - `I think the -door remains -open. We need 20 '1 1 ~ 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 C .: 13 14 ~- 15 - 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~ 24 ~- 2 5 to `have a thorough :hearing ~•on `this and -'keep everybody informed . ~ .. _ : _ Think about it, because you.guys-are~~the key decision makers .in the proc~ss~-that-goes forward, your recommendation to -the city .council. Listen to the_publc-andxespond accordingly. `Thank 'you . THE CHAIRMAN: Thank°you, Mr. Shattuc. MR. HARNISH: Mr.<Chairman, can I make a comment? THE CHAIRMAN: Sure. MR. HARNISH: I would urge the folks testifying =to, as~much as possible, address your views on the 'adequacy of he environmental-°document. 'That's theprimary-purpose of tonight' meeting, to :find -out if we have .-fully-and comprehensively-covered your areas .of -,concern within the EIR, if it's accurate. If you feel that 'there are some .things missing,'<please te31 us. That's .the primary ,purpose.. You're -welcome ,to .comment on ahe project, but we will have-subsequent .hearings Ghat deal with the :real >,meat :of the :proj~ec.t and .deciding .what -:aspects to .approve, :or .at :least:, the -commission :and` he council will;. 21 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 l7 1B 19 20 21 22 :23 24 25 _I :would, .urge, you :.to, focus.;on .:the EIR in your comments tonight. That's the primary purpose of tonght'a ;meeting. = . _ , '.THE ;CHAIRMAN: The next :card .is.Betsy .Burr. 3, ~ MS . BURR : Good .evening . - My -name ~i s .Betsy Burr, B-u-r-r, I live at 9<Canterbury Way, Morristown., New:Jersey.07960. - I'm ::here this -evening as a .visitor and someone who has been enjoying San Bruno Mountain-:and this area fora long time. as a visitor everal times a year. - ; -When .I used to fly auto San :Francisco - Airport, I was: very ,much struck by. the phenomenon >of .:a mountain.here in .the -middle -of this crowded peninsula, .still in grassland and _scrub, as it ahould be. As ~a fifth-generation native San~ranciscan, L've really appreciated .seeing that very, very-much. I =want to speak about ahe ,shellmound. I understand that plans .seem to be evolving., as .far as touching ,the -shellmound ~is concerned. I :was .here =at .the ~meet:ing on July 9th, and .I ;understood, -.at Ghat ime, `chat .there was :a :plan to cover:'ahe shellmound with fill ::and parking lots .and so forth, so that is:why I have come to speak against 22 c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it. $.i I also -- when I prepared my remarks, I did not specifically address the adequacy of the ._ ... environmental impact report, but in thinking back over the ,parts of it which concern the shellmound, I felt .., that it did not sufficiently address the impact on the people-who will be denied with the loss of the shellmound, denied the .ability to learn about 5,000 years of the past here in South San Francisco. I think that would be a terrible .loss for you and for .generations to come. .Preserving this shellmound as it is, perhaps with a nearby reconstruction o.f the Native American village with interpretive signage, could be an exciting step for .South .San :Francisco. `We have such an interpretive site near my home, the Leni Lanape Indian Village at Waterloo Village in the wooded hills of northwestern New Jersey. I have taken many groups of children -from a summer camp I founded to visit this reconstruction of a Native American settlement. They react with curiosity, wonder and delight at discovering the .ancient., self-sustaining society preceding the world they know. Think of it. There has been a human 23 l . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 community in .South .San Francisco since he pharaohs built the pyramids. I don't .know .any other place that can boast of such a large and .long-term settlement in the Bay Area.. I believe people .would be fascinated to _ ~ ,, discover this .site.. :Would we permit its destruction if .these were, quote, "our ancestors"? You-have before .you an opportunity to preserve a precious piece of the ,past. Development of a nearby interpretive site, if it's impractical at this time, wouldn't have to be done now, or even in .our lifetimes, .but .future generations may understand the shellmound as "our" heritage, not "theirs," and value it more highly. .Once 20 or 30 feet of fill .and :pavement have been added to it, the shellmound and the world that it so poignantly represents will be lost to .human awareness. South San Francisco has a chance to do better. I urge you to give yourselves .this. chance. -THE CHAIRMAN: .David .Schooley. 4.~ MR.'SCHOOLEY: :David Schooley, San Bruno Mountain .Watch. 'THE CHAIRMAN: Spell your .last name, please, sir, for-the record. 24 1 .2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -.. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~~ 25 MR. SCHQOhEY: David, D-a-v-.i-d, S-c-h-o-o-l-e-y. We are submitting a statement about :this -- on the shellmound and the EIR. Our first step -- we'.re doing a careful :study,_and this will come out .very soon, a detailed effort on .the.EIR about the shellmound. `There's much more to do. I was going to .ask.,-you -- .pass out that. first., and then, also, .did you all receive the °Terrain" magazine, by :any chance? No, okay. Zet me .pass these to you. This is our statement. There should be enough for you. Within "Terrain,"- as well, is our :response. We're so grateful that-.the shellmound maybe .can be saved. -We haven't-seen complete .information about_it, written or prepared .efforts, what it will .really. be, but that move is a real-move in the right direction for all of us. 4.1a., But,. in a way, we should make it clear .that, .from the very beginning, the shellmound is two shellmounds and a valley, and that full valley had a living use for 5, 000 years. Seeletter2t.ts Our stance remains for that valley, which is right connected to the state and county park --.for 25 1 2 3 4. 5 6 7 8 `9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 _. us, it's a sacred area, a prehistoric center ;place for . ,:. all of us . we are all facing ourselves ;now, for .the Bay Area, what are we doing to =- what's'?-happened .here ,: .:_. .. , .. .from the last million years with rare and endangered species., for wildlife and for 5,000 years of human activity, it's something that our young people -in the future should understand. :For me, I-grew .up not knowing anything about native habitat or the Indians. Now, with 'hikes -and activities on San Bruno Mountain, young people are beginning to understand the meaning and the center of that ..place. The.best-thing I can doright now for the _ _.-.. ., EIR -- because there will be a much more detailed g , _ _. statement from us, but ri ht .now, ~it can `be said very ,; ,_ clearly that the Silverspot butterflies are pointed way over to .the -edge right there (indicating).` 4.2 We -have clear areas, which are See Lener21.4 _. photographed .and clear, 'that the Silverspot ,. - butterflies are right along-the road, because above the •shellmound and just below the:upper shellmound, .. that means -- -with eggs, ;and:..we -see the .Mission .Blue ,, _:..~.., eggs -right above that area. They're `not marked, so there's a great deal more understanding about two rare 26 :., r- - 4.2 1 i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 C ,, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2T 22 23 24 25 species right there (indicating .- _ No. :2 is~that the urea between the-two _: .- shellmounds is .a somewhat disturbed urea. There's an ,, _.. , ,.. , immense water area that's for cows, so~there's a .lot of cows .that-moved over that area~for many years. The roads went over that area, too, in the last l00 years. li+lhen they .made the 1880., ' 90 waterline going to San Francisco, going over the ridge, they cut through the hill .and they took out ---all the .result is right on top of that valley.. It's still there, a pile of rock and stuff.. Lj,ib These :areas are disturbed, extremely disturbed, and then comes lOl and the Old Bayshore. That makes a second question .about: Is it_just two, ,. or is there a third shellmound underneath 10.1 and the Old Bayshore? .Our request is an extremely careful .study of the two shellmounds, the upper shellmound and the space between them for that valley where the cows-and other .activities have happened there, .because., obviously, .the people lived there .for thousands of years. They're .identified by trails, by activities, by movement to the bay, to the ,ridges, for the canyons which have buckeyes and oak trees, what they used for' :food. " 27 i 2 3 `4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 '22 23 24 25 .'We will be .submitting detai ed written comments. -.This document _generally_ does a good job of identifying the impacts, .and .they ;are significant;: however, we believe that there isn't sufficient ~,~ SeeLener28.1 justification:fcr determining that the mitigations will reduce the., :impacts to .less-than significant. In many cases, the mitigations are too vague. It is unclear whether..they could .even be successful. While the party responsible .for monitoring these mitigations is identified in the document, the protocol for determining the success is not detailed in this document. Further, there isn't any contingency 28 C . ~ 5.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 "~ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ;2 3 24 25 plans identified in the document. We~don't"know what we're_going`to do if, indeed, these mitigations fail. We .really `don't know whether'they'I1 be"successful and don't know what-we'll ~do when they'..re not successful.- However, "~aTl of "this would be moot., .and the significant impacts avoided, by choosing some of the alternatives that are identified in the document, specfically`the Phase II reduced residential developmental alternative and the Phase III"permanent open-space alternative. You would, therefore, be able to avoid impacts, and under CEQA, you should first try to avoid impacts, then you should minimize the `impacts, then __ you should mitigate if there's no alternative, "but you do have an alternative here. You can avoid the impacts. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Perry Matlock. 6-~ MR.`MATLOCK: Good evening, commission. My name is Perry Matlock.. It's M-a-t-l-o-c-k. I'm born and raised in 'San"Francisco. ` 'I'm a volunteer with the"International .:. ,. Indian Community Councl,'which'is'a nongovernmental organization and has an observer-status seat in the United Nations. 'They have officces in :San Francisco, 29 ~. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 34 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .. ,. ,_ .. ,,_ . ~. , ~ .. is Alaska, and.also:in.Geneva. , ., They work,;~in the .United Nations .to .: ., y - .. -~ _. preserve indigenous .people's. culture., languages, to preserve hurial sites .,.and .to .enforce treaty .rights . , .~;.,~~ . w ~ z - . Unfortunately, 'in California, a of of the indigenous .people .do not have federally recognized treaties. The Mission period, which .happened about 200, -180 years ago,, did a great deal of genocide and devastation to a lot of Bay Area native .cultures., .and today,. we still do have a_lot of .the native ,people .with us. s.~ I wanted to_ oint out .that in_the P archaeology section of -.the SEIR, it .says, "An .estimated 200-.plus_Native Americans of Costanoan/Ohlone ancestry currently reside in the greater San Francisco Bay Area." Actually, that number.:is well over 2,000. There's more. than 200 Ohlone ancestors. I .wanted to .just .quickly read .off. o ....you: The Amah Band of Ohlone/Costanoans., the :Costanoan Band of Carmel Mission ,Indians., the Indian Canyon Band of Costanoan/Mutsun Indians, :and also .the Muwekma Ohlone Trihe. Those are ..four .different _Ohlone ..groups 30 :~ C 6.1 ~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 seeking'federal recognition, so by-no means are ahe Ohlone only at 200. or are they .gone. They're here f orever. ~ . _ . These hellmounds. -- :I mentioned :before at these-other meetings-that-'they used to 'dine the coastal :chores of the Bay .Area, of 'San -Francisco, Monterey." 'There were probably thousands; maybe 2,000 of _them,.prior to the Spanish missionary invasions. Today, there''s only a handful. As we pointed out, is Coyote Hills Regional Park,>oneof these she lmounds is referred to by°archaeologists as :an Alameda 328 or~the Patterson mound. 'To the Ohlone, it' called "Tabun."' -This ahellmound is intact,~although, around it, there :have been-excavations-of over 500 remains.. It's inside a park. It's preserved. That one shellmound -- if we .look around the bay, we xeally .don`'t -see' •any -other native .sites that are preserved. ;We .do have, on Ring <Mountain in Marin County, a boulder with petroglyphs on it. Those have been destroyed by .souvenir .hunters, .and there's-not much 'lef.t of •ahose ~petroglyphs 'We do :have ?the ~shellmound at Coyote Hills, and we :also `have :a shellmound:here in South San 31 .. `1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Francisco .that's well -.over 'S, 100 ;years old,, by ;carbon dating. - ~By..preserving it and by preserving,:;the waterways::,ti~at are around :it, and;-.alsa~ he .hillside that is just above-it :and to the north, we're preserving ;not .,only :a .piece of .the-:Ohlone.;people's -, cultural .treasures, butwe're --also-.having -:something - here in :the Bay Area .that will help show. that ~we are a cosmopolitan and tolerant a=eaand that we :wouldn't do this to our :own :ancestors. I :-ask .you, to :.think of -- under a Christmas tree.,.=a lift-le-.toy church, maybe ;a attle toy cemetery,, and then all of a sudden,. he-cat jumps up and ;knocks over -the;:plant . All the ~~soil .covers the toy cemetery and-the. church. That-;may be somewhat equivalent toputting a cape.-or landfill over these shellmounds. - -Something : hat- really .needs o -be. stressed is that the people in these shellmounds are thee-great-great-great-grandparents of the Ohlone today. They'. re still-..alive . This is ;a ~liwing shellmound. I just .wish --that -ewe all -:think .of -<this :as -- it-'s not away. -Wearen'a:at war -:with the Ohlone people. There's no :reason for this ;area .to `be 32 \ ~~ C_ ,z 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 desecrated. ~-:'This wouldn ! .t ;happen -if ~ this -were the Ohlone' s ,.country and ~we were ~~honest ;settlers sand visitors.. -Instead, we -have a colonial ..settlers' state that doesn't -want to recogni-ze''Zndian sovereignty or Ohlone cultural treasures. - - We have to preserve this -site, so that, in the future, the Ahlone descendants :will look upon us and see hat .we did :have an -open heart , :'that we weren't the-cowboy racists that preceded us, just --- -you-know., the apartheid of 30 years ago. I just hope that :we can save this site .for our own humanity. ::Thanks ; -THE :CHAIRMAN : ::Mary -Thompson . ;:7,~ .MS.-THOMPSON:-..`:Hello. My name is Mary Hill Thompson., T-h-o-m-p-s-o-n. `I' a been a,resident of South San F-rancisco for -30 years -now. I -guess :I' m :here :ao aalk -:about- `the environmental impact on a human resource, and that°'s our children. I':m here tonight ao ;voice my fervent interest :in preserving "the ..:South::San Francisco `Native American. site in its totality and-express what could be =of -such .:importance educationally and .developmentally to our children.... 33 ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Everyone :who .went through the fourth grade ~.n ,California •remembers the -models. •made of California :missions, ;and -.also studied t:he --lives and cultures ,;af :the Native American ....peoples : ~ ~We learned frombooks,~~and-.our imaginations and interests were ignited. What :a :wonderful =sight `.it could be to .see our school buses :full--:of excited children from our schools disembarking :and~walkingon .the land-that had been .inhabited by ;.Native .American -peoples for thousands of years. and .to ;-be -guidedthrough the site by a living ancestor-of the Land who can tellthe stories and the .history of their people.. - -How can we-calculate in-money the amazement. our.chil:dren will experience when .they. see the :archaeologs'tsworking -and .removing artifacts hundreds and hundreds.- of years gold? :Maybe it :kill .inspire :come ,o.f ..our :children •.to become archaeologists themselves..,... _ . . _ There's not .much left-for our.chldren., open spaces ~-and places ~.of wonder . We :must show our children -=chat ;we ado care .about '.them and we =care =about their :future . I urge ;you --to ~~show -the -children of .South San Francisco that they..are .:.important to- us, ,and -save- 34 1 C -. \. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this irreplaceable site. Thank .you .very much,. , THE CHAIRMAN:. :Okay. Patrick Orozco. MS.. ,ROBIN: I .know,_L .don't ..look ...like Patrick Orozco, but .I .have a ;statement :.from him. I':m Lois Robin. Patrick Orozco wished he could be here tonight, but he is working and could not get .off -of work. He is an Ohlone.descendant. This is what he .wrote. 8~~ "My name is Patrick Orozco . I was ;given ..See Leiter f8 the Indian name of YanaHea, One Who Yawns. I live at 644 PearTree Drive, .Watsonville, California .95076.. "I :am tribal chairman of ...:the Pajaro Valley Ohlone .Indian Council representing 320 people.. Our,tribal affiliation, according .to records kept at Mission Santa Clara, is Ohlone Ritocsi,-also :known to the early padres as.the.Santa.Theresa.Hills_people. "I am ..also .registered_as a_.Most,Likely Descendant with the .Native American Heritage Commission in .Sacramento. "Although..most of our_,people died .during the Mission era, yet some of us ..have ..survived to maintain and revive our :culture. It was dangerous to 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 `12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 be :Indians for .many years, .but at long'last we can speak .out for our identty.and~ways. `"Our •organization was 'formed in 1975 in order to protect and preserve all sacred sites of .our ancestors. We'-reaTzed~that=they were being destroyed at a very alarming .rate. -"My people and I-`have served as Indian monitors with archaeologists-when there is-.a possibility of graves .being .disturbed. When we served as monitors, we made `sure that all measures were taken for .:preservation, even though most of these sites-were `very much°disturbed: `" Thee ':San Bruno shellmound is "intact which means very `little disturbance has occurred there. As"I :walked the land, 'I could feel the presence o'f`the ancestors that are buried 'there .and ,. the hundreds of graves `there." In particular, the area 8.~ ,. .. _. _ between the large and small shellmound is likely to have isolated burials.''In my experience as a monitor, many isolated graves are found outside the-main impact areas. - "Also as I walked the 'land, Icould see plants'~that were used 'by my.people,~such as hiyatay, soap root; plantain;'ta shu~ta ya, buckeye; willow; curly dock-and rushes. - 36 /~ C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 "I would like ao =see all this ,property... • preserved •and;,protected and even .returned .to its natural state...- We are :.not :comfortable when •we ::,hear , that they want toput aopso.it•:or parking lots over-ahe shellmound or. urround it .with :buildings. In the Indian's eyes,. his ,is ,disturbance.. The entire area should .be left, :intact,. "Recently,, ; I :read -where -,a state congressman was asked, if they want to dig up our 1.6th Pres.ident's coffin to .see .what relics he :was buried with, what would :be ,his.. answer.. He said he would say, 'NO, let him .rest.-in ,peace.' "The San Bruno ;Mountain. is :sacred and we ask that .you :support us in protecting it. To:-disturb it would be a violationof our religious rights as American ...Indians, and we ask that .our rights .be respected. .Many ;prayers .were said over hese„graves :by my :ancestors >and myself . " THE CSAIRMAN: Thank you. You've .,got another card .up here.. _, Do you ..want o continue? MS. .ROBIN.: Yes., one .f.or .myself.. THE. CHAIRMAN: >Please,proceed:. 9•~ MS. ROBIN• Okay. I',m Lois Robin.. _I .live at 607 :Burns 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Avenue in 'Aptos, ~Califo'rna. _. I~'-m a' writer and ;photographer `and have -spent much of ~~the last `.10 years documenting the revival of `Cali'fornia Indian -culture - _ I ~'Yiave given a great °deal of thought to the proposed development=at `San 'Bruno"Mounts"in and have visited it on many occasions:'"I've-sat on~the mountain and allowed its`history to awaken .before my eyes . ~. I'f the site were covered with commercial buildings, ncludng`a 10-story building on either side of the shellmound, I would`~have-much more` difficulty envisioning `the life' of '~50 centuries of native people..`.... - - I ~ hink that `the impact 'that isn't -- -.when we talk `about the EIR and -what`s smissing, `it's a _, visionthat goes beyond the` shellmvund.~itself to 'what the .area could mean historically. 'That's what `I would like Ito `try -to express .' ` " Unlike some great architectural historical monuments that have been preserved for all to see, ahis shellmound isscarcely'-visible. Only .scattered .shells ~ mark `~ts~ place^ yet when experienced as part of a larger ite, ~t'comes~alive`historically. One can'see its proximity to the .bay, the 38 J 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 l :.- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 long view Hof the bay, 'the .resources -of :water andplant materials, the ,protection offered-by the shape of the shoreline. "Through '.the 'imagination .and `the spirit of the place, -history can be ;.revisited.. - '~If ?you-~know .about °native `life, the :corn use, cookingwith;baskets, the 'burial •patterns, the use of ~ the --shellmound 'for creating burial •space, -the native-experience there then 'becomes vibrant, and-~we can meet these generations of human beings that were so attuned `to this land. It's ~ marvelous opportunityfor the city., the .state of California and the -world. `The site is important for the state .of California.- We have a very -- `not just '.for our local people. We -have a very f interesting and diverse native population that come from 150 or-more ,diffe-rent .groups. Each"`has its distinctive way -of life;: defined by a geographical I circumstance . - - While '90 -percent of the coastal Indians ~ were dead by =the :end of 'ahe Mission sera, -some survived and are -r-eviving their-cultures . 'During ,this period,' pit is •a -slap `in their face to cover, once more, with development the remaining site .of .their ancestors. It 'has happened to the urvivors over and ,over, .until -'they are fatigued 39 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 from =trying ~to ,;,protect aheir ices in :an •apparently disinterested society_ :. _ _ _ •This :shellmound,;.is one ;o.f -the few remaining-cultural sites .of its kind•and of~excellent quality. ~ 'If we cover it with immense commercial buildings.,- : ire condemn .i~t , as a :resource `f.or =ahl the people. of ahe tate., .;as -well ;as the :aocal ;community, and .,even thinking in terms of -the -global .communi y. ::When other countries...'have a.ste of antiquity., most of .them just say no. :They don't do any further development, and ,then we go to those countries and aookat .these marvelous sites of antiquity., ,and we :marvel ._ _ ,= Jow, those .people, :from :other countries: come here,, :and hey!.re very interested is our indigenous.,;populations_; .:.:and I think =that :they -will be veryinterested_in visiting.':the. shellmound. I see .the shellmound as more ahan-the shellmound, but as --- the entire -site :a•s a place for reflection, <for learning. ~ Every -time -I ,go :to =the shellmound, just.being.there and the who~e~experence .gives me_new understandings•:of ahe way that the native .people live. - _ - : I also -- .before Istop, I -also want to say that;:f-this plan is carried out -- and~we don't 40 C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2.0 21 22 23 24 25 really know .toomuch .:about. ahis ,plan. -We're having ~=- it's not ,as one of the major alternatives. :If that :area is preserved -- the shellmound :is ::.preserved,- we <would :have to `-think about all the underground plumbing .:and infrastructure that would go on. Zt:would .be almost impossible to avoid it with -some of .the .infrastructure. 9.~ ,Also, -.there' no :mention of who -- no discussion of who :would :be in charge of that land. I would certainly think that it should be given to an archaeological-;conservancy or to- omeother public body rather than --where it-:can'.be °:properly -- it .can be properly watched end monitored: Thank :you. THE CHAIRMAN::.:...Thank you. -Our :next.-:card is fore Dana'Dillworth. i ~,~ ,MS. DILLWORTH: :Hello. I'm .Dana Dillworth,,D-i-1-1-w-o-r-t-h. I'm :president :of the Bay Area ;Mountain Watch., :which s distinctly separate .from San Bruno Mountain Watch, but we~have mi ar goals..,:ao I:know many ;people get us :mistaken. -One of our :.missions .that is :identified in our :goal ;statement is to preserve and :protect the San Francisco wilderness:, and therefore, San Bruno 41 1 2 3 4: `5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mountain Chas-a major .focus. in-.environmental .work. that we do. ';We've identified two .main .areas of concern, ~~zhich wend >to escape paid -consultants.. :1 Q. ~a ~, .One .s ;the ,protection of .natural watersheds as :a whole,which includes streams;-:creeks:; weeps, as it's described in the ~iflora of :-:San :°Bruno Mountain; the. wet areas.and wetlands; and+secondly, maintaining habitatcorridors :from the mountain to the bay. Increasingly, where -pare '>:f ewer :and .fewer opportunities as~develogment proposals all around the fringe of `San Bruno Mountain .pop pup . °. I had the -honor of .working 'with CalTrans to vegetate a wetland .'.that theyworked -on east of this project , :•but west of `the sheer water ,property . Anyway, <we ::know `-that''just east -of .this site, there's alot -- there's -;a lot of -visitation 'by -- it!~s just an <ncredble :amount :::of wildlife. Every time we go there:, .--the -egrets >are scattering and the herons are scattering and-all kinds of:critters run. It's not -just the butterflies, ="but t''s foxes :and < raccoons , -:.and all 'the way -down to the smallest of =microorganisms that need to "be `considered as a whole in order ao ,preserve the •environment.' 42 1 '.~0,2 rI will .pro~ride -comments at ,a later date, 2 or.,=..prior ao the .close ,of_ this .comment ;period. -I would 3 chink., :with the .:new -=al ernative., that, -this would be -4 need. ;to :be recirculated. _ S - ~i~.3 .; It's my .understanding that 'the .:.habitat 6 conservation;:plan,,:.for.-San :Bruno_Mountain.requires 7 waiting periods for :phases between..developments. 8 The .purpose of that .:is to .allow ahe 9 10 11 12 ,. 13 14 15 16 17 c disturbed habitat :that gets disturbed during construction to, somewhat repair itself, and it's been my observation, and I would:presume.Ghat of others, thaw we haven't. seen any habitat restored .in-.any of the projects. Nothing in Point Pac-ifica, to the side of the mountain. As uch„ :':I will most ,likely be making a declaration that your cumulative impacts analysis is inadequate,...:because..:;there are lots of impacts. what are 18 ~ ::happening :over .time. 19 ~e::have..the.grading habitat .that hasp't 20 yet :been .restored.. There's all the erosion that's 21 occurred this year.; three fairly large fires.in this 22 immediate vicinity :within the ast .two years; loss of 23 habitat .due to .invasive ,species,•which-:has not been 24 controlled-on this ,side of the mountain, or in this 25 area; .disturbances during construction. 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24- 25 ....:. ~Q,3 :So 'in erns -ofdetermining cumulative impacts, :I think~you really need~to look at :all `the projects gas a ~~whole that :are -going 'on zn the =vicinity, and you know, I want -- I'_m an 'accountant, :actually, and I want`to see `it quantified as~to`-= at what point we will reach a Gritz-cal mass '' in °development ~on `this mountan,'where the -~ you know, the~speces just can't handle ~t anymore: '~Q, fb '' To wake a wet seep -area-`that attracts species of-all kinds and surround it by buildings 'is .not an `insignificant'~~impact.These species -~- all this destruction `~s irreparable`, and I' 11 makemore comments to that effect Thank :you. TH£ CHAIRMAN: 'Thank-you.'' ' Our next 'card ~is Judy 'Talaugon.' 1Q MS . ' -TALAUGON c` My name is Judy Talaugon. I am the .northern state representative"for California Indians for Cultural ~~and`~Environmental ~'.Protection. 'MR:` HARNISH: Could you spell your 'last name, ..please? "MS. TAI~AUGON T-a=1-a-u-g-o-n. MR .. 'HARNI'SH s 'Thanks .., -, MS.'TALAUGON: Our organization is an affiliate project °af `seventh `.Generation 'Fund and ~aZso 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 C" 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~~ 25 a partner.:organi~zation~~f; he .Indigenous Environmental Network ;;.It's a :;very ,broad :network. _ .I've just passed out ~to the :board their -- .an :invitation .to ;our ;next conference. _ the theme :is "Honoring .Sacred :Places.." ;It' ,:going ao be an internatianal,~-:gathering. _ Part.:of -.what I .wanted..; o -- .I could .kind of ...make ,a .lot of tatements regarding :ahe < tudy.- There' some;.particular-and peculiar situations with the .Native California tribes :and their history here. Without .being .federally recognized, a lot of <times,.we just get completely ..ignored.-when projects are to be proposed. - Some ;~of ..,what .-we do _is ,provide ;.the ,:.public with -,- inform our .:tribes with regards to, .these kinds of projects that are_threatening cultural resources, watershed and_-gathering spaces,, ;places for .our. people. :'Part of .,what we :do is .:also educate. the ;:public -to the reality- that we have wing :.culture, living traditions. You disrupt those :traditions., you disrupt, a complete universe .of .people.. - I think that it ' s .just - - part :;of why I listed those organizations s•that :I'm_going to_attend that conference, and .I -will , at that, ;point:, ;be addressing various.-workshops and folks Ghat-are - 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8- 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Z1 ,22 23 24 25 specialists-in-<cultural ~~resource9 `and~~°araditional knowledge -and protection of whose ~~uarious ':issues " ~+Te=' re going <~to collect letters of support <opposing this project . ~ Our-network isinternational, focusing - on the ~West~ern Hemisphere,` including ` he Pacific Rim, on environmental j.ust`ice 'issues. - 'I -think -that you are':blessed and .should feel .blessed 'that -you ':have hehistory and legacy and = evidence of ~an .ancient culture that `is ~st11, again,` hiving traditions and lifeways that are :quite alive sand •vital: _ Ijust :also wanted.' to let -you `know that .there.is a special restoration agenda on behalf •of _ indigenous peoples ;throughout the world, and :federal agencies; including the United States, are `beginning. to take.~on`some of these ideas, some of these concepts; that shaveallowed =`indigenous: peoples to 'live for hundreds'and'•thousands of years in .one :place with .living ---sustainable ;living=practices, '`the freedom `of religion, protection of their children; and providing these cultural resources throughout history; since time immemorial. .: ' =I oppose `these :prod ects`. ~`I' m going `to work very hard. -in providing a written statement from the various organizations =I've°mentioned, opposed to 46 1 this project. 2 ~ ~, y I ,j.ust want to make ure that -- the 3 disruption of this area blatantly violates the May 4 1996 Presidental:Executive Order to protect the 5 physical .integrity.,of sacred lands and native 6 spiritual practices.. :It makes a.mockery of .this 7 executive o.rder.. 8 I hink;that, again, .this .community, our 9 complete Bay Area, should feel blessed that we have a 10 special ;place for our future .generations, that the 11 area should remain completely .untouched. 12 Probably., .before I leave, the one thing .4~ 13 ..t: t at I wante to sa I y -- .hate to_get on..the mike .and 14 start to school. ;;people..,,. :teach .,people what I think ,you 15 probably should learn outside of hearings and outside 16 of these .kinds -of _ .gatherings, • but I do .want to say 17 that .the Ohlone..people are ready o.align themselves 18 with the community-and other .California.. native peoples 19 in .opposition to this,_project. 20 We are prepared,<as an organization, 21 California .Indians:for Cultural and Environmental 22 Protection, to do what we do, upload data on our 23 website and our database on ahe.history and practices 24 of the project, the organizations or the companies 25 that .are. coming in and their..funders, and to research 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 .and inform the community on these projects.' 'I ,just 'feel -- just one more -thing. I just feel' like, again, ~ all land and ;, terra, 'flora, fauna, is 'sacred to the .indigenous peoples, and we have and will continue '`to :put >our lives on the line `to protect these 'areas and that-- please remember -- 'and with the speakers that came up to address--the question of .children and the question of watershed, these `are all interliriked. 'The question of development is all _::.. interlinked to'human rights and to religious freedom and to sacred cultural resources.These need to be protected. Without the protection`of these,' without _. _ . _., the acknov~iledgment o.f the -interconnectedness of these, we are`on`our way to Tocal devastation. -. "Please join ~in `the 'global 'discussion to reconcile .ourselves spiritually with the earth. It's happenng,`and I invite the :board-.and this community to join the ---join in this agenda to`restore areas and to project cultural and religious sacred sites of indigenous people. ... Thank-you. - _.. . THE CHAIRMAN: Our next card is Will"Two Bears. X2,0 '`NIIt.. '`TWO BEARS : My name 'is will 'I~vo See Letter23 48 1 r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Bears . For -those of you who •don'.t 'know me , •it ' s spelled "W-"i-'1-1, ~T-w-o, B-e-a-r=s. The last ~ time °I -was °here on the 9th, :I spoke ao Mr. .:Dennis --= MR . BREETT : =Breen . MR. TWOBEARS : I'' m bad at °names, Mr.Breen. Anyway, 'I was -telling him about -building -- about saving-the shellmound and about 'building maybe a small village on top.That way, we bring visitors from all over, and it would-be great for -- all he people in-the world could come here to see this- site. It will be ---maybe everything that we could build up `from that.' I~told him the only thing I -was interested in is thee shellmound both -- (Discussion off the record.) MR . TWO BEARS : -Anyway, I tknow that he "' s a .man of `his word, like .I "am. 'He told me that -he <~would think -aboutdoing .just that, -and I 'think he ...:meant it . In the meantime, ;7 =went ~to see `Ms. Julia Simms in Quentin Kopp's•office, and I talked to `her. She told me he was going 'to-tell Mr. Quentin :Kopp about this and --tell him, and 'he °wrote a letter to 49 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 -:8 9 Z0 11 12 Z3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 .23 24 25 the :Honorable .Mr..:Gene .Mullin... He .also .sent=me.a.letter and asked me to .get ahold of Mr. -Gene .Mullin, 9o I, did, and I spoke to him on the .phone .and-made an .appointment. to go see .: him. I went and saw him,;yesterday. ,He old -me that -,the building on the shellmound is a long ways off, and he says he;~doesn'_t think ;that -they will build on the mound, but he's concerned about_ -tall :buildings_ :on both sides of ahe mound -- that he's worried :about.. .. When people come tovisit the -mound,, they',11 visia-the village :that I' m plaruzng-might be built there, `that they would see these 'two buildings and it :would ahoo them off . - He :said -that. he had talked to =Mr. >Dennis (sic). here about .building a little-.bit further:to:.the right of it and .further-to the :1-eft of ;it on the corner ;of Twin `City ,Boulevard. ::If he does that, when .that -would ~.be great . He'd be :~a great .man in ; my eyes . Then Amy dream would :come true, but being a .normal man and himbeing an :honorable .man --:;.which I':m a-good judge of character., :I ;can tell what he ;is-,; =but "I'_d s.till ..7.ike to aee `.it in writing- -and have. ;.it .notarized.. -:Thank :you . - 50 L ,~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1s 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 'THE '.CHAIRMAN: Our next -card is Celeste` Langille. _ `.~3.~ `CMS . LANGILLE : Good ...;evening . - `My name :is °.Celeste =~Langille ';My Mast name is spelled L-a-n-g-i-1=1-e. 13.1 I' m an attorney -with San '~runo Mountain Watch,-°and it is :difficult, if not impossible, to make comments on~an SEIR whose project description"-keeps shifting, o I don't have a lot to say. I.haven'thad a lot of time to review the SEIR yet,<but we will be making our comments in writing. An integral element of an EIR under CEQA is an .adequate and sufficient project description, and that isn't,°obviously, the case here: Regardless of.~the just-proposed potential alternative, 'the significant impacts on~.the'bological resources .at the -Phase IT and 'III cites will :not =be -- adequately .mitigated under this .SEIR. X3.2 'The :illegal change of the ~Callippe S3verspot butterfly, <which was just recently .listed -back 'in December, and .destruction~of =its suitable habitat and food plans .is :still going to •occur, seven by .looking at-;:this=_drawng,awhich 'T:haven'.t had any chance to figure out exactly where t~is in .location to any of -.the'~~biological resources. 51 '1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 y3.2 >I:~don',t.;,know ;how ;-.many,:;people here .are aware that areas of :'Phase .III were once part of a proposed .critical r:habi at for .the -.Callippe ,Slverspot back ;yin .the early,;;,!~8Os. .The ~=:critical habitat was first .proposed and :never .came .about, -but it .:is obviously extremely mportant.to,this species. ;Since the 'time that .it was .originally , proposed back in ahe ',80s, ahe species has :declined.. .:rapidly 1 -- ~$,$ ,OZher. species of concern, .which are listed in the SEIR, will .be :adversely ,affected by ::any development, ;also. 13.4~one <aspect of - he EIR .chat I .,:found grossly inadequate. was ahe cumulat.va :impacts analysis,:•especally in..light:of.°mpending development , on the-:east , ide of he 101.:; I know it's :.recent:, :but I know'there'a. everal hotels and~a:. of of development .going on there. .The-~:wetlands -on .Phase ILI -.are.:extremely important.: :.:.;There's-:.otherwetlands on :the east-aide .of 10.1 that .will ,be :impacted, and the cumulative ;impacts analysis ~doesn't_ address °ths. Lt.,doesn'.t .address development '.that. already has occurred .on~San_-Bruno:.Mountain,:Radio Ridge, Northeast Ridge, -already :developed :parts .of 52 C 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .Phase I.:and Phase II, so .I need to 'figure .out what's going on with-this-.new ,potential alternative, whatever exactly that -means _ _ 'I urge you 'to strongly consider the 'Phase III permanent open-space .alternative and the Phase II reduced-development alternative, regardless of this new .potential alternative. ..Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: '`Our next card is"Robert Carrillo. ~~4.~ MR. CARRILLO: Good :evening. My .name is See Letter l6 Robert Carrillo. I live at 262 Hampshire Court, Daly` City,- and my last name is C-a-r-r-i-1-1-0. Basically, ' 2' d Like `to express my objection to any development on San Bruno Mountain. I realize that this request is probably too much to ask. I do.wish it to be considered by .any and all who"have power over this decision. ~4.y ~I would like to more specifically address the SEIR report, Section 4.9, Archaeology, Terrabay Phase III. 'I'm very concerned about the shellmound areas. Ifeel 'that zany -development `that is done before a~thorough archaeological investigation is done is~probably going against some state or federal law or 53 14. y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 •19 20 Z1 22 23 24 25 There..is evidence of .burials. .I believe that ..this qualifies the .area to be -eligible., ao .be _, preserved.. To cap:. this. area :would not ,:only .destroy it, :but be a great loss to our community as_ a,, .national historic ::place. `The possibilities to .preserve this area in a respectful way are very encouraging:,to me. There could be _a dedication..presented_by ahe.South City Planning Division, along-with Terrabay, stating ahey felt it .was more .important to :,pay ...respect to pan ancient culture..related aoall of :us. We are .the .'human ::race. _ Let us not .:forget. it. Look into your. hearts.. You will .find the answer. "..Oh mit.aiko yasin,".all my ..relations.:, Thank. -you ..,for your- dime and consideration. We could maybe .`have ~a :celebration .of preservation of .Lost cultures ::for our __future development., Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN.: ..Next is ..Kathy Manus . 15; 0 Ms . MANU$ : _ ; .My name i s .Xathy .:Manus . -Good evening. M-.a-n-u-;s. I':m a.:.resident of .:Daly .City ... ,S'm ;president of the .Friends of San .$runo 54 r 1 2 3 4 5 b 7 8 9 10 11 12 f 13 _ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mountain. We area volunteer park support group approved by San Mateo County Parks and `'Recreation. We have 50 dues-paying .members who give many hours caring -.for habitats and teaching .the young in the San Bruno Mountain 'State and County `Park. ~It is probabhy not a surprise 'that ~we would oppose extensive .construction .near.-the shellmound. In-our reading, to ;cap and drain th_ area is the equivalent of crush and dissolve . We would like this cultural rese~rce to be turned over to the proper entity, wheth.r it is our park, the county park -- we are willing.*_c-do that. We `have the energy, the ~people. We -will .have the funding. -. we would like to preserve this area as a resource in the park,`and we would like to .enlist .the help of local Native American people. We don't -particularly dike the latest idea of making asandwich-of the shellmound. -In our mind, the 10-storyoffice bu~ding is- a mighty big piece of .bread, incredibly disrespectful in the minds of many people. 'We are here to support the wishes-of ahe Native American people 'and 'our :basic agreement -with Julia Bott of the Sierra-Club in her analysis of the 55 '.1 2 3 4 -5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 '19 "2 0 21 22 23 24 25 SEIR. ,. . . _ .Thank .;you . .THE CHAIRMAN:_Our...next...card.is Michele Salmon .. _ y6,0 MS. SALMON: , ;=My :name is;:Michele .Salmon, S-a-1-m-o-a. .1 .dive on .Sierra ..Point .Road in ..Brisbane., California.. _ - ; I grew up _there:. My -mother -.moved -there when .she was three. My :grandparents lived here in South San.::Francisco.... ..How many .people :have-actually hiked ...this area,, .:,have ::actually :walked on it? . It's .a -- ..San :,Bruno Mountain is a ,jewel in the crown of the peninsula. When is the -devel.oprent :going :.to .atop? - -When I _•was .three-:::years ,old, I swam at , Sandy Beacr . .Most of;.;you :people .don'a know .where Sandy .Beach ;is, ..because :it':;s :now underneath the Industrial _Park ;out here, .east:;of >-Grand .Avenue. The bay was -stillc~ean-enough to swim in when I.was three ..years ,old. I!~m _only 44. _ . :San Bruno Mountain -- the :.changes -- :Brisbane ~made -a ..horrible <compromise on the Rich development.to:;,getthe San-Bruno.Mountain.P_ark. _Where does :it stop?Where :does it stop, 56 C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 folks? _ . , .~ . . _: ;, _ _ You know, -`this is he generation that's' going to-make a di'f.ference. How much '.are you willing to .sell .your .soul for? How much are you will"ng to sell your children and°the`next generation and the - generation after .that for? `How much are you willing to sell your soul for? This is the last open .space in the North Peninsula. The only way that` his environmental impact .report is going to-protect-the°shellmound is if you cover it with aI1`the copies that-.have been printed. :The environmental impact report :didn't protect the .ridge. You should see it. Did you go up and ~ look at it 'this winter, °the -erosion? Do you .see any frogs living up there? Do you see any habitat .restoration? ' It just goes on`and on. When is it going to stop? It's almost a curse to 'live `in the town °that you grew <up in, 'to see this '`kind of .destruction continuing and-continuing.- 'My grandparents are a-part of the 'Industrial City .of South'San 'Francisco. ~My grandfather worked at Swift & Company, packing meat. Where does it stop, folks? I-mean, it's 57 ~ '~ 1 2 3 '4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 up to you .guys . We :have to .make .it stop sometime . Does ,it .stop, after ,;you :folks ,have.;made.,your money on - Terrabay? _ .:I mean, ,when do we,.,put .;-a :halt -to it? ,..:Then do we _ say, ~"Enough. i s enough ° ? _ `I. -work in Menlo :Park... ;There are -- it's 22 miles from Brisbane t.o Menlo .Park,. an hour .and a half to get-home, traffic. I don't,-see any...place o widen .the .101. I mean, where ..does it ;atop, folks? It should .stop right here,,..;right now. This environmental impact_.report, I'll read it, but it says the same old bullshit. That'_s _all :I .:have. to aay. "Thank ,you .for istening. . _ THE_.CHAIRMAN: Our next.card.is.:Leland Behan... ~ - T, 0 MR . BEHAN : My -name i s Leland .Behan., B-e-h-a-n. I-dive at :186 .Huntington Drive, Daly City. I don't have .much to say, but I would like to share .some _of _the culture....., :For..instance,,.,Thanksgivng_.was .originated by:Native:.Americans...... .When .the :Pilgrims .came, :they barely suzvived_ ,:.one :winter...:..The .Native.:,Americans taught them :how to urvive. What-I''m saying is:: Share ahe.culture. 58 ".1 C l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2I 22 23 24 25 Honor :was ....gained rby what you ..gave, • yourself . Everybody hared, -.:and :ahese .:~shellmounds - - ,we scan - share ,them with your :children ,and :our ::children -:and -the whole :-world ~ ::;We'se ,not •:going ao share these ;profits. How many examples .-.- I was taught - - .I was :born and ::raised on ~a_.reservation, .and we'.re .taught not to disturb grave sites, sacred places. 1 .wish ::.that we':d -stop :and ::examine what's in the future. Do you -:want o look at San :Bruno Mountain or the development.? I've :been employed :for 30-some ;years :with United Airlines. They have an ID card with San Bruno Mountain on it. They'.re pretty :proud of it. They could have .chosen the Golden Gate:or_some other;::-place., .:but -they.:chose San :Bruno :Mountain. Most of what<I wanted to_say was .covered. I think .what I'm Tying ;to say i that we need to share this with everyone. Thank ..you .very much.- THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. - Our next-:card is. David Tomsovic. X8.0 •irIIt. TOMSOVIC : Good_ evening .: See letter f~ MY :name is David .Tomsovic. :I live :at .183 Flournoy ,:Street., Daly :City. My last name is spelled T-o-m-s-o-v-i-.c. 59 a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1.9 20 21 22 23 24 25 :I :;:d -:-just..-like ~a:o ,point ~-out::a ~;~couple :shortcomings in :,the-=documentation.':here ~:of ::the environmental ..report ;that :tie :.back ,to acme of :the comments = Ms : Dillworth -;made ;regarding :wetlands, -.and . specifically ::issues .dealing with -:the Clean Water Act of =the united States., :which -deals with }the protection of wetlands. Looking 'ahrough the .documentation, it appears that the actual :'construct-ion development of -the area .totals about 73 acres,°.p1us utilities,. o maybe 75-'acres :of- development:, actual, physical constructon.wvrk. ~_, x;8.1 :The :Clean Water Act -provides hat before SeeLetiertt.t a project can =~be :~ approved, 'under -the •Clean Water ':'Act under wetlands, a developer =or .an =entity, :whether it'-s CalTrans or any developer, :needs: to avoid and minimize impacts to tivet'l.ands as fully and ,as completely ~as possible .for projects like this or <for any type of -a .project that would place'fill'-material into wetlands of the United States.. `There ~s~a-very .damning statement on page 156 of .the supplemental >EIR. It <says, ~"~As =currently proposed, development would~elminate all the native freshwater-marsh :and :riparian vegetation,resulting in a collective loss of approximately two acres of these b0 C~ C 18. y 1 :2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .sensitive natural community aypes." What would happen if aomeone went .in and said.,. ".Let's .fill in .two acres of the San Francisco Bay.," or ".Let's .fill in two acres_of another .creek of another habitat"? I don't know how.-many of ..:you remember when there was the_proposal to expand .the landfill in San Mateo ,.County a couple years ago, Ox Mountain. There was fill material placed in that., .and that had to really go through many, .many hurdles to avoid. placing the fill .material. Here., in the 75-acre project, I do not understand., looking through this impact documentation.,. how you can allow filling in two acres of wetlands. Is-there not some way to reconfigure your project, redesign .your .,project.., .reduce. your .project,. shape and reshape the project., such that you do not - fill in the_two acres of the wetlands? Anybody who .says., "Well, let's fill in two .acres of .the .San Francisco Bay" or two acres of any of .the creeks in San Mateo County or Santa Clara County, or .wherever it .might_be, is going to run into a hell of a lot of opposition. Furthermore, you're not incompliance with the Clean Water Act. You haven't clearly 61 e '8.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 demonstrated --:the document~tself says~that~t dill eliminate all .wetlands on 'the prcject'site. That is not consistent with the~United'States`C1ean Water Act _ _ .: as passed by the Congress of the United States more than 2.0 .years-ago. Additionally, there are a number of spots in the `document, editorial comments, re'lat.ing to that very instance, where it says that project approval must be secured from the 'Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of `Fish and Game, and the Regional Water Quality Control~Board. There~s absolutely no reference made to _ _ 'the tTnited States "Fish .and .Wildlife 'Service; which needs 'to grant approval for any ..place for fill materials;`particularly as it relates to .endangered _.. species, and the endangered species are very frequently in 'the wetlands; nor -is there any reference to the Environmental 'Protection Agency, the United States 'Environmental Protection-.Agency, and its role in the wetland protection :issues under :Section 404 of the :Clean Water Act.` In `.that :regard, 'this document is very, very deficient and in need of quite'a bit of modification in or3er to avoid those very significant and Adverse impacts. 62 C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank:-you very much.. I think we'll take a-short break. Why don't we reconvene precisely at 5.-after_9:00. ...(Recess ...) :THE. CHAIRMAN:. Let's .reconvene.. Our .next :speaker is .:Jan Pont. i9.~ MS . PONY : I ' d 1 ike to .submit. some .photos :See Letter 33 to you. That will be one of-the .topics. that .I'11 be talking about. I would like these .,photos-back. MR. HARNISH: If you submit the photos as part of the testimony, then we have to keep them as part of he record.- MS. .PONY: That's fine, as ..long as I ge.t them back at.a later .time. MR. HARNISH: They'll stay part of the permanent record. THE CHAIRMAN: Forever? - MR. HARNISH: We can make photocopies for you, and ,you can come back and get :them, but if you submit them, we .have to keep them as part of the record.. MS. PONY: That's .fine, ,because .they've once, been-.submitted to the city council. They .have 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2.5 seen them. Ngt. HARNISH: We' 11 makecolor copies of them, if you'like .' MS . "PONY : Okay . ~F`ine . Gosh, as you see, this `book is so .huge. I don't know if we all got to .read it all, but -- THE CHAIRMAN: Could you spell .your last name, please? ~9.~ MS. PONY: My name is Jan Pont, P-o-n-t. I live at 111 Belmont Avenue, South San Francisco. I don't 7cnow where to start . The photos that you see in front of you __ _ :;. -- I guess I should go from there, because those are showing possible wetlands.-that-were. on Phase I, `but ..., _ :._ now, it's really in Terra-Woods Nest, I believe it is, near .Drake. Avenue., what used to be =- in that area. This is _one of the wetlands, 'with all this waterfalls, .that was taken. It shows there is a tremendous amount of water :and seepage in this .area. 'I .live on Belmont. During the winter, I ,. _ . have a flooded backyard, :and -it's due to a lot of this -, moisture coming down off of the `hill. I would-like tosee that, possibly, some of this-.water be~captured, reused or either -- for ,. landscaping use or making fountains, use it on your b4 C_ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 linear parkways, '.because where~s a'`.tremendous amount of water that comes from there during the winter.. Also., even tonight', when I was.comng along 'Randolph Street --~I"don't know where-this .water's coming from, 'but "it's. 'along 'that same little linear front, seepage across the street,"so there is a tremendous .amount of water that should°be recycled, reused,--sold, given~to -- give us a chance to reuse that water somewhere along 'the development. No . 2 , I was concerned about `landfill . "You can see hat some of those ravines --`there's a lot of erosion problems. There's.going`"to be a lot of landfill. I have -- I :don''t `think `I .submitted it, but there was , `-~at -one point , -cement retaining walls , particularly in this one area around 'Drake Street, that probably got buried with landfill, which I don't think it ~should°be a-permanent resident. I would like to see that hauled away:` Who knows what else was brought in `in that particular area°of Bay West, east, and in .the commerce `areas, where hey've`been continually 'filling in all this last ummer and early spring. Last year at this time, I think a lot of see Letter 33. you knew that I`had absolutely no voice, because of 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the duet . I !;.m,, hoping .maybe it's not ..:the dusts, ,:or L'~m just .trying to lose my_voice, again, :but _2 had a .tremendous ,.problem ,with all the dirt .fill, so whatever they decide to .do with this =area, please make.,.sure , , that .ahe .residents :are ,:protected ;properly :;for --, you know, .keeping -the ..dust down..:. ~L .:know .hat's a .little further downstream. .Also, „parking -- I am ,concerned .about parking with some of .these .streets:. I :don't think the width is properly wide .enough for emergency vehicles to go up . I :see no .bike lanes or no .two sidewalks . see letter33.5 . I mean, ,you...:have maybe_,one ,sidewalk on the one area, but not two., and I think that we should make ahe width of ..these :streets .a little wider and have sidewalks on .:both sides of the.str-eet. The. homes :.that. have.. triplexes,..:where one See Letter 33.4 house ,.is .;built. on top.. of two houses or .:two ,units..:-built.. over. one unit:, I wonderwhat ,the distance :between the buildings are and how.much soundproofing is :put ,into these buildings. I :mean, ,if I ;paid ;to .be ..the .guy downstairs., :and there ~ s a bunch .of .kids .upstairs .on either one of these :.two -units -- ::and :how .:many ;people will be .living ,in :these_:five-.bedroom homes? How many families? Are they Gelling to one family? -Is it 66 1 2 3 4 .. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 going to be `fivefamilies yin what .one 'house? "Who knows .how many .people are going to `live°in one unit.` =There is`=another concern .about the impact of how many cars are going to be there. You're :going to give me~a two-car ::garage or you're-going to give me See Letter 33.5 a three-car garage, but-:hey, you've got a five-:bedroom house... 'How do you know ahey're!not fve~~teenagers and they all have a car, and you only have-three .parking spaces? 'I thnk~parkng is going to`be a real problem.. ~~• ~ `In regards to -the emergency vehicles See Letter 33.3 being able to go up and -:aroundthis, I notice on ~-- I didn't find too much information on the flyway. On :page 23, -there.doesn't~ eem to be enough information here 'for us to •reallyaccept that in regards to the traffic, -how :high it's -going to 'be, the noise °level, pollution. These <are all °things ~-that have Ito `be taken into consider-anon: I mean,-carbon monoxide >from all this 67 excess traffic is .not_going~ o be too-good., and I certainly-wouldn't beyenjoying.something like --well, I bought ahs property,-sand-then I look out, 10 years later, oh, -we've got a `flyway over 'here . ` 2 didn't huy -- I.thought I was going to .have a.:beautful :view of the bay., .and -Nall of a sudden, I -got all °this out in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -front of >me, ~so where-.should be :more :informat.ion :in regards -':to ,ahe :flyway .; ~~y~•2 ; ~so, .-about, -,the scissor-hook ramps, it .sounds :.like it's .more ike .what ;we .already :have-~ at . Oyster Paint, ,if .I !:m no.t -- :is :it mooing . o :be, something similar , o that, or is -the traf`ic going Ito kind of .merge ;down, crisscross .in ,between :lanes, going to Highway 10.1? I':m not too clear about that. ~Oh, how -many ,affordable homes are going to .be built? You know, originally in Phase I, People -were asking .for affordable homes. It~doesn'a: ound like -there's too .much ,affordable ;housing for ..anyboav -- for seniorcitizens-to.come in. ..:What.- ype of allotment ;are -,whey doing on -sthat? In >regards ao .the :;homes, hat they supposedly -.cut =back on the homes., ::but as it was; ,stated earler,_the whole number .was reduced, but> he-size was much larger, less open --space, Tess parks,. >less walkways,, less .planting., _no fountains.. You know, can =we :utilize the ~nrater some.... way ::.and water"the ;plants, which should be. more::plants., even-on .Phase S? I don't see too :many-ion :Phase I. Our •habitat :.is ,.being ..lost . I chink the shellmound should be saved. There's too --many -things :.ao thizilt .:about., 68 ;" f C \. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and of course , ~~aonight , ~ you'. re `.trying ~~to :sort -out Phase I - - snot 'Phase I , .Phase I I and I'I I , sand it ' s a lot of .reading to ahink:~about. :Thank .you . -"~THE~CHAIRMAN: Thank -you. Our next;card ~is Gail ~Mallmson. 2~,(~ 'MS . ~MALLIMSON: -My :name is Gail Mallimson, M-a-1-1-i-m-s-o-n. I live in San Francisco.` 'I .work .with the San~Bruno Mountain watch. I~'~m .going to - r'y not to -repeat a .lot of the things 'that :people :have said. It does seem clear o me that this community is ...not `for his =development,-=and it's -- it seems a shame `that we':re all here, speaking against 'it, when the .community doesn't want it. 'It seems like the developer should be -defending itinstead of us defending our point of view: -- ~ESrezy-~~time `Icome to :one ,:of -these- meetings, :they change .their ..plans., ;and ."I -:feel like it's :a :real waste of gall .of ~~ our .time 1~•.y I do :not understand ;how anybody =can assess `the -:environmental 'impact when ~we ~don'.t '-know what ahey're :.planning, ~~and ao >show a X1'0-story building, o .me,, •is -a -significant difference 'from a two- or three-story building,-and=aspsomebody said to 69 i I, y 1 •2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1S 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .; me -during the ;bleak,, `if. ~~for :no .;other ;,reason ..;.than. it' e ugly. ,It just . eeems :to :me ,::that it just .makes .that 400- or 500-.page :book null>and void.!. They. seem to be changing°their.plans with some sort of consideration ~to~ the_~: hellmound, .but they haven't been a:stening o -the experts., who all say that the entire Walley-that contains :the ~shellmound 'has to be deft .undeveloped. As it -was -acid before, the -sacredness of this site .lies .in :its value :as :a situ.. It's not an object that is buried under the ground... .It is the entire site.. 2~.2 I .:also think :what the :planning .commies 'ion shouldtake 'into.. -.consideration -.the .;.new :plans ::for <;the sheer.: water area across -101. From :what I :understand,. the ,developers - . are already .applying :for permits .in Brisbane. I don.'~t '^ .know about South 'City:, :but whey'replanning to :put up huge hotels :right _across :.101. z'm not he ;planning ~-commissioner, but it seems to :me izat cif ~youu :have .huge hotels on either side of ,a .highway .that .is- already ~blocke,d •.at .least 10 hours out .of :the .day, :it's ;just going _to be a °big parking ot, and ,I slon'a see -:how ;that's ;good -planning. It's just :not ::going ao work. 70 L 20.2 i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 \~ 25 I think that it's important to consider the projects in conjunction with-one another and not just look at the EIR and the impact of this one project on the .traffic, but to take into consideration all of the projects .that are being :proposed right now in the area. As I said, I think it's clear that the community is against the project, and I ask you, as representatives of .our community, to protect our precious .natural .and cultural resources and to please recommend to the city .council to take the open space alternative and to .make it into a park. Thanks. THE O'HAIRMAN: Thank you. Our next card is Mishwa Lee. .21.0 MS . LEE : .Hello . I ' m Mishwa .Lee , L-e-e . See Letter22 I am a.resident of San Francisco. I'm a lifelong resident of the Bay Area, and I teach at Gloria Davis Middle School in southeast San Francisco. I have an opportunity to talk with our youth who will, someday, hopefully, be our new leaders in the positions that you now-hold, and some of the questions that they ask me remind me of the direction that we .need to be going in, in regards o the Terrabay development and the shellmound. 71 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .They're very.curious. They want to know.: What was it like here 1,00.0 years .ago? What was it like 5,000 years ago? What was it like 200 years ago? They can see .bits .and ,pieces of undisturbed Bay Area and wonder why it's come to-what it's come to. -This is a great treasure, San Bruno Mountain. The shellmound is a -- it is a jewel. It is a sacred place for our youth-and for our future generations.. There is so little left, and you here -- you commissioners have a momentous decision to make regarding this and regarding the future generations. The woman that came up here and said, '"When are we going to stop," I-think that she had something very significant to_remind us, that we do need to stop and think about he direction we've been going in. The reason that we have this beautiful .mountain still somewhat intact is because the indigenous people lived a way of life that protected -the land. To them, when they left this earth, it was an honor to .leave nothing behind, to leave very ..little trace, to leave the earth as they had ,found it. We live in a culture that leaves, you know, dumps and waste, and we :don't-take care of what '72 l 2 3 4 -5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~. _ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we .have . I'm ,..perplexed, and also a bit ': disappointed, that the developerswould.say that_ they're offering a gift to ws, to the community,. to the people, to save just the shellmound and tower over it with their development. -The shellmound.for the,people --.the indigenous-people that lived there was much-:more than just the shellmound. It was the whole mountain. St was the val-ley that they .lived in, .because all life was dependent on the watershed, on the valley.., so it wasn't .just that one .spot -where they 1 ived, just as our communities aren't just the one .house that we live in. It's_what.surrounds us that makes-our community special „ so I think it's really important to keep that in mind. -That whole valley needs to be protected. Also, I hear almost everyone .here peaking for the least development possible, to make sure Ghat the integrity of the mountain and the shellmound and the community that was once there is protected and, hopefully, restored some :day. This is .the communityspeaking to you, and I hope that you-will take our words and the words of the descendants of the ..indigenous.„people that left this :place .to us. 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 `13 14 15 16 17 _18 19 20 21 22 :23 24 25 I hope you'll .take .our words with as~much merit as the words of `the =people who -;have so much .money who seem''to 'have ao 4much` more power than the -community. :.::Thank you very much... THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, 'Our next card is 'Michelle"Brewer. 22.E "MS . .BREWER : Hi . `:My name is Michelle See`Letter32 Brewer, B-r-e=w-e-r. I'm actually currently a resident of Davis, California; `however, I grew up here in South "San ..Francisco. I'm currently finishing up my master's degree at San Francisco .State-University 'in ,: _ _ . conservation~bology, where I studied endangered insects . .: ,, _ . San"Bruno Mountain is a-very special place to me. The mountain is an island in a sea of urban development, and~I believe that .this nand hould be :protected.; .. It contains a habitat for unique .species that have adapted to this microClimate and that live nowhere else in the word 'but 'the San Francisco :Bay Area . ' ~ , . -.. I'm'especially concerned about the endangered Mission-Blue butterfly and the Callippe 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 - 9 10 it 12 13 _ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Silverspot . ... Loss of habitat ~a :great- .concern to me . Although-this"is only a;portion~of one-population~~that is said to be developed, many species are "lost Eby the slow, piecemeal, 'project-by-project -'degradation of their. habitat, ;primarily by human :disturbance. Istudy-another endangered insect, the San Francisco Foothill damselfly, and over 'the ast few years,-the populations,-one :by one, have `been disappearing along the San .Francisco Bay. .It's just very .disturbing°to-me that -- it's just so easy .to lose these populations. `They're .small populations,:and it's so difficult .sometimes -- ` when- there's so much urban :development in :between the populations, it's very difficult -;forthem Ito recolonize the other .populations., .and they're just slowly. ost_ Population persistence is in jeopardy when :the :habi-tat is .:reduced to ~a :critical point, -and we just ..don't ]mow what ° that ;point is . .Insects :rare mportant,~as well as beautiful .creatures, .and =they're :necessary .to the proper. functioning :of =the .ecosystem. 22. ~ I' m concerned that the supplemental See LeCer322 environmental :impact :report does not :address 75 2.1 ~ 2 3 -4 `5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 mitigation measures for this land destruction... I , believe _there's ;no :real •way to :mitigate:. the loss of the. habitat for ahis species, .because :where's -ao little habitat...left-.. -:Even :ahough ~•there -.are •~.other populations in .other -places ;in,.the Bay .Area, ~there .-:are -so >few populations :chat ';if -something :caused ;one population to become,-extinct, .it's ::unlikely, ,:given the distance between ::the ,populations, that they're-going .to be able. to bounce back. 22.? .• We need ;to Nary o -save ;all the populations so ---:to ensure the persistence.:of ;this. species in ~~the long :.term.. This project •may.not do them in., „per se;, but :~-the -cumulative -:effects ~ of future development will, and~we~need to stop the development- now. - I'm not. against shopping centers., :per-se, but Isuggestthat you build -somewhere else, -and please listen to :the ,people .that :oppose this project.. Thank .;you very much "THE.CHAIRMAN: :Thank you. -Our ;next ;,card is Heather =Gilbert . ,'~$.~ MS . GILBERT:: =Hi . Myname .,is :Heather Gilbert. °That's G-.i-1=b-a-r-t. I°'.m :a native :::San. ;F.ranciscan. I've -spent 76 i" C C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 many years -in many other places, and I find that `I always come ..back to San Francisco, .because I value the cultural awareness that I find here and `I value what we .learned -- you know, the things-S learned in high ;. school. I remember my aeachers`in the San Francisco history .class taught me about Ohlone people first, before they taught me about the explorers, before they taught me about the 49ers, and I've incorporated that into my lifestyle, learning by these different cultures. I think that it is a disservice to the people of the Bay Area to go against -this type of awareness, by .going :ahead and building on'something that we .could use to teach our :future generations. I also would like to mention a story. When I-was younger, I used to :spend a`lot of 'time in Redding with my grandfather, who lived up there. 'We used to go :for walks, and we used to find spearheads and other .artifacts on the ground that had been ...._ churned up by the nearby development: "My grandfather -- I would get very indignant. I would say, °Why are these just thrown around? How could they be so disrespectful?° My grandfather used to just .kind of sigh 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1.8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and .say, ~"You ..:know, .Heather, they ,:.didn't :know. They were ignorant.: You've got to ,forgive .them. We're doing .things differently: now." Well, 20.:years later. I -think-that we know :and .we're not ignorant, so perhaps we should ry to start doing things differently. ~hank,;you.very much.- .THE CHAIRMAN: Our next card is David Schmidt.. 24,E MR. SCHMIDT: Hi. My name is Dave Schmidt, and I'.m a resident of San Francisco. I work at -the Environmental Protection Agency in San Frartcisco,.;but I'm :not here .to speak .for EPA .today. I'm.,just speaking on ~Y..own as an individual. I have a degree .in history"from the University of Santa Clara, and I've always retained my interest in history over the 20 years since I ,graduated there. It seems to .me .that we have a tremendously valuable, historic, educational resource here :in San Bruno .Mountain. This.is a 5,000-year-old ' community continuously_nhabited for .most of those 5, 000 ..years. _ In terms ;of other historic sites of 78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -8 9 10 11 12 13 _ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 C 25 -similar value.,-you>could talk ::about :Jericho in Israel or :Damascus,:which..were inhabited :for .that.•amount of _t.ime . ';There :weren'.t :..many :.sites _ in ahe entire .:world that were inhabited continuously :for that :amount of time. :Stonehenge in England and the pyramids_in Egypt are .very :important o those .countries where those .sites are. They were .not inhabited as .long.-and continuously as his ~shellmound site. Ancient Rome was not inhabited half as long as this shellmound site. .Thies.. is-a tremendously important site, a tremendously :.valuable -site., and it also-should be retained in its natural context<with its ;wetlands, i.ts wildlife-:and surrounding parkland. - _ I:beleve<,that it is tremendously valuable as .an educational resource. to°teach the people of the ,Bay Area, as well ,as ~risitors .from .out of-:.town or out-of ...state or out of this country:, what we ..:have a respect for our;hiestory, too,,and..the history o.f_-those who came .before us. When I-was a kidgrowing up.in.<San :Francisco, there was ;.no <mention .,.of the :California Indians-:who.:had lived::on :this eland ::for thousands .of years :before my ancestors got here in .:1.873. 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Z1 22 23 24 25 .. ,- - 'These ;:people"'had- been living on the Sand -for ~40 •tmes ~as 'long >as my <family had -been, ::and °yet., there =was no :mention .of them, .except -for :;the `:fact what they -died ~ when `the -missions ,came' in. We have these four or five missions around 'the Bay Area. They're :all carefully preserved, carefully protected, ~ carefully-:'restored, :.great educational sites, ':but every little in ;the way :of :any attention to the Ohlone ~people'~who were .here for ~5, 000 .years ''before the 'Spanish. I just think that it would be a tragedy to `let this site be destroyed like all?-the other 400 Indiansites around the Bay -Area that °used Ito =be here 10 0 .years ago . 4`0 0 were mapped ~ early :in the :2 O th .century, 1909, .1910. '~-40'0` Hof 'ahese sites were mapped. Today, hey're almost all-gone.` ''There is only one protected, and `that's at Coyote'H~11s Regional Park. "I gust -wanted 'to add my voice o those calling for ,protection =of the =entire shellmoundsite - and the wetland -and °the hillside -contiguous 'to the state park. There -aresome >wi'ldl'fe impacts -that I believe would=happen: ' T'we `been =on "that -shellmound site I `'ve seen hawks and .owls and other~wldlife on that site, and they are =dependent on `the -wetland and'the water in - 80 ;~ c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 - 25 that a.te, -.even though they .mayspend :pant ',of ~:their life up in ~~the >'hill, inside-'the ,park :boundary., they , also spend part of their life in the wetland. :Those need to =be :kept together. Finally,~I think that one of the .things that has;:to be ..considered in this :site decision is whether. tthere are ...any,practicable :alternatives. That's :actually some language from ahe regulations in the Clean Water .Act .about :destruction .of wetlands.. If a:wetland is going :to be destroyed, the alternatives - - and specifically, :is :.there a practical alternative to destroying this wetland.. I hnk, very :clearly,::there is. :That-'s just in legal terms. .':There .are other places to ::put =this development, butin erms of alternatives, ~it!s amazing to :me that we':ve got ;thousands ::and thousands. of -hotel rooms..,.-.hundredsand hundreds of commercial sites in a 10-mile radius., but,:how ;many x,000-,year-..old Indian village sites ..:are there in the :.entire Bay Area? I .think ;::this is it . .This :is he one . You only get .one :.chance . -Thank you. T8E-CHAIRMAN.: Our next .card is David ~ Grace. :~ 81 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 '22 23 24 25 . - 2J~;Q xi~R. '-~GR.ACE: ~~:Good ,.evening.- _:I'.m ;:David Grace, :Post ~~Off~ce :;Box -19.0334 ~.-~:n 'San _;Francisco_, California !9.4.119. I :have a couple of points •:of order, Ito -begin.. - I -wonder of this<:hearing is invalid, because : of -:.the new -.prof-ect ~~ and =of the `:,Calif orni-a requrements~~:ofnotice, this new project being developed 4only in --the last ~ week :or so . It ..would-seem to me that-this public hearing is invalid,~because no proper-notice has been .given. ;Has -there been :an =attorney who -has taken :a -- 'THE CHAIRMAN: ~'=We=have an<attorneyhere.. MR. LINDGREN: We feel confident that this is :a `properly °noticedhearing, because .what -was presented:ao-the`•commission this evening was .a proposed - - .a =proposal ~`by the developer that would be incorporated as a comment=by the developer, and would, therefore, imply be °ncorporated into ' he `SEIR, just as theother comments 'that'=are `presented by the public would'be incorporated .into the SEIR. NII~. GRACE: .So you're contending °that the -.plan itself is a comment? AMR. HARNISH:This is not the time for -- lit. GRACE: I' m doing it as a point of :1 82 c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 order.. ,MR. HARNISH: Okay`. 'MR. -GRACE:- This is diffevent 'than a debate in~a.public forum. `~~'` I'm talking about whether or not .the city is contending°that a design -- which, hypothetically, there,aie going to be architects and an"EIR developed for, essentially, a doubling of the square footage of this plan, and 'that if -- essentially, this plan has been doubled, and that simply is viewed as a-comment, that seems, tome, that that is not a valid scenario for public disclosure, and that the notice -- proper notice `has not been` .given that this guy -has doubled his plan. I personally-conten3 that this hearing 'is invalid,`because he `has not gone through the proper notice. 'The second point of order -- I see the developers 'have finally returned, but "I thoughtthat that was pretty=inappropriate for `them to dsappear- -for a-good portion of this hearing. It's inappropriate, and ~I `think pit may `be `improper for them to disappear. 2$, y .Now, .specifically, the fact that the shellmound is -in the center of the two parcels or is 83 J ~~ 'S.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in the center of the three parcels, I wonder about :the utility ties. There have ,.,got •to.,:be, gas .lines, water lines :and .:.electric .dines. .::;What's he anticipation for running the utilities through .the.shellmound? .That .::specifically seems a: violation of the :whole --.it.may cook good from a.nice_green, picture, -.but -the reality .is .chat., if ;you'.re ,going o .put 1D-.story buildings_on either side of it with thousands of :people attending daily, you're going t.o -have .to have huge.:power fines, gas...lines., utility services.:, and it's -- you know, i.t's a mockery to chink-..chat .the -- that that's going .to .be inviolate.. ...:Future, ownership is also an .issue in this. I wonder -- I was at the historical meeting Tuesday .night.. In that meeting,_the:developer 25 2 mentioned that he .was-going-.to retain .ownership of he parcel.. .Now:,,-in the ownership of the .parcel -- if,, :'forexample, he's going ,.ao .put .in a .10-story building. and :he'.a going o -leave .a ;::parcel -- he didn't know the exact dimensions between .the :two parcels, .how wide. he -was .going ~to .weave ,.the shellmound, ;but .he :was speculating that it was .going to be approximately 300 :feet.: :Now.., if .you.' re going -to .:have a ..:.couple ;~ 84 C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 thousand people come into that area on -a ~da~ily °bass, whether ~it'•s -by 'hotels., whether it's `by work, at lunchtime, :these people are going''to come:•outsde: .They're goiag'to have 'their `lunch. They~re going°to -toss °t~heir litter; their cigarettebutts : ' There" s - -going to be °road traffic . - Inevitably, -with `the '`high winds 'that happen in this Bay Area, .the ownership of that property is going to be at issue,'_because you're going to end up with an enormous amount~of 'rash that's going to get-blown into there, and it's going to"look .like hell. Although most of the peop a here in attendance view=That-as .sacred '.land-and as •somethng to cherish, when that place 'becomes `blighted, and blighted in actual terms, it will:.be,-seen as-a~weed lot. Is the-owner going to,:on a regular basis, clean it up? 2$,$ ' :There :becomes ,a -further "issue, and that-'s the native grasses. 'The San Bruno `Mountain Watch-and many-other organizations"have been trying o make certain that-the natural species are able 'to :reclaim their viability, their strength, their numbers;-their populations. - - - 2f t-his encroachment of weeds-and of 85 5.3 1 ;2. 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 unnatural :.plants --. ahey'.re .going :,to -have. ,to .do .;.a method .of planting -- you ;know, ;,planter.-wboxes., ..:.the normal.:°shrubbery that'_s....going ,to ~,go,.:around :a development ..dike :this, -::and .those -;are not -going ,to be = - - I would- •. expect > hat .:.they're ..:not going to ..be .natural -- the indigenous plants, .that:-they':re•going to be plants ::from:-back..-east., ..ahe :,high-water-,necessity plants. .Those ,plants -are .going to .cast ..their seeds into the shellmound area.,.-and they':re going ao further .cause a loss ao the .natural .::species, that belong there rightly. There are two problems .-specifically :with the ownership of .it. ,.Is ,this developer ;going :to;cause a `liability to: that ,,property ._by blight,; and then further,:. is he going tocause :a liability to it.y to -the .::;lack -of habitat, -of the natural .foods Ghat those .plants .and creatures require? Are hey going to be wiped out, :essentially, -simply by : he .::neglect '.that he's :creating :nearby; and further, the ;ease -.in which -- well;, -the -ease .in .whi.ch -it can ::become ;blighted., simply, by :neglect, aimply by allowing ::this project -ao be in its :Proximity. ~Jr.4 .Next, looking at the .quality of .the roadbed, ;in looking at the eport, you're talking ,. 86 25.4 1 2 ,3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 : 13 ~ 14 _- 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 about ;substantial -grading:<of ;;;road where.. I can' see that the.;,qualty of :the ..roadbed and ;the adding of the highway :exit .ramps .:there .sn'~a .:going to ;;pretend that there is =going :~to :be -:,more development up ahe :hill.. .You know, -you <can' t :;put ;entrance cramps , like the quality :of hat :roadbe.d, -wit•hout essentially acceding that there's-going to <be.:development up there, .:whether it '. s . in,:.f ive ;;years' or 5 0 .;years . There's going ,to be :more development. up-that .hillside. Whatever dreams we may -.come up~with-here aoallow the ...quality of access roads :going into there is with the expectation-that that hillside is .going_to be developed.. I.:want the -- ahis.:bodyto,:recognze. that that _is the ;plan. _ :::Finally..,. I: ;.come „.from__=;Colorado. .Before :I came from California, I -was ~in Colorado.. There is a 100-mile stretch of ;the :Colorado :River -- Colorado is very>similar o California. It ..gets -awo..:rainy seasons, a wint~er_ season ..and _a Gate ;summer..,season,,... ,and essentially, ~ the rest of the .year is very dry, enormously dry. Weeks,, .months go by without any rain at~all.; The :Colorado :River,.;°now, .on :one side of it,.has a railroad .track for 100 miles, immediately, 20 .feet from ahe edge of ahe~Colorado.::River. 87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -On °°the ~-:other ~si~de -:-of ~.t , >'°.for ~~10.0 :miles,, ins an :interstate highway, `-so `all .of the :,species for a' half mile;` =f:ive miles, .~50 =miles-=on •~ither=: ide ~of the Colorado =Riven-do ,not `have access '~to ~the''':river 'for - 140`•~miles,` •.at °:~isk :ofbeing °chopped .apart by railroad ' rains _or ::chopped -apart `~by Mahe `interstate highway. =`I :look .`at the development ~of :this in those same =terms. When you put -a 5,"500--year-old culture to `be chopped ,up by the machine of aeconomics -- -economic necessity, -it`'s °folly. i-ivng inColorado, '..there were boomtowns -and then ;there -were bust °towns . ~We':re `1-ookng ' at -the Asian ~~economy falling apart -right ~n~w. Five, i0 -years -from now, we may really regret:putt:ing~in a ;development `like his,`~ecause it may 'dust become one more ghost town. _ _ - ,. •We're `<looking :at; 'just up he 'highway, ~- the idea of .putting in that -stadium `that'-sessentially a great' `folly. We'-ve pretty °much -put a stop to that stadium; and this sounds "like °the --next project Ito` put ;a istop to : _ - Thank =you . - - `THE CHAIRMAN: 'Our -next-card is .Elliot Goh.ger . . 26.E -MR. -GOLIGER: Hello. -My same is 'Elliot 88 ,:, C c E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 •~ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Goliger., '.G-o-a-:i-g-e-.r.. I'm .:a_:aandscaper. I ,live ~in San Francisco. - :.Geez:, after :everything he :just said, there's ..really not -what :much -more ;to say. S completely agree with him, :and :I !.m :wondering why there hasn'.t been :anyone. who'_s,pro-.development'=here, hat's willing to come up -:and .speak.: on~ .the .pro < ide :of =this . The reason is=because .there isn't anyone who .really wants `this.. A lot. of us .here. have an emotional attachment here to what':s going on. I'd...like to estate .that there's-.more ,to it .:than that. There'..s..actual legal issues, I'.m sure, .,that. this gentleman knows about . I don' t see how we ,proceed any :further without 26. ~ a further investigation .of ~CEQA and •the -water issues . Also., as :I -understand, this drawing, in its..present,.state, is ,:just not enough information to really .make :comment :on-how-ahe sheSlmound.would be protected. Basically, ;ahe :amount. _of ,,...grading and things that are :,going on .there., .ahe slope~.that-we're looking at,-there :really needs .to .be-:some concise :plan of how to not ,screw up -what ' <s .there . `.Like he said,~where are the underground utilities ..going-.and what's,go.ing on with.that? These 89 s.1 -1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Z1 22 23 24 25 things :need to `::be -;disclosed so we -can ;make comment on that, as well. :I ~ mean, S just -.think ,here°'- s not .really enough .information- :for :us :to proceed. A1Ghough ' I didn't.:read the` :18:5 :pages nor _so `from the 'SEIR, 'abut -- the drawing =doesn~'_t really estate pit clearly enough, what. we can expect , in layman's .:'La'nguage . .;26.2 I':d like to also say Ghat 'the environmental impact .goes beyond .just the existing site, goes :-beyond -the delineation of a line that's drawn on the ..land. The environmental imgact~has impact beyond Ghat, and if anyone has `been there-and- taken :notice, `there pis ~asignificantwind 'that rolls right wup ?that :canyon °continually: 26,3 The _~e'ffe~ct -ofconstruction practices, such as ,raising .o'f dust; -that -could have a damaging effect on hebutterfly:.populations, pecfically the Callippe .and otherbutterfly larvae, 'that's also an issue that needs to be ..discussed. Cdhstructon -practices -- 'how _are they going ao::construct this :project, making :sure to preserve 'things 'that are beyond =-this physical dine drawn on .the land? -It°' a just not -- - it ' s ~ notenough ignificant :information -at =this point 'for us to .assume ` that .they're gaming to protect our interests, the 90 C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 community's.interests., ao:preserve...this wand-.and the things surrounding ahis :.,land. -I think :.there.: has : o :be ::really distinct. attention paid to how it's ,:going ao :be ;.constructed, the utili:ties;, :the wind, the keeping:down of the :dust, .because.. native ::butterfly .populations :n_:the urea.-:have been decreasing. There'=s :proof :of .:.that:. They'•re decreasing, and- `these ;are endangered butterflies . '.The one- pec:ifically, the.Callippe., isn't even mentioned in the current HCP. It really -- where :needs to be further interest paid o .that issue, aside from. Like I say, the .emotional attachment-; the legal .issues here of what we're doing, a little clearerpicture;:of:how':that is going to .happen and construction practices in particular. Thank you. THE -CHAIRMI~N:. Okay. That ,was the last of our cards... On .:behalf o.f -:the commission, I appreciate .your involvement -- `NII2.. I+~,NNON,: My -card :must :have --gotten lost. TF~ .CHAIRMIAN: It ::must..;have... Why donut you step :up_. 27,E ~• •LANNON: My .name is Albert Lannon, 91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 L-a-n-n-o-.n. ".I alive in=:San 'Francisco: I ' ve worked in:South San '?Fisnci9co :for many` years, °both _ as pan employee ~ yin !the :Industrial :Park and as `:a -union official . S °sp~ent _a ° lot of time on :San-:Bruno _ Mountain over "those ~~years-; gotten swards `from San Mateo County for -volunteer ,work,..` T sit `on -the .-board of the :'Friends Hof San Bruno Mountain, `but I want' 'to make it ,clear-that I'm speaking here as-an 'individual today. I .wish; at '.times., Ghat 2 ' had a magic -wand, that I ould just =go "poof" and all the development would:disappear and we`'d have a'prstne; natural ':place again. I :would note `'that ~~the'--seal Hof the ~ City of South .San Francisco devotes most of .its space to commercial and industrial development; so there's a reap world, ,>and the issue then ~becornes s 'What :kind of development? ~Fiow do weapproach°'~~ievelopment? -For Terrabay III, `for me, he preferable :choice among 'the `SEIR's `:alternat`wes is the one -that creates the permanent open space, but the developers .here say :he's got -a 'buyer, he needs' -to -turn a .profit.. I'd be foolish to :think.-that that didn't have ,some -- won't have some-weight zn your delberations.- 92 1 ~ 2 3 4 5 s 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 _ 15 16 17 18 19 20 Z1 22 23 24 C 25 We .turn, then, to _the ;environmentally preferred ;.development ,alternative .in the:SEIR.,:which somewhat .:protects the shellmound, the..springs and some endangered species=habitats... 27. ~ I would note Ghat ;Val.though ahe :EIR .did :not :find-;any_ IFC :in, ahe. San :..Francisco .red-.sided garter snake on San Bruno _Mountain, I =would feel. -better ,,about that.alternative, the environmentally:;preferred development alternative, if :the--building proposed right next to the shellmound were .moved :further down, maybe .south of the .billboard. The sandwich that .is being proposed-today by the developer ,puts he shellmound, which is-.a burial place., ~ .cemetery, ,at .::real risk, -.and I don' t think it should be considered. If a developmentalternative is .adopted that protects.the shellmound, .the~springs,.ahe wetlands and the endangered species habitat, ,then -this issue, which -may comeback at us .:again :and .again, could be settled by .putting the plan.north.and west of the shellmound :area ..and the . hellmound .into, ahe ,San Bruno State and County Park, then maybe Will Two Bears' ..,proposals .could:..get some serious attention. The ..:bottom .line _for_.:me ..in .considering ahe shellmound should be respect for the dead of those who 93 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 werehere 'before ~ us, respect • •of '-the `:kind we would want .: for -'the bones ' of ..our own ziiotYiers •an~ fathers ,., I 'would just ~7iote 'that`, ~a ~caupl~e •weeks -ago, I was in Los Padres National~Forest,mappiag ... ancient Indian cave sites. It :was°the`joint effort of `the 'U.: S . Forest Service and `the `Salina `Indi'ans, and 'it was donewith °'sensitivity sand expect . ' 'I .would =hope that we would see `that level of sensitivity and respect .here. "Thank you :, THE CHAIRMAN.: thank you. 'Mr."Lannon, I' 11 have ~-to beg your ':forgiveness . ` I must have misplaced -= `MR. =BATCHELDER: .You skipped -another card, too, I'm afraid. „THE CHAIRMAN : `-'Yes . 28.0 'MR . BATCHELDER : My -name i s ' `Marc Batchelder, =B-a-t-c=h-e-1-d--e-r. I-'ve `heard a `lot ~of -people `talk. I've' been a.wtness to`'the -San Bruno Mountain environmental -- the energy and ~effort made by "San ~Hruno `Mountain Watch. 'I can °appreciate 'the' work that has .gone- nto`Terrabay, coming up wth~these-plans and even :,.: conceiving it. 94 c c c E i 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~ I can :appreciate even.:more •so ::the effort ~ of he -city to -indulge --the developer with an,,,SEIR, :but ~ I -:believe that.:, ,simply, this ~-site :is .ill-chosen.. • Given :.:the ::issues.; of biodiversity.and the ~- native cultural concerns, the need for an SEIR seems to be .moot, under your auspices.,:.as a.:beautiful open land., and it should ;beeasy for .;you -to protect it . ...Thank. you ..THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. :Next i Fred .:Andres. 29,E MR. ANDRES : .I-' m Fred Andres., A-n-d-r-e-s.. My :address :is 5285 :Diamond. Heights Boulevard, .San ..Francisco, :,:94131. .I've been :working with. San Bruno Mountain Watch :for ahe past four years, and 3 do.::plant restorations with SMEW. What we are :working for on the mountain is to-restore.-the grasslands and the various plant communities by removing nonnative ..:plants, .and I!m-glad to say that I've enjoyed my outings up there very much. _:I like .feeling .like I'.m helping ;out animals and plants and insects which I:chink..need:my help.. As a comment to .the present SEIR, I'.d .just ..like to say that I think that the 10-story building which has been -- I had no idea that there 95 1 2 3 4 `5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .2 4 25 was a "10--story building planned :for ;this, .right beside the shellmound. I :think'=it'a ..disrespectful, =and 'I can',t imagine that it's going to -improve the °-look -very much n.f a :place `for>>which I :have =so -much` respect and .love 'for. <. "Thank you. THE CHAIRMAII: L >thnk -that was our -.last card. -Sorry to .the two gentlemen that I overlooked. I'd just like to say, on behalf of the commission, that we really-appreciate :your coming in tonight .and spending your valuable time coming :in and giving us a of of very insightful 'comments =about the EIR. It definitely .helps the process when people come in "to >do .that.- ~We :really ,appreciate t ~That's::pretty-much the end of'-what'we had planned tonight. Jim,` do you "'have any 'final thoughts ? <NIIt: 'iiARNISH: ' I have one °announcement, and then I'' m going to ask for - a >moton 'to ~-close the .hearing. `The -next `time we >pick up the Terrabay project is at a special -study session 'three weeks from tonight in this room. ~7t's August`13th. I believe it will be at -7 o'clock. That's when we've been holding our tudysessions . 96 1 . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Il 12 ..` 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 C 2s . :The ;purpose :of ;:that atudy >session -:will ;be to .look at the details of Phase II of - ,the ,project, .Nand he format -,wild be ,for ;the staff Sao :pre9ent ahe Phase II as proposed .and identify issues that we have.aeen both through : he HEIR and -our awn ;;analysis to date . The .applicant will make .comments, ,also, and provide some more details,:on what Mr.. Breen alluded toat: he beginning of tonight, .which is what they-:are :already proposing as-modifications ;to resolve some of ahe ..issues the EIR identified. -The primary._purpose will:be .for he commission staff Nand the .applicant to have a dialogue, question :and answers., to get into aome of .the 'issues -thatyouu..have.seen a3ready..:and.you've.heard::tonight that were raised in the-EIR, issues Ghat were .::raised through your review of .the•dncuments., the...specific plan and .the .;precise plan to ..date. The: public is invited ao attend-ahe..s udy session, ,.primarily as~an audience,:aa-observing audience. If :.there is-dime at the-end-of the session, we would be abl.e_ ao take •:questions -from the -audience:, but it'<s.primarily~designed as a working session for the :commission. We ,-do that in a public ;;forum so people can listen along. I just..want to make .that clear so that I 97 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Z3 24 25 those <in attendance ~"Mere -.are .aware :..of :the .time and format ~ f or °the :meeting . _ . ::,.THE CHAIRMAN: .Okay... ;Can Ihave =a motion to close? ,_ MR. ~MASUDA:: This =is for the .chair, _ before ;:we .::adjourn -- - THE CHAIRMAN.: Yes.. zMR . MASUDA : Jim, -you're °~going "to have all the .questions what-'.were raised tonight for us? MR. HARNIBH: That will:-not `be available or ready to :be :=addressed on 'the -13th.. °The :intent ~of 'tonight is .to hake those issues `-that -were :addressed to -- or thecomments 'that were addressed Ito t`he :EIR pecifically, -of `which `~-there were :relatively few. -.Most-of ?the comments tonight were more directed at the nature -of the project; `the desirability .of , generally, the preservation; the different .development >style. Those will all 'be ='issues -that you certainly-wiT1 be considering in your deliberations; but `from a :formal addressing` ~n the `'EIR .process, we°will pick out the comments-that were directed t~o adequacy of the EIR,whether pit Gwent far enough, what issues it .may or .may not~have addressed. . We will'-prepare responses to those that 98 /~ Y C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1S 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -will be ,published in the form of a final EIR, which will.come.out sometime -after `the close of the comment period, which :is August 14th. If the aranscript of tonight's meeting .is available by he 13th -- in advance of the 13th, we'll certainly make that available. to .you for your reading, but it will-not be a formal part of our deliberations on the .13th. NII~ . MASUDA : That was asking about, what is a concern as MR. FiARNISH: I -would these comments, along with the writ received, we'll do responses, make as necessary. he question I was to .the 'EIR. anticipate that aen .comments we've changes to the EIR That will become the :final EIR, and then during your deliberations on the project itself, the formal .public 'hearings, one of the several issues you',11 be dealing with is the mitigation measures in the ..EIR, the comments, the :issues :raised, along ..with the plan, the specific plan, the precise. plan, so there are a whole series of things. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? 1~IIt. ROMERO : So .moved . MR. MASUDA: Second. :. 99 1 :2 3 -4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .100 t L PUBL/C HEARING COMMENTS Twenty-nine .people spoke at the July 23, 1998 City of South San Francisco Planning Commission -public hearing on the 1998 Drdit'SEIR (1998 DSEIR), including the applicant-and members of the public. All remarks were recorded,. and a transcript of the hearing was, prepared: The IIR consultant also ..took notes at the hearing. In addition, anumber -of speakers submitted 'written comments, ,presented in the, preceding letters. Speakers .generally made two types of comments. 'One"type-was directedto' a adequacy of the environmental analyses contained in the 1998 DSEIR or questions about the report's findings. These are "EIR" comments. The other type dealt with speakers' .positions .about the project, " baseii on environmental conditions on or around the project site _or on other factors. These .represent comments on the' "merits of the project". The EIlt consultant compared the hearing transcript, hearing notes, and written comments in order to identify the first type of comments (EIR comments) for response below. (Master'Response `7.3-II discusses the comments on the project's merits.) Written and-oral comments largely duplicate each other, virtually identically in most cases. In those cases, the commentor is referred,to.the appropriate letter response. Speaker 1,.Dennis Bn~en (Applicanf) See Letter Comment Responses 13:1 .through 13.47. Speaker 2, Dan Shaituc .See.Letter Comment Responses 34:1 through 34.16. Speaker 3, Betsy Burr Also see Letter Comment Responses 1"7:1 and 17..2. "- _ _ Response 3.1 The conclusion `that .the site meets CEQA criteria as an important cultural resource, is based.in pare .on the criterion,.(DSEIR, page 283) that the site: Can provide information which is both of demonstrable public interest and ... A number of. Native .Americans commented on the 1998 DSEIR in person at the public .hearing. and in writing, as did an attorney on ".behalf of .the ~Pajaro 'Palley Ohlone Indian Council .and San Bruno Mountain Watch :(Letter 30). As reiterated in Response .30.5, the EIR archaeologist .contacted members of.the Native American community to obtain their input: Speaker 4, David Schooley, San Bruno Mountain .Watch Also see Letter Comment Responses 21.1 through 21..24. Response 4.1 See Letter Comment Response 21.19. 'There is no .archaeological evidence of a prehistoric cultural deposit to the east of CA-SMa-40underl7:S:`lUl or Old'BayshoreBoulevard. For- a discussion regarding the terrain between the two documented sites, see Letter Comment Response 21.2Q. Response 4.2 See Letter Comment Response 21.4. :Speaker 5, Julia Gott, Loma Prieta Chapter, Sierra Club See Letter Comment .Responses .28.1 through 28.50. Response 5. i .See Letter Comment Response 28.1. .Speaker S, Peny Matlock Response 6.i The comment raises a word .processing error .in the 199.8 DSEIR<(DSEIR;_page.,277 .fourth paragraph). The Certified SEIR will be changed to read: An estimated.~A92.000-p1us;Native.Americans.of Costanoan / Ohlone ancestry.... Speaker 7,, Mary Thompson . See_Master Response. 23-11. Speaker 8, Pairick Orozco, 'Tribal Chain»an, Pajaro O/ones Statement read into .the record in Mr. Orozco'_ s absence...,.See: Letter Comment.Responses.18.1, -18.2, and 30.5...., . Speaker 9, Lois Robin Response 9. i See Letter Comment Response 30:3. Issues of .ownership and stewardship of the site are a matter for .the. Lead Agency to resolve. At present, the project sponsor owns the property, and it would be .the prerogative of the Lead Agency to approve a management plan for the. site location as a condition of project approval. , Response 9.2 `See.Hearing Comment Response 25.2. Speaker 70,"Qana'Dillworth Response 10. i See. Master Response 7.3-08 on wetlands, Letter Comment ;Response., 28.25 on wildlife corridors, and`:Letter Comrrient Response '33:7 .on .project effects on plant and :animal species without special-status (the focus of EIRs analyses).. , _ -- Response .10.2 See Master Response "7.3-2 regarding recirculation of the 7998 DSEIR. Response 70.3 ..:See. Letter Comment Response 29.28 .regarding cumulative biological.impacts. Speaker T 1, July Talaugon, California -ndians for.Cultura/ and .Environmental Protection Response -11.1 .The .1996 :Presidential Executive Order applies'to Federal lands, Federally=funded, or Federally-permitted .projects. 'The order .would .not apply to ..a project on ,private .land subject to CEQA compliance. Speaker 72, `Will -Two Bears Comment aclmowledged. See Letter Comment'Response 23.1.- - Speaker 13, Celeste Langille, °San Bruno Mountain"Watch Also see Responses to Letter Comments 29.1 through 29.31. ,, . ,. _ , Response -13.1 See Master Response 7.3-2 and Letter Comment Response 29.3. 'Response 13.2 See Letter Commem Responses 29.9 and 29.16. Response -.13.3 See Letter Conirnent Response 29.8. Response 13.4 See Letter. Comment Responses 29.21 ana 2928.. Speaker 74, Robert Carrillo See.Letter Comment.Responses 16:2 and 30.5 for discussion. Speaker 75, Cathy Manus, Friends of San Bruno Mountain 'See Master Response. 7.3-II. _ ..: Speaker 16, Michelle Salmon See Master Response 7.3-11. Speaker 7T, Leland Beham .See Master Response 7.3-IZ. Speaker 78, David Tomsovic See Letter Comment Responses.11.1 hrough 11.4. , Response 18. i See Master Response 7.3-8 wetlands. Speaker7S,-.Jan Pont, South:San Francisco ..See Letter Comment Responses 33.1-.through 33.9. ..._ Response .79.1 See.LetterCornmentResponse 33.3. - Response .79.2 'The. existing Southbound U S, 101 Bayshore Off:Ramp is theacissors ramp,(DSEIR pages 18 and 23 and Exhibit 2.1-3) and the proposed Southbound U.S. 101 Bayshore Off-- and On- Ramps are the hook ramps (DSEIR pages IS, 23, and 45-46 and Exhibit 2.3-8B). Speaker 20, Gail Mallimson Response 20.1 See Master Response 7.3-2. Response 20.2 The Draft 1998 SEIR took current plans for all proposed development in the East -101 area (including the Shearwater project) and in Brisbane into account in determining ambient background traffic growth analyzed for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020. Speaker 27, Mishwa Lee See Letter Comment Responses 22.1 through 22.6. Speaker 22, Michelle Brewer See Letter Comment Responses 32.1 and 32.2. Response 22.1 See Master Response 7.3-9 on the calIippe silverspot and Letter Comment Response 32.2. Response 22.2 See Letter Comment Response 29.28. Speaker 23, Heather Gilbert See Master Response 7.3-11. Speaker 24, David Schmidt .See Master Response 7.3-I1. Speaker 25, David Grace Response 25.1 '.See Letter Comment Responses 13.27. Response 25.2 See Master Response 7.3-I which presents an assessment of the new. Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative and Exhibit 7.3-1. For a discussion of property ownership, see Hearing Comment Response 9.1 (above). Response 25.3 See Letter Comment Response 28.8. .Response 25.4 :See Letter Comment Response 24.2. Speaker 26, Flliott Gouger Response 26. i See Master Response '7.3-8 regarding wetlands, Master Response 7.3-I on the Phase III Site Mitigation Plan Development Alternative, and Letter Comment Responses .13.27. Response 26.2 Environmental analyses address impacts beyond the site boundaries where relevant, primarily off-site traffic .and .air quality impacts. Supplemental and "project" EIRs tend to .focus on .site-specific impacts after initial "program" EIlts have evaluated a combination of on- and off-site issues, including those of regional consequence. Supplemental EIIts only assess substantial changes in projects, in environmental conditions, or.the feasibility of mitigation or alternatives. Response 26.3 See Letter Comment Response 29.14. Speaker 27, Albert Lannon Response 27.1 _As stimmarized::in the tatusreport`for San F7ancisco garter-snake:~and California -:red-legged .frog by Dr. Samuel McCrinnis (see DSEIR .Appendix 7.4. Biology), suitable habitat necessary to support San. Francisco garter snake is absence from xhe>site. ° :the `.`red-sided garter snake" observed by the commenter could have .been the coast ,garter snake, :the .common terrestrial .garter snake, or the California red-sided garter snake; all of-which exhibit-.varying•degrees of conspicuous.red markings along their sides. Speaker 28, Mark Batchelder See Master Response 7.3-11. Speaker 29, Fred Andres See Master Response 7.3-II.