Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Final SEIR for Proposed TB Specific Plan 10-1996 Response CommentsFINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED TERRABAY SPECIFIC PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION ;L~ L L L L L ._ RESPONSES- TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SEIR SCH Number: 95092027 Prepared by WAGSTAFF AND ASSOCIATES Urban and Environmental Planners in association with The Crane Transportation Group, Transportation Planners and Engineers Thomas Reid Associates, Consulting Biologists Harlan Tait Associates, Engineering Geologists Donald Ballanti, Air Quality Consultant October 1996 WP5115481 FSElRI COVER.548 FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED TERRABAY SPECIFIC PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION RESPONSES TD COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SEIR SCH Number: 95092027 Prepared by WAGSTAFF AND ASSOCIATES Urban and Environmental Planners in association with The Crane Transportation Group, Transportation Planners and Engineers Thomas Reid Associates, Consulting Biologists Harlan Tait Associates, Engineering Geologists Donald Ballanti, Air Quality Consultant October 1996 WP5115481 FSE/RI COVER.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 CONTENTS Final SEIR Contents Page i Page I. INTRODUCTION .................................................. 1 II. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SEIR ...................... 3 A. List of Commenters ............................................. 4 B. Index to Comments (List of Public Hearing and Written Comments) .......... 5 C. Planning Commission Public Hearing Comments and Responses ........... 37 D. Written Comments and Responses ................................. 51 III. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT SEIR (ERRATA) .......................... 335 IV. APPENDICES A. Program EIR Authority B. SEIR Cumulative Development Assumptions C. TDM-Based 12% Vehicular Trip Rate Reduction Assumptions D. Supplemental Geotechnical Information WP511548tFSE/Rl CONTENTS.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco September 17, 1996 Final SEIR Contents Page ii WP5115481 FSE/R I CONTENTS. 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 I. INTRODUCTION Final SEIR I. Introduction Page 1 In conformance with Section 15132 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statutes and Guidelines (1992), the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) for the proposed Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension consists of three volumes: (1) the Draft SEIR, which was distributed for public review and comment on January 5, 1996; (2) this Final SEIR document, which includes responses to all public and Lead Agency comments received during the 75-day public review period on the Draft SEIR, plus a set of Draft SEIR errata incorporating all revisions made to the Draft SEIR in response to these comments; and (3} a revised Final SEIR Transportation Section, which includes a revised version of the Draft SEIR Transportation chapter that, because of the nature of the revisions, was distributed ("recirculated") for additional public review and comment on August 30, 1996, plus associated responses to all comments received on the revised draft Transportation chapter during the additional 45-day public review period. A revised transportation analysis was pertormed in response to comments received during the 75-day public review period on the DSEIR. The revised traffic analysis identified one unavoidable significant adverse impact--i.e., an impact for which no mitigation is available--that was not identified in the DSEIR. In conformance with Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines,' the revised draft Transportation chapter of the SEIR was recirculated fora 45-day public review and comment period on August 30, 1996. Certification of the FSEIR by the city of South San Francisco must occur prior to any final action on the proposed project. 'CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 requires recirculation of significant new information added after public distribution of the DSEIR including: ^ anew significant environmental impact not considered in the DSEIR; • a substantial increase in the severity of aDSEIR-identified environmental impact unless new mitigation measures are adopted; or • anew alternative or feasible mitigation measure considerably different from those previously analyzed in the DSEIR which has not been adopted in the revised plan. WP5115481 FSE/RI F-1.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR I. Introduction Page 2 W PS 115481 FSElR t F-!. 54 8 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 3 II. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SEIR After completion of the DSEIR, the city of South San Francisco (i.e., the Lead Agency) is required under CEQA guidelines to consult with and obtain comments from other public agencies having jurisdiction by law with respect to the project, and to provide the general public with opportunities to comment on the DSEIR. The city is also required to respond in writing to substantive environmental points raised in this DSEIR review and consultation process. The DSEIR was distributed for public review and comment on January 5, 1996. Before the required 45-day public review period on the DSEIR ended, the South San Francisco City Council extended the public review period by 30 days to March 20, 1996. Comments on the DSEIR were received in the form of: (1) public testimony at a Planning Commission public hearing on the DSEIR held on February 1, 1996; and (2) letters and memoranda submitted to the city during the 75-day public review period. Nine people from the community commented at the February 1, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. Thirty- eight letters and memoranda were received. This Response to Comments chapter includes the following subsections: ^ A list of commenters (section II.A) including all public agencies, organizations and individuals who commented during the DSEIR public review period. ^ An index to comments (section II.B), which lists the persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the DSEIR; identifies the significant environmental points addressed in their comments; and indicates by code where the written responses of the Lead Agency (city) to these comments are provided in this chapter. • A responses to public hearing comments section (section II.C),.which includes paraphrased minutes describing the comments made at the Planning Commission public hearing held on February 1, 1996, followed by the responses of the Lead Agency. • A responses to written comments section (section II.D), which includes copies of all letters and memoranda received during the public review period pertaining to the adequacy of the DSEIR, and the response of the Lead Agency to these comments. Each pertinent written comment is coded in the right margin of the letter or memo. Responses of the Lead Agency to the various coded comments follow each letter. WP5115481FSE/RI F-11.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR City of South San Francisco II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR October 23, 1996 Page 4 A. LIST OF COMMENTERS The public agencies, organizations, and individuals who commented on the DSEIR during the public review period (January 5, 1996 to March 20, 1996) are listed below: 1. City of South San Francisco Francisco (Frank) Vieira, Chair, Historic Preservation Commission (1.04, 29) Planning Commissioner DeZordo (1.14) Planning Commissioner Barnett (1.16) Sgt. Ron Petrocchi, Police Department (2) Fred Lagomarsino, Fire Marshal, Chief Building Official (3) Richard Harmon, Senior Engineering Technician (5) Dennis Chuck, Associate Civil Engineer (6) Cheryl Mitchel Wade, Stormwater Program Coordinator (9) Barry Nagel, Director; Parks, Recreation, and Community Services (12) Arthur Wong, City Engineer (19) Planning Commissioner John Lucchesi (21) Eric McHuron, President, McHuron Geosciences, geologic consultant to city (22) 2. Other Public Agencies Janice Smith, Assistant Superintendent, Business Services, South San Francisco Unified School District (1.01, 7) Ken Aasen, Acting Regional Manager, Region 3, California Department of Fish and Game (4) John Costas, Administrator, Planning and Environmental Affairs, San Francisco International Airport (11) Joel Medlin, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (13) Philip Badal, District Branch Chief, California Department of Transportation (14, 23) Antero Rivasplata, Chief, State Clearinghouse, Governor's Office of Planning and Research (1 ~) Blair Allen, Associate Water Resources Control Engineer, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Region (18) Carole Nelson, Planning Director, City of Brisbane (30) Samuel Herzberg, Planner III, Planning Division, County of San Mateo (35) 3. Organizations Josephine Coffey, San Bruno Mountain Watch (1.02, 1.03, 20) David Schooley, San Bruno Mountain Watch (1.06, 31) Jacob Siggs, President, Yerba Buena Chapter, California Native Plant Society (1.1, 10} Farnum Alston, President, Mitigation Exchange Company (8) Foster City Rod & Gun Club Dana Dillworth, President, Bay Area Mountain Watch, inc. (26) WP5115481FSEIRI F-!1.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 5 Ann Broadwell, attorney, Adams &Broadwell, representing the Building and Construction Trades Council of San Mateo County (33) Julia Bott, Chapter Director, Loma Prieta Chapter, Sierra Club (34) 4. Individuals Edna Harks, 210 Eucalyptus Avenue, South San Francisco (1.05) Fred Matthews, 843 Easton Avenue, San Bruno (1.08) Jerome Irwin, 100 Alden Avenue, Colma (1.12, 15) Jan Pont, 111 Belmont Avenue, South San Francisco (1.13, 36, 38) Ken Mctntire (16) Kent Lightfoot, Professor of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley (27) Perry Matlock, 300 Second Avenue, #5, South San Francisco (27) Robert Carillo, P.O. Box 678, Daly City (28) Don Shattuc, 907 W. Cardinal Drive, Sunnyvale (36, 38) Kathleen Dunning, 46 San Jose Avenue, Pacifica (37) 5. Applicant's Representative Timothy Tosta, attorney, Baker & McKenzie (32) B. INDEX TO COMMENTS (LIST OF PUBLIC HEARING AND WRITTEN COMMENTS) Response Name/Agency Code' Issues and Concerns Public Hearing Testimony-- February 1, 1996 Planning Commission Meeting Janice Smith, Assistant Superintendent, Business Services, South San Francisco Unified School District Josephine Coffey, San Bruno Mountain Watch 1.01 The nearby school needs upgrading to current building code standards. 1.02 Concerned over shell mounds. How can impacts on the shell mounds be determined if detailed traffic mitigations for Phases II and III are not clear? Detailed mitigations are needed for all phases. 'See sections C and D of this chapter for responses to comments which correspond to each of these comment codes. WP5115481 FSEIR I F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Frank Vieira, Chair, Historic Preservation Commission, City of South San Francisco Edna Harks, 210 Eucalyptus Avenue David Schooley, San Bruno Mountain Watch Fred Matthews, 843 Easton Avenue, San Bruno Jacob Siggs, President, Yerba Buena Chapter, California Native Plant Society Jerome Irwin, 100 Alden Avenue, Colma Jan Pont, 111 Belmont Avenue Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 6 1.03 Archaeological investigation performed for previous owner was not considered in SEIR. 1.04 Concerned over impacts on shell mounds. Historical Commission should be informed when future phases are reviewed. 1.05 The city's Historical Preservation Commission was overlooked in the preparation and distribution of the SEIR and should be coordinated with .directly in the future. 1.06 Concerned over HCP and preserving native species. 1.07 Indian shell mounds need to be preserved as a place to learn about endangered species and American Indian history. 1.08 Retain as much open space as possible to provide a place for solace. 1.09 Work out a compromise over the irreplaceable Indian shell mounds. 1.10 Redevelop infill areas before developing sensitive areas. 1.11 Concerned with HCP compliance, specifically failure of required revegetation and invasive weed problem. 1.12 SEIR has not adequately addressed Indian shell mounds. It is important to innovatively preserve this unique resource. 1.13 Commissioner DeZordo 1.14 1.15 Concerned with drainage, emergency vehicle access, earthquakes, and geologic studies. Concerned with HCP compliance and failure of required replanting and irrigation. SEIR does not address trail access parking and signage. WP5115481 FSE/RI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Commissioner Barnett 1.16 Comments Received in Writing 2. Sgt. Ron Petrocchi, 2.01 South San Francisco Police Department; 1-9-96 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 7 Exactly how would drainage and soil erosion problems be handled with normal maintenance? Omission of needed police service mitigations from the SEIR summary appears to suggest that there are no police service impacts that warrant mitigation. The SEIR summary should note that mitigation needs have not changed since the 1982 EIR and should refer to the 1982 EIR. 2.02 No traffic analysis of the Hillside/Stonegate and Hillside/Lincoln intersections was completed to determine if current controls are adequate or if they should change over the development of the project. 2.03 Concerned with the safety of crossings and pedestrian routes to school for school age children, and the potential impact on police services if adult crossing guards will be needed. 2.04 The SEIR traffic analysis assumptions about timing of Hickey Boulevard extension from Mission to Hillside may be inadequate. The SEIR should consider potential traffic impacts if Hickey is not extended when planned. 2.05 The relative merits of recommended supplemental traffic mitigation options should be described and a preferred option identified. 2.06 The Police Department maintains that onsite security is a condition of the specific plan and Phase I precise plan and is required for all project phases. The applicant disputes the requirement for onsite security during non-construction hours and will not comply with police request for continuous onsite security. This will result in impacts on police services. 3. Fred Lagomarsino, Fire 3.01 Marshal/Chief Building Official, City of South San Francisco; 1-15-96 Comment supports the SEIR fire protection services supplemental impact and mitigation findings. WP5115481FSElRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR' II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 8 4. Ken Aasen, Acting 4.01 Comment supports the SEIR vegetation and wildlife Regional Manager, supplemental impact and mitigation findings. Region 3, California Department of Fish and Game; 1-18-96 5. Richard Harmon, Senior 5.01 The mitigation measures in the SEIR summary Engineering Technician, section should be numbered. City of South San Francisco; 1-22-96 5.02 Include figures to illustrate traffic mitigation improvements. 5.03 SEIR should discuss Phases II and III noise impacts from Sister Cities Boulevard, Bayshore Boulevard and US 101 traffic. 5.04 The SEIR incorrectly states that the city will maintain the linear park. 5.05 The city has considered and rejected formation of a geologic hazards abatement district. Do the project CC&Rs and homeowners association assessments provide adequately for the needed ongoing maintenance? 5.06 Project sponsor should file additional copies of the Geotechnical Appendix reports. 6. Dennis Chuck, Associate 6.01 Potential impacts on the all-way stop control at the Civil Engineer, City of Hillside/Lincoln intersection need to be evaluated. South San Francisco; 1-25-96 6.02 Verify that the county will install a signal and not just a stop sign at the planned Hickey/Hillside intersection. 7. Janice Smith, Assistant 7.01 SEIR recommended "voluntary" schools mitigation is Superintendent, insufficient to reduce impacts to less than significant Business Services, levels. City should condition project approval on an South San Francisco agreement between the school district and developer Unified School District; on measures to fully mitigate project school impacts. 1-29-96 7.02 Jefferson Union School District boundaries include all of the project area served by the Brisbane School District. WP511548iFSEl RI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 9 8. Farnum Alston, 8.01 The SEIR does not evaluate a reasonable range of President, Environmental alternatives, including alternatives with more open Mitigation Exchange space in Phases II and III, and does not evaluate the Company; 2-1-96 four 1982 EIR alternatives under current (1996) conditions, as required by CEQA. 8.02 The "modified" No Project Alternative warrants serious consideration given implications of the failure of Phase I habitat restoration for Phases II and III, and because it would avoid the significant unavoidable adverse air quality impact identified for all three phases. 8.03 The EIR has incorrectly identified the Concept Plan Alternative as the "environmentally superior alternative." The environmentally superior alternative is the "modified" No Project Alternative. 9. Cheryl Mitchell Wade, Stormwater Program Coordinator, City of South San Francisco; 2-7-96 10. Jacob Siggs, President, Yerba Buena Chapter, California Native Plant Society; 2-14-96 8.04 Urges city to further consider continued Phase I development, but manage Phases II and III areas as open space and habitat. The Phases II and III areas .have significant potential as environmental mitigation banks. 9.01 Comment suggests additional language to clarify recommended mitigation measure for Supplemental Impact D-3. 10.01 Given the failure of habitat restoration, references to "permanent" versus "temporary" disturbance are misleading. 10.02 Project grading has caused invasive weeds to spread into adjacent offsite wild areas. As mitigation for this project impact, the Terrabay project should finance their complete eradication. 10.03 The SEIR should evaluate impacts of human habitation next to wild areas. 10.04 There is too much emphasis on plants which benefit the endangered butterflies and not enough on the ecosystem which supports those plants. WP5115481 FSEIRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 11. John Costas, Administrator, Planning and Environmental Affairs, San Francisco International Airport; 2-15-96 12. Barry Nagel, Director, Parks, Recreation and Community Services, City of South San Francisco; 2-15-96 13. Joel Medlin, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 2-15-96 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 10 10.05 Although only a very small area of the Callippe silverspot's habitat would be eliminated, there has been no success in regeneration of its larval food plant. 10.06 Ecologically, Terrabay has been severely damaging. The HCP is loosely worded and permits violations in spirit if not in letter. Lack of provision for monitoring and evaluation is unfortunate. 11.01 Comment suggests additional language to clarify recommended mitigation measure for Supplemental Impact N-3. 12.01 The SEIR incorrectly states that the linear park will be maintained by the city. - 13.01 The SEIR should address whether the project is in compliance with the HCP obligations. If it is not, the city should withhold all development approvals. 13.02 The city should delay all approvals until successful restoration is established and sufficient funding for its future implementation is assured. The SEIR should state success criteria, status, progress, funding and future plans for restoration. 13.03 Comment notes changes in listing status of sensitive plant species. 13.04 The SEIR must include information from recent site- specific sensitive plant surveys. 13.05 The SEIR should include detailed mitigation requiring complete botanical inventories during the pre- construction phase for individual subsequent Phases II and III projects and avoidance of any sensitive plants found. WP5115481FSElRI F-N.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 14. Phillip Badal, District Branch Chief, California Department of Transportation; 2-16-96 15. Jerome Irwin, 100 Alden Avenue, Colma; 2-16-96 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 11 13.06 Pages from Appendix C appear to be missing and the report is incorrectly referred to as Appendix E on p. 198. 14.01 Will the recommended mitigation requiring widening of Bayshore Boulevard be feasible without affecting the US 101 right-of-way or Phase III development? Is there room for afour-lane southbound US 101 off- ramp without traffic backing up onto the freeway? Will Oyster Point Boulevard between Airport and Dubuque be overloaded, even with signal coordination? 14.02 The note with two asterisks is missing from Table 10. 14.03 Has the two percent traffic volume increase significance criterion for facilities that already exceed unacceptable levels of service been approved by the Congestion Management Agency? 14.04 The data in Table 15 should be depicted on a figure. 15.01 Comment refers to attached comment letters supporting preservation of the Indian shell mounds as the nucleus of an Ohlone Cultural Property Preserve. 15.02 Because of their great scientific significance, and their legal and moral status as burial grounds, the Indian shell mounds should be preserved. 15.03 The International Indian treaty Council is in support of the proposal to preserve the Indian shell mounds as the nucleus of an Ohlone Cultural Property Preserve. 15.04 The shell mounds are traditional cultural heritage of indigenous peoples; the threat of development represents lack of religious tolerance to traditional spiritual practices. Accordingly, the city should delay project approvals until such communities have been informed, involved and have consented. 16. Ken McIntire; 2-18-96 16.01 Given the past revegetation failure, the city should delay all approvals until successful vegetative restoration is established and the continued future successful implementation of the restoration program is assured. WP5115481FSEIRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 17. Antero Rivasplata, Chief, 17.01 State Clearinghouse, Governor's Office of Planning and Research; 2-20-96 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 12 Transmittal of comments received from responding state agencies. 18. Blair Allen, Associate 18.01 In the absence of specific language describing the Water Resources project and potential impacts, it appears that water Control Engineer, quality concerns may not be adequately addressed. California Regional Water Quality Control 18.02 The comment explains NPDES program requirements. Board, San Francisco Bay Region; 8-10-95 18.03 The comment explains Regional Board certification authority for wetland fill under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. 18.04 The comment recommends general stormwater pollution prevention site planning concepts, as well as construction period erosion and sediment control, and chemical and waste management measures; and post-construction measures. 19. Arthur Wong, City 19.01 The SEIR indicates that the Hillside/Chestnut Engineer, City of South intersection will need to be signalized with Phase I in San Francisco; 2-28-96 2010 to mitigate Supplemental Impact T-13. However, the Heather Heights subdivision Initial Study indicated that the intersection was already experiencing unacceptable operation and required signalization. 19.02 The SEIR identifies implementation of this mitigation as the responsibility of the city and applicant. The Terrabay development agreement identifies the cost for this mitigation as the project sponsor's responsibility at a prorated share; the cost is to be shared with the applicant by other developers in the area and not the city. 20. Josephine Coffey, San 20.01 Detailed information regarding the extent to which CA- Bruno Mountain Watch; SMa-40 (Indian shell mound) will be disturbed should 2-29-96 be provided now so that appropriate measures to preserve the site can be required. In the future, when detailed environmental review is conducted for Phase III, the city may have less authority and flexibility to WP5115481 FSElR1 F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 13 require mitigation, and there may be fewer mitigation options available. 21. John Lucchesi, Planning Commissioner, City of South San Francisco; 3-8-96 20.02 The archaeological investigation performed for the previous owner was not considered in SEIR. 21.01 Clarify conflicting statements that JUHSD boundaries include all of project area and SSFUSD boundaries include Terrabay Village, Terrabay Park and Terrabay Pointe. 21.02 Clarify how project student generation has increased by 30 percent while total project units have decreased. 21.03 Will enrollment multipliers change in the future? 21.04 The project sponsor should fully mitigate project school impacts. 21.05 What are walking distances from Phase II area to Brisbane Elementary and Lipman Intermediate School? What is the length of sidewalk needed along Bayshore Boulevard? 21.06 Will Phases II and III require additional Supplemental E I Rs? 21.07 Clarify how mitigation (i.e., capping) recommended for CA-SMa-40 would not itself impact the resource. 21.08 Does use of the word "should" in mitigation measures in Table 36 mean the mitigation is not mandatory? 21.09 Are mitigation measures in Table 36 accepted practice for such archaeological sites? 21.10 Have mitigation measures been considered which would preserve the area of CA-SMa-40 (Indian shell mound) as a permanent study area and/or preserve within which any grading or development is prohibited? 21.11 Have preliminary grading and development plans for Phase III been overlaid with accurate locations of the WP5115481FSE/RI F-11.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR City of South San Francisco II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR October 23, 1996 Page 14 archaeological sites? What amounts of cutting/filling are proposed in the areas of CA-SMa-40 and CA- SMa-92? 22. Eric McHuron, President, 22.01 SEIR incorrectly identifies "continued downslope McHuron Geosciences; movement" at Landslide D; there is no evidence that geologic consultant to Landslide D is moving. the city; 3-1-96 22.02 SEIR incorrectly refers to a "borrow" operation in portions of Terrabay Commons and Terrabay Point. Phase I grading generated a surplus of material. 22.03 Comments recommend minor wording changes for the SEIR. 23. Phillip Badal, District 23.01 Will the recommended mitigation requiring widening of Branch Chief, California Bayshore Boulevard be feasible without affecting the Department of US 101 right-of-way or Phase III development? Is Transportation; 3-6-96 there room for afour-lane southbound US 101 off- ramp without traffic backing up onto the freeway? Will (resubmittal of letter #14) Oyster Point Boulevard between Airport and Dubuque be overloaded even with signal coordination? 23.02 The note with two asterisks is missing from Table 10. 23.03 Has the two percent traffic volume increase significance criterion for facilities that already exceed unacceptable levels of service been approved by the Congestion Management Agency? 23.04 The data in Table 15 should be depicted on a figure. 24. Foster City Rod & Gun 24.01 Phase I grading has resulted in significant sediment Club; 3-13-96 discharge into, and caused siltation in, the Oyster Point estuary. Grading for subsequent phases and post-construction occupancy will result in additional discharges of silt and pollutants to the estuary and bay, affecting the bay ecosystem and fisheries. The city should not proceed with this development. 25. Kent Lightfoot, Professor 25.01 CA-SMa-40, one of only a few remaining large shell of Anthropology, mounds, is a very significant and rare archaeological University of California, site which may have been used over thousands of Berkeley; 3-14-96 years and may contain the human remains of many generations. Part of the site can be set aside for an WP5115481 FSEIRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR City of South San Francisco II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR October 23, 1996 Page 15 innovative archaeological preserve in collaboration with the proposed development. 26. Dana Dillworth, 26.01 The SEIR has not adequately considered drainage President, Bay Area impacts and mitigations. Mountain Watch, Inc.; 3-18-96 26.02 Known project-related siltation in the bay was not analyzed in the SEIR. Without detailed measures or proper implementation and enforcement, the SWPPP cannot guarantee sufficient mitigation. 26.03 No reasonable mitigation has been identified for geologic hazards of Landslide D. 26.04 Current state law requires that 20 percent of the units in multi-family developments be affordable. The city should require provision of this percentage or funding of a housing pool. 26.05 The SEIR does not adequately assess cumulative impacts. 26.06 References in the Initial Study checklist to the need to "upgrade" or "reevaluate" mitigation measures make the SEIR inadequate. 27. Perry Matlock, 300 27.01 Second Avenue #5; 3-18-96 28. Robert Carrillo, P.O. Box 28.01 678, Daly City; 3-18-96 28.02 The city should halt all new construction to prevent impacts to the Indian shell mounds and allow the property to used for an Ohlone preserve. Opposition to capping of CA-SMa-40 expressed. The city should focus on this resource now rather than in Phase III. The archaeological investigation performed for previous owner was not considered in the SEIR. 29. Francisco Vieira, Chair, 29.01 Commission is concerned about CA-SMa-40 (the Historic Preservation Indian shell mound) and prefers that the site be left Commission, City of undisturbed and accessible. South San Francisco; 3-18-96 29.02 The archaeological investigation performed for the previous owner was never presented as part of the public record since that firm did not proceed with development. This report could provide valuable WP5115481 FSEI R I F-11.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR City of South San Francisco II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR October 23, 1996 Page 16 information regarding the adequacy of SEIR-proposed mitigation. The city should delay any approvals until all information regarding this site is available and considered. The current owner should authorize release of this report. 30. Carole Nelson, Planning 30.01 The SEIR cannot be certified as adequate until new Director, City of traffic analyses using counts from the now-open Brisbane; 3-19-96 Oyster Point Interchange are prepared. 30.02 -The SEIR does not explain why the hook ramps are to be installed in Phase III rather than before the Oyster Point Interchange, as required by the Development Agreement. Also, the Development Agreement assigns full not "fair share," responsibility for the hook ramps to the developer. 30.03 The assumptions from the East of 101 Area Plan used for the SEIR traffic analysis are questionable and result in an inaccurate assessment. 30.04 The proposed capping of CA-SMa-40 is inadequate mitigation as it would not avoid damage to the resource. 30.05 Potential impacts on CA-SMa-92 are unclear. No mitigation is proposed in the SEIR; mitigation is left to later studies. 30.06 Urges consideration of mitigations and alternatives which, unlike proposed capping, would allow access. 31. David Schooley, Chair, 31.01 The shell mound should be left undeveloped (except San Bruno Mountain for interpretive uses). Capping may destroy the site's Watch; 3-19-96 integrity and would not permit study. 32. Timothy Tosta, Baker & 32.01 Sunchase is proceeding with needed geotechnical McKenzie; 3-20-96 repairs and has completed some of the work recommended as mitigations for small, localized landslides, erosional gullies, "goat farm" cut slopes, and Landslide D. 32.02 Sunchase response to comment 5.05 from Richard Harmon regarding funding mechanism for on-going geotechnical maintenance: Sunchase is completing WP5115481 FSEI R1 F-11.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR City of South San Francisco II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR October 23, 1996 Page 17 Master Homeowners Association Agreement which specifies assessments and/or dues to fund geotechnical repair and maintenance. A geologic hazards abatement district (GHAD) is another option. 32.03 Sunchase has complied with all Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and city stormwater regulations for Phase I and will continue to comply in the future. 32.04 Sunchase has addressed issues pertaining to catch basins and drainage ditches by cleaning and monitoring and is addressing ongoing maintenance funding and responsibility. 32.05 Sunchase response to comment 9.01 from Cheryl Mitchell Wade: suggested changes to the SEIR should be made; suggested change to refer to owner rather than applicant is unnecessary. 32.06 Sunchase response to comment 18.02 from the RWGICB regarding NPDES requirements: Sunchase has obtained all required approvals for grading and winterization work performed. 32.07 Sunchase response to generic comment 18.03 from RWQCB regarding wetlands: Neither the original nor the supplemental EIR identify wetland habitat on the site. 32.08 Remediation of Phase I habitat restoration work has been implemented in accordance with DSEIR- recommended mitigation. Sunchase is committed to monitoring for successful completion. 32.09 It is premature to conclude that the original habitat restoration work, which was done in compliance with the HCP, was unsuccessful as reclamation is a long- term effort which will continue throughout the project. 32.10 Response to comment letters: all funding obligations under the HCP have been met. WP5115481FSE/RI F-11.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR City of South San Francisco II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR October 23, 1996 Page 18 32.11 Response to comment letters: the original habitat restoration work was done in compliance with the HCP and was subject to temporary problems due to unfavorable weather. Sunchase has already implemented the recommended remediation mitigation. 32.12 Response to comment letters: all pages of the five- page Pacific Open Space letter are included in the DSEIR. 32.13 Response to comment letters: the HCP requires only good faith implementation of an approved reclamation plan implemented and monitored by the Plan Operator. 32.14 Response to comment letters: the city is not authorized under the HCP to delay approvals until Phase I restoration is successfully established. 32.15 Response to comment letters: recommends that the status of sensitive plant species be corrected in DSEIR. 32.16 Response to comment letters: annual plant surveys conducted by the Plan Operators have found no rare plant species onsite; the Final SEIR should describe the surveys. 32.17 Response to comment letters: the Final SEIR should describe the floral plants located onsite. 32.18 Response to comment letters: plant surveys will be conducted as part of project EIRs for future phase precise plan approvals. 32.19 Response to comment letters: impact of human habitation on wild areas was evaluated in original EIR and does not require reevaluation in the supplemental EIR. 32.20 Response to comment letters: the DSEIR describes the onsite and surrounding ecosystem as well as plants which benefit butterflies. WP5115481 FSEIRI F-1/.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR City of South San Francisco II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR October 23, 1996 Page 19 32.21 Response to comment letters: the seed mix for the restoration area contains butterfly larval food plants, some of which have been successfully established. 32.22 Response to comment letters: regular monitoring, as required by the HCP, has been and will continue to be performed. 32.23 Response to comment letters: Sunchase has prepared a grant deed to submit to the county for land to be dedicated under the HCP and expects resolution of outstanding issues in the near future. 32.24 Sunchase agrees that the primary mitigation for school impacts is to pay the school impact fee and that any payment beyond the maximum permitted by law would be voluntary. 32.25 The DSEIR does not identify transportation to schools as a significant impact and the recommended mitigation requiring installation of a sidewalk along Bayshore Boulevard is infeasible. 32.26 Onsite and off-site sewer systems inspections by Sunchase revealed no problems; resolution of this issue and city acceptance of system dedication is expected shortly. 32.27 Response to comment 7.01 from Janice Smith: It is unclear whether the identified project-related costs to the South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD) of $1.4 million is attributable entirely to the project. 32.28 Response to comment 7.01 from Janice Smith: state law establishes a maximum school impact fee and limits the city from imposing additional mitigations beyond the maximum school impact fees. 32.29 Response to comments from Sgt. Ron Petrocchi: the homebuilder onsite provides onsite security during evenings and weekends. 32.30 Response to comment 2.06 from Sgt. Ron Petrocchi: Children will be able to safely walk to all SSFUSD WP5115481 FSEIRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR City of South San Francisco II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR October 23, 1996 Page 20 schools. Brisbane School District and Jefferson Union High School District schools are too far for children to walk. 32.31 Response to comment 2.01 from Sgt. Ron Petrocchi: Since the DSEIR is a supplement to the original EIR, only new mitigations were included in the summary. 32.32 Response to comment 11.01 from John Costas: the DSEIR noise mitigation measures address the commentor's concerns. 32.33 Response to comment 5.03 from Richard Harmon: the DSEIR noise analysis addresses impacts of Sister Cities Boulevard, Bayshore Boulevard and US 101 traffic. 32.34 Response to comment 20.01 from Josephine Coffey: analysis of CA-SMa-40 has not been deferred to Phase III; the original EIR and DSEIR both address the site's significance and recommend mitigation. Moreover, since plans for Phase III have not yet been established, impacts on the site cannot be determined. Also, a Phase III precise plan will be subject to further environmental review and may or may not be approved by the city. 32.35 Response to comment 20.02 from Josephine Coffey: the results of the referenced Caltrans survey should be summarized in the DSEIR. 32.36 Response to comment 15.01 from Jerome Irwin: the creation of an Ohlone Cultural Property Preserve is not necessary to mitigate the potential significant impact to a less than significant level and is premature because there are no specific development plans for Phase III. 32.37 Response to comment 15.02 from Jerome Irwin: Preservation of the site recommended by the Society for California Archaeology would be achieved by proposed capping. 32.38 Response to comment 15.04 from Jerome Irwin: Involvement of indigenous peoples recommended by WP5115481FSEIRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR Ciry of South San Francisco II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR October 23, 1996 Page 21 the International Indian Treaty Council is achieved by DSEIR mitigation requiring consultation with a Native American representative if human remains are encountered during construction. 32.39 Response to comment 8.01 from Farnum Alston: the original EIR evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives; the DSEIR cannot reconsider the range of alternatives because the project has not changed and changes in circumstances do not affect the original EIR alternatives analysis. 32.40 Response to comment 8.01 from Farnum Alston: the original EIR and DSEIR considered two alternatives that evaluate open space uses for Phases II and III: the No Project Alternative and the Modified No Project Alternative. 32.41 Response to comment 8.03 from Farnum Alston: the DSEIR properly concludes that the impacts of the alternatives have not changed from the original EIR. 32.42 Response to comment 8.03 from Farnum Alston: the viability of and means to achieve implementation of the Modified No Project Alternative is not discussed because the alternative is infeasible. 32.43 Response to comments 8.02 and 8.04 from Farnum Alston: since restoration has been conducted in accordance with the HCP and is not required to be fully established at this time, restoration difficulties do not warrant reconsideration of development of Phases II and III. 32.44 Response to comment 8.04 from Farnum Alston: if phases II and III are not developed, the unavoidable air quality impact would be avoided; however, since no development of Phases II and III is infeasible, the city may adopt a statement of overriding considerations. 32.45 Response to comment 8.05 from Farnum Alston: the DSEIR correctly identifies the Concept Plan Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative after the Modified No Project Alternative. WPS115481FSElRIF-11.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR City of South San Francisco II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR October 23, 1996 Page 22 32.46 Response to comment 8.02 from Farnum Alston: the DSEIR analyzes supplemental impacts of the Modified No Project Alternative. 32.47 Response to comment 5.04 from Richard Harmon: The DSEIR should be corrected to state that the linear park will be maintained by the developer. 32.48 Response to comment 5.06 from Richard Harmon: two copies of the three reports contained in the geotechnical appendix will be filed with the city Engineering Division. 33. Ann Broadwell, Adams & 33.01 The DSEIR does not state the proposed new Broadwell; 3-20-96 termination date of the Specific Plan or Development Agreement. 33.02 The DSEIR must explain how the Development Agreement was extended to 1997 given strict limitations on the duration of development agreements contained in the South San Francisco Municipal Code. 33.03 The DSEIR must clarify which number of units {721 or 745) will be approved by proposed termination date extension. 33.04 The DSEIR is not based on current, meaningful information. The Oyster Point Interchange was in service before the DSEIR was circulated. The DSEIR traffic analysis must be revised to reflect new traffic information for recommended mitigations to be meaningful. 33.05 The map on DSEIR p. 67 "Existing Land Uses" does not show land uses; land uses should be shown. 33.06 The DSEIR states that, where a facility already operates at LOS F, a significant impact will not occur unless traffic increases by at least 2 percent. The courts have held this approach to be invalid because the greater the overall problem, the less significant the project's contribution. Instead, the DSEIR should consider any contribution to a facility already at LOS F to be a significant impact and mitigate. WP5115481 FSElRI F-U.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR City of South San Francisco II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR October 23, 1996 Page 23 33.07 The DSEIR does not provide any information about the LOS for the US 101 southbound off-ramp to Bayshore Boulevard. If the off-ramp backs up to the freeway mainline, that should be a significant impact. 33.08 The DSEIR should indicate that implementation of the project itself, not just of mitigation measures, requires approval from the city of Brisbane. 33.09 The DSEIR recommends that each project phase provide a "fair share" contribution toward improvement of the US 101 southbound off-ramp to Bayshore Boulevard. However, the Development Agreement assigns the Terrabay developer complete responsibility for the "hook" ramps. 33.10 The DSEIR should require substitution of another measure to mitigate Terrabay traffic impacts if other projects are not available to share the cost of expensive proposed mitigations. 33.11 The DSEIR must discuss the feasibility of traffic mitigations (e.g., the flyover ramp) to provide for an informed the decision on which measure to impose. 33.12 The DSEIR does not provide a summary of projections contained in the planning documents on which traffic projections are based so that it is impossible to determine whether the traffic analysis meets CEQA requirements for which projects are to be considered in cumulative impact assessments. 33.13 The DSEIR should consider landslides and erosional gullies as significant impacts, recommend mitigations, and evaluate the feasibility of requiring homeowners to pay for geotechnical repair and maintenance. 33.14 The DSEIR recommends a future study and required implementation of any recommended mitigation measures as mitigation for catchment basin/drainage system failures. Since there is no assurance that this impact can be mitigated, investigation and consideration of mitigation cannot be deferred to the future. WP5115481 FSEI RI F-11.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR City of South San Francisco II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR October 23, 1996 Page 24 33.15 The DSEIR should evaluate current water quality impacts on San Francisco Bay and recommend mitigations. The adequacy of the existing SWPPP to' fully mitigate impacts should be evaluated. 33.16 While the original EIR, Initial Study and DSEIR identified seasonal streams and riparian/vernal vegetation, neither addressed potential impacts on wetlands or riparian vegetation. 33.17 The DSEIR should indicate whether project activities would affect watercourses or wetlands subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction. 33.18 The DSEIR should indicate whether project activities would require a streambed alteration agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game. 33.19 The proposed Specific Plan and Development Agreement extensions are legislative actions to which the preemption of mitigation measures other than the maximum permissible school impact fees identified in the DSEIR does not apply. There is no assurance the developer will agree to additional "voluntary" mitigation or that the additional mitigation will reduce the impact to less than significant. The city should require additional mitigation or disapprove the project. 33.20 The DSEIR should evaluate school impacts beyond 1999-2000 (e.g., to 2010). 33.21 The potential harm to young students walking along Bayshore Boulevard to Brisbane schools is a significant impact requiring mitigation. 33.22 The derivation of project student generation and calculation of impact fees should be explained. Address additional impacts on high schools as younger students grow. 33.23 Since there is no assurance that the identified problem can be mitigated, the city should require repair of the onsite and offsite sewer system before any further work on the project. WP51154BIFSE/R1 F-11.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR City of South San Francisco II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR October 23, 1996 Page 25 33.24 The DSEIR should indicate whether the project site has been annexed to the California Water Service Company service area. 33.25 The city Noise Element requires that a "development proposal" include a noise analysis, and the current Specific Plan and DSEIR do not. 33.26 The DSEIR presents 1990 information from the Noise Element as if it were current. Current information should be provided. 33.27 The DSEIR should measure current noise, and estimate future noise using traffic projections. The project proponent should submit a current noise analysis prior to project approval, as required by the Noise Element, and the analysis should be included in the DSEIR. 33.28 Rather than simply recommending a future study, the DSEIR should contain an analysis of airport noise and recommend mitigation. 33.29 The DSEIR should discuss consistency with the 1994 Clean Air Plan. 33.30 The DSEIR should evaluate air quality impacts using the BAAQMD proposed new standard of significance for NOx. 33.31 The DSEIR should consider construction emission control measures contained in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. 33.32 The DSEIR does not appear to consider cumulative impacts on air quality. 33.33 The DSEIR should consider additional TSM measures to reduce the project's impacts on air quality, such as CalTrain station improvements or those listed in the 1994 Clean Air Plan. 33.34 There is no mention in the DSEIR (other than potential future consultation as mitigation) that the WP5115481FSElRI F-!1.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR City of South San Francisco II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR October 23, 1996 Page 26 Native American Heritage Commission was consulted; consultation should occur prior to project approval. 33.35 It is questionable whether capping of CA-SMa-40 constitutes required "avoidance" per CEQA Appendix K, given the original EIR finding that it would "unavoidably create some direct impact." 33.36 A definitive determination of the boundaries and significance of CA-SMa-92 should occur prior to project approval so that adequate mitigation can be identified. 33.37 The DSEIR should address potential impacts on CA- SMa-234 and needed mitigations. 33.38 Given the high potential for previously undiscovered Native American sites, the site should be evaluated for archaeological resources prior to project approval. 33.39 Mitigation measures for cultural resources should be sufficiently detailed that funding guarantees can be obtained per CEQA Guidelines Appendix K. 33.40 If any resources are eligible for National Register listing, and a federal permit or state permit pursuant to federal authority is required, National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) review would be triggered. The DSEIR should discuss the need for additional or amended federal permits and potential NHPA review. 33.41 The DSEIR should address impacts of proceeding with a new specific plan with either a new development agreement or no development ' agreement. 33.42 The DSEIR should address project consistency with the 1994 Clean Air Plan. 33.43 The DSEIR evaluation of consistency with adopted plans should address the city Noise Element. 33.44 The city may not approve the project without first finding that it complies with the HCP. WP5115481FSElRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR City of South San Francisco II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR October 23, 1996 Page 27 33.45 The DSEIR should clarify whether the required offer of dedication of open space required by the HCP has already been made. Project approval cannot occur until after such offer. 33.46 The DSEIR should confirm whether the required HCP funding covenants have been recorded for Phase I. 33.47 The DSEIR should discuss whether HCP-required covenants for fire buffers and restricting pesticide were recorded with the final subdivision maps for Phase I. 33.48 The DSEIR should discuss whether the Landslide D repair scheme will require an HCP boundary adjustment and amendment. 33.49 The DSEIR does not discuss the status of HCP funding obligations. 33.50 The DSEIR states that the county will make HCP compliance determinations. However, the city must make an HCP compliance determination for any discretionary action. 33.51 The DSEIR should indicate whether the new landowner has signed the Agreement with Respect to the San Bruno Mountain Area Habitat Conservation Plan. 33.52 The DSEIR should explain the status of the 1989 precise plan and the need, if any, for a new Phase I precise plan. 33.53 The DSEIR should explain the status of the grading permit. 33.54 The DSEIR should explain whether the Development Agreement will be amended such that current city rules and policies rather than rules and policies in effect at the time the Agreement took effect shall govern the project and, if not, the environmental impacts. WP5115481FSEIRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR City of South San Francisco II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR October 23, 1996 Page 28 33.55 The DSEIR should state whether Development Agreement provisions pertaining to financial guarantees and agreements for participation in onsite and offsite improvements have been complied with prior to final map recordation. 33.56 The DSEIR should discuss whether the "hook" ramps are still a feasible mitigation, whether there has been agreement regarding project participation in the "hook" ramp improvements, and whether the project sponsor has initiated action to expedite the "hook" ramp improvements and has prepared plans and obtained Caltrans approval, as required by the Development Agreement. 33.57 The DSEIR should discuss project compliance with the Specific Plan and city municipal code requirement to implement geotechnical recommendations prior to issuance of building permits. 33.58 The DSEIR must state whether siltation and catchment basins must be installed on the upper slopes of San Bruno Mountain and whether county consent and a Section 10{a) permit amendment have been obtained. 33.59 The DSEIR does not discuss whether winterization programs have been implemented each year, as required by the Specific Plan. 33.60 The DSEIR should discuss the impacts of the failure of the project drainage system to operate properly. The project should not be approved nor building permits issued until the system is operating properly. 33.61 The DSEIR should discuss whether the precise grading and construction schedule, including needed traffic improvements, required by the Specific Plan was approved and, if so, describe the approved schedules and address project compliance with the schedules. 33.62 The DSEIR should state whether a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Plan has been approved, as required by the Specific Plan. WP5115481 FSEIRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR City of South San Francisco II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR October 23, 1996 Page 29 33.63 The DSEIR should state whether the "hook" ramps provisions of the Specific Plan have been complied with. 33.64 The DSEIR should state whether CC&Rs, including those prohibiting parking or storage of recreational vehicles and implementing TSM actions have been executed. 33.65 The DSEIR states that continued surficial instability would be addressed as "part of the overall project maintenance program." Continued surficial instability will be chronic, requiring significant maintenance beyond what would be considered routine. 33.66 Maintenance plans should be developed to ensure proper functioning of slope drainage facilities under continued surficial instability. 33.67 Given that the DSEIR states that roads will serve as "buffer zones" for landslide debris, emergency access should be addressed and mitigated. 33.68 The steep colluvial cuts appear to have been inappropriately designed and should be analyzed using appropriate colluvium strength parameters. 33.69 The DSEIR does not discuss the use of a geologic hazards abatement district (GRAD) despite abundant documentation in the project files. A GHAD would be the most successful means of addressing long-term maintenance. 33.70 The proposed Landslide D repair scheme is based on an estimate of the depth of active landsliding in the lower portion of the slope that may be too shallow and contradicts earlier findings. This estimate should be confirmed prior to the repair work and the repair scheme revised as necessary. 33.71 The proposed Landslide D repair scheme would create a 180-foot-high, unbenched 3:1 slope. This slope should incorporate intermediate benches. WP5115481FSEIRI F-0.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR City of South San Francisco II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR October 23, 1996 Page 30 33.72 "Buried valleys" and deep landslides encountered in Phase I have caused significant site grading problems. Mitigation should be developed, and slope stability reanalyzed using colluvial soil properties, to address potential slope stability and excessive or differential settlement problems from similar deposits in grading for future phases. 33.73 The DSEIR has not adequately addressed potential adverse effects of differential fill movement on buildings, utilities and roadways. 33.74 The debris basins may be undersized and should be reevaluated to ensure they meet current state-of-the- art technology and include a reasonable level of conservatism. 33.75 The DSEIR should address monitoring, cleaning and maintenance of debris basins. 33.76 The DSEIR should address installation of debris basins as mitigation for future project phases. 33.77 The mitigation recommended in the DSEIR may not adequately address long-term stability in disturbed areas along the margins of the proposed development within lands to be dedicated to San Mateo County. 33.78 The DSEIR understates project traffic generation from restaurants and, in turn, project impacts and mitigation needs, and should be revised using appropriate generation factors. 33.79 The 2000 and 2010 base case traffic volume projections were not prepared in accordance with either of the methodologies described in the CEQA Guidelines (e.g., land use projections from adopted planning documents), making it impossible to determine the relationship of the analysis to likely development and, therefore, its validity. 33.80 The DSEIR traffic analysis uses 1993 information as "existing conditions" even though conditions have changed substantially (e.g., opening of the Oyster Point Interchange). WP5115481 FSEIRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR City of South San Francisco II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR October 23, 1996 Page 31 33.81 The DSEIR year 2000 baseline LOS projections, which relied on 1993 data, indicate significantly better conditions that the observable existing conditions at some locations, completely undermining the credibility of the analysis. 33.82 The DSEIR should recompute year 2010 impacts and mitigation needs at the US 101 ramps/Dubuque Avenue intersection and the Bayshore Boulevard/ Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard intersection rather than assuming an impossible concentration of traffic at the new US 101 southbound ramps at the project's commercial access. 33.83 The DSEIR presents no indication that recommended mitigation for project impacts on US 101 freeway mainline operation (i.e., TSM) would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. This is probably an unavoidable significant adverse impact. 33.84 The East of 101 Area Plan EIR assumed a 20-25 percent reduction in trip generation due to the BAAOMD employer-based trip reduction rule, which has since been invalidated by state legislative action. The DSEIR traffic analysis should be recomputed to adjust for this invalidation. 33.85 The five percent reduction in trip generation due to transit ridership assumed in the East of 101 Area Plan EIR traffic forecasts is unreasonable. The DSEIR traffic analysis should be recomputed using adjusted traffic forecasts. 33.86 The DSEIR cumulative traffic analysis used 2010 as a base year rather than the stated project buildout year of 2004, which understates project impacts, mitigation needs and needed "fair share" contributions. 33.87 The intersection improvements mitigation option for impacts at the Airport Boulevard-Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard intersection is infeasible; the DSEIR should identify the flyover option as the sole feasible mitigation. WPS i 15481 FSElR I F-ll _548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR City of South San Francisco II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR October 23, 1996 Page 32 33.88 The triple left-turn lane proposed at the project commercial access/Bayshore Boulevard intersection may also be infeasible; its feasibility should be demonstrated in the DSEIR (using scale engineering concept drawings}. 33.89 The DSEIR states that, where a facility already operates at LOS F, a significant impact will not occur unless traffic increases by at least 2 percent. The DSEIR should consider a more stringent significance criterion. 34. Julia Bott, Chapter 34.01 All remedial habitat restoration should be completed in Director, Loma Prieta a timely manner and be evaluated according to Chapter, Sierra Club; criteria, carefully monitored and reported on. Bonds 3-20-96 should be posted to ensure satisfactory completion. 34.02 The city should only approve Phases I and II. Phase III is best suited and should be considered for public ownership. The market may not support Phase III commercial development. Approval of the development agreement extension for Phase III could lock in unneeded development and foreclose future options for mitigation or alternative uses. 35. Samuel Herzberg, 35.01 Required dedication of HCP Administrative Parcel 2- Planner III, Planning 04-02 will not be accepted until landslide, erosion and Division, County of San restored habitat problems are resolved and the Mateo; 3-20-96 county's standards for revegetation are complied with. 35.02 Concur that the recommended Landslide D repair Alternative #4 is an appropriate fix. 35.03 The county will use the city's SEIR for environmental review and will consider issuance of a grading permit after SEIR certification and project approval. 35.04 Landslide monitoring instrumentation should remain in place to monitor future conditions. 35.05 The Terrabay Village CC&Rs appear to address the obligations of the homeowners association for slope maintenance and landslide repair discussed in the SEIR. The SEIR should also recognize the possible use of a geologic hazards abatement district. WPS 115481 FSEIRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 33 36. Jan Pont, 111 Belmont 36.01 Should the Planning Commission recommend Avenue and Don approval, request access to the property prior to City Shattuc, 907 W. Cardinal Council meeting to consider recommendation. Drive, Sunnyvale; 3-20-96 36.02 Poor notice and availability of the SEIR for review and comment. Most people assume that the project is already approved. 36.03 Request an additional extension of the public comment period. 37. Kathleen Dunning, 46 37.01 Concerned about potential impacts to site CA-SMa-40 San Jose Avenue, and lack of adequate mitigation. Pacifica; 3-18-96 37.02 Archaeological investigation performed for previous owner was not considered in SEIR. 38. Jan Pont, 111 Belmont 38.01 The city must ensure proper implementation of all Avenue and Don mitigation. Shattuc, 907 W. Cardinal Drive, Sunnyvale; 4-7-96 38.02 The no project alternative (buildout of a part of Phase I and no Phase II or III) is the best way to mitigate identified impacts. 38.03 The DSEIR should analyze the significant cost to the city of all the mitigation measures for which the city will be responsible. 38.04 Does the project represent the best use of this valuable open space area; has the city provided sufficient parks/open space for its growing population? 38.05 The project site is subject to major earthquake damage and geotechnical hazards. 38.06 Water that drains from San Bruno Mountain should be preserved and used rather than merely discharged. 38.07 The DSEIR underestimates the volume of traffic generated by the project. 38.08 The DSEIR traffic analysis does not consider the large volume of truck traffic that causes congestion at the Oyster Point interchange and in the project vicinity. WP5115481 FSEIRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR Ciry of South San Francisco II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR October 23, 1996 Page 34 38.09 Project improvements and residents are subject to ongoing problems and significant hazards from landslides and continued slope instability. 38.10 The significant cost of ongoing maintenance of erosion and sedimentation control facilities should be borne by the applicant and/or city rather than the project homeowners association. 38.11 The spring and wetlands that existed in the "Goat Farm" area before Phase I grading may cause significant future geotechnical problems. 38.12 The margin of safety provided by the Landslide D repair scheme is too small. 38.13 Compaction that occurs in dry soil will be different in wet soil and may cause problems during very wet winters. 38.14 The DSEIR must consider potential earthquake s damage of the magnitude that occurred during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. 38.15 Will project residents be able to obtain affordable earthquake insurance? 38.16 Has the project storm drain system been inspected, repaired and determined adequate to handle the high runoff volume from this vast watershed? 38.17 The project will exacerbate the existing sedimentation and pollution problem in San Francisco Bay. 38.18 Water that drains from San Bruno Mountain should be preserved and used rather than merely discharged. 38.19 Native plants and grasses should be relocated to the proposed botanical garden before grading for Phases II and III. 38.20 No wetlands delineation was done for Phase I and Phase I grading destroyed wetlands on the site. A wetland delineation must be performed before grading for Phases II and III. WP5115481 FSEIRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 35 38.21 Has project water consumption been analyzed? 38.22 Traffic, aircraft and construction noise will impact project residents. 38.23 Phase I grading and construction period dust emissions was a significant nuisance and health concern for surrounding residents. 38.24 The identified significant unavoidable regional air quality impact is just one reason why the no project alternative should be adopted. 38.25 The Native American shell mound in the Phase III portion of the project site should be preserved. 38.26 The no project alternative should be adopted and a terraced lakes park should be developed on the site. WP5115481FSEIRI F-1/.548 Terrabay Project Ciry of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 36 WP5115481FSEIRI F-II.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 37 C. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES The minutes of the February 1, 1996 Planning Commission public hearing are included in the following section, immediately followed by the Lead Agency's response to substantive comments therein pertaining to the adequacy of the DSEIR. Comments and responses are correlated by code numbers added to the margins of the minutes. WP51 i5481FSElRIF-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 38 WP5115481 FSEIRI F-Il.548 1 PUBLIC HEARING -AGENDA ITEMS Terrabay Development -Hillside Boulevard, SunChase G.A. California 1, Inc. SP-96-012, Draft Supplemental EIR Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension. Vice-Chairman Romero opened the public hearing. Projetx Planner, Lida Budko, presented the staff report. She summarized the project history since the adoption by City Council of the Specific Plan in December 1982, after certification of the project EIR. Ms. Budko descnbed the project and its three phases. She stated that the site for Phase I has been graded and most of the infrastructure improvements have been constructed, including a new fire station and Sister Cities Boulevard. She noted that the current developers, SunChase, are requesting a 10-year extension of the specific plan and developmertt agreemetn to complete implementation of the approved plan. The City decided to update the EIR before taking any action, and John Wagstaff & Associates were retained to prepare the Draft Supplemental EIR (DSEIR). She noted that the purpose of this meeting was to receive comments on the Draft Supplemenral EIR. At the conclusion of the public hearing, and after the public review period ends, on February 18. 1996, all verbal and written comments received will be responded to and included in the Final EIR. Applicants/Owner Representative: Dennis Breen, SunChase, G.A., and Jim Sweeney, Project Manager Sterling Pacific Management Grp. 6001 No. 24th Street Phoenix, AZ 85016 Mr. Breen advised he was available for any questions on this project, and introduced Mr. Sweeney as Project Manager, also available for questions from the Commission or the public. Draft Supplemental EIR Consultant: John Wagstaff Wagstaff and Associates 2512 Ninth Street, Suite 5 Berkeley, CA 94710 Mr. Wagstaff reported on the scope of work which was to prepare the environmental updates to conform with current CEQA requirements. The Specific Plan and Development Agreement approvals are due to expire on February 14, 1997, and the Developer is requesting a 10-year extension. The DSEIR gives a detailed assessment for Phase I where more information is available, and includes detailed mitigation. A broader assessment is provided for Phases II & III as the information is more conceptual for Phase II & III. The 45-day review period on the DSEIR ends on February 18, 1996. Page 2 of 9 Pages PC Meeting of 2/1/96 Representing SSF Unified School District: Ms. Smith submitted a letter dated January 29, 1996. She mentioned that the nearby school is in Janice Smith, need of upgrades, and the State Architect is asking ~ •~~ Assist. Supt. of School/Business Services for this school site be brought up to code. So. San Francisco Unified School District 400 "B" Street, So.San Francisco, CA Speaking Against Terrabay DSEIR: Ms. Coffey spoke of the concern of Phase 1:II Indian village sites, and noted Page 51 of the SEIR Josephine Coffey, SB Mtn Watch, states that there are goals to preserve the ' ~Z 248 Dublin, San Francisco, CA archeological site of the shell mounds. She noted • that since the detail traffic mitigation for Phase II and III are not clear, she is concerned of how the City will know the impact on the shell mounds. The City should ask for detail mitigation measures for all phases of the development. The archeological investigation of the shell mounds done for the previous owner, at the request of ~.~?j CalTrans, was not used in this report and should be made available. Speaking with Concern: Mr. Vieira expressed his concern on the sensitivity that the planning of the commercial Frank Vieira, Chairman of the City's phase, in retards to the shell mounds and the Historical Preservation Commission increased traffic that will be needed to ' ~' 319 Spruce Avenue, SSF accommodate the other phases of the project. As • a representative of the Historical Commission he would like to be kept informed when future phases becomes more detailed. Speaking with Concern: Ms. Harks noted the Historical Preservation Commission was given the task of protecting GG ~ Edna Harks, Past Chairperson of historic and archeological remains in this City and 7 ~. Historical Preservation Commission they were overlooked in these studies; they will 210 Eucalyptus Avenue, SSF sending in their written comments. She would appreciate reports being sent directly to the Commission; she had no comment at this time. Page 3 of 9 Pages PC Meeting of t/1/96 Speaking Against Terrabay DSEIR: David Schooley, SB Mtn Watch, P. 0. Box AO, Brisbane, CA 94005 Speaking Against Terrabay DSEIR: Fred Matthews 843 Easton Ave, San Bruno, CA Mr. Schooley has been concerned with development of San Bruno Mountain and Shearwater area for many years. His main concern: • the Habitat Conservation Plan, feels this development needs to be very concerned (.~p in preserving native animal and plant species. the Indian shell motutds need to be preserved, wants Commission to be careful of the growth on San Bruno Mountain along Paradise Valley and ~ .~ around the frontage of Hwy 101. that as a gift from the owners, the Indian shell mounds, should be kept as a place for people to learn of endangered species and Averian Indian history. Mr. Matthews noted: He uses the mountain for a peaceful place, ~'~ feels this mountain should stay as open space as much as possible. Compromise, with respect to the Indian I shell mounds, don't take something that you can't get back; and South San Francisco needs to be proud and take care of this area, there aze owls in the canyons and development faz up ~ •~0 into the mountain will destroy this natural area. He asked the Commission to redevelop areas in the City before "you tread on sensitive areas like these°. Page 4 of 9 Pages PC Meeting of 2/1/96 Speaking with Concern: Jake Sigg, Presidetu of the Yerba Buena Chapter of the California Native Plant Society 338 Ortega, San Francisco, CA Speaking AgainstTerrabay DSEIR: Jerome Irwin 100 Alden Avenue, Colma, CA Mr. Site noted they have seen the DSEIR, they are concerned with the project's compliance with the Habitat Conservation Pian for San Bruno !'' Mountain. Specifically with the wild flower area that was a home for hawks, now it has become a weed patch; weeds are expanding from the Terrabay site onto San Bruno Mountain. Mr. Irwin spoke against the Draft SEIR because it has not fully addressed the Indian shell mounds. He distributed information on the Indian shell mounds and information on some of the last known Yelamu-Amuctuc people who lived on the mountain. He stressed the importance of preserving this unique area for future generations to enjoy just as he did as a child. He will have a slide presentation at the meeting of February 18th of what a developer did in Vancouver, B.C., building a mall around the burial grounds. t.IZ. Speaking with Concern: Ms. Pont expressed concern with seepage, catch basins, parking facilities specially for emergency Jan Pont vehicles, earthquake, and veological studies. She ~.~?> 111 Belmont Avenue, SSF asked if all these items had been thoroughly studied. The Chief Planner asked what she meant by "seepage"'? She noted that underground springs and drainage come down from the mountain during the winter months, even with the improvements done. She feels the drainage problems have not been corrected. Vice-Chairman Romero closed the public hearing. Commissioner DeZordo commented on the vegetation and wildlife section. He too was concerned with the native plants being replaced per the Habitat Conservation Plan and how it had been previously noted that the ~ .~ plants needed to be irrigated, and it turns out now that these plane are dying due to lack of irrigation. He suggested that native plants be replanted instead of hydro seeding. Trail access parking and signage is no~1,15 mentioned in the DSEIR. Commissioner Barnett commented on the drainage erosion and soil erosion problem that could be handled ~.~` with.normal maintenance. He would like to see more detail on how this would actually take place. Motion-DeZordo/Second-Barnett: To direct staff to address all comments heard, and proceed to prepare a Final Supplemetnal EIR. It was unanimously approved by voice vote. Page 5 of 9 Pages PC Meeting of 2/1/96 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 43 Responses to South San Francisco Planning Commission Public Hearing Comments: Janice Smith 1.01 The comment notes that "the nearby school," presumably Hillside Elementary School, needs upgrading to current building code standards. The comment pertains to existing conditions at school facilities to be impacted. by the project; these conditions will occur with or without the project. The project itself would not create an additional impact with respect to the existing need to upgrade the school to current building code standards. 1.02 As explained on DSEIR page 3, because the ultimate physical characteristics, sequencing and timing of project Phases II and III are more conceptual, the environmental documentation for these subsequent phases has been prepared at the "program EIR" level under authority of section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines. The DSEIR text indicates that "When subsequent project Phase II and III are to be developed and eventually come before the city for required approvals, in the future, more specific information (precise plan, subdivision maps, etc., similar to what is now available for Phase I) would be submitted and additional, more detailed environmental review would be undertaken at that time." The program level assessment provided in the DSEIR for these subsequent phases, including the assessment of shell mound impacts and mitigation needs, is intended to, as indicated on DSEIR page 33, "provide the basis for focusing any future project-level environmental documentation needs on more direct impacts..." A further description of the "program EIR" intent, authority, and approach is included in Appendix A of this Final SEIR attachment. The commentor asks how impacts on the shell mounds in the Phase III portion of the project can be determined if detailed traffic mitigations for Phase III are not clear. The detailed roadway improvements that will eventually be needed for Phase III are not yet certain because specific development plans have not yet been developed for this subsequent phase of the project. Table 12 (p. 112) of the DSEIR, which summarizes the 1982 EIR impact and mitigation findings, does note that redesign of the US 101 southbound "scissors" off-ramp would require relocation of Bayshore Boulevard slightly west onto the project property to accommodate a redesigned hook off-ramp and new hook on-ramp. The DSEIR findings also indicate that this realignment of Bayshore Boulevard would be necessary to accommodate improvements recommended at this location as mitigation for DSEIR Supplemental Impacts T-2, T-10 and T-12. Based on this information, the DSEIR indicates at the "program EIR" level that the significant impacts on site CA-SMa-40 identified in the 1982 EIR would still occur, and identifies a mitigation approach. At this writing, the precise design of the hookramps and realignment of Bayshore Boulevard had not been determined. The City is currently conducting a feasibility study on the potential locations of the hookramps. Associated impact and mitigation details would be determined at the project-specific level when detailed development WP5115481 FSEIRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 44 plans for Phase III of the project are submitted and associated project-specific environmental review is conducted. The mitigation measure recommended in the 1982 EIR for the larger Indian shell mound, site CA-SMa-40, requires capping the site with sterile fill and sealing it under landscaping and/or parking areas. As noted in the 1982 EIR, the proposed capping may result in some damage to the resource--e.g., compaction from the weight of construction equipment. This potential for damage to CA-SMa-40 during construction was identified in the DSEIR as Supplemental Impact CR-2. In response, the DSEIR (pp. 246-247) recommends enhancing the capping mitigation measure by requiring that an engineering fabric be placed over the site before fill is placed. The fill shall be at a minimum of one foot deeper than the maximum depth of construction activities above or near the site; and the capping should be supervised by a qualified archaeologist with authority to recommend additional or different measures if necessary. These DSEIR changes to the mitigation contained in the previous 1982 EIR were recommended by the staff researcher at the State Historic Resource File System Northwest Information Center. Under the Terrabav Specific Plan, a precise plan must be approved before Phase II or 111 of the project may be built. When Phase III is to be developed and eventually comes before the city for required approvals in the future, more specific project description information (precise plans, subdivision maps, etc., similar to what is now available for Phase I) would be submitted and additional, and more detailed, "project- specific" environmental review would be conducted, including formulation of more detailed traffic and cultural resources mitigation particulars as necessary. The extent and nature of the precise plan's impacts on site CA-SMa-40 and associated mitigation details would be more precisely determined at that time, and the mitigation recommended in the DSEIR could be supplemented as necessary. Based on Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines ("Archaeological Impacts" mitigation standards), the DSEIR concludes and indicates on pages 39, 246, and 247 that these capping measures would meet CEQA criteria for avoiding damaging effects on an archaeological resource where avoidance is determined to be infeasible. Based on CEQA Appendix K standards, the DSEIR indicates that the capping measures would reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance. However, these DSEIR conclusions does not preclude development of a future project-specific mitigation that may involve excavation, or may involve avoidance if it is determined that Caltrans freeway improvement and project phase III precise plans can be formulated to provide for such avoidance. Any alternative mitigation measure proposed in the future must at least be an equivalent measure to that proposed in the EIR, would have to satisfy the standards of state law (CEQA Guidelines Appendix K), and would be subject to approval by the City. 1.03 The comment refers to an archaeological investigation of site CA-SMa-40, the large shell mound located in the Phase III portion of the project, which was performed by WP5115481 FSE/RI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 45 Holman & Associates, consulting archaeologists, for the previous property owners. A report on the Holman investigation was not completed, no related information was submitted to the city, and no related record has been filed with the California Historical Resources Inventory. However, when Phase III is to be developed and eventually comes before the city for required precise plan approval in the future, more specific information about the development plan would be submitted and additional, more detailed environmental review, possibly including formulation of more detailed cultural resources mitigation site CA-SMa-40, will be undertaken at that time. (Please also see the first and fifth paragraphs of response to comment 1.02.) 1.04 The city's Historic Preservation Commission will be notified and will have opportunity to comment during future environmental review for subsequent project Phases II and III. This public hearing commenter has submitted similar comments in writing. The written comments of Francisco Vieira, Chairperson of the Historic Preservation Commission are responded to later in this section. See responses to letter 29. 1.05 Please see response to comment 1.04. 1.06 Comment acknowledged. Numerous identified project impacts on vegetation and wildlife are mitigated by project compliance with the conditions of the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and the associated Section 10(a) permit and Agreement with Respect to San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan. The status of project compliance with these conditions is addressed in response to comment 13.01. 1.07 The mitigation measure recommended in the 1982 EIR for the larger Indian shell mound, site CA-SMa-40, calls for capping of the site with sterile fill and sealing it under landscaping and/or parking areas. As noted in the 1982 EIR, the proposed capping may result in some damage to the resource--e.g., compaction from the weight of construction equipment. This potential for damage to CA-SMa-40 during construction has been identified in the DSEIR as Supplemental Impact CR-2. The DSEIR (pp. 246- 247) recommends that the city, as a condition of Phase III precise plan approval, require the project applicant to finalize and implement, as necessary, a detailed mitigation plan for potential impacts to site CA-SMa-40. The mitigation plan shall adhere to the mitigation approaches, procedures, limitations and criteria specified in Appendix K of the state CEQA Guidelines. As explained in paragraph five of the response to comment 1.02 above, if appropriate, the future project-specific mitigation plan for Phase III may recommend a mitigation approach other than the site capping recommended in the 1982 EIR. If capping is selected as the preferred mitigation approach, an engineering fabric shall be placed over the site before fill is placed; the fill shall be at a minimum of one foot deeper than the maximum depth of construction activities above or near the site; and capping shall be supervised by a qualified archaeologist with authority to recommend additional or different measures if WP5115481FSE/RI F-11.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR City of South San Francisco II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR October 23, 1996 Page 46 necessary. These changes to the site capping proposed in the 1982 EIR were recommended by the staff researcher at the State Historic Resource File System Northwest Information Center. If warranted based on the results of recommended further subsurface investigation of site CA-SMa-92, the DSEIR recommends capping site CA-SMa-92 in a similar manner. While capping the site, possibly under project landscaping or parking areas, would significantly limit access to the shell mounds during the life of the Terrabay project, the measure would nevertheless "preserve" the sites for potential access, study and use in the distant future. Capping is consistent with mitigation provisions for "important" archaeological resources contained in Appendix K of the state CEQA Guidelines, which requires (1) avoiding the sites altogether, (2) incorporating them into planned parks or other open space, (3) deeding them into conservation easements, or (4): "'Capping' or covering archeological sites with a layer of soil before building tennis courts, parking lots, or similar facilities. Capping may be used where: a. The soils to be covered will not suffer serious compaction; b. The covering materials are not chemically active; c. The site is one in which the natural processes of deterioration have been effectively arrested; and d. The site has been recorded. The SEIR provides a program EIR-level assessment for Phase III with a general discussion of impacts and mitigations that is adequate under CEQA and appropriate given that the specific development plans for Phase III are not known at this time. Under the Terrabay Specific Plan, a precise plan must be approved before Phase III may be built. Although the anticipated land uses and densities for Phase III are generally described, the specific development plans will not be known until a precise plan is approved. When Phase III is to be developed and eventually comes before the city for required precise plan approval in the future, more specific information would be submitted and additional, more detailed environmental review will be undertaken at that time. As explained in paragraph five of the response to comment 1.02 above, the capping approach identified in the DSEIR does not preclude identification of an alternative future mitigation approach which would provide less limited access. The response to comment 1.02 explains the "program EIR" approach and how subsequent environmental review for Phase III will include formulation of more detailed cultural resources mitigation and could include further consideration of an archaeological preserve on a portion of the site. If it is determined during subsequent environmental review of the detailed Phase III development plans and preparation of the mitigation plan required under mitigation for Supplemental Impact CR-2 that capping of the sites could not be accomplished without damaging the resources, then an alternative WP5115481FSEIRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 47 mitigation may be required, such as avoidance in a manner that permits access to the site or a detailed excavation plan. 1.08 Approximately 200 acres of the 332-acre site are proposed to be developed. The remaining 132 acres (about 40 percent of the site), consisting of the upper, more steeply sloping and less disturbed portions of the property, are to be permanently dedicated to the County of San Mateo for inclusion in the San Bruno Mountain State and County Park, as required by the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and associated Section 10(a) permit. In addition, the specific plan provides for an additional six acres of open space within the developed areas of the project. Although certain uses and densities are generally described for Phases II and III, the specific development plans for these phases will not be known until the required precise plans are approved. Additional open space may be provided within these subsequent phases. 1.09 The comment refers to proposals to set aside part of site CA-SMa-40 for an innovative archaeological preserve in collaboration with the proposed development (similar to many other mitigation concepts described in many of the comment letters contained herein). Please see response to similar comment 1.07. 1.10 The comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the SEIR. In any event, the HCP and the project SEIR include a comprehensive and adequate vegetation and wildlife impact mitigation program to prevent significant impacts on mountain habitats. 1.11 Please see responses to comments 10.01, 10.02 and 13.01. 1.12 The comment states that the DSEIR did not fully address the Indian shell mounds located in the Phase III portion of the project site. The SEIR impact and mitigation findings for site CA-SMa-40 can be found on DSEIR pp. 244-247. The DSEIR (pp. 243-244) provides a brief description of these sites based on information contained in the 1982 EIR. In response to this and similar comments, revisions to these DSEIR pages have been included in the errata (section III) of the FSEIR attachment to provide the following additional information: Site CA-SMa-40 is a large shell mound measuring approximately 80 to 90 meters in diameter. The site is reportedly very significant and one of the few remaining examples of such shell mounds in the Bay Area. Based on information from similar Bay Area mounds, the site may have been used by local native peoples as a burial ground, ceremonial place, and living site for hundreds or thousands of years and is thought to possibly contain Native American human remains. Additional information regarding the shell mounds can be found in several comment letters, especially comment 25.01, by Professor of Anthropology Kent Lightfoot of U.C. Berkeley. Please also see responses to comments 1.02 and 1.07. WP5115481FSE1Rl F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 48 1.13 The comment is concerned about drainage, emergency access, earthquakes, and geologic studies. Each of these general concerns in addressed below: Drainage. Supplemental drainage impacts are discussed in DSEIR Section IV.E, Drainage and Water Quality (pp. 173-182). That section discusses post-1982 storm drainage improvements, including V-ditches and catchment basins, storm drain trunk lines, and a box culvert and drainage channel within Caltrans right-of-way. All necessary municipal storm drainage improvements for Phase I of the project have been completed. The on-site drainage improvements for Phase II and Phase III have not been completed. The box culvert under US 101 and the associated drainage channel improvements were designed with capacity to serve buildout of all three project phases. In response to comments concerning the adequacy of the catchment basins in Phase I, the City geotechnical consultant, Eric McHuron, conducted an extensive review of the studies and records pertaining to the sizing and capacity of the catchment basins. The results of this review were presented to City staff. On the basis of that review, the City determined that the catchment basins for Phase I are adequately sized and properly. designed. The applicant ("SunChase") has also indicated that the issue of catchment basin and drainage ditch malfunctioning has been addressed (please see comment 32.04 by the applicant's attorney): "SunChase removed all the silt and debris from the v-ditches, catch basins, and storm drains in the project area in the fall of 1995 prior to the rainy season. SunChase also removed and replaced all of the rock and fabric filters in each basin to ensure a dependable flow. The brush alongside the v-ditches was cut. During the recent heavy rains, representatives of SunChase observed the operation of the v-ditches, catch basins and storm drains and they were performing very well. The rains, and particularly the violent storms of December, 1995, have resulted in some silt and debris in the v-ditches. SunChase will continue to monitor and clean these ditches on an as-needed basis...SunChase is in the process of implementing an on-going funding and responsibility program to maintain erosion and sedimentation control facilities after the project is built." Emergency Access. All project public and private roadways would be constructed in accordance with the roadway standards specified in the specific plan and development agreement, and in the Terrabay Specific Plan District zoning (Section 20.63.070). The emergency vehicle access aspects of these roadway standards have been reviewed and deemed adequate by the city Engineering Division and Fire Department staff. Comment letter no. 3 herein from Mr. Fred Lagomarsino, Fire Marshal and Chief Building Official of the City of South San Francisco supports the DSEIR fire protection services impact and mitigation findings. Please also see the response to comment WP511548{FSEIRt F-ll.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 49 33.65 regarding concerns that emergency access routes may be blocked by landslide debris. Earthquakes. Earthquakes and other geologic hazards are discussed in DSEIR Section IV.D, Soils and Geology. The project site is located in a region of high seismicity and, like other sites in the project vicinity and the Bay Area generally, would be subject to strong groundshaking in the event of a major earthquake on one of the several faults in the region (e.g., the active San Andreas fault is located three miles southwest of the site). There are no known active faults crossing the site, and no portion of the site is located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (zones established by the California Division of Mines and Geology as having a potentially significant risk of fault rupture and thus requiring special study prior to development). A trace of the Hillside fault trends northwest across the site, and a second trace of the Hillside fault has been mapped northwest of the site. Fault trenches excavated on the site across these fault traces revealed no evidence of activity on the Hillside fault. Geologic Studies. There have been several geologic and geotechnical reports completed for the project since 1982 that have evaluated geologic conditions on the project site before, during and after Phase I grading activities and have recommended warranted repairs for any adverse conditions encountered. These reports have been prepared by the applicant's and previous property owner's consultants, have been reviewed by city staff and the city's geotechnical consultant, and have been independently reviewed by the SEIR engineering geologic and geotechnical consultant. Based on review of these reports and on new and revised geologic information pertaining to the site, the SEIR geotechnical consultant identified those remaining potentially significant impacts and associated mitigation measures discussed on DSEIR pp. 168-172. In some cases, recommended mitigations call for additional geotechnical studies to more thoroughly address specific issues of concern. Additionally, the applicant has been formulating more detailed, design-level geotechnical studies for completion of Phase I, in coordination with the city. Similar design-level geotechnical studies would be prepared for Phases II and III when these subsequent phases are to be developed in the future. The remediation and repair plans for Area D were reviewed by City and County officials, determined to be adequate, and approved. The City and County issued grading permits authorizing work to proceed on Area D. The work is expected to be completed by October 31, 1996. 1.14 Habitat restoration of temporary disturbance areas was performed in accordance with the approved Terrabay Phase I Reclamation Plan. No irrigation is provided in the restoration areas. The initial restoration work which failed was performed under very unfavorable weather that included drought conditions. The remediation plan for the previous restoration work provides for occasional watering by a water truck in the event of drought conditions during the period in which plants are becoming established. Please also see responses to comments 10.01 and 13.01. WP5115481FSE1Rl F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 50 1.15 The DSEIR (pp. 207-208) notes that improvements at two trailheads providing access to San Bruno Mountain County Park would be provided in Phases II and III. The trailheads would connect to existing trails on the mountain. Parking for one of the trailheads would be provided off of South San Francisco Drive adjacent to the proposed Hillside Recreation Center. Parking for the second trailhead would be provided in Phase III. The design details of the proposed trailheads, including parking and signage, would be further developed in the required precise plans to be prepared for subsequent Phases II and III. 1.16 The DSEIR (p. 179) identifies the uncertainty regarding ongoing maintenance responsibilities for the catchment basins installed at the base of the ravines above the Phase I portion of the project as a significant impact (Supplemental Impact D-1}. As explained on DSEIR p. 176, acity/county Joint Powers Authority (JPA) was established in 1983 to oversee construction of the catchment basins and, upon their dedication to the JPA, to provide for their maintenance. The agreement that established the JPA provides that the county will be responsible for funding all required maintenance and administrative costs. Recently, however, the JPA has come to be perceived by the county as a cumbersome entity for ongoing maintenance of the catchment basins. County staff have proposed the possibility of disbanding the JPA and turning over basin maintenance responsibilities to the county. The DSEIR mitigation for Supplemental Impact D-1 (DSEIR p. 181) recommends that if the JPA is to be disbanded, the city shall: (1) work with the county and the project applicant to ensure the catchment basins are in proper condition to allow their dedication directly to the county as the county suggests; and (2) if the JPA is not disbanded, continue to fulfill city responsibilities in accordance with the 1983 joint powers agreement. Continued ongoing maintenance of project geotechnical and drainage features, including steep natural and cut slopes, erosion and sedimentation control facilities and slope drainage facilities, could be accomplished by the county for features located on the portion of the property to be dedicated to the county--i.e., HCP Administrative Parcel 2-04-02), by the city, or by the project homeowners association. The project Master Homeowners Association Agreement approved by the South San Francisco City Council provides for ongoing repair and maintenance of geotechnical facilities and programs (please also see comment 32.02). The associated Slope and Drainage Maintenance Plan for Terrabav Master Association (June 19, 1996) prepared by the applicant's geotechnical consultant (Exhibit C of the Homeowners Association Agreement) clarifies the master homeowners association responsibilities and specifies management, design and construction, monitoring, maintenance, repair, funding, and reporting requirements. These requirements provide sufficient resources for and assurance of continued drainage and slope maintenance.' 'Arthur Wong, City Engineer, memorandum to Lida Budko, Terrabay Project Planner, July 16, 1996. WP5115481FSE1RI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 51 D. WRITTEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Reproductions of letters received during and after the DSEIR public review period are included in the following section. Each letter is immediately followed by the Lead Agency's response to substantive comments therein pertaining to the adequacy of the DSEIR. Comments and responses are correlated by code numbers added to the margins of each letter. WP5115481FSE/RI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 52 WP5115481 FSE/RI F-11.548 2 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT E ~ E I V E p SAN ~ INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM P f ~6 ~N~MG DATE: January 9, 1996 Z'O; Planning Division SUBJEG'T: Draft Supplement E.I.R for the Terrabay Development FROM: Police Department The Police Department has reviewed the January 1996 document draft and has the following comments/concerns: 1. ~~mn,an, Page 31 - No impacts on police services has been included in the summary. This is troublesome as frequently the summary section is the only section of such a document that is reviewed. Therefore, mitigation necessary as described in Section IV G. should be added, n .0' or some notation in the summary should be made to indicate that mitigation necessary is the h same as the 1982 E.I.R and people interested should reference the prior document. The omission in this S.E.I.R tends to give the impression that there are no impacts on polix services which warrant mitigation. 2. 'r naoortation Sections a. No traffic analysis or study of the intersections at I~illsidelStonegate and HillsidelLincoln was completed to determine if the current control st these intersections is adequate or necessary with Project Development. Passing reference is made to "sequencing the I~illside/Stonegate traffic signal with a new signal at Z ~~ IE1lsiddChestnut. Does this imply that the situation at HrllsiddStonegate is within acceptable levels and merits no further mitigation? The stop signs at I~illsidelLincoln were installed by San Mateo County while the I~illside extension was still under their control. No local assessment has ever been done to determine if the stop signs are necessary or adequate, or if they should remain during various steps of Project Development. b. There is concern as to how school age children in the project area will safely Set to schools they need to attend. Such an analysis is important for traffic pedestrian safety purposes as an assessment needs to be made as to whether crossings of major roadways adjacent to the project area are safe and adequately controlled for young pedestrians, or whether other improvemenu such as pedestrian bridges or similar improvements may be in order. In addition, if adequate safe crossings are not provided, there may be an added burden on police services to provide adult crossing GoMT, CoF1T. guard services which are funded out of the Police Department budget. y Z.03- c. N C. -Page 100 -Makes the assumption that the County will extend the lackey roadway extension from Mission Road to I-fillside Blvd. in a timely fashion. In our review of the BART E.I.R City staff has instructed the preparers of that E.I.R that such an assumption cannot be made as the County cannot guarantee that the 1~Lckey Z ~' Blvd. extension will be constructed in a timely manner, or whether it will be constructed at all. This S.E.I.R should further develop and clarify this point as lack • of this roadway extension could have a significant impact on other roadways connecting I•iillside Blvd. with Mission Road. d. Transportation -General -Some of the transportation issues list several mitigation options for a single issue. Options art written and listed as if they would be equally effective in mitigating a specific problem when in fact one option is superior to 2~ p5 another (.e., southbound freeway flyover vs. triple left turn striping). It appears that the quality of the document would be improved if an evaluation plus ranking of options was also included. 3. Impacts on Police Services. Section N C. Page 200 indicates that "The Police Department expects to rely heavily on specific-plan required project on site security personnel to report activity of concern". The applicant has taken a position that the specific plan does not explicitly state that security is required to be provided on site during development non- conshvction hours, and their representative indicates that they wr~l not comply with the police request for continuous on site security. >:f the developer takes this position there will be an impact on police services during construction in that added police patrols will be necessary to prevent theft, trespass, damage to the habitat conservation area, etc., in this very large development area. The requirement for security patrols on site is a condition of the precise plan for Terrabay Park and Village and, in the opinion of the Police Department, is binding for the first and subsequent phases of development. 2.010 Sgt. Ron Petrocchi Planning & Traffic Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco September 17, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 55 2. Sgt. Ron Petrocchi, South San Francisco Police Department; January 9, 1996 2.01 The significant police service impacts of the project and associated mitigation measures were identified in the 1982 EIR and are summarized in Table 26 of the DSEIR (p. 206). The DSEIR (p. 205) concludes that "the impact findings in the 1982 EIR for project and cumulative effects on Police Department services remain generally unchanged." Since the SEIR is merely a supplement to the 1982 EIR, the summary chart on DSEIR pp. 11-40 summarizes only the significant supplemental impact and mitigation findings of the DSEIR. In order to highlight the DSEIR-identified impact and mitigation changes from the previous EIR, the DSEIR summary chart does not restate the previous (1982) EIR impact and mitigation findings. 2.02 The DSEIR traffic analysis addresses the Hillside Boulevard/Stonegate Drive and Hillside Boulevard/Lincoln Street intersections under the recommended mitigation for base case and project impacts (Supplemental Impacts T-1 through T 4, T-6 and T-1~ at the Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue intersection. The mitigation recommended for these impacts notes that "the monitoring (traffic counts) and associated engineering evaluation necessary to determine when signalization [of Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue] is warranted may also indicate that the Stonegate Drive signal (and associated sequencing) is no longer needed and that instead of signal sequencing, the Stonegate signal can be replaced with a stop sign on the Stonegate approach only (i.e., if the new Chestnut Avenue signal will provide sufficient gaps in eastbound Hillside Boulevard traffic flow to allow for safe stop sign-controlled turn movements from Stonegate Drive). The monitoring/evaluation may or may not also indicate that a change in the nearby all-way-stop-sign-controlled Hillside Boulevard/Lincoln Street intersection--i.e., removal of stop signs on the Hillside Boulevard approaches--may be possible. " The traffic signal at the Hillside Boulevard/Stonegate Drive intersection currently operates at a~good level of service during the PM peak hour (based on the Heather Heights Initial Study traffic analysis prepared by Crane Transportation Group in July, 1994). In 2010, this signal is expected to be operating at a better level of service than the planned signal at the adjacent Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue intersection because anticipated traffic volumes on Stonegate Drive would be much lower than on Chestnut Avenue. When signalized, the Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue intersection is projected to be operating at an acceptable LOS B in 2010 during the PM peak hour with full buildout of project Phases I, II and III. Removal of the signal at the Hillside Boulevard/Stonegate Drive intersection could result in unacceptable operation for the stop sign controlled left turn movement from Stonegate Drive. This potential impact would need to be considered should removal of the signal be proposed. In response to this and other DSEIR public review period comments, a PM peak traffic period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) turn movement traffic count was conducted at the all-way- WP5115481 FSEIRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 56 stop-controlled Hillside Boulevard/Lincoln Street intersection by Crane Transportation Group on Wednesday, June 12, 1996. During the PM peak traffic hour (4:45 PM to 5:45 PM), 1,455 vehicles were counted entering the intersection on the Hillside Boulevard approaches and 11 vehicles were counted entering the intersection on the Lincoln Street approach. Hillside Boulevard has two travel lanes on each of its two intersection approaches, while Lincoln Street has a single lane approach. No pedestrians or bicyclists crossed Hillside Boulevard at Lincoln Street during the two-hour count period. However, the pedestrian overpass across Hillside Boulevard just west of the intersection did have a minor level of pedestrian activity during the traffic count. Available sight lines were also evaluated for vehicles turning from Lincoln Street to Hillside Boulevard. To the west, the sight line is less than 200 feet along Hillside Boulevard, while to the east the sight line is greater than 1,000 feet along Hillside Boulevard and the Hillside Boulevard Extension. Based on a prevailing vehicle speed of 50 miles per hour on Hillside Boulevard (the posted speed is 40 miles per hour), a stopping sight distance of 400 to 475 feet is required based upon standard traffic engineering guidelines.' Based upon Caltrans warrants,2 vehicular and pedestrian levels at the Hillside Boulevard/Lincoln Street intersection do not come close to meeting criteria for provision of all-way stop control. However, all-way stop control is warranted due to the less than minimum acceptable sight lines to and from the west. Should the city decide to eliminate the all-way stop at the Hillside Boulevard/Lincoln Street intersection, only right turn movements from eastbound Hillside Boulevard to Lincoln Street should be permitted. The signalized Hillside Boulevard Extension/ Jefferson Street intersection two blocks to the east provides the neighborhood served by Lincoln Street with safe, controlled turn movements to and from the Hillside Boulevard Extension. No new significant impacts would be expected if these changes are made at the Hillside Boulevard/Lincoln Street intersection. In conclusion, no mitigation is required for the Hillside/Lincoln intersection because the intersection is operating at acceptable levels and the project traffic contribution to this intersection will not change the level of service. 2.03 The project site is located within three school districts: the South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD), Brisbane School District, and Jefferson Union High School District (JUHSD). The SSFUSD boundaries include Terrabay Village and 'A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO, 1990. 2Caltrans Traffic Manual. WP5115481FSE1R1 F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 57 Terrabay Park (Phase I), and Terrabay Woods (Phase II} development areas. The Brisbane School District and JUHSD boundaries include the Terrabay Commons and Terrabay Point (Phase II) development areas. South San Francisco Unified School District. Students in the SSFUSD would attend Hillside Elementary School, Parkway Heights Middle School, and EI Camino High School. Students attending Hillside Elementary School, which is located adjacent to the project, could walk directly to school using on-site project sidewalks and pathways, including the linear park which connects the Hillside Recreation Center with the school. Older students walking to Parkway Heights Middle School and EI Camino High School, located south of the project site, could first walk to Hillside School along the on-site project sidewalks and pathways and then cross Hillside Boulevard via the pedestrian bridge at Chestnut Avenue or could cross Hillside Boulevard at the signalized Hillside Boulevard/South San Francisco Drive and Sister Cities Boulevard/South San Francisco Drive intersections. They could continue to these schools just as other students in the existing adjacent neighborhoods do. The South San Francisco Police Department has noted that the signalized Hillside Boulevard Extension/South San Francisco Drive and Sister Cities Boulevard/South San Francisco Drive intersections appear to meet the following "warrants" (i.e., conditions} for provision of an adult crossing guard: (1) each intersection is more than 80 feet wide with no safe pedestrian intermediate refuge area; (2) traffic travels at high speeds, particularly during AM, noon and PM peak hours; and (3) a high proportion of trucks use these routes. The Department indicates that if 40 or more elementary school children cross within any two hour period, an adult crossing guard would need to be provided. Although the SSFUSD has indicated that all elementary school students would attend Hillside Elementary School, in the event that some project elementary school students attend SSFUSD schools other than Hillside Elementary School, an adult crossing guard may also be needed. The City shall conduct periodic monitoring of the crossings at the Hillside Boulevard/ South San Francisco Drive and Sister Cities Boulevard/South San Francisco Drive intersections to determine if 40 or more elementary school children cross within any two hour period. If the threshold is reached at either of these intersections, then the Phase II project homeowners association shall be required to: (1) fund the provision of an adult crossing guard at that intersection (including all salary, background check, equipment, and training costs), and WP5115481 FSE/RI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 58 (2) actively recruit candidates for the position and for an alternative part-time, back-up fill-in position from among project residents. (Project residents are preferred because of opportunities for more familiarity with students.) Brisbane School District. Students in the Brisbane Elementary School district would attend Brisbane Elementary School and Lipman Intermediate School, located north of the project site in the city of Brisbane. In response to this comment, the SEIR has been revised regarding its discussion of transportation to Brisbane schools. The January 1996 DSEIR did not identify a separate significant impact specifically for transportation to Brisbane School District. However, the DSEIR did include a mitigation on p. 213 calling for installation of a sidewalk along Bayshore Boulevard for access to Brisbane schools. The district has noted that, "The Brisbane Schoo/ District does not provide transportation for its students. As Brisbane and Lipman are within walking distance from Terrabay, l anticipate the need for sidewalks to be placed along Bayshore Road between the development and the current sidewalks. Otherwise, additional funds may be needed for student transportation. " Comments 21.05, 32.25 and 33.21 have also raised the issue of the safety of young students walking along Bayshore Boulevard to Brisbane schools. The DSEIR recommended mitigations for significant impacts on Brisbane School District (Supplemental Impact PS-2) on DSEIR p. 213 include assignment to the project applicant responsibility "for installing sidewalks along Bayshore Boulevard to allow students from the project to walk to Brisbane Elementary School and Lipman Intermediate School." Approximately one mile of sidewalk would be need to be constructed along Bayshore Boulevard. In response to comments 2.03, 21.05, 32.25, and 33.21, further consideration has been given to this school pedestrian access issue. Students walking to district schools would have to walk along Bayshore Boulevard to Brisbane and then via local streets to the schools themselves. Brisbane Elementary School is located approximately 1.9 miles and Lipman Intermediate School is located approximately 2.6 miles from the furthest part of the project within the Brisbane School District. These distances may be too great for young school children to walk to school. Also, Bayshore Boulevard is a busy arterial roadway and vehicles travel at high speeds, making a sidewalk along this busy roadway potentially unsafe for young schoolchildren. Portions of this segment of the roadway also adjoin the steep slopes of San Bruno Mountain. The roadway right- of-way may not easily accommodate a sidewalk in these areas. While there are important safety concerns and engineering constraints, they may be able to be adequately addressed by site-specific design measures. The Brisbane School District has also indicated that other transportation options in addition to a sidewalk along Bayshore Boulevard should also be considered to address this impact and that development of the needed mitigation and selection of a preferred solution should be coordinated with the district, the SSFUSD, and Samtrans (the local WP5115481 FSEI RI F-Il.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 59 transit district). The district will also need to consider transportation for students from the Northeast Ridge development as well as students from Terrabay. Because a sidewalk along Bayshore Boulevard may not be the most desirable solution for transportation to Brisbane School District schools, the recommended mitigation on DSEIR p. 213 has been revised in response to this and related comments to provide more flexibility to the district, the applicant and the city in reducing the impact to a less- than-significant level. (See errata in section III herein for DSEIR pages 210 and 213.) In summary, finalization of school access sidewalk needs and associated design details are properly deferred in the revised transportation chapter to the Phase II and Phase III environmental documentation sequences, since the City currently does not know what the actual configuration of these phases will be. Jefferson Union High School District. The JUHSD does not provide transportation for its students; students attending JUHSD schools would need to arrange their own transportation. JUHSD schools, which are located in Daly City and Pacifica, would be too far for students to walk to school; therefore, no pedestrian safety impacts would be anticipated. 2.04 If Hickey Boulevard is not extended from Mission Road to Hillside Boulevard at the same time that it is extended from EI Camino Real to Mission Road, then the following project-related traffic impacts are likely: • Some traffic currently using parallel routes, such as Chestnut Avenue and Evergreen Drive, that the DSEIR traffic analysis projected would be diverted to the Hickey Boulevard Extension, would continue to use the existing routes. • Volumes on existing parallel routes, such as Chestnut Avenue and Evergreen Drive, would increase due to traffic from new development in the local area, such as the BART station proposed for construction at Hickey Boulevard between EI Camino Real and Mission Road. • A minor amount of existing local area or sub-regional traffic may be more likely to use Evergreen Drive in combination with Hickey Boulevard (to travel between Hillside Boulevard and EI Camino Real) rather than Chestnut Avenue. If Hickey Boulevard is not extended all the way to Hillside Boulevard, the actual extent and potential significance of the impacts to Evergreen Drive, Chestnut Avenue and other parallel routes will depend on the extent of local and regional development contributing traffic to the circulation network and on travel times for parallel routes. If, at the time of precise plan processing for Phase II or III, there is (1) no extension of Hickey Boulevard to Hillside Boulevard; or (2) no assurance that Hickey Boulevard will be extended, then the supplemental environmental assessment for Phase II or III should evaluate possible impact(s), related to Phase II or III, of the possible failure to extend Hickey Boulevard. WP5115481FSEIRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 60 2.05 The SEIR need only describe feasible mitigations and alternatives that would avoid or reduce identified significant impacts. A comparative evaluation and ranking of alternative mitigation options is not required. In addition to the environmental considerations evaluated in the SEIR, when selecting a preferred mitigation approach, the city must also weigh many different non-environmental factors not appropriate for consideration in the SEIR (economic feasibility, etc.). 2.06 The Police Department maintains that on-site security is a condition of the specific plan and the Phase I precise plan, and is required for all project phases. The Phase I home builder now provides on-site security during evenings and weekends when no construction activity is occurring on the site. Since submittal of this comment, the Police Department has indicated to the EIR authors that the applicant has adequately addressed the Department's concerns about onsite security. No additional response is necessary. WP5115481 FS E/R I F-11.548 3 C = TY OF SOUTH SAN FRANC = SCO I LATER-OF F S C E MEMORANDUM RE~EI~ED JAK 15 ~ -OATH: January 15, 1996 p~ ~~,~~ Tp; Steve Solomon ' `^~~Y11~ FROK: Fred Lagomarsino SIIBJBCT: DR?~F'P SIIPPLffi~i`PAL BIR - TBFtRABAY I have reviewed the above document and from Fire and Bufldinq 3.~~ perspective find it acceptable. d go rsino Fire Mar al/Chief Building official Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR I1. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 62 3. Fred Lagomarsino, Fire Marshal/Chief Building Official, Citv of South San Francisco; January 15, 1996 3.01 Comment supports the DSEIR fire protection services supplemental impact and mitigation findings; no additional response is necessary. WP5115481 FSEIRI F-11.548 STATE OF CALIFORNIA -THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE NALSON, Gorrrwr~ DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME POST OfFlCE BOX t7 R E C E I V E D ~' roiarrvlLLE. cuIFORNIA s~.s~ ~~ %~-~ January 18, 1996 JAN 1 9 f996 PLANNING Ms. Lida Budko City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, California 94080 Dear Ms. Budko: Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) Terrabay Specific Plan SCH 95092027 Department of Fish and Game personnel have reviewed the SEIR for the proposed extension of the development agreement for the Terrabay Specific Plan. The project site is located on the south slope of San Bruno Mountain, and development of the site has been considered in the San Bruno Mountain HCP and in an earlier EIR for the Terrabay project . The current proposal does not involve changes which would alter the environmental impacts assessed in these earlier documents. The SEIR ~•~~ calls for actions which would increase the success of revegetation required under the original EIR. We support this requirement. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions, please contact Jeannine M. DeWald, Associate Wildlife Biologist, at (408) 429-9252; or Carl Wilcox, Environmental Services Supervisor, at {707) 944-5525. Sincere y, ~~'c'~ ~~ Ken Aasen Acting Regional Manager Region 3 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 64 4. Ken Aasen, Acting Regional Manaaer, Region 3, California Department of Fish and Game; January 18, 1996 4.01 Comment supports the DSEIR vegetation and wildlife supplemental impact and mitigation findings; no additional response is necessary. W P5115481 FSEI R I F-! 1.548 RECEIVED ~aN 2 3 1996 INTER-OFFICE MEMORAND__UM PLANNING CITY OF SOUTH SAN ANCISCO DATE: January 22, 1996 TO: Steve Solomon, Chief Planner Q FROM: Richard Harmon, Senior Engineering Technician 1 ' SUBJECT: TERRABAY DEVELOPMENT -DRAFT SIJPPLIIvIENTAL ENVIItOI~II~NTAL IMPACT REPORT :~,,~~ In accordance with your request of January 8, I have reviewed the subject doaunent dated January 1996 and offer the foIlowing comments: 1. I request that the mitigation measures contained in the "summary" (yellow section) be ~.~( numbered so that they can be readily identified and referenced. 2. Drawings or exhibits illustrating the traffic mitigation improvements described in the i Thi i d ~ s s at ons. mitigation summary would be very helpful in understanding the recommen . particularly true for intersection channelization improvements that can be difficult to describe in towards and even more difficult for the reader to visualize. _ 3. The report should discuss any noise impacts on the the Phase 2 and Phase 3 portions of the h d B 03 5 ore ays prgject fiom the traffic along Sister Cities Boulevard, Bayshore Highway an . Freeway. 4. Reference the last sentence of Page 56 and page 208, Section c(3): Exhibit G, "Maintenance, Improvement/Responsibilities" of the Apri114, 1988 Terrabay Development S. ~. Agreement, states in Section C, that "the developer or, with approval of the City, a private property owners association, shall maintain the linear park (Item A-3) and all private lands, " buildings, landscaping, and improvements in the prQj ect area. On Page 170, within all sub-sections of Section 4, "Supplemental Mitigation Needs": there S . is adiscussion of future, on-going maintenance requirements and programs to address soil 5_~ and geotechnical problems. Are there sufficient funds in the Terrabay property owner's association monthly assessments to provide for this maintenance? If this information is not CIS TERRABAY DEVELOPMENT -0RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR January 22, 1996 Page 2 60NIf. ava~7able, what would be a reasonable yearly budget to permit the homeowner's association to implement these rnainteaancx programs? Do the recorded association D.C.C.&R's 5.05 include these maintenance rcsponsib~7ities in then provisions and requirements? The City has considered and r+caxed the concept of forming a geologic hazards abatement district for the Terrabay properties. 6. The "Ceotechnical Appendd' contains reports (tbe two PSC reports dated July 24, 1995 and the PSC report dated July 27, 1995) that we cannot locate in our permanent 51es. The S. Dpi prq ect sponsor should fde, with the Engineering Divisioq two bound copies of these three reports for our public records. RCH.ro I'II2R:D6F.IIt 2RCH cc: John Cnbbs, Director of Public Works Arthur Wong, City Engineer Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 67 5. Richard Harmon, Senior Engineering Technician, City of South San Francisco; January 22, 1996 5.01 The comment suggests that the mitigation measures in the DSEIR summary chart be numbered. The DSEIR summary chart has been revised accordingly. 5.02 Figures 20, 21 and 24-26 are schematic representations of the new turn and through lane and new signal locations recommended as mitigation at intersections for base case (without project and with project) conditions. More detailed design-level engineered drawings of the. recommended intersection configurations are not necessary at this EIR level to allow a reasoned judgment of the adequacy of the proposed mitigation and are not appropriate for a program EIR-level assessment of improvements that are anticipated to be needed up to 10 years in the future. {The specific development plans for Phase III are uncertain.) 5.03 The DSEIR (p. 222) notes that "Sister Cities Boulevard is a primary noise source for portions of project Phases 11 and 111 fronting this roadway... "and "Traffic noise from US 101 and, to a lesser degree, Bayshore Boulevard and other local streets, continues to be the primary noise factor affecting the eastern portion of the project site proposed for commercial uses." The future noise contours presented in Figure 32 result primarily from these noise sources. The compatibility of project Phases II and III with the projected future noise environment due to traffic noise from Sister Cities Boulevard, Bayshore Boulevard and US 101 traffic is discussed on DSEIR pp. 225-227 and is identified as Supplemental Impact N-1. Mitigation for Supplemental Impact N-1 is identified on p. 228. 5.04 The comment notes that the DSEIR (p. 208) incorrectly states that the linear park along Hillside Boulevard connecting the playing fields at Hillside Elementary School with the Hillside Recreation Center would be maintained by the city. The SEIR has been revised to indicate that the linear park will be maintained by the project master homeowners association. (See errata for DSEIR p. 208 in section III herein.) 5.05 The project Master Homeowners Association Agreement approved by the South San Francisco City Council provides for ongoing repair and maintenance of geotechnical facilities and programs. The Slope and Drainage Maintenance Plan for Terrabay Master Association (June 19, 1996) prepared by the applicant's geotechnical consultant (Exhibit C of the Homeowners Association Agreement) clarifies the master homeowners association responsibilities and specifies management, design and construction, monitoring, maintenance, repair, funding, and reporting requirements. These requirements provide sufficient resources for and assurance of continued drainage and slope maintenance.' 'Arthur Wong, City Engineer, memorandum to Lida Budko, Terrabay Project Planner, July 16, 1996. WPS1 15481 FSE/RI F-1/.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR City of South San Francisco II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR October 23, 1996 Page 68 5.06 The applicant has indicated that it will file two bound copies of the three requested reports with the city's Engineering Division. WP511548 4 FSElRI F-11.548 w CITY OF SODTH 8AN FRANCISCO INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDIIM Dats: January 25, 1996 TO: Steve Solomon, Chief Planner FROM: Dennis Chuck, Associate Civil Engineer ~ L SIIBJECT: Draft Supplemental EIR for the Terrabay Development I have reviewed the subject document and offer the following comments: - The Hillside/Lincoln intersection needs to be evaluated regarding the impacts Terrabay traffic. This all-way stop is on a major corridor fronting Terrabay. The impacts to this ~,~~ intersection by Terrabay vehicles need to be examined to determine if the existing traffic controls need to be upgraded to traffic signals. The document indicates that a signal will be installed at the intersection of Hickey Boulevard Extension and Hillside `per Boulevard. Verify that the County will not just be installing a stop sign. Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 70 6. Dennis Chuck, Associate Civil Engineer, City of South San Francisco; January 25, 1996 6.01 Please see response to comment 2.02. Signals should never be warranted at the Hillside Boulevard/Lincoln Street intersection with or without the Terrabay project because of the minor amount of side street approach traffic on Lincoln Street. 6.02 San Mateo County Department of Public Works traffic engineering staff has indicated that when Hickey Boulevard is built from Mission Road to Hillside Boulevard, a signal would probably be installed at the Hillside Boulevard/Hickey Boulevard intersection (Mr. Bob Cambron, San Mateo County Department of Public Works personal communication, June 12, 1996). WP5115481FSElRI F-11.548 7 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOO>_ DISTRICT ' ~ ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 398 '8' STREET BOARO OF TRUSTEES SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. GAUFORNIA 94080 Romolo J. 8raachl pr. Rlehard J. Rlpy Shirlw Moeh s„pr.xr,o«r (415) 877700 Fax (415) 583-4717 Raymond Latham Rusw11 O. You R E C E I V E p Vletoria Yon shall January 29, 1996 Mr. Steve Solomon Planning Department City of South San Francisco P. 0. Box 711 South San Francisco, California 94083 SAM 3 ~ X96 PLANNING Re: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the TerraBay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension _ Dear Mr. Solomon: This letter is the South San Francisco Unified School District's response to the above subject matter. Page 213 d. - Schools D( The impact of the TerraBay Project on the South San Francisco Unified School District will be "less-than-significant" LS only if the City requires the project applicant to negotiate with the South San Francisco Unified School District and provide sufficient additional funds necessary toi mitigate project impact on the schools. The City has the authority to consider the adequacy of school facilitiesi and to impose additional mitigation measures. In addition to the law that requires the payment of developer fees, there is also an independent requirement that cities address the impact of growth on school districts pursuant to statutes and appropriate court decisions. Any project with the potential of having a significant impact must include mitigation measures which reduce those impacts to a level of "less-than-significant". The District requests the City condition approval of the development on the completion of an agreement between the District and the developer regarding sufficient additional funds or other measures necessary to mitigate project impact on the schools. ..,.. Pa a 202 d -Schools (1) Attendance Areas The last sentence should read "The Jefferson Union boundaries include all of the project area served by the District. very truly dour . l~l 7 LGr.~ ~ %t~ '/Janice B. Smith Assistant Superintendent/ Business Services ?.02 School District Brisbane School sc Attachments Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 72 7. Janice Smith, Assistant Superintendent, Business Services, South San Francisco Unified School District; January 29, 1996 7.01 As discussed on DSEIR pp. 209-210, based on current enrollment multipliers provided by the districts and the revised number of project units (721), the project would generate an estimated 370 additional K-12 students; 260 would attend SSFUSD schools, 90 would attend Brisbane School District schools, and 20 would attend JUHSD schools. As explained on DSEIR pp. 211-212, the SSFUSD has estimated that the total estimated cost to the district to provide relocatable classrooms to accommodate the enrollment increase would be $1.4 million. Costs to add permanent classrooms would be greater. Additional restroom and core classroom facilities may also be needed, at additional cost. School impact fees accruing from the project to the SSFUSD (estimated by the district at $1.372 million) may not be insufficient to cover the full cost of serving the students generated by the project (Supplemental Impact PS-1). The Brisbane School District has indicated that the project-related enrollment increase would require additional classroom space as well as physical education and school assembly space, lunch room, playground, restroom, kitchen and multi-purpose room improvements at Brisbane and Lipman Schools. According to the district, the estimated school impact fees accruing to the district (estimated by the district to be $246,000) would cover the cost of providing additional portables but may not be sufficient to fund the other necessary improvements (Supplemental Impact PS-2). However, the school impact fees accruing from the project, as calculated by SSFUSD and BSD, appear to have been underestimated because the estimated size of the residential units used is smaller than the units actually being built. Thus, the fees paid by the project may be sufficient to cover the districts' estimated costs. School impact fees accruing to the JUHSD are expected to be sufficient to cover the cost of providing additional portable classroom facilities. As mitigation for SSFUSD and Brisbane School District impacts (Supplemental Impacts PS-1 and PS-2), the DSEIR (p. 213) recommended requiring the applicant to comply with the school impact fee requirements of the districts. If it is determined by the city that the project fees would not be sufficient to mitigate the school impact to an insignificant level, the DSEIR also recommends that the applicant voluntarily agree to negotiate with each school district and provide additional funds and/or measures to mitigate school impacts. The commentor feels that such "voluntary" mitigation does not provide reasonable assurance that the identified impact would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level and that project approval should be conditioned upon a satisfactory agreement between the SSFUSD and the developer that fully mitigates project school impacts. WP5115481 FSE/RI F-!l.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 73 California Government Code Section 53080 authorizes school districts to levy fees and other requirements on development projects. Section 65995 establishes fee limits and prohibits local agencies from imposing any other fees or requirements on projects. Section 65996 limits the types of mitigation that can be imposed to ensure adequate school facilities and prohibits an agency from denying a project approval under CEQA on the basis of inadequate school facilities. The courts of appeal, however, have limited the restrictions in Sections 65995 and 65996 to apply only to adjudicative actions (e.g., variances, subdivision map approvals, building permits, conditional use permits) and not to legislative decisions such as specific plan adoption or amendment. The proposed project considered in the SEIR consists of two legislative actions: amending the Terrabay Specific Plan and amending the Terrabay Development Agreement. The decisions in the appeals court cases have indicated that general plan policies requiring adequate school facilities should be in place to provide the basis for the additional mitigation. The South San Francisco General Plan Land Use Element includes the following such policy: "No development proposal should be approved if supporting utility systems and public services are inadequate to accommodate the proposed development (Policy 6, p. 3-2). Therefore, the city is not constrained from considering and imposing additional mitigation measures for school impacts. Because the mitigation measures recommended on DSEIR p. 213 may not be sufficient to reduce project school impacts to aless-than-significant level, the SEIR has been revised as follows: The city shall require the applicant, as a provision of the project development agreement, to prepare and submit for city review and approval, a school financing plan that includes: (1) Payment of State-Mandated School Impact Fees. Require the applicant to comply with applicable SSFUSD and Brisbane School District school impact fee requirements. If it is determined by the city that the project fees would not be sufficient to reduce project school impacts to ales-than-significant level, the city may also: (2) Additional Impact Fees. Require that the project applicant/developer pay additional impact fees or some other additional in-kind contribution, or establish other financing mechanisms in consultation with the city and acceptable to the SSFUSD and the Brisbane School District sufficient to cover the cost of providing classroom space and ancillary school facilities needed to serve the increased enrollment generated by the project, to the city's satisfaction. 7.02 The DSEIR (p. 202) incorrectly states that the JUHSD boundaries include all of the project area when, in fact, the JUHSD would serve only Terrabay Commons and Terrabay Point. The SEIR has been corrected. (See errata for DSEIR p. 202 in section III herein.) WP5115481 FSEIRI F-11.548 1-'~? i - i ~~ 5 5~rrt - rt,r~ EMAX February 1, 1996 Environmental MRfgation Exchange ComganY Mr. Steve Solomon Chief Planner City of South San Francisco Plaaming Division P.O. Box 7I 1 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Subject: ItsYie+rr of DnB Snppkmental EIIt 3or the Terrabsy Speeiflc Plan gnd Devdopt~eat Agreement Falte~asion Dear Mr. Solomon: The Environmental Mitigation Exchange Company (IIVI.AX) ba4 rcvievved the I3raft Supplemental EIR for the Terrabay Specific Plan and 1{Jevdopment Agreement Extension pr+cpsred by WagstaffAssociates for the City of South San Francisco in Jam~ary,1996. EMAX does not believe that the document provides an altcmatives evaluation in compliance with California Envirorilmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sec~tioa 151~~(d). Aa evaluation of a `Stange of xasonabk aheraatives" as regirired by C1:.: ~A t.nxidelines has aoi been completed. Viable altcrnativcs that would promote open space uses in Phases II and III of the Specific Plan area and that address significant cnviranmental issues have not barn evaluated. g•~ I Tba current EIR incorporates the discussion of four altenaativcs from tine 1982 IIR and aclonowlodgcs the aced do modify the No Project Ahern86ve due to ruent events, but provides no updated evaluation of the environmental implications of ahematives under a-unznt {1996) ciorcum.~tances. The alternatives evaluated include the following: (I} A Concept Ply Alternative with Phase I and II uses sfmilar to the proposed Specific Plea, but less intensive commercial developAaent in Phase III. fi1A1.S!'OTi1SOiAMODLI.TB 21 SUNNYSIt?E ava+u~ CARTE NADERA, CA 94325 • Phone: 14151927.2000 • Fax: t4'i5} 927-10D8 2-21-1 X95 5 : S~F~r~ - r-.~;r~ Mr. Steve Solomon, Chiei'Planaer City of South San Fratrcisco February I, 1946 Page 2 (2) An alternative dcsigncd to conform with the Sphere of InIluence Study that actually involves more intcasive Iand uses (34°1e more housing units) thaw me proposed Fr'oj~- C3) Aa alternative designed tp conform with the Geae:'al Plea Amendment which involves more development of both residential and commcrcinl ups than the proposed projoct. (4} A modified No Project Alternative that recognizes prior eoaofl of oa-site and off-site improverneuts and involves partial development of Phase I with na initiation of development of Phases II and IlI. The viability of the "modified" I~lo Project Alterua~ve acct mtaas to achieve its implementation. have cot beta di.4cussed. Since the alternative involves no~devdopmeat is Phases II and III, tl~e Final IIR should d~inc mesas to achieve ptnchasc of the parcels for opcu space and to allow tb~cir management as open space uses into perpetuity. The potential fnr use of these portions of the Specific Plan arcs as open space is certainly reiaforccd by findings im the Suppleme~atml Drag EIR. The Supplemental EIR {pp. 196-t9~ discusses the failure of 30 acres ofhabitat resta¢aiion eII'oris as part of Phase I canstructiou. The discussion acknowledges issues of "severe erosion, a sparse cover ~of native plants, and vigorous spread of invasive pest plates is almost all reclamation areas," and the suggested use of herbicides and other measures to Tcctify the situation have cnvironmcatal implications not tutu discussed in the Supplemental EiR_ An cxtrapolatioa of these failures beyond Plisse I to encompass Phases II cad III which are also scheduled for "~storatioa" to eohaaee ezxlaagerzd species habitats, clearly vaasnts a reconsideration of the use of the Phase II sad III areas as development uses. The EIR also coa~ectly identifies the air quality impact of the develapment of all t3rrae phases of the project as a "significaIIt unavoidable adverse innpact" that would require a Statement of Overriding Considerations by the lead agency to allow approval of a development agtroemcas extension» A secnazio of no develop~te~et in Phases II and III of the Specific Plan would dearly help to mitigate this important environmeaial concern. g.oy ThC Supplemental ]IIlt hers also failed LO correctly ldea>sfy the "enviroatneatauy superior alternative" as requirod by CEQA. Ttze authors of flat Supplemental FdR have agreed with flit ~ . 03 1982 EIR that die Concept Plan Altcanativc (of slightly less develcrpm~eat in Phase III} is the GONf. s: ~ 2-2 ~ - i 9~ 5 : 5 ~>r~ Mr. Steve Solomon, Chiof Plamzer ~Y of South Sera Francisco Febnr~y 1, 1996 Page 3 ~1; eavironmentaily superior altirrnativc, without due considuatiaa of either the "modi5ed." No Project Alternative, the eaviram~l findings of shear own docuarcai, or the lessons to be learned through the faulty implementatiam of Phase I. 'Ibe CEQA Guo~dctincs do state thaot, "if the envizveuaoieatally strpaior alternative is the `no pmoject' aitemative, the ElR shall also identify an arvirotuaeatally superior altertietive among the other atternatives." However, tlze'~odified" No Project Alternative is not a No Project Alternative of no developmieat and, in fad, should be coasidcrod as the envrrornaentally superior alternative, es~Cially is light of the history of the impacts to endangered species resulting from i~lemeatatioa to date of P'batse I sad the significant unavoidable adverse impacts identified with respect to development of P43ases II and III of the Specific Plea. ____ $.03 We urge the lead agency Lu furiber explore an alternative that allows continood devdoptneat of Phase I, but removes the Phase II and iIi area &vm development coaside:stion and enstats management of these areas for open space earl habitat uses into perpetuity. Alaag these linos, we $ ~~ believe that this opera space site may have significant potential as as caviraonmeatal mitigatiooa bank As such, we have identified fitadmg sources who may make it possible far our orgaai2ation to finance parchave of this property for mitigation ba~Idng purposes. Sincerely, Famo® President ~uu.sro~nsororycorl.t~nt Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 77 8. Farnum Alston, President, Environmental Mitigation Exchange Company; February 1, 1996 8.01 The comment states that the DSEIR does not evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives, including alternatives with more open space in Phases II and III, and does not evaluate the four 1982 EIR alternatives under current (1996) conditions, as required by CEQA. The Lead Agency has determined that the DSEIR does evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives. The alternatives reevaluated in the DSEIR (pp. 259-261) are the same as those considered in the 1982 EIR, which were determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives at the time the 1982 EIR was certified as adequate. In addition, the DSEIR reevaluates the four 1982 EIR alternatives under current (1996) conditions. The DSEIR alternatives section identifies any substantive changes in conditions since 1982 which may affect the findings of the 1982 EIR regarding the four identified alternatives to the proposed project. The comment also states that feasible alternatives that would promote open space uses in Phases II and III and that would avoid identified significant adverse project impacts were not evaluated. Comments 8.02 and 8.04 identify two alternatives in particular that the commentor feels warrant further evaluation in the SEIR: a "modified no project" alternative and an alternative that allows buildout of Phased, but preserves the Phase II and Phase III portions of the project site as open space. The "modified no project" alternative referred to in the comment is the same as the "no project" alternative evaluated in the DSEIR, which consists of no extension of the specific plan and development agreement and no development other than the limited portion of Phase I that would be completed under the existing entitlements. The comparative impact findings of this "no project" alternative are presented on DSEIR pp. 260-261. An alternative that allows buildout of the remainder of Phase I, but preserves the Phase II and Phase II portions of the project as open space, would avoid the unavoidable significant adverse regional air quality impact (Supplemental Impact AQ-2) and traffic impact on the US 101 freeway mainline (Supplemental Impact T-15J identified for the project, and would mitigate the following mitigable significant impacts identified for the project: ^ compatibility between Phase II homes and existing electrical transmission lines (Supplemental Impact LU-2); ^ year 2010 Phases II and III traffic impacts at: - the Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue (Supplemental Impacts T-3 and T-14), - Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/US 101 northbound on-ramp (Supplemental Impact T-9), WP5115481 FSElRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 78 - Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard (Supplemental Impacts T-8 and T-i~, - Hillside Boulevard/Serramonte Boulevard (Supplemental Impact T-19), - Bayshore Boulevard/US 101 southbound on- and off-ramp/project commercial access intersections (Supplemental Impact T-1 i and T-13), - Dubuque Avenue/US 101 northbound off-ramp/US 101 southbound on-ramp (Supplemental Impact T-i0); - the US 101 southbound off-ramp to Bayshore Boulevard (Supplemental Impact T-16), northbound off-ramp to Dubuque Avenue (Supplemental Impact T-1~; and northbound on-ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard (Supplemental Impact T- 18). ^ Brisbane School District impacts (Supplemental Impact PS-2); • short-term construction impacts (Supplemental Impact AQ-1); and • cultural resources impacts (Supplemental Impacts CR-1, CR-2 and CR-~. Implementation of the "no project" alternative, or of an alternative that allows buildout of the remainder of Phase I but preserves the Phase II and Phase III portions of the project as open space, is not necessary to avoid most of the significant impacts identified in the DSEIR. All of the significant impacts identified in the DSEIR can be mitigated to aless-than-significant level by recommended mitigation measures with two exceptions: project impacts on the US 101 freeway mainline would remain significant and project impacts on regional air quality would remain significant even after implementation of recommended mitigations. In considering whether to approve the project as proposed, the city would be required to either adopt the "no project" alternative or determine the no project alternative to be infeasible and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for unavoidable significant freeway mainline traffic and air quality impacts. 8.02 The comment refers to a "modified no project" alternative, apparently referring to the no project alternative discussed on DSEIR pp. 260-261. The DSEIR indicates that, because a specific plan, development agreement, Phase I precise plan, and various other entitlements have been approved for the project, and substantial on-and off-site improvements have been constructed, the no project alternative now means no extension of the specific plan and development agreement and no development other than the limited portion of Phase I that would be completed under the existing entitlements. The commentor correctly notes that the "no project" alternative, because it would involve no development of Phases II and III, would avoid several of the significant impacts identified in the DSEIR. The DSEIR (p. 261) acknowledges that the "Impacts identified for Phases ll and 111 would be avoided with the no project alternative." However, the "no project" alternative is not necessary to avoid most of the significant WP5115481FSE1:41 F-!1.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 79 impacts identified in the DSEIR. All of the significant impacts identified in the DSEIR can be mitigated to aless-than-significant level by recommended mitigation measures with one exception: project impacts on regional air quality would remain significant even after implementation of recommended mitigation. In considering whether to approve the project as proposed, the city would be required to either adopt the no project alternative or determine the no project alternative to be infeasible and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for unavoidable significant air quality impacts. 8.03 CEOA guidelines stipulate that, "If the environmentally superior alternative is the no project alternative, the EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives." The DSEIR did not evaluate a "modified no project" alternative separate from and in addition to the "no project" alternative; as explained in response to comment 8.01 above, the "modified no project" alternative referred to by the commentor is the no project alternative evaluated in the DSEIR. The DSEIR (p. 260) correctly determined that, of the three alternatives evaluated in the 1982 EIR other than the no project alternative, the Concept Plan Alternative, because it would be less intensive than the other alternatives, would result in the least adverse combination of environmental impacts and would therefore be the "environmentally superior" alternative. 8.04 Please see response to comment 8.01. WP5115481FSEIRI F-Il.548 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCLSCO INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM R F FC£~v£ Fe , o p~ ~ X96 ~~NG DATE: February 7, 1996 ~ ~1/~~ TO: Steve Solomon FROM: Cheryl Mitchell Wade, Stonmwater Program Coordinator SUBJECT: Draft SEIR- Terrabay Project ' I have reviewed the draft SEIR for the Terrabay Project and offer the following comments: a. Page 29 -Summary Rtormwater Rations -Mitigation Measure (3) should be modified to state: Prepare a .. StormWater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for City approval (by the City Engineer and/or Stormwater Coordinator).......to control pollutants. City approval is necessary prior to issuance ~ • O~ of grading or other permits. b. The Applicant is listed as the responsible party for mitigation, and the applicant and owner are synonymous. In the event that the owner sells the property, will the new property owner retain responsibility for mitigating stormwater quality issues? Perhaps the responsible party should be listed as Property Owner for clarification purposes. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Feel free to contact me at ext. 8634 should you have any question or concerns. c: Lida Budko Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 81 9. Cheryl Mitchell Wade, Stormwater Program Coordinator, City of South San Francisco; February 7, 1996 9.01 The comment suggests additional language to clarify the recommended mitigation for Supplemental lmpacf D-3. Pages 29 and 181-182 of the DSEIR have been revised to add the suggested language. (See errata for DSEIR pp. 29, and 181-182 in section III herein.) WP5115481 FSEI R I F-1 /. 54 8 Ca i orv~ia Native P av~t Societ ~ ~ Yerba Buena Chapter 338 Ortega Street, San Francisco, California 94122 14 February 1996 Planning Division RECEIVE D City of South San Francisco P.O. Boz 711 F ~. ~; ~ ~ '?~s South San Francisco, California 94083 PLANNING ]tE: SIIR for Terrabay Specific Plan Dear Sirs/Mmes: Grading for the Teerta~ay development since 1989 destroyed a grassland which was a rich foraging arrea for wildlife. The SEIIt admits to failure of revegetation attempts. This loss is ~p p ~ probably inkarable and permanent. Various references to "permanent" versus "temporary" (i.e. restorable) disturbance are misleading and doubtless inaccurate. The graded portions have not only severe erosion problems but are nurseries for weeds which art spreading into adjacent wild areas: fennel, radish, mustard, bristly oz tongue, pampas grass, etc. Although many of these were prtsent before Terrabay development began, ~~ QZ disturbance has favored their proliferation. If the intent of the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan is to be honored, fees from Tenabay development should finance complete eradication of these noxious weeds so that the native biological community will be compensatorily strengthened. The impacts created by proximity of human habitations to wild arras should be noted Not only is theat likelihood of increased human visitation on adjacent wild lands, the presence of " dwellings and human activity is discouraging and disturbing to wildlife, which in turn affect ~~.~ the composition and performance of the plant community. Pets, especially cats and dogs, can have adverse effects which should be noted in assessments of environmental changes. Although listed butterflies are the raison d'erre of the SBM HCP, we consider that there is perhaps too much emphasis on plants which are of direct benefit to butterflies and insufficient attention given the ecosystem which must support those plants. The mission blue butterfly-supporting lupines tend to be short-lived and transient pioneers, so success in their ~0 04 regeneration may be temporary. We are disturbed that, although the destruction of callippe silverspot is stated to be a minuscule part of its range, there has been zero success in regeneration of its larval food plant, Viola pedunculuta ~ ~O. Q'S From our point of view, the Terabay development has been ecologically severely damaging. Any amends we can make should be done. The SBM HCP, both at the congrtssronal and county level, contained sufficiently loose language from a biological point of view that the !O. D~p plan can violate the spirit of the HCP without vroLiting the letter. The lack of provision for monitoring and evaluation was in our view unfortunate. cerely, ~ ` cob Sigg, President erba Buena Chapter •~ ~_ Dedicated to the preservation o f Call f OYYIIa ftatl'Ue f ~OYa ~ `" i Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 83 10 Jacob Siggs, President, Yerba Buena Chapter, California Native Plant Society; February 14, 1996 10.01 The SEIR uses the terms "permanent disturbance" and "temporary disturbance" as they are used in the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP): Permanent Disturbance--the portion of a development envelope designated for buildings, paving or private landscaping; area permanently lost as habitat (pp. G-5,- 6). Temporary Disturbance--the portion of a development envelope designated for grading at the time of development, but which will become reclaimed habitat after a reclamation program is complete; area temporarily lost as habitat (p. G-9). Of the approximately 80 acres of the site that were graded between 1989 and 1995 to prepare for Phase I development, 50 acres were permanently disturbed and 30 acres were temporarily disturbed and underwent habitat restoration in accordance with the Terrabay Phase 1 Reclamation Plan, approved in 1988. However, the restoration work failed as a result of the shut-down of the project and sale of the property (HCP monitoring of development activities occurs only when a project is active), as well as the unusually cold weather and subsequent drought during this period. A detailed evaluation of the habitat restoration work performed for the applicant by Pacific Open Space in May 1995 is included in Appendix C of the DSEIR. The failure of habitat restoration has been identified in the DSEIR as Supplemental Impact VW-1 (DSEIR p. 197) and mitigation is recommended on DSEIR p. 198. San Mateo County has indicated that the open space areas that are to be dedicated to the county in accordance with the provisions of the HCP (Administrative Parcel 2-04- 02) will not be accepted until the habitat restoration failure is resolved, i.e., remediated, and the 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 are complied with (please see comment 35.01). The applicant has indicated that all of the recommended habitat restoration remediation work, including control of invasive weed species, was completed by Pacific Open Space in October 1995 and most of it has been successful. The applicant has stated that it may also contract with Pacific Open Space to monitor the success of the remediation work and to fertilize and plant infill plantings to ensure successful establishment (please see comment 32.08). The HCP also provides for continual monitoring of biological processes, development and conservation activities by the Plan Operator (Thomas Reid Associates, the SEIR biologist) through the Habitat Manager (San Mateo County) to ensure that the HCP WP5115481FSEIRI F-1!.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 84 conditions with respect to mitigation of development areas are being met and to keep an ongoing record of the progress of implementation (see comment 32.22). 10.02 The SEIR biologist concurs with the comment that exotic invasive pest plants have proliferated in areas disturbed by project grading. As discussed in the response to comment 10.01, the applicant has completed initial remediation of the onsite habitat restoration "failures" in the temporary disturbance areas and intends to continue to monitor these areas to ensure successful establishment of native habitat species. The evaluation of the "success or failure" of restoration efforts is intended to occur over the long term. Therefore, past problems in implementing -the restoration effort have not been "failures," but rather have been part of the process of long-term restoration plan implementation. 10.03 The impact of human habitation next to wild areas was discussed in the 1982 EIR (p. 112) and in the EIR for the HCP. The issue of human habitation next to wild areas is a fundamental project concern addressed in these two previous EIRs, and in the DSEIR, though its references to the HCP. It does not represent a new or changed circumstance that requires reevaluation in the SEIR. The EIR for the HCP notes that, "While development will introduce permanent residents with near access to the open space and while there will be no permanent fencing to keep them out, it is anticipated that there will actually be a net benefit to open space form the Plan because of continued patrolling of all areas of the mountain. Currently, the open space on (the mountain) is already subjected to significant vandalism and vegetation destruction... " The project would provide a buffer against illegal entry from the south slope and make patrolling the area easier. Trails in the county park above the project site are deliberately kept steep. Although not required to mitigate a significant impact, Thomas Reid Associates, the SEIR biologist and the Plan Operator for the HCP, has recommended that project residents be educated about the potential impacts of human habitation next to wild areas through the homeowners associations meetings, pamphlets, newsletters, etc. Information should be provided about exotic invasive pest plants and domestic animals, as well as about the sensitive habitats and endangered species of San Bruno Mountain and the purpose and programs of the HCP. Provisions for such education and community involvement of project residents should be included in the project CC&Rs (i.e., covenants, conditions and restrictions) for Phase II (no residential development is anticipated for Phase III). (The CC&Rs for Phase I have already been adopted.) In this way, the project may foster a group of caring residents who will take pride in protecting the mountain. For example, the education and involvement of the homeowners in the Pointe Pacific development in Daly City has led to a diligent exotic pest plant eradication and lupine cultivation effort. 10.04 The SEIR biologist concurs that in past years, HCP revegetation efforts emphasized reestablishing host plants of the endangered butterfly species, along with a few other WP5115481 FSEIRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 85 native herbaceous plants. However, along with the development of the field of restoration ecology and increasing emphasis in that field on restoration of complete native communities, restoration work on San Bruno Mountain has also come to emphasize plant communities rather than specific species. Also, the setting description and impact and mitigation findings presented in DSEIR Section IV.F, Vegetation and Wildlife, are not limited to a discussion of the endangered butterflies. 10.05 The comment states that, although only a very small area of the Callippe silverspot's habitat would be eliminated, there has been no success in regeneration of its larval food plant. The SEIR biologist concurs that Viola is difficult to establish and that transplantation of Viola has been attempted with limited success. Preservation of the Callippe silverspot must depend on preservation of existing habitat rather than on habitat restoration. 10.06 The HCP does provide for ongoing monitoring of biological processes, development and conservation activities by the Plan Operator (Thomas Reid Associates, the SEIR biologist) through the Habitat Manager (San Mateo County) to ensure that the HCP conditions with respect to mitigation of development areas are being met and to keep an ongoing record of the progress of implementation. However, monitoring of development activities occurs only when a project is active. The Terrabay project was not subject to monitoring during the period when the project was not active, which contributed to the failure of previous habitat restoration. Now that the project is active again, monitoring and evaluation will continue in accordance with the provisions of the HCP. The San Bruno Mountain HCP is probably one of the most actively monitored and evaluated of all HCPs due to a high degree of local involvement and the attention the plan receives as the first HCP ever developed. WP5115481 FSE/ RI F-/1.548 ~~~~ COpIf~OA :.;y ano County ~t $an Franasco NiWe L Brown Jr' Mayor _ Anorew Jeanperre ~~es+oent ~aane tc Brooks 'rce PresOent Mi~nael $ $tNn$ky Roiana A. than :arty Maeda JOHN L. MARTIN O~repor d Aaports San Francisco Internatioi cAhw~r ru nit: P~cttu Airport r~ RECEIVED FEe 2 0 ~s PLANNING February 15, 1996 Mr. Steve Solomon Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Subject: Dear Mr. Solomon: Comments on the DSEIR for the Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Thank you for providing the Airport an opportunity to comment on the Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Draft Supplemental EIR The Mitigation Measure for Supplemental Impact N-3 should be restated so that the applicant retain a qualified acoustical engineer, familiar with aviation noise impacts, to recommend methods of design and construction to comply with the applicable portions of Uniform Building Code, Title 24, Appendix 35, Sound Transmission Controls, and with FAA Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program which states that all single-family dwelling units construction achieve an indoor noise level of 45 dBA, as measured for an aircraft noise event. We appreciate your consideration of our comments Very y s, G// , ohn Costas Administrator Planning an m JC:nI cc: David Carbone, San Mateo Co. ALUC Affairs ~~.~~ SAN FRANCISCO WTc3NATiCNAL AIRPORT • SAN =RANC!SCO CAUFCRNIA 94128 • TELE°HCNE i4t51 76t•0800 • FA,~( ICt51 876-)875 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 87 11. John Costas, Administrator, Planning and Environmental Affairs, San Francisco International Airport; February 15, 1996 11.01 The comment suggests additional language to clarify recommended mitigation for Supplemental Impact N-2. Pages 35 and 228 of the DSEIR have been revised to as suggested. (See errata for DSEIR pp. 35 and 228 in section III herein.) WP5115481 FSEI R l F-11.548 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO R E C E I V E D ~ 2 INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM FEB 1 6 f996 PLANNING February 15, 1996 Lida Budko, Terrabay Project Planner Director, Parks, Recreation & Community Services Terrabay Draft S.E.I.R. Upon review of the Terrabay Draft S.E.I.R., I have the following comments: Page #56; Section d. Common Community, Facilities, Recreation and Open Space Provisions paragraph ,~7 states: The City would operate and maintain the public roadways, Fire Station 5, Hillside Recreation C}nter, the linear park, and all the public landscaping within th~:se public areas (including within public roadway rights-of-way). Page #208; Section c. Parks and Recreation item ~3 states: A linear park along Hillside Boulevard connecting the playing fields at the Hillside Elementary School with Hillside Recreation Center (to be dedicated to and maintained by the City). Each of these statements are in direct contradiction with the approved Development Agreement (Exhibit "I" March 10, 1983; Section c) which states: The Developer or, with the approval of the City, a private property owners association shall maintain the linear park (Item A-3) and all private lands, buildings, landscaping, and improvements in the project area. I strongly prefer that the maintenance responsibility of the linear park remain with the Developer, or private homeowners association, as per the approved Development Agreement. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments. N~e 1 Director, Parks, Recreation and Community Services t2~~ BN/wdc Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 89 12. Barry Nagel, Director, Parks, Recreation and Community Services, City of South San Francisco; February 15, 1996 12.01 Please see response to comment 5.04. WP5115481FSEIRI F-11.548 PS~ENT OF Tyf ,u ~'~.~ ~ 9 7 y ., ~~RCN 1 ~e+ IH RfPLYRFtFA TO: 1-1-96-TA-414 City of South San Francisco Planning Division, Attn: Steve Solomon P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 F E B 2 0 1996 PLANNING February 15, 1996 Subject: Comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension, San Hateo County, California This letter responds to the notice from the City of South San Francisco (City) of the availability for comment of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension, dated January 5, 1996. Development on the site is addressed in the San Bruno Hountain Area Habitat Conservation Plan of November 8, 1982, as amended (HCP), wherein it is referred to as the South Slope Project, within the Southeast Ridge planning area. Part of the property is designated for permanent disturbance (development) and the remainder as "Conserved Habitat," to be transferred to the fee ownership of the County of San Hateo upon issuance of initial grading permits. Based in part on the mitigations required by the HCP and the Agreement with Respect to the San Bruno Hountain Area Habitat Conservation Plan (implementing agreement), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) issued a permit, pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), authorizing incidental take of mission blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides missionensis) and callippe silverspot butterfly (Speyeria callippe callippe) and other species. The two butterflies are federally listed and proposed as endangered species, respectively; and occur on the pro~ect site. Incidental take due to the development was projected at 3.22X of t e mission blue butterfly population on San Bzuno Hountain, and 0.46X of the callippe silverspot butterfly population (HCP, p. VII-165). To remain exempt from the Act's prohibition against take of endangered species, the project proponent must comply with the provisions of the HCP. Specifically, these obligations include (pages VII-166 through VII-168 of the HCP): 1. Dedicate fee ownership of the area identified in the HCP as administrative parcel number 2-04-02 to the County of San Hateo, to provide conserved habitat. Part of this dedication--identified as Phase One Dedication in Figure 2-04 J of the HCP, page VII-177b, dated 10/05/84--should already have been completed. 2. Provide various funds for the implementation of the HCP. 3. Revegetate tempporarily disturbed areas according to a Reclamation Plan approved by the City of South San Francisco. The Supplemental EIR should address whether the project is in compliance with these and other obligations stated in the HCP. If it is not in compliance, it may no longer be covered by the incidental take permit issued by the Service to parties of the implementing agreement. In such case, the Service would United States Department of the Interior RECEIVED ~?j FISH ID WILDLIFE SERVICE logical Services Sacramento Field Offke Zsoo Cocoa=~ way, Room 1;r-isos Sacramento, California 95825 13.0( GONIT, GoHT. Steve Solomon, Planning Division, City of South San Francisco 2 recommend that the City withhold all development approvals, authorizations, t'3.~! and permits until the project proponent has either achieved compliance, if possible, or has obtained a separate incidental take permit from the Service. The objective of the mitigations stipulated in the HCP for the project in '" question was, and continues to be, to minimize abrupt and protracted loss of habitat for the two butterfly species. Due to past failures in revegetation efforts, the current condition of the site is inconsistent with this objective. Between 1989 and 1995, suitable habitat and the endangered butterflies occupying it were taken by the grading of 30 acres designated for •teaporary disturbance' According to the Draft Supplemental EIR, restoration of this disturbed area has failed, and 'butterfly o servation data for the period 1991 to 1995 show little use of the restoration areas' (p. 197). Thus, the revegetation failure represents a prolonged, continuing, and potentially serious impact on the butterfly populations. The Service recommends trat the i,iry aeiay all authorizations and approvals for the project until the project proponent demonstrates that a successful habitat restoration effort is established and that sufficient funding for its future implementation is assured. The Supplemental EIR should state success criteria for the restoration of the areas designated for tomporary disturbance, and address the status, progress, funding, and future plans of the restoration effort. ..... t3.OZ On pa a 184, the Draft Supplemental EIR states that two California state- listed plants, Arctostaphylos pacffica and A. imbricate, and a federally listed endangered plant, Lesstnga germanorum germanorum, potentially occur on (~j,D ?j the site. It should be noted that ArctostaphyZos imbricate has been federally proposed as threatened. The correct federal status of Lessingis germanorum germanorum is Proposed Endangered; we also understand it to be state-listed. It is unclear whether recent site-specific surveys for sensitive plant species have been conducted. Information regarding area surveyed, dates of the plant survey, aethods used for surveying, and a co~lete species list of plants 3.04 found on the site are lacking frot the Draft Supplemental EIR. Site specific survey should be performed for the Terrabay Specific Plan; surveys performed in 1982 for the San Bruno HCP are too old. The Service recommends that complete botanical inventories be made during the pre•construction phase for individual projects. Special attention should be paid to searching for the species listed in Table 23 of the Draft Supplemental EIR, but surveys should not be restricted to those species. To ensure that adequate botanical surveys have been performed, the Service recommends the following minimum guidelines: i. I'f a listed or proposed plant is known to occur within the sane habitat and the area of the project is within the historic range of the special status plant, the botanist(s) performing the survey should: a) check nearby reference sites to observe the phenology of known populations b) make multiple site visits during the year to ensure surveying at the appropriate phenological stage for each plant. Results should be documented by photographs and by a written description of the reference site(s), including information on phenology and microhabitat. The dates of the surveys should be included. 2. The surveys should be floristic. They should not be conducted solely to determine the presence or absence of a single rare plant species. A regional list covering several counties should be examined for plants occurring in the appropriate habitat. The site should be surveyed and a complete species list provided. Plants should be identified to the extent necessary to determine whether they are rare or endangered: e.g., t3•~ GoNT. G0~1fT: Steve Solomon, Planning Division, City of South San Francisco it is not sufficient to identify to genus if there are any rare plants occurring in that genus. 3. Methods used for the plant survey need to be detailed in the Draft Supplemental EIR, including a) how the habitat on the site was inspected; b) the dates the survey was performed; c) what reference sites, if any, were visited; and d) the flowering condition of plants at the time of the survey If any federally proposed or listed plants are found during the surveys the Service recommends avoidance. 3 13.OS Detailed information should also be provided in the Draft Supplemental EIR on any aitigation plan proposed. J The last page or pages of Appendix C of the Draft Supplemental EIR (letter ~~// report from Pacific OpenSpace, Inc. to Sterling Pacific Management Services) t3~v~P appears to be missing. This report is also incorrectly cited as Appendix E on page 198. Thank you for providing the opportunity for the Service to comment on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Iapact Report for the proposed Terrabay Specific Plan and Developwent Agreement Extension, dated January 5, 1996. If you have an uestions about these comments, please contact David Wright, at (916) 979-2739 ext. 408, regarding butterflies, and Kirsten Tarp, at 2916) 979-2120, regarding plants. Sincerely, oel A. Me/elfin Field Supervisor cc: ES, Portland, OR Carl Wilcox, Environmental Services Supervisor, CDFG Roman Gankin, San Mateo County Planning Department 'Thomas Reid Associates Brian Gaffney, Bay Area Land Watch Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 93 13. Joel Medlin, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; February 15, 1996 13.01 The comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the SEIR. The SEIR need not analyze compliance of project Phase I (which has already been approved) with the conditions of approval (i.e., HCP compliance). Such compliance verification is not a CEQA-identified EIR content requirement, but rather is a previous 1982 EIR implementation monitoring issue. The SEIR is not required to analyze non-compliance, except where non-compliance represents a significant new environmental impact under one of the conditions specified in the CEQA Guidelines for preparation of a supplemental EIR. Thomas Reid Associates, who is both SEIR biologist and Plan Operator for the HCP, has confirmed that the project is in compliance with the HCP and that the applicant is current with all HCP funding obligations (please see comment 32.10). The applicant has prepared a grant deed to submit to San Mateo County for the open space areas that are to be dedicated to the county in accordance with the provisions of the HCP (Administrative Parcel 2-04-02). The county has indicated that Administrative Parcel 2-04-02 will be accepted when the habitat restoration failure, erosion and landslide issues involving this parcel are resolved and the 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" are complied with (please see comment 35.01). The restoration of those habitat areas that were "temporarily disturbed" by grading for Phase I of the project was performed by the previous property owner in accordance with the HCP-required Terrabay Phase I Reclamation Plan ("reclamation plan"). However, the restoration work failed as a result of the shut-down of the project and sale of the property, as well as the unusually cold weather and subsequent drought which occurred during this period. A detailed evaluation of the habitat restoration work and recommended remediation measures prepared for the applicant by Pacific Open Space in May 1995 is included in Appendix C of the DSEIR. The failure of habitat restoration has been identified in the DSEIR as Supplemental Impact VW-1 (DSEIR p. 197) and mitigation is recommended on DSEIR p. 198. The applicant has indicated that the recommended remediation work was completed by Pacific Open Space in October 1995 and most of it has been successful. The applicant has indicated that it may also contract with Pacific Open Space to monitor the success of the remediation work and to fertilize and plant infill plantings to ensure successful establishment (please see comment 32.08). The fact that habitat restoration has not yet been completely established does not represent non-compliance with the HCP. The HCP only requires that the applicant implement the approved reclamation plan prior to granting the necessary final project approvals, and that the Plan Operator monitor the results. Continued development of WP5115481FSE/Rl F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 94 the project while the restoration work is being performed will not affect the success of restoration activities. 13.02 Again, the fact that habitat restoration has not yet been completely established does not represent non-compliance with the HCP. The HCP only requires that the applicant implement the approved reclamation plan prior to granting the necessary final project approvals, and that the Plan Operator monitor the results. Continued development of the project while the restoration work is being performed will not affect the success of restoration activities. As explained in the response to comment 13.01, the approved Terrabav Phase I Reclamation Plan has been implemented. As explained in the response to comment 10.06, monitoring of project development activities by the Plan Operator will continue. The success criteria applicable to the habitat restoration effort are those contained in the approved reclamation plan and in the 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 county has indicated that Administrative Parcel 2-04-02 will not be accepted until the habitat restoration failure is resolved and the county's revegetation standards are complied with (please see comment 35.01). The success of the restoration effort is also evaluated as part of ongoing HCP monitoring, evaluation and reporting activities. The evaluation of "success or failure" or restoration efforts is intended to occur over the long term. Therefore, past problems in implementing the restoration effort have not been "failures," but rather have been part of the process of long-term restoration plan implementation. 13.03 The comment notes changes in the listing status of sensitive plant species identified on DSEIR p. 184. The SEIR has been revised to reflect the current listing status of these plant species. (See errata for DSEIR p. 184 in section III herein.) 13.04 Sensitive plant surveys of the project site were not conducted specifically for the SEIR. However, the discussion of sensitive plant species in the DSEIR is based on annual surveys of sensitive plants on San Bruno Mountain and the project site conducted by the Plan Operators--i.e., the SEIR biologists, including Mr. Lion Baumgartner. Mr. Baumgartner, whose work on San Bruno Mountain is funded by the HCP, is an expert on plant identification and particularly on the identification and distribution of the rare plants of San Bruno Mountain. Mr. Baumgartner provided invaluable information on plant distribution for the 1990 book A Flora of the San Bruno Mountains. He has tracked known rare plant locations on the mountain for the past 14 years and has performed a detailed count of Helianthella castenea populations for the HCP 1995 Annual Report. Mr. Baumgartner is familiar with the project site, having conducted rare plant searches, butterfly monitoring studies, and bird surveys there throughout the years. Mr. Baumgartner has searched the project site many times in the past and has WP5115481 FSEIRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 95 not seen any rare plants on or near the site. ,Based on Mr. Baumgartner's experience and knowledge of the mountain, detailed floristic surveys were deemed to be unnecessary for the SEIR. 13.05 Please see response to comment 13.04. 13.06 The Pacific Open Space letter report is five pages long and all of the pages are included in Appendix C. The incorrect reference to Appendix E on DSEIR p. 198 has been corrected. (See errata for DSEIR p. 198 in section III herein.) WP5115481 FSE/RI F-11.548 i~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION ANA HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON, Gov~mer DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION aox s3eao oAKUNO, a 9sas3-0sao ;slq 2ea~su Too ~slq sso-usa February 16,19% Ms. Lida Budko City of South San Francisco Planning Division 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Deaz Ms. Budko: RECEIVED FE B 2 21996 PLANNING SM-101-23.39 SCH#95092027 SM101212 Re: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension -The proposed project is a phased residential and commercial/office development approved in 1982. Phase I, currently under construction, consists of 125 single family units and 168 townhomes and related community facilities and infrastructure. Thank you for including the California State Depaztment of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process. We have reviewed the above referenced document and forwazd the following comments: • On Page 147, Figure 25, Yeaz 2010 Base Case Plus Project Phases I, II and III Mitigations Needs, shows that Bayshore Boulevazd will require extensive widening to accommodate the traffic volume. Is this feasible without any effect on State right- ~~..a of-way and/or on the development on the westerly side of it? Will there be adequate ~1' facility to accommodate afour-lane southbound Route 101 offramp without traffic backing up onto the freeway? Will Oyster Point Boulevazd between Airport Boulevard and Dubuque Avenue be overloaded even though the signals aze coordinated? Budko/SM101212 February 16,1996 Page 2 General Comments: ~~t:bZ • Page 109, Table 10 -The note with two asterisks aze not indicated on this table. • It is stated both on Page 114, last pazagraph and page 129, section f, second paragraph that, "A two percent increase in traffic volume due to project trip generation was selected as the significance criterion for intersections or freeway (x,03 facilities that already exceed unacceptable levels of service (LOS)...." The following statement should be made clear to the San Mateo County Congestion Management Agency (CMA). . • Page 119, Table 15 -Project Trip Distribution-PM Peak Hour, shows local streets (a-, Q~ and freeways. This data should be shown on a plot map which is easier to follow. We apprecsate the opportunity to work with you on this project and wish to continue close correspondence on its development. Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Melinda Pagaduan of my staff at (510) 286- 5544. Sincerely, JOE BROWNS District Director By. ~.~ PHILLIP B~iDAL District Branch Chief IGR/CEQA cc: Chris Belsky, SCH Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 98 14. Phillip Badal, District Branch Chief, California Department of Transportation; February 16, 1996 14.01 The DSEIR recommended two optional mitigation approaches for traffic impacts at the Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection (Supplemental Impacts T-5, T-6, T-8 and T-i2): (1) intersection improvements or (2) a southbound flyover off-ramp from southbound US 101 to eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard. The first mitigation option, which would require extensive widening of Bayshore Boulevard, including triple left turn lanes at Oyster Point Boulevard, has since been eliminated from consideration. The remaining mitigation option, the southbound. flyover off-ramp to eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard, which was approved by Caltrans as part of the Oyster Point interchange reconstruction EIR, has been retained as the only feasible mitigation for these impacts. Using revised Base Case 2010 traffic volume projections (which, even after eliminating trip reductions resulting from the BAAQMD employer-based trip reduction rule in response to comment 32.82, are approximately the same as those presented in the DSEIR), it will now not be possible to provide acceptable year 2010 operation at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue intersection, even with the flyover ramp. In turn, it will also not be possible to provide acceptable traffic flow between this location and the Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection, even after mitigation. The flyover off-ramp represents the maximum practical h sical mitigation. However, as indicated in the revised transportation section which was recirculated for public review on August 30, 1996 and which is included in section III herein, the significant impact identified at this location can be further reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of voluntary transportation demand management measures (TDM). With the southbound flyover off-ramp mitigation, only three lanes will be needed on the new southbound buttonhook off-ramp connection to Bayshore Boulevard. 14.02 The footnote designated by two asterisks does not pertain to Table 10. The footnote has been eliminated in the traffic analysis errata. (See p. 110 of the revised transportation section in section III herein). 14.03 The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, which is the congestion management agency (CMA) responsible for the county's congestion management program, does not provide significance criteria in their most recent (1995) document for roadway segments projected to be operating at unacceptable levels in the future. 14.04 Due to the large number of graphic figures already presented in the DSEIR traffic analysis, percent distribution patterns were listed in a table, an approach which represents common practice. Phase I and total project (Phases I, II and III) AM and PM peak hour volumes are shown distributed on the local roadway network in five separate DSEIR exhibits (Figures 13, 15, 17, 19, and 23). WP5115481 FSE/RI F-11.548 o~.~,rSS/o,.- tti //' / 4 ~~ o ~s / I~tJQ •cr~,J (i fi a ..t. ~ C~ l..J I'~ RECEIVED FEg201~~ p~.ANNING / _ ~~ , ~ov~ J ll..J /~'o-..Gc16~ ~~Ia~r~r~ /A~ill/~~. ~. Q . ,~ oY ~ !/ ~py ~! J O•J ~`,r ...c iJ Gtr ~ ~o. </~ ~Co~l ~r••-r fJiv,~rti ljC/Ct it? l~~ n ~ • ~!L `~ y r°~ ~ / /'~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~w ~ ~ ~~p vs• ~ -~v'c- a.~ I / -~ ~~.c ~ w a-I s ~ s .t ~~e Sh o~~ C/~c~~~N ~ J . Cc~c P~%r Leo C~r^' / C ~vc~l ~.I ~.v~ ~ ~ ~'~ G!/C ~ O Go ~n /GO G Q~~ Q^~ ~c°~r6vyLt ~ f ~T~'~"'" / ~.~.o~w.o d a ~ ~' T E a e tom- c v/eC / , Gnu L/. ~o,.t Q~oC~.K! ~y ..~ /f' ~ ~ / ~n~ia ~~ 1v~ ~s ~c~oay~ o^' a ~ ~ ~ ~ 11 nn ~ c // P,,~ e ,~ ~~ f ~~ ear l~d~ ul~~~~ ~~• i w<G~~ar~~ <~a~etl~le a~~ a ~ ass.~~ eta ,~ . orrGe a !1/^' ~ V /~ ~"'ll Jy 4,/[~ /~2 ~ ,.~~f! S.f/ M-' ~n uV~, /.J s<J y y / O n ~'lG~' ~°~t /`~-/..nt-. ~U lam" ~ , ~o (/ D~ SOCIETY for CAI.,IFORNIA ARCHAEOLOGY ~.13reck Parkman 2560 Maio Road Scbastopoi, CA 95472 rebruary l4, I996 Jerome Irwin San Bravo Mountain Watch • ty oz ixu Ieromc: • --~ Asper our com+ersation today, I want to reiterate what J said concerning the significancx of San Francisco Iiay shelltnonnda, iaclndmg archaeological sites CA-SMA-40, CA-SMA-92, and CA-SMA-234 on the lows slops of San Bnmo Mountain. Whereas there were once several lnmdred shellmounds tinaig San Francisco Kay, the vast majority of these have been destroyed or xwerely impacted by the dovdopmmt of the area. Many of the sites were destroyed without the benafit of archaeological atvostigstinn, thus we arc presented with an incomplete picture oflocal prehistory. However, even impaaed sites uc capable of shedding acw fight on the past. Therefore, it is- imperativethat all of the retnaating shellmouads, regardless of their status, be preserved. In addition to their great scientific significance, these sites coastitnte sacred burial grounds which are afforded legal pmtectioa. As arc both 1rnow, basic human morality mandates respect for the dead. Thus, there are xdentific, legal, and moral reason: for why the shelhnounds should be protected. _ Good luck to you sad the San Aruno Mountain Watch in helping to protect the sheIlmounds in Your community. Siacerdy, 1w Breck Parkman President-Elect 1be CaNrq•for l:dQrnrnlaAi+'hoeole=v /i Ar~flcrreAio dx niearrk wrwkrfin++Ainr, ronren.rioR nnd;rNirp•MN1on o/('o1/Jnrnln'i a~rhwdntud ~mritu. ' INTERNATIONAL INDIAN TREATY COUNCIL - ~ I,JFC~IMAI IINI UFFICfi y~ MINT $TREt$T A10Q 8IJ1 ~FLINCIO~%V. C;A p1103 TEIEPliONt:: (~16) 012.1601 • FJUC (A 1 S) 012.1307 CMW ~ •PE1-CE NFT~ I ITC: Kebeuary 14, 1996 San I3runu Llounlai,tt WATC P.U. Bus An Brisbs-na, (:A 94005 (:/(): .lerome Irwin lt1A Aidnr Avenue dolma, cA 9asa15 Ftaz: 415-467-1838 Dear Ms. Irwin, 't'he lntcrnatluaat lndfaa'ly-raty Couixii (3I7'(:), a llnltcd Nations non-govcrnmcntxf organization wiUtiin i.hc Fcunomlc and Social Council with consultative status - . cai~ury II since 1977, is in support of the San Bruno ~Viuuntain V1~atch prapossl for ~S the preservat'son of San NL~tco 40, 92, and 234 Archaeological tittes on San lirutx, vfuuntain as the :~uclcus of an Ohlone C:ultura! Property Presen~e. '1'hc shell mounds in South San lfratulsco In particular have It,ng been recognized as traditional cultural hcritstgo of Indigcnou4 peoples and of special interest to (y~ Callfurnia and t,atic,nal lndlan nations; and much consternation ciprrssed about the threat to the sacred cites because of encroachlnR "deti~elopment" and the lack of rciiKiuus tolerance to the traditional spiritual practices of lndibrnuus peoples. '1'hix is cumntly a matter of interest at the 1'nilxd Nations who at this moment are also conducting studies on the protection of the cultural and intcllectuat~pr~p~ ~ to lndigenous Peoples of the world. It sums that today lndigenous poop he the only peoples in the way of "progr'sws" Ind "development". It is an hottorsblc position because sacred objrCts, stories and ceremonies a~ pact and prescni xre a complete lu~owledRe system and concepts with QCienUtlc and logical validity. •ilie thrust of the L'.'~. Involvement comes 11'ow the principle that "every pcoAle has the right and Lhe duty to develop fts cttiwre", xde,pted by tt,e General Conference of l'!til";SC'Q in Article I of the l )N1SSC'O Declaration of the Principles of lntcrnational C:uitural anti t'o-c,peratfon (4 Novcmixr 196d~. lndigenous pruples have rrPestedly expressed their willingness to share their useful irnowled~e with all humanity, pru••idcd that their fundamental rights to define and control this knowledge arr protected by the intcrnatiunal community. Ac~vnlinhiy, the 11'1'(' calls on the South Ssa Francisco Planning 4ommission to profile s11 the necessar~~ rffurts of Involvement of indigenous pcoplcs~ in parttwrRhip ~t'ith sll dtxlxicros stTecti~tg their Ilvcs vritlt regard to tho land on and around the shell (rj.~" mounds of 3sn l3runo. The IITC tLrlher requests thcro be s moratorium on any tLrthcr di~ccusshnr.~ rc~srding tbls matter uatll tha indigenous communltlos arr prior informed and have a-n.Yentcd to the penditsg plans. '1'ho i'. N. declared "Intcrnatianal Decade of the World's Indlgeacws PeopW" ap i?e~-~ntnr 9, 1994 xitt- tha purpose of eneouraginR govornmont: and institutlottn to Ix~in to work toRMher "in pariaerahip" with Jndigcnous poopies on all aasttar stfectiag their tivac. With this in mind h is the desire of the ITTt.', repn.~ting over 90 traditions! Indigenous nations in the Americas and Yscitlc lsiands,lhe South San lrraneisco Planning (:ummission con.~ider the protection of the herhaRe of indigenous PeOP~ Tt I nosy be of lbrthcr assistance please csD me at your earliest convenknce. Thank you for your attention. Since~rel~y.' G~~d Antonio (,o es IIT C U.1~. l.tzitioet c.c. ZJnited Natbns C:entcr for Iiun~an Rights-(yeneva uN ~ ~ 4-Paris ~. i r ~ c w M ~i r y . M C ~ Ar' L T = = i Q Y .Z ` v ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ = O. • w ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 G ~` ~ V c u F v ~ cC ii "' ~ n 0 ~ 0 's ~ W 7 7 v 5 c~ ° Lr+ ~ ~ ~ `y `p Z` c ~ 0 • n • ~ ~ v 3 e ~ ~ ~ r a.. d y ~ D ~ • ~ O c ; ~ ~ ~ R ~ i~ .n • Q _ ~ E c t ~ F c a e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r. ~7 ~ h w ~ L a yy p ~c ~' 'J° =_ y C C ~ in .; A A A .: A A A A ~~¢~ ~~ ~~ s O w Y ~~~ - ~ ~~_ o`` •Q 6 ~ Y ~.~~ ~~ ~~ _~~~ ~ L sa. ~#~ ~_ 1 ~~ ~~ j ~~ ~ s. ~~~~ :~ ~. ~ ~ ..~ . e .~~~~~ • Y ~~ •._~ a a • ~~ ~~. ~-~' •~. ~~~ .. { ~'r a ~t ~ ~ ~ ~3 A d c ~' o ~ ~ Y ~ i+ ~ • r_ _s ~ Y a, n ~{ x~ ~~ C T~ V ~ .. E ~ ~ ~ w ... V ` ~ .'~ .aw Op .Q }~ ~ S O i C L' S ~ V ~ y ~ ~ •~ ~• ~ l~<sa ~ e~ _~~~ ~~ ~ ~~'~~ ~ ~ fag ~ '~s£ a' i~ w ~, w x~ ~ 7t 7 ~ O b G •@ ZS ~ Q ~ O ~ ~ i U r '~Gg ~ tl ~ pp ~'~~ 39& r ~~~ r~ '~D~ ale ~ Yt a~~~~" ~cb~ ~` :P ~ 'o [ n. y - T al tq r'.~ ~ .'J' = r- u ° _ - -- - ^J r ny -r la ca ~ a e Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 104 15. Jerome Irwin, 100 Alden Avenue, Colma; February 16, 1996 15.01 Comment acknowledged. Please see response to comment 1.07. 15.02 Comment noted. Please see response to comment 1.07. 15.03 Comment noted. Please see response to comment 1.07. 15.04 The DSEIR was circulated to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC} by the State Clearinghouse. Please see comment letter 17 and the attached distribution form. In addition, when Phase III is to be developed and comes before the city for required precise plan approval in the future, more specific information about the development plan would be submitted and additional, more detailed environmental review, possibly including additional archaeological investigation of site CA-SMa-40 and formulation of more detailed cultural resources mitigation, will be undertaken at that time (see response to comment 1.02). There will also be additional opportunities for involvement of indigenous communities in the process at public hearings and adequate notice and availability of the subsequent environmental documents for review and comment. In the event of discovery or recognition of any Native American human remains, the Native American Heritage Commission would be coordinated with and a descendant identified, and all applicable requirements of the state CEQA guidelines for notification and reinterment would need to be complied with. WP5115481FSEIRI F-!1.548 RECEIVED Planning Department FEB 2 p ~ggo City of South San Francisco P.O.Box 711 PLANNING South San Francisco, CA 94083 February 18, 1996 Dear Planners, I have read the Terraby Draft SEIR, and find the Supplemental Mitigation Needs and remedies sections to be quite inadequate. The reality of the Terrabay situation for the last 4 years was stated fairly well in your report. Restoration efforts there failed miserably: "severe erosion, a sparse cover of native plants, and vigorous spread of invasive pest plants in almost ail reclamation areas." In other words, rare butterfly and plant habitat has been taken away, as called for in the plan, putting endangered species at risk of extinction. But in the same 7 years, plans to protect these species failed. This is the major weakness of this plan: It is easy to destroy habitat and species but it is difficult, under the best conditions, to restore or recreate it. Under normal or adverse conditions, its impossible. The developers got what they wanted, in advance, and then could not hold up their end of the deal to protect the species whose habitat they took. Any new plan should have as a primary condition that the "remedies' be successfully employed first, BEFORE new construction is begun. That is the model used in other sensible, successful human endeavors. For example, before a new medicine is used on a patient, that medicine undergoes thorough testing. Before a new construction technique is used to build a skyscraper, it undergoes testing on a smaller scale. BEFORE ANY MORE HABITAT IS DESTROYED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT, THE MITIGATION MEASURES SHOULD UNDERGO A COMPLETE TEST TO SHOW THAT THEY WORK. So far, ALL INDICATIONS ARE THAT THEY DO NOT. Respectfully, , ~~~-~ Ken McIntire San Mateo County resident I6~1 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 16. Ken McIntire; February 18, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 106 16.01 Please see responses to comments 13.01 and 13.02. WPS 115481 FSEIRI F-11.548 ?7ATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research ~, a00 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 February 20, 1996 LIDA BUDKO CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 400 GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 RECEIVED FEB 2 1 1996 PLANNING Subject: TERRABAY SPECIFIC PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SCH #: 95092027 Dear LIDA BUDKO: 17 The State Clearinghouse has submitted the above named draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to selected state agencies for review. The review period is now closed and the comments from the responding agency(ies) is (are) enclosed. On the enclosed Notice of Completion form you will note that the Clearinghouse has checked the agencies that have commented. Please review the Notice of Completion to ensure that your comment package is complete. If the comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Remember to refer to the project's eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104 of the California Public Resources Code required that: "a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency." Commenting agencies are also required by this section to support their comments with specific documenta*_ion. These comments are forwarded for your use in preparing your final EIR. Should you need more information or clarification, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency(ies). 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 contact Kristen Derscheid at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. _ Sincerely, y • -^J ANTERO A. RIVASPLATA Chief, State Clearinghouse FETE WILSON, Governor ~110~ Enclosures cc: Resources Agency Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 108 17. Antero Rivasplata, Chief, State Clearinghouse, Governor's Office of Planning and Research; February 20, 1996 17.01 Administrative and procedural explanations; no response is necessary. WP5115481FSElRI F-11.548 i8 FATE Of CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON, Governor ,TEL. (570) 206-7255 CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER ~UAL(tY CONTROL BOAt20 ~FAZ: ts7o) zse•73ao SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION eas: (s7o) 2a6-aa z7o7 wESSr~x sT~ET, surt>: soo OAx1AN0. CA 91612 Lida Budko August 10, 1995 City of South San Francisco File No. 2118.04 (PGS) 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Subject: T AY S • C PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SIGN CH # 95092027 ~~.~ -~~ Dear Ms. Budko , J4N 12 rqq We have received the captioned environmental document and offer tfi`d'~ollowing guidance as to issues with ~g ~' which we are concerned. In the absence of specific language describing the project and potential impacts, we aze assuming water quality concerns may not be adequately addressed. General Comments The San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Boazd (Regional Board or RWQCB) is charged with the protection of the Waters of the State of California in the San Francisco Bay Region, including Wetlands and Storm Water Quality. The Regional Boazd is responsible for administering regulations established by the Federal Clean Water Act. Additionally, the California Water Code establishes broad state authority for regulation of water quality. The San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) explains the Regional Boazd's strategy for regulating water quality. The Basin Plan also describes the range of responses available to the Regional Board with regazds to actions and proposed actions which degrade or potentially degrade the beneficial uses of the Waters of the State of California. NPDES Water quality degradation is regulated by the Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program (established by the Clean Water Act), which controls and reduces pollutants to water bodies from point and nonpoint discharges. In California the program is administered by the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The Regional Boazd issues NPDES permits for dischazges to ~S Oz water bodies in the San Francisco Bay Area, including Municipal (azea- or county-wide) Stormwater Dischazge Permits. Projects disturbing more than five acres of land during construction must be covered under the State NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. This can be accomplished by filing a Notice of Intent. The project sponsor must propose and implement control measures that aze consistent with this Siate Construction Storm Water General Permit, and with recommendations and policies of the local agency and the RWQCB. ~ ~ LI (. hen, Gd~'T Projects that include facilities with discharges of Storm Water Associated with Industrial Activity must be covered under the State NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Industrial Activity. This may be accompli_hed by filing a Notice of Intent. The project sponsor must propose control measures that are consistent with this, and with recommendations and policies of the local agency and the RWQCB. In a few cases, the project sponsor may apply for (or the RWQCB may require) issuance of an individual (industry• or facility specific) permit. The RWQCB's Urban Runoff Management Program requires Bay Area municipalities to develop and implement storm water management plans (SWMPs). The SWMPs must include a program for implementing new development and construction site storm water quality controls. The objective of this component is to ensure that appropriate measures to control pollutants from new development are considered during the planning phase, before construction begins; implemented during the construction phase; and maintained after construction throughout the life of the project. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Wetlands Vb'etlands enhance water quality through such natural functions as flood and erosion control, stream bank stabilization, and filtration and purification of contaminants. Wetlands also provide critical habitats for hundreds of species offish, birds. and other wildlife, offer open space, and provide many recreational opportunities. Water quality impacts occur in wetlands from construction of structures in waterways, dredging, filling, and altering drainage to wetlands. The Regional Board must certify that any permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Szction 404 of the Clean Water Act (covering dredging or filling of wetlands) complies with state water quality standards, or waive such certification. Section 401 Water Quality Certification is necessary for all 404 Nationwide permits, reporting and non-reporting, as well as individual permits. All projects must be evaluated for the presence of jurisdictional wetlands. Destruction or impact to wetlands should be avoided. 401 Certification may be denied based on significant adverse impacts to "Waters of the State". The goals of the California Wetlands Conservation Policy include ensuring "no overall net loss and achieving along-term net gain in the qua~itit-~+, yuality, and perztanence of wetlands acreage and values." In the event wetland loss is not unavoidable, mitigation will be preferably in-kind and on-site with no nct destruction of habitat value. Mitigation will preferably be completed prior to, or at least simultaneous to, the filling or other loss of existing wetlands. Successful mitigation projects are complex tasks and difficult to achieve. This issue w111 be strongly considered during agency review of any proposed wetland fill. V4'etland features or ponds created as mitigation for the loss of existing "jurisdictional wetlands" or "waters of the Lnited States" cannot be used as storm water treatment controls. Storm Water Oualit<• Control 18.01 it8.o3 Storm water is the major source of fresh water to creeks and waterways. Storm water quality is affected by a variet~~ of land uses and the pollutants generated by these activities. Development and construction ~~ activities cause both site-specific and cumulative water quality impacts. Water quality degradation may occur during construction due to discharges of sedi*nent, chemicals and wastes to nearby storm drains or creeks. ~i'ater qualit~~ degradation may occur after construction is complete due to discharges of petroleum GDM: ~~ hydrocarbons, oil, grease and metals from vehicles, pesticides and fertilizers from landscaping, and bacteria from peu and people. Runoff may be concentrated and storm water flow increased by newly developed impervious surfaces, which will mobilize and transport pollutanu deposited on these surfaces to storm drain: and creeks. Cumulatively, these discharges will increase pollutant loads in creeks and wetlands within the local watershed, and ultimately in San Francisco Bay. To assist municipalities in the Bay Area in complying with an azea-wide NPDES Municipal Storm Water Permit or to develop a Baseline Urban Runoff Program (if they are not yet a co-permittee with a Municipal Storm Water Permit), the Regional Board distributed the Staff Recommendations for New and Redevelopment Control for Storm Water Programs (Recommendations) in April 1994. The Recommendations describe the Regional Boazd's expectations of municipalities in protecting storm water quality from impacu due to new and redevelopment projects, including establishing policies and requiremenu to apply to development areas and projects; initiating appropriate planning, review, approval and inspection procedures; and using best management practices (BMPs) during construction and for post-construction. Project impacu should be minimized by-developing and implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A SWPPP is required by the State Construction Storm Water General Permit. The SWPPP should be consistent with the terms of the State Construction Storm Water General Permit (if the site is greater than five acres), the Manual of Standards for Erosion & Sedimentation Control Measures by the Association of Bay Area Goventmenu (ABAG), policies and recommendations of the local urban runoff program (city and/or county} and Recommendations of the RWQCB. SWPPPs should also be required for projecu that may have impacu but are not required to obtain an NPDES permit. Preparation of an SWPPP should be a condition of development. Implementation of the SWPPP should be enforced during the construction period via appropriate options such as citations, stop work orders or withholding occupancy permits. . Impacu identified should be avoided and minimized by developing and implementing the following types of controls. The project should minimize impacts from project development by incorporating appropriate site planning concepu. This should be accomplished by designing and proposing site planning options as early in the project planning phases as possible. Appropriate site planning concepu to consider include, but are not limited to the following: - Phase construction to limit areas and periods of impact; - Minimize directly connected impervious azeas; - Preserve natural topography, existing drainage courses and existing vegetation; - Locate construction and structures as far as possible from streams, wetlands, drainage areas, etc.; - Reduce paved area through cluster development, narrower streets, use of porous pavement or retaining natural surfaces; - Minimize use of gutters and curbs which concentrate and direct runoff to impermeable surfaces; - Use existing vegetation and create new vegetated areas to promote infiltration; - Design and layout communities to reduce reliance on cazs; 3 COllf~ ~~ - Include green areas for people to ~~alk their pets, thereby reducing build-up of bacteria, worms, viruses. nutrients, etc. in impermeable areas (or institute ordinances requiring owners to collect pets' excrement); -Incorporate Iow-maintenance landscaping; - Design and lay out streets and storm drain systems to facilitate easy maintenance and cleaning; - Consider need for runoff collection and treatment systems; and -Label storm drains to discourage dumping of pollutants into them. The project should minimize erosion and control sediment during and after construction. This should be done by developing and implementing an erosion control plan, or equivalent plan (which should be included in the S~~•PPP). The plan should specify all control measures which will be anticipated or used including, but not limited to, the following: - Limit access routes and stabilize access points; -Stabilize denuded azeas as soon as possible with seeding, mulching or other effective methods; - Protect adjacent properties with vegetative buffer strips, sediment bamers or other effective methods; - Delineate clearing limits, easements, setbacks, sensitive areas, vegetation and drainage courses by mazkin them in the field; - Stabilize and prevent erosion from temporary conveyance channels and outlets; and - Use sediment controls and filtration to remove sediment from water generated by dewatering or collected on site during construction. For large sites, stotmw•ater settling basins will often be necessary. ('hemical and Waste Ma_naQement The project should minimize impacts from chemicals and wastes used or generated during construction. This should be done by developing and implementing a plan or set of control measures (that should be included in the SWPPP). The plan should specify all control measures which w711 be anticipated or used, including, but not limited to the following: - Designate specific areas of the site, away from streams or storm drain inlets, for storage, preparation and disposal of building materials, chemical products and wastes; - Store stockpiled materials and wastes under a roof or plastic sheeting; - Store containers of paints, chemicals, solvents, and other hazardous materials stored in containers under cover during rainy periods; - Berm azound storage azeas to prevent contact with runoff; - Cover open dumpsters securely with plastic sheeting, a tarp or other cover during rainy periods; - Designate specific areas of the site, away from streams or storm drain inlets, for auto and equipment parking and for routine vehicle and equipment maintenance; - Routinely maintain all vehicles and heavy equipment to avoid leaks; - Perform major maintenance, repair, and vehicle and equipment washing off-site, or in designated and controlled areas on-site; - Collect used motor oil, radiator coolant or other fluids with drip pans or drop cloths; - Store and label spent fluids cazefully prior to recycling or proper disposal; - Sweep up spilled d:}• materials (cement, mortar, fertilizers, etc.) immediately- do not use water to wash them away; ~~ y GoMI: CONE. -Clean up liquid spills on paved or impermeable surfaces using "dry" cleanup methods (e.g., absorbent materials, cat litter, rags) and dispose of cleanup materials properly; - Clean up spills on dirt areas by digging up and properly disposing of the soil; - Keep paint removal wastes, fresh concrete, cement mortars, cleared vegetation, and demolition wastes of gutter, streams and the storm drains by using proper containment and disposal. The project should minimize impacts from other pollutants which may be generated by the project post-construction. These pollutants may include sediment, bacteria, metals, solvents, oil and grease or i pesticides, all of which are typically generated during the life of a residential, commercial or industrial project after construction has ceased. This should be done by developing and implementing a plan or set of control measures (that should be included in the SWPPP). The plan should specify all control measures which will be anticipated or used including, but not limited to the source controls and treatment controls listed in the Recommendations. Appropriate control measures are discussed in the Recommendations, Table 2: Summary of Residential Pcst• ~cns*_~uct+~on BIv:P Selection, Table 3: Summary of Industrial Post- construction BMP Selection, and Table 4: Summary of Commercial Post-construction BMP Selection. Additional sources of information that should be consulted for BMP Selection include The California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks; The Bay Area Preamble to the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks and New Development Recommendations; the BASMAA New Development Subcommittee meetings, minutes and distributed information; and Regional Board Staff. Regional Board Staff are available to provide technical assistance as part of our regulatory oversight of NPDES Municipal Storm Water Permit or the County's and City's Baseline Urban Runoff Programs. Our staff may have additional comments on this project which will be transmitted in a separate letter. If you have any questions, please call me at (510) 286-1309. Sincerely, ~e ~- Blair Allen Associate Water Resources Control Engineer CC:State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 ~. Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 114 18. Blair Allen, Associate Water Resources Control Engineer, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region; August 10, 1995 18.01 The comment states that, in the absence of specific language describing the project and potential impacts, the Regional Water Quality Control Board ("Regional Board") assumes that water quality concern may not be adequately addressed. Although this letter was received by the city on January 12, 1996 during the public review period on the DSEIR, the letter is dated August 10, 1995 and appears to have been written in response to the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study which were circulated for review on August 4, 1995. The purpose of the Initial Study was not to describe project impacts in detail or to recommend mitigation measures, but rather to determine whether any new potential significant impacts that were not considered in the 1982 EIR may occur or whether any aspects of the 1982 EIR otherwise needed to be updated or reevaluated in the SEIR. The DSEIR (Section IV.E, Drainage and Water Quality) adequately reevaluates project water quality impacts and mitigation needs, including the areas of concern noted in the comment letter. 18.02 The comment explains NPDES program requirements. A similar discussion of pertinent NPDES program requirements and of local regulations adopted in accordance with the program and the city's general NPDES permit issued by the Regional Board, is contained in DSEIR Section IV.E, Drainage and Water Quality. That Section (pp. 181-182) also recommends additional, updated mitigation measures (mitigation for Supplemental Impact D-3) to ensure project compliance with these water quality control regulations, which were adopted after the 1982 EIR was certified. In addition, the applicant has indicated that it has complied with these provisions in all grading and other activities related to Phase I of the project, including filing the required Notice of Intent with the Regional Board, receiving coverage for project activities under the city's NPDES permit, and implementing an approved 1995 Winterization Plan {i.e., the NPDES General Permit-required Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). 18.03 The comment explains Regional Board certification authority for wetland fill under Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act. The DSEIR (p. 184) notes that the ravines traversing the portion of the property that is to be dedicated to San Mateo County as permanent open space (i.e., HCP Administrative Parcel 2-04-02) create a variety of microclimates favorable for the growth of plants requiring greater moisture. Riparian vegetation is also found in some of the project catchment basins which were installed at the base of the ravines above the Phase I development area. The SEIR biological consultant has noted that no jurisdictional wetlands exist on the Phases I and II portions of the project site that are to be developed. However, jurisdictional wetlands may exist in areas of the Phase III portion of the project that are to be developed. Therefore, a jurisdictional wetlands delineation and, if warranted, compliance with all procedures of Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act, will be required as part of subsequent detailed environmental review conducted when Phase III is to be developed and eventually comes before the city for required precise plan approval in the future (see explanation of the "program EIR" approach and subsequent project WP5115481 FSE/RI F-II.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 115 activity environmental documentation in paragraph one of response to comment 1.02, as well as Appendix A of this Final SEIR attachment and pp. 2-3 of the DSEIR). The EIR biologist, Thomas Reid Associates, believes that some potential jurisdictional wetlands may exist on the Phase III portion of the Terrabay Project on San Bruno Mountain. They have observed that during wet years water collects in the flat portion of the site near Bayshore Boulevard and it appears to be a "wetland." However, they have not conducted any formal wetland delineations of this area. They suggest that detailed surveys of this area be undertaken as part of future development processing. 18.04 The comment recommends site design and control measures to mitigate stormwater quality impacts during project construction and after construction (during project occupance). The NPDES General Permit-required stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that is included as part of recommended mitigation for Supplemental Impact D-3 would include such measures. An SWPPP has already been approved and implemented for Phase I. The specific measures to be included in the SWPPP for project Phases II and III are to be determined during post-EIR project design finalization phases of development review for those phases. The suggested measures should be considered by the applicant and city for inclusion in the component of the SWPPP for Phase I that addresses water quality impacts of project occupancy, and in similar components of the SWPPPs for Phases II and III. WP5115481 FSE/RI F-11.548 RECEIVED~Q F E B 2 9 1990 INTER-OFFICE iViEi~IORANDUM PLANNING CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DATE: February 28, 1996 TO: Steve Solomon, Chief Planner FROM: Arthur Wong, City Engineer SUBJECT: TERR.ABAY DEVELOPMENT -DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SEIR) The following comments supersede our memorandum of February 16, 1996. W e wish to add the following additional comment to our response regarding the subject document contained in Richard Hannon's memorandum dated January 22, 1996: The mitigation measures discussed in the supplemental EIR include an item (Supplemental Impact T-13) for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Hillside Boulevard and Chestnut Avenue. The installation of this signal is required for Phase 1, in 2010, when the signal is warranted by traffic count monitoring. Its cost is described as being the responsibility of both the City and the applicant. The mitigated negative declaration dated October 26, 1994 for the Heather Heights subdivision requires the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Hillside Boulevard and Chestnut Avenue as a traffic safety mitigation measure for the project. This signal is apparently needed now. The initial study document for the Heather Heights Project, dated July 7, 1994, (which is one of the negative declaration documents) prepared by Wagstaff and Associates states in Impact T-2, Page 45, that the intersection has an "existing unacceptable level of service for this turning movement, and adding to the volume in excess of the signal warrant criteria." This infornnation was developed by the Crane Transportation Group. We therefore conclude that the signal is needed now, not in the year 2010. l9oi Regarding the responsibility to construct the signal: Paragraph l0e of Exhibit "G" to the Terrabay Development agreement dated April 14, 1989 states that it is the Terrabay sponsor's obligation to construct a traffic signal at Chestnut Avenue and Hillside Boulevard. However Exhibit "E, Section II, Subsection (F), Paragraph (6)" states that the developer shall pay a prorated share of the signal costs as determined by the City Council. No mention is made of the City sharing in the cost of the signal. It is our intention that the signal costs will be shared by other developers in the area and not the City. We believe that the draft EIR should be revised in accordance with our comments discussed above. The traffic signal discussion should be consistent with other studies performed by Crane Transportation and the cost sharing should conform to the requirements of the Terrabay Development agreement. _ ~ 4.02 A3: Terra bay: d u I r2.aw~ Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 118 19. Arthur Wonq, City Engineer, City of South San Francisco; February 28, 1996 19.01 No new traffic counts were conducted at the Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue intersection for the DSEIR traffic analysis because the Sister Cities Boulevard connection to Bayshore Boulevard was closed for most of the time period during which the traffic analysis was prepared in 1995, due to the Oyster Point interchange reconstruction. Therefore, the traffic counts that were recorded for this location in the DSEIR were unrealistically low. Previous 1993-94 traffic counts and analysis by Crane Transportation Group for the Heather Heights subdivision Initial Study had indicated that volumes at the Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue intersection were exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levels. However, the city's standard procedure used to determine whether volumes exceed peak hour signalization warrant criteria levels changed just after the Heather Heights analysis (i.e., left turn volumes from the major street to the stop-sign controlled minor street could no longer be added to the minor street approach volumes in the warrant calculations). Heather Heights traffic counts at the Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue intersection were used to help project year 2000 and 2010 volumes at this location for the DSEIR traffic analysis. Projections for year 2000 Base Case (without project) conditions showed that while left turn movements from Chestnut Avenue to Hillside Boulevard would be operating at an unacceptable level, volumes would be approaching, but not quite meeting signalization warrant criteria levels. The addition of Phase I project traffic by the year 2000 would then be expected to increase volumes to borderline warrant conditions (Supplemental Impact T-1, DSEIR p. 118). Subsequent to preparation of the DSEIR traffic analysis, Crane Transportation Group conducted a new count at the Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue intersection on January 9, 1996 as part of the traffic analysis for the Chestnut Estates subdivision. All construction at the Oyster Point interchange had been completed by that time and Sister Cities Boulevard was open and connected to the west side of the interchange. The January 9 traffic count indicated enough of a traffic volume increase so that PM peak hour volumes at Hillside/Chestnut slightly exceeded the revised (more stringent) warrant criteria standards. Therefore, based upon the most recent findings, volumes now exceed peak hour warrant criteria levels at this location and the addition of Terrabay project traffic would increase volumes further above warrant criteria levels. The revised Transportation chapter in the errata section herein (section III) incorporates these changes. 19.02 The DSEIR summary chart (p. 23) incorrectly assigns responsibility for implementation of mitigation recommended for Supplemental Impact T-13 (unacceptable traffic operations at the Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue intersection) to the city and applicant. The commentor notes that, as set for in the Development Agreement, the project sponsor has financial responsibility for implementing this mitigation. The SEIR has been revised to indicate that the applicant has financial responsibility for the preparation of plans, construction, and associated costs for the needed signalization. The SEIR has been clarified to remove from the city any responsibility to fund any WP5115481 FSEI R t F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 119 portion of the cost of mitigation at this intersection. (See errata for DSEIR pages 23 and 144.) WP5115481FSE1Rl F-11.548 RECEIVED FEB 2 ~ f9?6 PLANNING February 29, 1996 To: South San Francisco Planning Commission P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Subject: Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR for the Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Project 1. One of the basic objectives of this project is to "Preserve archaeological site CA- SMa-40..." (p. 51 of the draft SEIR). I am concerned that this objective is jeopardized by the methodology followed in the SEIR, where a detailed report was prepared for Phase I ,but only conceptual planning done for Phases II and III. The shell mound, site CA-SMa-40, is in an area that will not be developed until Phase III. It is close to Bayshore Boulevard and US 101. The draft SEIR notes that traffic impacts of the later phases will require changes to these roadways. These changes may call for construction on the shell mound site itself. This will not be known until detailed ~ planning is done for Phase III. On the face of it, it would appear that this would be taken care of when the detailed EIR is done for Phase III. The City could at that point disapprove plans that threatened the integrity of CA-SMa-40. However, that assumes that the three phases are independent, which they are not. Phase I can be expected to be a financial burden on the City, a burden that will not be relieved until Phase III. Once Phase I is approved, the City will have a strong financial interest in approving the remaining phases, an interest that may well overwhelm its interest in preserving this cultural and historical site. The City should have the information it needs now so that it can know what it is approving with respect to this site. 2. The archeological review (in Section 7) is not complete. The previous owner of Terrabay, in order to fulfill a Caltrans requirement, commissioned what. is the most extensive archaeological survey done of this site to date. This survey should have been reviewed for this SEIR, but was not. J,~ ~ ~~± Josephine Coffey San Bruno Mountain Watch PO Box AO Brisbane, CA 94005 'LO.oI Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 121 20. Josephine Coffey, San Bruno Mountain Watch; February 29, 1996 20.01 Please see response to comment 1.02. 20.02 Please see response to comment 1.03. WP5115481FSEIRI F-11.548 2t RECEIVED MAR - $ 195 70: Steve Solomon, Chief Planner Planning Division City of South San Francisco March 1, 1996 page 1 of 2 PLANNING From: John Lucchesi Re: Draft Supplemental EIR for Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement extension The following is a summary of personal commerrts /concerns 1 questions: 1. page 202, d. Schools (1) Attendance Areas a. Clarify apparently conflicting /overlapping statements that Jefferson High School District ~,•O' boundaries would include "all of the project area', and SSFUSD boundaries are to include Terrabay V1lage, Terrabay Park and Terra Bay Point? 2. page 209, d. Schools a. Clarify how the number of estimated K-12 public school students has increased 30%, Hearty ~. ~Z one third, (286 to 370) as the number of total project units has decreased by approbmatey 3% (745 t0 721) ? b. Are the "enrollment multipliers" expected to change (increase or decrease?) in the future, ~ Z ~ . 03 between Phase One and Phase Two? 3. page 213, d. Schools a. The community should not be expected to bear the impact created by the projected shortfall of 2 ~ ,04 school impact fees to the SSFSD, (needed to mitgate the increase in enrollment caused by the Proj~) 4. page 213, d Schools a. Regarding installation of sidewalks along Bayshore Blvd.....what are the walking distances from 21. DC the Phase II dwelling units to Brisbane Elementary School and Lipman Intermediate School? 7 What is the length of sidewalk expected to be installed along Bayshore Blvd. from the Project Boundary to Brisbane City sidewa&CS? March 1, 1996 page 2 of 2 5. pages 243-247, J. Cultural Resources: a. Will subsequent Phases II and III require additional Supplemental EIR's thereby allowing Z(, ~~ comment and resolution of impacts particular to the detailed evolution of development in those phases? b. Impact summary under Table 36 notes that mitigation measure of 'site burial" will involve "scarification, earth moving and compaction" while also noting that 'disturbance of CA-SMa-40 ~ •07 during project consuuction would be a signficant adverse impact' . Clarify how mitigation measures suggested for SMa-40 are not impact creating ? c. Why are all mitigation measures of Table 36 noted as "should' rather than "shatl'? Does Z(• 'should" suggest that the mitigation measure is not mandatory? d. Are Mitigation Measures noted in Table 36 consistent with particular professional standards o Z~ •- 1 practice in the preservation of Archeological sites of this nature? e. Have any alternative mitigation measures been explored that exclude /omit site SMa-40 from being disturbed at all...i.e. excluded from development and grading areas or made part of a Z~ • ( 0 permanent study /rediscovery area ,sacred preserve? f. Have development diagrams and preliminary grading plans for Phase III been overtayed with accurate location surveys of the archeological sites of concern? According to prel'cninary / ~~• schematic grading plans developed in the specrfic plan, what amounts of cutting and felting is approximately expected to occur at sites SMa-40 and SMa-92 ? Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 124 21. John Lucchesi, PlanninSl Commissioner, City of South San Francisco; March 8, 1996 21.01 Please see response to comment 7.02. 21.02 As explained on DSEIR p. 209, according to the 1982 EIR, the 745-unit project approved in the specific plan would generate an estimated 286 additional K-12 public school students. The revised number of total project units addressed in the DSEIR (721) would generate an estimated 370 additional K-12 students. Both of these estimates are based on current enrollment multipliers provided at the time by the school districts. The revised estimate included in the DSEIR is greater than the estimate in the 1982 EIR because the district enrollment multipliers have changed. 21.03 It is possible that district enrollment multipliers will continue to be periodically revised to account for demographic changes that affect the average number of students per housing unit for different types of housing products (i.e., the "student yield"). The mitigation negotiations called for in the DSEIR errata address Supplemental Impacts PS-1 and PS-2 (see errata for DSEIR p. 213 in section III herein). 21.04 Please see response to comment 7.01. 21.05 Brisbane Elementary School is located approximately 1.9 miles and Lipman Intermediate School is located approximately 2.6 miles from the furthest part of the project within the Brisbane School District. Approximately one mile of sidewalk would be need to be constructed along Bayshore Boulevard for children from Phase II of the project to walk to Brisbane School District schools. Please also see response to comment 2.03. 21.06 Under the Terrabay Specific Plan, a precise plan must be approved before Phases II and III may be built. The SEIR provides a less detailed, program EIR-level assessment for Phases II and III, since the specific development plans will not be known until a precise plan is approved (see first paragraph of response to comment 1.02). When Phases II and III are to be developed and eventually come before the city for required precise plan approval in the future, more specific information would be submitted and additional, more detailed environmental review will be undertaken at that time within the context of the program level evaluation contained in the SEIR. Such subsequent environmental review will be simplified by the broad, program-level assessment contained in the SEIR and, consequently, may or may not require an EIR. The city will make a determination that either: (1) the action is fully covered within the scope of the SEIR and no further environmental review is required, or (2) preparation of a mitigated negative declaration is warranted (under Section 15070 of the CEQA Guidelines), or (3) preparation of a focused EIR limited to more direct, site-specific impacts and any new effects is warranted (under Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines). WP5115481FSE1R1 F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 125 21.07 The mitigation measure recommended in the 1982 EIR for the larger Indian shell mound, site CA-SMa-40, requires capping the site with sterile fill and sealing it under landscaping and/or parking areas. This approach is consistent with Appendix K of the state CEQA Guidelines, which provides for: "'Capping' or covering archeological sites with a layer of soil before building tennis courts, parking lots, or similar facilities. Capping may be used where: a. The soils to be covered will not suffer serious compaction; b. The covering materials are not chemically active; c. The site is one in which the natural processes of deterioration have been effectively arrested; and d. The site has been recorded. As noted in the 1982 EIR, the proposed capping may result in some damage to the resource--e.g., compaction from the weight of construction equipment. The potential for damage to CA-SMa-40 during construction was identified in the DSEIR as Supplemental Impact CR-2. The DSEIR (pp. 246-247) recommends that the city, as a condition of Phase III precise plan approval, require the project applicant to finalize and implement, as necessary, a mitigation plan for potential impacts to site CA-SMa-40. The mitigation plan shall adhere to the mitigation approaches, procedures, limitations and criteria specified in Appendix K of the state CEQA Guidelines. If appropriate, the mitigation plan may recommend a mitigation approach other than the site capping recommended in the 1982 EIR (see response to comment 1.07). If capping is selected as the preferred mitigation approach, then: an engineering fabric shall be placed over the site before fill is placed, the fill shall be at a minimum of one foot deeper than the maximum depth of construction activities above or near the site, and capping shall be supervised by a qualified archaeologist with authority to recommend additional or different measures if necessary. These changes to the site capping proposed in the 1982 EIR were recommended by staff at the State Historic Resource File System Northwest Information Center. If it is determined during subsequent environmental review of the detailed Phase III development plans and preparation of the mitigation plan required by the DSEIR for mitigating Supplemental Impact CR-2, that capping of the sites could not be accomplished without damaging the resources, then alternative mitigation may need to be considered, including avoidance or a detailed excavation plan for mitigating the effect on the resource (see response to comment 1.07). 21.08 The use of the word "should" in Table 36 {p. 245), which summarizes the 1982 EIR cultural resources impact and mitigation findings is not meant to imply that the 1982 EIR mitigations listed in the table are not mandatory. In response to this comment, the SEIR has been revised to instead use the word "shall." (See errata to DSEIR page 245 in section III herein.) WP5115481FSEIRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 126 21.09 The mitigation measures recommended in the 1982 EIR (summarized in DSEIR Table 36 on p. 245) generally conform to the mitigation guidelines contained in Appendix K of the state CEQA Guidelines and represent common practice. 21.10 Because the mitigation measures contained in the certified 1982 EIR were generally considered adequate and consistent with the mitigation guidelines contained in Appendix K of the state CEQA Guidelines, and the SEIR was prepared as a supplement to the 1982 EIR, new mitigation measures or alternatives which would specifically preserve the area of CA-SMa-40 as a permanent study area and/or preserve within which any grading or development is prohibited were not considered in the SEIR. However, recognizing that capping may result in some damage to the resource, mitigation for SEIR Supplemental Impact CR-2 requires that the project applicant finalize and implement, as necessary, a mitigation plan for Phase III that may recommend a mitigation approach other than the site capping recommended in the 1982 EIR. In addition, if capping is selected as the preferred mitigation approach, then mitigation for Supplemental Impact CR-2 also recommends measures recommended by staff at the State Historic Resource File System Northwest Information Center to minimize any potential damage to the resource. Also, if it is determined during subsequent environmental review of the detailed Phase III development plans that capping the site could not be accomplished without damaging the resource, then alternative mitigation may need to be considered, including further consideration of an archaeological preserve on a portion of the site or a detailed excavation plan. Please also see responses to comments 21.07 and 1.07. 21.11 Accurate locations of the archaeological sites were not overlaid with preliminary grading and development plans for Phase III because the latter component, the preliminary grading and specific development plans for Phase III of the project, are not yet available. When such details are formulated during the precise plan and subdivision map steps that will eventually be necessary for Phase III, such an overlay exercise will be an appropriate aspect of associated environmental review. (Please see the first paragraph of the response to comment 1.02 regarding the "program EIR" approach.) The specific plan currently identifies in conceptual terms the general type and density of commercial development contemplated for the project site in 1982, as discussed in Section III of the DSEIR, Project Description. The specific development plans for Phase III (land use and circulation layout, etc.} are not yet known. When Phase III is to be developed and eventually comes before the city for required precise plan approval in the future, more specific information about the development plan would be submitted and additional, more detailed environmental review, including additional archaeological investigation of site CA-SMa-40 and formulation of more detailed cultural resources mitigation, will be undertaken at that time. In addition, the DSEIR-recommended supplemental mitigation for site CA-SMa-40 (SEIR Supplemental Impact CR-2) requires that the project applicant finalize and WP5115481 FSE/ RI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 127 implement, as necessary, a CA-SMa-40 mitigation plan for Phase III that may recommend a mitigation approach other than the site capping recommended in the 1982 EIR (please also see response to comment 1.07). In addition, if capping is selected as the preferred mitigation approach, then mitigation for Supplemental Impact CR-2 also recommends measures recommended by staff at the State Historic Resource File System Northwest Information Center to minimize any potential damage to the resource. (Please also see response to comment 21.07.) The state CEQA Guidelines permit capping only in instances where the soils to be covered will not suffer serious compaction and the site would not otherwise be damaged. If it is determined during subsequent environmental review of the detailed Phase III development plans that capping of the sites could not be accomplished without damaging the resource, then alternative mitigation may need to be considered, including avoidance or a detailed excavation plan for mitigating the effect on the resource. WP51 i5481FSElRI F-11.548 McHuron Geosciences 1670 8th Avenue San Francisco, CA 94122 415 - 564-1364 41 S - 644-4041 fax March 1, 1996 City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Attention: Mr. Arthur Wong, City Engineer RE Review Comments of the Geotechnical portions of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabay Development, South San Francisco Dear Mr. Wong: _~_,,.,- E~'1G~i~,~.,.:: ~ r V ../ L' MAC 0 1 '°=" RECtit~~ RECEIVED MAR - 4 ?~y PLANNING At your request, bicHuron Geosciences reviewed the Draft Supplemental environmental Impact Report for the subject project. My comments were included on the edited teat and faxed to your office on January 2S, 1996. Earlier this week, you called and indicated that you would like my comments included in memo format. This letter is my response to that request. Page 28 Seventh line under Impacts starts with 'continued downslope movement... There is no evidence from over six years of geotechnical monitoring of ~• •~~ Landslide D, that it is moving. It is an old landslide that has a lower factor of safety than is required by the development. Recommend changing the word 'continued' to future. Page 59, forth paragraph, third line. Refers to a 'borrow' operation in portions of Terrabay Commons and Terrabay Point. This is an incorrect statement. Any grading in the Terrabay Commons ~..a1. and Terrabay Point areas were for development of Hillside E~~tension Blvd. and a temporary siltation basin. To my knowledge no borrow area is present. Infact there was excess material generated from the Phase I grading and this excess material was placed in Terrabay Woods .area. 1`~1r. Arthur Wong March 1, 1996 Page 2 Page 60, paragraph 2a, 2nd line. After 'water' remommend adding "underground utilities, street lighting". Page 61, paragraph Ela, second to last line. Change 'dates' to "date" and 'are' to "is". Page 67, paragraph la(2), line 6 "borrow" Same comment as on page 59 above. Page 68, paragraph (5), line 5 'completed to date include the connection', remommend adding "by CaI Water Service" Page 169, paragraph (2), line 6 'expected to occur in the future' recommend adding "on the perimeter slopes of the development". Add to the end of paragraph (2), "Two localized slides also occurred on the split level lot portion of the development. These slides have been repaired and care must be taken to control surface drainage to help minimize the potential of future slope failures2." Add footnote to bottom of the page "ZPSC, 1995." Page 170, paragraph 4a, line 2. 'localized landslides' add "along the perimeter of the development" Page 174, paragraph (4) Add to end of the paragraph. "Debris flows did traverse the site during the January 4/5, 198?, storm." 22.03 McHURON GEOSCIENCES 1`Ir. Arthur Wong March 1, 1996 Page 3 Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact us. Sincerely, McHuron Geosciences Eric . McHuron President McHURON GEOSCIENCES Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 131 22. Eric McHuron, President, McHuron Geosciences; March 1, 1996 22.01 The comment notes that the DSEIR incorrectly identifies "continued" downslope movement at Landslide D and that there is no evidence that Landslide D is moving. Comment noted; p. 28 of the DSEIR has been corrected. (See errata for DSEIR p. 28 in section III herein.) Remediation and repair plans for Area D were reviewed by City and County officials, determined to be adequate, and approved. The City and County issued grading permits authorizing work to proceed on Area D. The work is expected to be completed by October 31, 1996. 22.02 The comment states that the DSEIR incorrectly refers to a "borrow" operation in portions of Terrabay Commons and Terrabay Point, noting that Phase I grading generated a surplus of material. Comment noted; p. 59 of the DSEIR has been corrected. (See errata for DSEIR p. 59 in section III herein.) 22.03 Comments recommend minor wording changes for the SEIR. revised accordingly. (See errata for DSEIR pp. 60, 61, 67, 68, section III herein.) The SEIR has been 169, 170, and 174 in WP5115481 FSE/ RI F-11.548 23 ATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON, Go~emor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BOX 23660 OAKLAND, U 94623-0660 (510) 286-4u4 Too ~sio~ zab-us4 March 6, 1996 Ms. Lida Budko City of South San Francisco Planning Division 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Ms. Budko: .; MAR - ~ 199 ~K: PLANNING SM-101-23.39 SCH#95092027 SM101212 Rev. 1 Re: Draft Supplemental Envirorunental Impact Report for the Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension -The proposed project is a phased residential and commercial/office development approved in 1982. Phase I, currently under construction, consists of 125 single family units and 168 townhomes and related community facilities and infrastructure. Thank you for including the California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process. We have reviewed the above referenced document and forwazd the following comments: C-n Page 147, Figure 25, Yeaz 2010 Base Case Plus Project Phases I, II and III Mitigations Needs, shows that Bayshore Boulevard will require extensive widening to accommodate the traffic volume. Ls this feasible without any effect on State right- ~zj,0( of-way and/or on the development on the westerly side of it? Will there be adequate right-of-way to accommodate afour-lane southbound Route 101 offramp without traffic backing up onto the freeway? Will Oyster Point Boulevard between Airport Boulevard and Dubuque Avenue be overloaded even though the signals are coordinated? Budko/SM101212 March 6,1996 Page 2 General Comments: • Page 109, Table 10 -The footnote with two asterisks is not indicated on this 23,02 table. • Page 119, Table 15 -Project Trip Distribution-PM Peak Hour, shows local streets 23,03 and freeways. This data should be shown on a plot map which is easier to follow. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project and wish to continue close correspondence on its development. Should you have any questions regazding these comments, please contact Melinda Pagaduan of my staff at (510) 286- 5544. Sincerely, JOE BROWNE District Director e~~~~~..~~r PHILLIl' BADAL District Branch Chief IGR/CEQA .\ cc: Chris Belsky, SCH Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 134 23. Phillip Badal, District Branch Chief, California Department of Transportation; March 6, 1996 23.01 Comment letter 23 duplicates comment letter 14, which was received by the city on February 16, 1996. Please refer to identical comment 14.01. 23.02 Please see response to identical comment 14.02. 23.03 Please see response to identical comment 14.03. 23.04 Please see response to identical comment 14.04. WP5145481FSE/RI F-l1.S48 oq~ea car F ~ q J0 ~O • ~uN c., FOSTER CITY City of San Francisco City Planning Department City Hall South San Francisco, CA 94020 ROD & GUN CLUB Z,4' RECEIVED MAR 1 .i ......; PL,4NNING March 13, 1996 Dear Members of the City Planning Commission We the members of the Foster City Rod and Gun Club did not receive notice of the hearing for the massive Tarra Bay Housing and Commerical development proposed for the South Slope and North Face of San Bruno Mountain. At this time we would like to make some brief comments regarding this project and be placed on your mailing list regarding future updates on this vital natural resource. As fishermen, we see in our California Fishing Regulations, that fish caught in the Bay have been found to have higher and higher levels of undesirable chemicals, as specified in the California Department of Fish and Game Regulations. We suggest that this document be included in the SEIR as a supplemental document, with reference to the significant discharge of "silt hardened' water from this project flowing into the Oyster Point esturary system. Discharge into the Osyter Point esturary has caused increasing siltation and pollutants over years, especially since disruptions caused by first development attempts. The San Bruno mountain is an important natural water shed that supplies fresh water to the Bay. This supply has decreased since the losses of wetlands, due to grading at the base of the mountain. Futher development of this area will cause losses of more water shed and wetlands. Z,~.OI ~OKT, P.O. Box 4513 Foster City, CA 94404 Fishing opportunities have greatly deminished, due to much lower population levels of some fish species, i.e. striped bass, halibut, herring, salmon, and other various bottom fish inhabiting the Osyter Point esturary. It is now necessary to travel longer distances to ensure a fresh unspoiled catch. Most of these fish species, many as schools of fish, no longer inhabit the Osyter Point esturary in the numbers they once did. The pollution levels in the Osyter Point esturary have increased over recent years causing the fish population to move to more distant and less desirable locations. This area once was the desired sponing area for many of these fish species. It is our recommendation the City of South San Francisco does not preceed with this development. To return this area to the San Mateo Park system to protect this vital water shed so the surrounding Eco System can return, over time, to the quality necessary to restore the local fishery to a level environmently reminiscant of the past, and benefit our future generations. / / ~ V /~ ` v ~~ n ~ ~/ '- _ ~ I ~ i ~ ~~ ~ J 1.- ~i L GoNT. "l•0~ ~r~ >r; COPIED RECEIVED U.S. senator Barbara Boxer 1990 MAR 19 1700 Montgomery St, Ste 240 San Francisco, CA 94111 PLAN~d',~ ~'~: U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein 1700 Montgomery St, Ste 305 San Francisco, CA 94111 U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo 698 Emerson St Palo Alto, CA 94301 U.S. Rep Tom Lantos 400 S. E1 Camino Real, Rm 820 San Mateo, CA 94402 Stat e Senator Quentin L. Kopp 363 E1 Camino Real, Ste 205 Sout h San Francisco, CA 94080 State Assembly K. Jacqueline Speier 220 S. Spruce Ave, Ste 101 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Mr. Carl Wilcox State Of California Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 47 Yountville, CA 94599 Mr. Bruce Elliott State of California Department of Fish and Game 20 Lower Ragsdate Dr, Suite 100 Monterey, CA 93940 Ms. Fran Recht Fish Habitat Education Program Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission P.O. Box 221 Depoe Bay, Oregon 97341 Ms. Karen Firehock Save Our Streams Program Director Izaak Walton League of America 707 Conservation Lane Gaithersburg, MD 20878-2983 Urban Creeks Council 2634 Grant St Berkeley, CA 94703 Bay Keeper Building A Fort Mason San Francisco, CA 94123-1382 California Stripped Bass Association. P.O. Box 254487 Sacramento, CA 95865 x`03 IIe~~~9 r ~ o v ~ + p ~ ~ r _ 4 p w [p ya Y Y ), j E; ~a g$ ~ s;C ~.YY~~~ ,yQ~O> a: ls~ba 7 ~O~ ~SgtLD-i»,~°Z~ o:r°-~rEe '~~~ aag;3~~ v ~d ~sa~+e`av~~ ?zi~-a 9aE~ ~s;oy` Y;;<°- `• :~~3 y A< Y ~ G ~ Y i. V ° 5 0. O I r~ ° 3 0~ ° G ~ V V p~ 9 ~ Y <~8~~'Ys~.1°~~ SsS'Oz~o9 9 ~£ys'~ ~~` {16668 J Y9y~+5 ~~ 3~=: , '°Y' "=aosr~3.' ass . Eay ~a~~aa i$ o~~~~0°;~3 _s3 ~~3 9~? _~;YS ~3~5~' jai g•°~3 7y Y'_'"3e-`~ °~'ex ~EarB ~o Gog~y~aY°:d ~~$8;,y ~~~~~ ~~ ([~ C G~ _V 7 Y .~ ~' ~ 3 7 j a ~~ Y y r Y C~ ~ __ P~ Y. Y ° ~ L r^~ _~w~Yav Lc3Y v_~w~I ..1 _'+$ 7p 0~ 4L.C~ ~~~ ~ o e~ `2 ~° E e= o` YC~~ c= °• ~ s++Ee a•°!~ - ~ ~-'o • .U . - ~~ f•°~p.i fi2w ~ eYE S'~ o aE 3 ova Z -+n$~v, + + QS~ SECT + Ywv7GVZ~ re eY c ~!~-vv: p Ewe,, ~w~ YS~'`': + • 0~= q ~ YY ga 7_ 1- O ~' p q a~ ~ V Y d• ~ O O a+ ~ O + r .+. + M Y~ Y-~ i O C~ C 1 ~ -~ Y Y r 1 1: ~ O Y+ j + ~• y: G >+~ c y~ 3~~:~4 3 ~ j ~~ ?a +r(~V O ~y 38~ ~ ~ _GC Y b ~ ?103 ~~°~''+o~ E~ep3 ~sEo°97~y7So=-s3gEYOi rrQ3~,~~ a C 0 ° O E w y Y ~y°r Y w~ ~~ f. O v r G pp Y v^ 7 O Y r V ° Y 11 ' _r O = i. _ 9o> {. ~ + 1 a 9g a+~+ O ~ 6 w Y Y? O O. v $ O Z 7 .~''~} p D 9 7 _~ ~ r~~ u' ` 0 0 3 Y+ U '~ ~$ r; G O~ s J w s w~ 3+~ V n 2 r w ` w Q~ p+~ I V '~ ~ •' ~~ S C O O ~ ~"` ~ 9 V. ~ O y~ ° C ;~ O ~ Y r j~ m+ e ° d ~~ v_ w ~~+ ~,~» p~Y `p~~~G7L ~C-, O"Ot+iO V'.~V°wOy pyY`a.0 O D = + O . r y C + ~ _ ° V V y _ w .~ 9 ° ° - _ G . '~ ~r J GG ~ `_ 'f - _ v ~J C~ ` ~ + G O C; a r Y-~ m~~+ l a° E»-~ 3- p Y r~ O~ p~ Y. C r7 ~y~• 5 O C ^I A E G 7+ ~` G w_ ~ .j '~ O .~ G Y ~~ O C R ~j ^ p ~ C' ~$ V+ a iaG7~+pY ,<^ °<^~'.. $So ~^; °u~ 3<c +'~^`~r I °r3orra~3w+E$w y) a'81 3r3r ~ `1°. c' g='way~~c~Ya..•a- w~ES YOw`~c1C G=Y Y + ~33pZ c~ir7~ ~~u ~eww~F4~G9~v• ~__+or ~~'7o~oa$ o'er vrr_Y ~ S <~~vEa oSoEUw ;' C 4 C~ O~ r y y r C~~ Y- V L 3 V r a G' p O O° p^ 9 ~r + Y' O a r G C O __=» Y C ` X11 ~ V C ~- e+ Y .. p V p .7 Y Y ~ y ` r r ^ v C~ y C •• Y E Y p E V_ 3= C - p~ r n w~ 9 ). Y ~ y~ ~ ~ o o ~ a+ y~ c + I. ~+=~ ~ s` 5°-°- r° o c .~.. s o° ~ a °°~~= fi ya;~~:p?~~v~Y °raG.~ e3aa'+ °A~ ^~w~o°O •^ ~ >>.7r?!~ ~/~ .._:~r~e~9E~~i aao ~°Ie°3S_~ •'•rYa'la.var.:o•a_aow ~E~:~cr ~ Suu~~>3=°-pOCac '~'E- r°'E~p o -'u°O~„$E»,'wp mow`°~2w e c'~=~3=y°~.'a ~~3 E-a_a3:_3E w~_=~ c~»r., ~vr o °u~ •v a .C$: Z`2> °`~~~ `3~ Yg~ jEQ ~ °-e .. ~s^ ^= e e cad ~" ~ a C.S 3~,° >`c'+8 -a, 6„- 9 ~.~a.v +3v<1~2+•. 9"S° c-``d ~ ti `e 3v~S'd 3v_3c~rY yr°~_EO o ~+i%i ~i.i:;In°c°i y°a'+~~ t °~3 co w ~u+ va..Y` +_3uw>'Ya._e".~>`~i°.aa~.l ~VS^') Yum '°w$=Y-'-'y va.: aL•1 a• jo~i.a:V- oc~..-II C 7 C Ys `2E++m..~Y+i ~:°9a vim'±SY~ ~ a ° ~ .fit `ggc 7:0''_0c:_ ~v`~wr QES+tst t CYNa= C: 4~• .. :ti%:..' O ~Y +~M YY V3 E.4°° ry rE_~Y ~O ~ 5o a'~ d -.j„~ ' ~ ~ o``~=~Eo`o~a.~ 0 2 ~ ~,gwYfio9 C ~~$ ~ $~~ Y •,y w __eE9a-c'- ~a ~Y a o'~s5 3 °~°°+ wi °~ ~ 'ry~ ,i)./.i~ ~ i$-o.Gt r9prwYi ~=aqi l03 ~ v aE s,~ 3 9 4 ~Y~ V/ ~~/ Ea~yC9?: i~_Y° ~~E.Va7~ '`I~an~> oa ~ a~YV$an~C ~~' ...-•.., `/ r ~ Y ~ + !O + ~ ° ~ Y '~ Y y ~ Y Y d + E ~ Y O _~ Y .a1 A ~ Y 3 . s . V + ~•'~ 7± /t~+ ~ r l >, Y 3< 3~ r+ Y+ ~jP! + C Yy+ Y O_ ~ O pp7 C r O p~ O V n O r Y ~ a iri V ~ .. • ~- ` W .~~ +^Y~mrmCO+Or"YYC•~C~OO04~~~G~~~C}~99goa$3 .:4 ., • t~ - ~w3~~m"YC~°r_J+f..~=~~<~F~,~:91~`p~aOaY Y~'1 ai~+0°~ `~^ O 9 7 + r .~ i °=Y="v+e~~ = .7~°.~•e'g oo°~g~ o+~:`o .°1ISSY3 .~~ c~b'v~Y'-_v: 3° E° 3 E 9 YF-pC ~ C+c ~ ..~- • (/2 ~ Yr$e ae_p a g= =" r,+,~,_ ^=OYO r Ya7p-= • ~ E,,, +9n~F+° E~°.~'~±9m^~Q°c~ GV=o'~' ~"3E,j~"~ .-~:~~~ (/~ ~ ~ 1.Y°~w~GE°+ OCrC I EO%y.~iCra Y Y~4Y~[[V~;aay~jre~~'Jro ,~ .~-,f V ~ ^~GQ~O~QCCYYS.~~`.C~~9V~~=g r`; V2~'~rY€~7 V j:,h~ ~~ ~3 o saF-+oy ~E=:Y~o~~tYg~r~I:~C7o.E`~S~CGY^.la~ii ~ r:•~~'i 0 v~~~~~xp.$Y$r.r9~ac° 97e~;°+~_~g~jt~±$3~5Y9•i %~'f. at f.~+ y/+.o ~ w '~ "~w a~,7ai ~$ I YZv ~~os °~ 4 rr"aYriS a.gg.~ ~- a$r a ~~.µ. ,A 0 °pI .4:v °Ym59'Y~v~o~e3"o<» 3+<Ob ~$a5 'pd9o ES:E~a~ E ~''.a9: tl--~i . T ~. ,' sF cif-~~ 8/~6~~~ ~..~ . , a ' Luc. c3u ~_ ...~.. ~ :.+u3tvs.,,-.i:aa~:Y .P G~.EN MARTIN In the Field Many Ocean Fish at Edge Of Extinction oval anglers stunned at the precipi- L tous decline of salmon and striped bass in the San Francisco Bay/Sacra- mento Delta system will find no com- fort in recent surveys that demonstrate fisheries are in trouble all along the North American coastline. As covered in the New York'15mes a couple of weeks ago, reports by a Massa- chusettsstate task force, the Center for Marine Conservation and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation all reach- ed the same conclusion: fisheries are collapsing in all our offshore waters. Nearly one-third of all species that are significant to commercial or recre- ationalfisheries are in decline. If the situation isn't redressed, many species will become extinct within the next de- cade. While we wring our hands as Cali- fornia'sonce stellar anadromous fisher- iesare reduced to remnant runs, New Englanders are finding that bluefish, Atlantic salmon, haddock, cod and flounder are vanishing. The Disappearing Stock Pollack once swarmed off Alaska; not now. King mackerel and red drum are disappearing from the Gulf of Mexi- co,and the same is true for snapper and grouper off Florida. Bottom fish are depleted through- outthe Hawaiian Island chain, and swordfish have plummeted in numbers and size on both coasts. The reasons behind the declines are not profound: overfishing, pollution, water diversions and development of coastal wetlands. Foreign drift-net fleets are implicat- ed in the eradication of many ocean fish species (such as swordfish and pol- lock),but the reports made it clear that domestic commercial fishermen are by no means blameless. More than any other cause, over- fishing was identified as the prime cul- prit in the decline of most species. ~w~c>>.~c . u.uny ...v.. ,..ter This excessive harvesting could be stopped immediately by measures im- posed by the National Marine Fisheries Service, but the agency is notoriously slow in responding to declining fish stocks. The reports charge that the Ser- vice'seight regional councils are donu- nated by local fishing interests; the commercial fishing lobbies call the tune and the Service dances to it. Until the Service regulates rather than kowtows to commercial fishing groups, we can expect to see continued declines in many crucial stocks. Reducing commercial quotas would have an immediate and salutary effect on many species, though the reports predict that it would take years for many stocks to recover, even if all fish- ingceased immediately. Complete clo- sures are unlikely to happen, in any event -not with the current line of thinking in the Fisheries Service. Destruction of Wetlands Coastal wetland destruction was al- sofingered as aprime culprit in the col- lapse of the stocks. Estuarine wetlands serve as nurseries for a vast array of forage and game-fish species. Dredged estuaries and drained coastal marshes mean greatly diminished offshore stocks -it's that simple. As urbanization continues unabated along the continent's coasts, pollution of near-shore waters increases, poison- ing spawn, fry and mature fish. Our coastal waters are turning into toxic dead zones. The fish that do man- age tosurvive are doomed by excessive ly high commercial quotas fostered by a compromised regulatory agency. It's a tragedy equivalent to the passing of the African elephant; but because fish are harder to assign human cha: acter- istics to, their fate has not met with comparable outrage. Because fish populations respond quickly to reduced pressure and im- provedenvironmental conditions, we could turn our declining stocks around with relative ease. Don't bet on it, though. With Bush stripping protection from millions of acres of wetlands and drift•netters con- tinuing toplunder offshore, pessimism is a reasonable position. Look to our own situation for addi- tional proof. Modest increases in the amount of fresh water going down the Delta could revitalize our salmon and striper runs. Instead, the water irrigat- esthe subsidized cotton crops of wealthy farmers in the San Joaquin Valley. A public resource that belongs to the 30 million people of this state is sacrificed to line the pockeu of the very few -and very po,verful. Vnr/i 1 v3 ~, .,. SPORT FISHING REGULATIONS • l1~ 1 EFFECTIVE MARCH 1 . ~~yY p~r.y norO l.wM) ~~_~~~ = = ~ 1 9 9 1 - ~. , ~~ , ~.. '1 STATE OF CAUfORNIA ~~J7 GEORGE OEUKMEJIAN. GOVERNOR FtSH AND GAME COMMISSION l c~~ . ' ( tr Poe•rt /~ aY~ Pt.•N•Ill `fuoa Gry e ~ ~~j! ° JMn L YWCT. Ill VIC• hw10•nl N•.ppt G••rn =' ~ « E-L YcG•ct•n, i. Y•INb•I. Ckt ~ 1~` ~ '- p•ry•twwl i. 140W^I. aawns.. San ANa•n G T•uctw, M•ms.r. loop ~+~' r Ca `1 '• DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 1116 NnN $b•fl, BDl yaa~pg $aC•nrnaC 9a=~'=~ -ETE ppMTAOEILI. DN Tn HEALTH WARNINGS it Cw+r+O.r..+r I N.rr Sw.nw Y.wrr«.t..wr • •i t..rr •.rA «w Ln ilu.eun D.r OsN. rt[r. _ .e .r .rY.a. w ..•. r+ ~ re.«a..f r..e r - wee y ~...•.r• km w.. •.. s.r Ir.~•. (yra fY •Me..O •r~ •ar«. r r .rd:r w..r w r••nr• ti a.« W+r.I r.rr ...r~ ~ a+... . w • wu.r ~ r ...•.e a•., er. •.. S! s.r.r• a•. D..• +•r. rr.. w r. er ar. r w awr« ..a~r.....«r M.... r~ r•Y.+..•w •p • mr.w r -0 .n.. r w. V ..~•irr. tLr lJl'r` •..^. r.Tw e~«.Y.r! _.. ice. .....+. r..tw..w....+.r. J a.a .. r-++V.p +..• "' ..r . r.l..... rr k..e.r M rrW .M..rr w r...r rr.^..r w r ~ \+a ti... Y. ...r w ..... ~... nr4~ .rw r........ rr..r.. «r ....r.r~..«.. a.a ra s... s...r.a~ r r.... . P.a .•rr. r r f.a r.. r.. Mw.+ M•~ .r• "" lak. ~.sw..al• <S.n 1... CN...• (i.•art . ...r. r ~ •" .tir. a.rr1 r .r v ~..~. . : != r M r. awr« r ....r.e ...ar. rM.. w 0-.r• C ~ err w« wr u.....rr. f•.~ r r 5.a• Nw.r• Y•r Palr V.Ar Parw..l.rlw •wseMrl+«a Ye.ai, am.rr .e• a ...•r, a•. a m ~Sr.IN.. C•Wrw•I ~. a..rr r .r....• ~t ~+ n0 "'~'° ... mw.a r rr w•r Irr wl. a.ranal •r. ~. w ...... r w ... m. rte. ~ +... r rM rrr. rrr .. I I.Nw P.A lJe I lr •.•eM (i..l• ~ Mw r .y..r/ •er•r« ../ pOt •.... + r r.Y r •~a . r• er ..r.r ...... w M.r. c•..n •w^ w ..r..... rr..Y•.. r.. r.r r•nrar~...~~rl r...bM rt ~="~ G•.r.M. .iMe.ati G..•111 . .P...-y. tl.rr r.rr•.r. r..a.d.r w.r~ w...«r....~.~ r.r..r.r .rr .w «.AU•wr w~ r.r .•aa.l. • ti..r...~.w rr. l+a •.. r ... ++w ..r.~ ...r. rw 7 w r em .. .o......rr . r. ~~, r~«w . rr.ae Ca.rr...n ..r...a r./ ..r.....rr.r...r..r..+....w IS.r+r. mrr r..r ar •.. ~. I.w r ..na..~ rr. ..Yl. _ . _... rr.r vn.r r•. .. mrY .r w r..a. M Ir. W' r wr • GM lrr erw ...Y. P~•1. Gr•la D.rn~ a...o. Iw r.• •.!~ ..pa..l. .~.... y.e.« r.r•.M rrw rwe. r w .rY.r IM.aar Nr. r. anw.r~r ryw a.4p. G.....r .w. rr.w Crer N C~i r..n Im W •.•.r. w.r.l. '-`~3..~..r 4 r r~ rnr w w .wr..a 1.r I.r b~w...r.a .r r a Ka rre « r .W. T lake Fe~.w (\•M G.M11 M .rr. rr w r..+'r rw r w.r....~.. r. M r .•..a w ~•~ r reit• w a .d r wYa GO arw r «..r.• rn..w wr ..Yw rr. T • mW ! r M ~~ W. •wt.r• ..~• ~~ .r..r M C«.r .r .. ~. ~ ~ w.1 wr.. O~+• wu ter. S.x.. Sea tinoa.d ad RnWrr C•oar•1 ~ mW r ~. •i • r. r e••a.. Mir M r.rra w.~ Ir.•N. ~ rrt r +w r k.r .. S.w. s.........-+ ~ .. . . ,•. ,,,.,, ,,....,...... r. a••r ! w r r •w. 1l~. • rr r•a.~r ~ F.r r. 3' 1 ~.. r r r /I r .rea 7 w r .rm ,r•...,., w wr t r a w . .. . r...r . r. -•.... r ~ ..~ a.rr...•..+.....r r..... r e.arr tfr.r.~wr4a N.•rw1•...amrr.r+.• :~ ^ .. r.a.w.....~ . r ..+.r.. •r. ~ •. r t C l r.r .r .«...r..we.e.r..rw•. N.r.rCrt.r a..rcrr r. r.rn.l r...........r...r..rrr.. a,.. rr...r rw.•.n rw T ke Hen•••6daw• V •....rr«.....•~+..r lra.~... r....r r...... ar.~...rr. . r I.• er. W Mme. kr•r m Y r r .M.. rr Wr ..e. Y 1 r r r r ti•~^ e•• ••(mlNr r t C:.r tru ILtr C•..•ITI . r C.++. ••w..rr r ~ ~. ..Y ... rr. M ~ ..+.. r r r aw.~r ar. r . •..... r .r-...a.....r a..ra ..... rr r...r.+. r..... ae.... ..a wr...r ~ • mw .. ~. w N.. Or Nr. Ir a..... ....... .•.. 3 r.r, Cal... 0....•... Alwd.. M..•.+. Crd.l+re d.w.x 11ee..v G . ~...mrr•ar... o.+m+•-tl r.r.r.r. •rr . .. W •rwA Rwre1'•• Pwr rw[ ~ GR ~~ r l r r ' ' r .rr +4rart Cwwt 1 k. ~!•wt CL ~d m e ^ 7-~ I ~. r r r JI r.r aa.r ] w r rm r.•.+. •....~ I 7 w I r r J a...+ J.V. k w r r t3' • aw•.« r .r.•r•....rr a...• r u. ~.. mrr u.rr.n aI~ wr a+. rr . . ..r...rmr ... . ..~fi,l~rr rJ1.a.r~..r Y.m41.•wr r. rr ~w 7 •n.+~r 7 .- r..r. _ Ln.w.wu Il:.w IM.+w {awrk D+•d RA {WT ^ + . e. ... r. I • r ~ rs. w w. r r arr.« ..r_.r r..• r •...... 3... o...r.. r ...rm S...r r.~r ..w r w .r a r ~r ... IY.. 7 w r ~. An r.rk .•a laldeled b. Pwl )ebru.n. . ......r-.+..er r •..r.+. ~...: rr~ w-.a a...• a.. am *a..rw r....r.r . rr rr ..ra...• r . ••r r r..~r r• ..~..+ w r Iva i C .er Pba.R•oh 67 l.e ()em.•n. . r.....~ r...+ Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 141 24. Foster City Rod & Gun Club; March 13, 1996 24.01 The federal NPDES program and local regulations adopted in accordance with the program and with the city's general NPDES permit issued by the Regional Board require preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP is included as part of recommended mitigation for Supplemental Impact D-3 (DSEIR Section IV.E, Drainage and Water G~uality, pp. 181-182). The applicant has indicated that it has complied with all applicable provisions of the NPDES program and local regulations and has implemented an approved SWPPP for Phase I grading and construction activities. (Please see response to comment 1.13.) The city has indicated that Phase I grading and construction activities and implementation of the associated SWPPP provisions were monitored by the city and inspected by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and Caltrans and were found to be functioning as planned and in conformance with all NPDES program requirements. The specific measures to be included in the SWPPP for post-construction project occupancy of Phase I and for project Phases II and III are to be determined during post-EIR project design finalization phases of development review for those phases. Potential project-related sediment and pollutant discharge into and siltation of the Oyster Point estuary will be considered by the applicant and city in preparation of the SWPPP for Phase I project occupancy and for project Phases II and III. WP5115481 FSEI R1 F-11.548 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY ,. ~ f ~ ~2 , tER KELEY DAMS IRVINE LOS ANGELES RIVERSIDE SAN OIECO SAN FRANCISCO h O SANTA to RtARA SANTA C. ~y s y ~r sr DEPAR'T'MENT OF ANTHROPOIAGY BERKELEY, CALff-ORNIA 94720.3710 ,C 310/642-3391 FAX: S 10/643357 =-, !. `~ ~~~i ,~ J ~. r .. T, . - T' • ~ T RECEIVED Mayor Jack Drago South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, Council Members CA 94083 MAR 2 0 ~ggg E~CD QEP7. 3/14/96 Dear Mayor Drago and Council Members: This letter concerns the prehistoric shell mound (CA-SMA- 40) that is located in the TerraBay Development Project in South San Francisco. I am writing to express my concern that this important archaeological site be protected if possible. CA-SMA- 40 is a large mound measuring approximately 80 to 90 meters in diameter located on several fingers of the lower slopes of the San Bruno Mountain. While some areas of the mound may have been disturbed in the past, a large portion of the site appears to be intact. The purposes of this letter are twofold. One is to stress that CA-SMA-40 is an important archaeological site of which only a few remain today. The other purpose is to ask that you consider the idea of annexing or setting aside the area of CA- SMA-40 as part of an innovative archaeological preserve in South San Francisco. CA-SMA-40 is one of the few remaining large shell mounds that once dotted the landscape of. the greater San Francisco Bay Area. Of the more than 400 large shell mounds recorded at about the turn of the century, only a handful remain today. Most have been destroyed by the urban expansion of the Bay Area, while others were removed in the 1920s and 1930s as topsoil or for materials used in the construction of tennis courts. The Bay Area shell mounds, such as CA-SMA-40, are very significant sites. The earliest known mounds have been dated to about 4000 years ago. In my opinion, most of these large mounds, appear to have been bayshore locations that were used extensively, over hundreds or thousands of years by local native peoples as long-term repositories for their dead, ceremonial places, and residential places. I think some of these mounds were intentionally constructed as places to bury the dead and to keep villages well above high tides and winter storm surges. Graves Sol ~~. ~~ and ceremonial offerings (California condor burials, caches of charmstones) were place in the basal deposits of the earliest shell mounds, and subsequent residents continued to use the mounds as burial grounds, ceremonial places, and domiciles. It appears that native peoples continued to dwell on top of mounds whose cores encapsulated the sacred remains of their ancestors going back many generations. While I recognize that many economic, political, and environmental concerns are involved in the planning of any major residential and commercial development today, I would greatly appreciate any consideration you can give to preserving CA-SMA- 40 for future generations of Bay Area residents. Another shell mound (CA-SMA-92) may also be located close to CA-SMA-40 in the TerraBay Development Project. It may be possible to preserve a small area of the proposed TerraBay Develpment Project containing CA-SMA-40 (and possibly CA-SMA-92) as open space. The area may be annexed as part of the adjacent San Bruno Mountain State and County Park. This is an exciting plan, since it will link CA- SMA-40 to at least two other shell mounds (CA-SMA-243 and CA- SMA-234) protected in the adjacent parkland, making South San Francisco one of the most significant archaeological preserves of these distinctive Bay Area shell mounds in the country (along with the Coyote Hills Regional Park). I appreciate the complex and varied decisions that are involved in the planning of any major development. However, if a small area of the proposed TerraBay Develpment Project can be annexed or set aside as part of an archaeological preserve, then a truly exciting open space plan can be implemented in full collaboration with the proposed development. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ~~- Kent G. Lightfoot Professor of Anthropology 0~ ;~ Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 144 25. Kent Lightfoot, Professor of Anthropolocly, University of California, Berkeley; March 14, 1996 25.01 Comment had been carefully noted and considered in preparing the response herein to comment 1.07. Please see response to comment 1.07. WP5115481 FSEI R I F-11.548 RE~E~~ED BAY AREA MOUNTAIN WATCH, Inc. MAR z Q 190 P.o. Box e7a P~gNNI1VG Brisbane, Catffomia 94tX?5 a~ s-ass•~ ~ March 18, t 996 T4: THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: DANA DIl1WORTH, Ptesident BAMW RE: DRAFT SEIR TERRA 8AY SPECrFIC PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION - scH: ssas2o27 Thank you for tl~a appbrturtiilr to cxxnrnr~nt on lt~e Draft SEIR for the Terra Bay Complex. 1 commend you on your r+eoognition of new, significant impods since the passage of #~e e~ii4tr i $~ t=its. t v--ili rontmc3nt isrtj~cir arQas of t~rRSSrri io DUtbl'~anizaiion: ~ " -- Wa!erstied tss~ues, Safety Issues, Housing Issues, an¢ GUrt'It~4G#iY~ (fl'1pQGj6. ~Afatarahed kses~ The text iden#fies the grout'xiwater issues in terms of being problematic for slope stability. It felts fo follow the mandate of the State Public Resources Code fo identify and protect ground water as a 'signifiamt public resource.' There is no inc&oation that the quantity or qualify of this resource has been considered or evaluated. As one would suspect: it is considerably more clean than groundwater infiltrated by human-produced to>ons- Once it passes through this highly developed area, it wiQ surely be degraded. Through the proposed mitigation measure of under•ground'sng and dscharging this public resource, you have failed to identify ar,y other mitigation measures which would util'ue this for the bsneftt of witdife, irrigation, or even as a potential drinking water ~,~ resource. In fact, there ore no details of this yef-to-be-detsrmineci•by-the-oppliaorst's- yeotBCF-ntcal~anaultarst subdraln system, ~ an anaiys+s 3S irl~ impacts car euari o . system ccrtrro# be made- therefore this SEIR is inadeQUate. (Additiorwlty your answers to the checklist 3.f, 3.g, and 9.a appear to be unsubstonfiated.) Personal observation of mud flows tram this property onto 8ayshors Ba~tevard and tt-e response of the Public Works department fin merely place orange cones around fhe area, (leaving a mound of mud there for weeks and is stilt there to this present day,) leads one to wonder whether the mitigation monitoring program #s adequdte. BY assigning 'CitylCountylAppricant' responsibility aver these issues makes us wonder whether these parties ors odequ~ate#y responsive #o fhe task: enforcing existing taws prohibiting discharging sa'fs (filly into public waterways. Martilr tiling for a NPDES permit, wtll not ensure 115 compliance. Addit(ondtly there has not been due consid~eratian of faiown offsite intpocts such as the siltation oxurring in the San Francisco Boy just east of this projett_ Without recogrdang nor anaryzing these impacts, there will not be st~fticient mitigation measures. While you may argue that preparing a SWPPP wry! mitigate those issues, the todc of spsoiFic details rer-dars on analysis of impacts #nadequote, espec#Qlly in terms of cumulative irnPac#s. ZG.o2 - You have not identified a reasonable mitigation measure nor given adequate consideration to relocating those units which ore down-slope of the identified and ~• 02 dongsrous western-mvdt londslida crew. Irtiadequcstfl mitigation In this area could be 7 malty ;~ ~ in~5s~s aE life and liability against the City. You hove presented a specious argument regarding meeting regional housing needs, In porficular in the very-low to tour-income housing categories. Just because current figures are not published by ABAG, does not mean that You era in compliance with causing mandates. It is my understarxfing that current state law mandates that ` 7/, /~ GG~~ " t developments of multiple units require developers to indude 20% of new twusing to serve the needs of these partiwlar under-served populations. By not requiring a peroantoge of units (or requiring the portiapotion of funding a housing pool to support vary-law and taut-income hnur;ingj yoi~ have sarCUmll~nted tyre Ftpirtt of the law, Thy omission is unoonsdonable. This document fails to accurately quantify ~d assess the series of a~rnutative impacts, both created by this project as well of those soused by other projects in ttte vianity Only one portion o{ one phase of this project has bean completed. In it,at time there d the alteration ll ~5 ~p owe has been a substantial landsl+de and on fare occasions you have a . a4 habitat boundar~oe. all of which irxxeas~ed impacts to the habitat, none ~~ reduced them. irnpocts from failed revegetation efforts, imposts from iwo fairty major wildfires, irrtpocts from oxalis-laden imported fill, irnpact9 of loss of habitat through multiple prajeds and on-going assaults to the habitat of endangered species such ~ exotic weed proliferation and the blind faith that these proposed mitigation rneasuros wdl work renders this cumulative impede analysis inadequate. In the checklist, constant references to'may need upgrading', or'mifigation measure may need to be re-evaluated and revised to reduce or avoid project•related impacts•.•' n ~ ,~ ! ~ on plans often lacking de#ail, renders this SEfR wfiolly inadequate. These details ' • -such is should be part of this document in order to make 'informed derision-rnaldng ttie purpose of an EIR. Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 147 26. Dana Dillworth, President, Bay Area Mountain Watch, Inc.; March 18, 1996 26.01 The comment suggests that groundwater on the project site be used for "wildlife, irrigation, or even as a potential drinking water resource." As noted on DSEIR p. 174, "groundwater" on the project site is considered to represent shallow seepage of infiltrated surface water rather than a true water table and, as such, represents a storm drainage issue. All necessary municipal storm drainage improvements for Phase I of the project have been completed. The applicant has indicated that the issue of catchment basin and drainage ditch malfunctioning has been addressed (please see response to comment 1.13). The answers to checklist items 3.f and 3.g in the Initial Study presented in Appendix A of the DSEIR appropriately indicate that no changes have occurred in the project or in existing groundwater conditions on the project site that would affect the findings of the 1982 EIR with respect to groundwater and, therefore, project effects on groundwater do not require reevaluation in the SEIR. With respect to checklist item 9.a, the characteristics of the project in regards to use of natural resources are no different than any other conventional subdivision within the city. 26.02 Please see response to comment 24.01. 26.03 As explained on DSEIR p. 170, a remedial repair plan for Landslide D was approved by the city on October 6, 1995. The plan consists of removing the upper 10 to 20 feet of the landslide mass, constructing a shear key at the base of the landslide mass, and providing subdrainage improvements including two additional midslope keyways with subdrainage. Repair of Landslide D has not yet been completed. The city's geotechnical consultant and San Mateo County staff have concurred that the proposed Landslide D repair scheme represents an appropriate fix. (Please see comment 35.02.) 26.04 Project impacts on local and regional housing needs are discussed on DSEIR p. 87. Project housing units would be affordable to "above-moderate-income" households. The project would further city achievement of its fair share of overall and above- moderate-income regional housing needs. The project, however, would have no impact on the city's achievement of its share of regional housing needs for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. There is no state law that requires that 20 percent of the units in multi-family developments be affordable. 26.05 The cumulative effects of the project and surrounding development are adequately discussed where applicable in the findings described in Section IV for each environmental topic--e.g., land use, population and housing, transportation, public services, vegetation and wildlife, noise, and air quality. This point is also explained on DSEIR page 266 under section D, Cumulative Impacts. 26.06 The purpose of the Initial Study (included as Appendix A of the DSEIR), as set forth in the CEQA Guidelines, was not to describe project impacts in detail or to recommend WP5115481 FSEIRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 148 mitigation measures, but rather to conceptually determine whether any new potential significant impacts that were not considered in the 1982 EIR may occur or whether any aspects of the 1982 EIR otherwise needed to be updated or reevaluated in the SEIR. The impact and mitigation findings identified in the Initial Study checklist as needing to be "updated" or "reevaluated" are the areas that were then re-examined in detail in the course of preparing the DSEIR. WP5115481 FSE/RI F-11.548 RECElVED2'I March 18, 1996 To the Ficnning Cer; ~rnissicn o; t're Ci`y of Sc:;th San ~rcnc~co fsianning i~ivision Post Office Sox 71 ] South Scr; r=ranc>rco, CcGfomic 94083 dear Steve Solomon, Secretary to the Fanning Commission, MAR 1 0 1996 PLANNING I would like to address to the Planning Commission a most serievs matter which concerns tt~e respect and integr;ty ci' the entire Boy Area. to me city of South San --..-._.'-~rana ,upon re sau easy s ape o-~6n-amino 1~itoi,~n ain~e^' s ~e re~nat'~s ofi an anc'sent Ohlone Indan community. This area has been esfiimcrted to be at ieCSt four fio ifve thousand years old and was inhabited by the t,irebure {la~mburit cr Sip1'rchiquin trbe v~ ,tit present t;~. A{~, ccccrding to BrecK Parkman, President of the Society for Cor~ornia Archaeoio9Y- and Rosemary Ccmbra, the Tribal Choawom^n cf the iv~uwekma Ohlone, several shelfmcurds in this area contain the remains or' ten #bouSCnd people. Tt~e Terrat:;ay p<ojec;l is rives ;jev~l~pirtc,~ It~e southecst slope of San Bruno rno~~ntcin. This new constn:ction is encroaching upon this site and'her'e are plans to build where an ancient shPltmound is Icx:ated. f request to the Planning Commission to recommend and introduce fegis;ation which would mandate an immediu-~te mora#orium regarding cii new construction in the Terrabvy protect development. i hope the remcining p-operty might be purchased by public /stale yrc.~riis, cane: i:,~et#~raps private cone; tions, s~ #hat the area could 'oe designated ini~ cs trust ter local Ohtone firibal groups. ,Ot Thank you for permiifing this oppohunity oi` public review. _ . ___ very truly yours, tv1r. P ~ Matiocic 300 Second Avenue ~~ Son ~r'CSCO, Cai;forr~ia 94118 (4 i 5) 22?-42x0 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 150 27. Perrv Matlock, 300 Second Avenue #5: March 18, 1996 27.01 Please see response to comment 1.07. WP5115481 FSEIRI F-11.548 RECEIVED ~~ ~, S.S. ~. (~~~.~..: ~ w. r.,: ss~~nl MAC? 1 9 1996 (~ PLANN\ING ~ ~ ~~ °~ Z O -~- ', ~ ~~-~-• m ~ S ~- L ~ woo u. ~SFI~ ~- \ ~, ^ ~- „~" ^'~~n.. S S ~~ ~ a`S wa w o`er w e~ 3 ~ ~c~-~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~`~~~ s -~~-( p` ` Y'tr L G C~ v..-• 'Z~~ S ~T^" ~ GZ-~~-p~~ aY.' ~ I 0..~,~r-e_ `.(a',~ O ~ UY' o~~.sJ~.-.cti c!, ""~\""` S S . ~ 1~: ~ ~C~e :., G ;~-.,-~ '~-~-= ` c_~S .: o~-•/' c` .~.-'~~ ~. S b•.-o ~ cry- \ cL `- 2 • ',= w v-5 ~` w v~-.~c ~T \--~- ~. o~`v' e, e. c oq. r~..J ~ ..,J w c.3y ~ o ,tip„ ^. 1til d~-~ ~' a~nS. ~ ~ ~ ~T `1 w-~/ S ~~-.-C\ ~ ~~- S i S ~-C ~ CQ v-~ ~~~ ~ ~~ r ~" w N v ~ u.,- S o-w w Q-.i c 'C" ~ -Q..r .ice \ ` ~l ' ~ ~ ~t S .,~i Q. ` S v.v ~ d. C~-~ ~T Vim- S 5 ~ v l vJ o~S k Z$At ~ -~- ~,, ~ Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 152 28. Robert Carrillo, P.O. Box 678, Daly City; March 18, 1996 28.01 Please see response to comment 1.02. 28.02 Please see response to comment 1.03. WP5115481FSElRI F-11.548 RECEIVEDzO~ MAR 1 9 1996 PLANNING March 18, 1996 Office d the Historic Preservation Commission (415) 877990 FAX 87232 City of South San Francisco Planning Commission 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 SUBJECT: Terrabay Project, Draft EIR Dear Chairman and Commissioners: At the regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on February 8, 1996, our Commission discussed the draft EIR for the Terrabay Specific Plan public noticed on January 5, 1995. Of specific concern to our commission are the potentially significant Native American archaeological sites within the area of proposed development under Phase III, particularly the site 29.0 designated SMa 40. This site, which is generally undisturbed, consists of a significant shellmound or midden which may have been occupied for several thousand years. Our preference is that this site be left in an undisturbed state. The no project alternative is the only proposed alternative that currently meets this objective. Our Commission is aware that a site investigation report for SMa 40 was prepared several years ago for W. W. Dean and Associates and never presented as part of the public record since that firm decided not to proceed with further development. We are concerned that the information in this report could provide valuable information in regards to whether the mitigation proposed in the Draft 2,02 ElR is sufficient to protect this important cultural resource. We recommend that no decision on site disturbance in the are of site SMa 40 or adequacy of mitigation measures be made until all available information is completed and reviewed. We request that the current owner (SunChase G. A. California, Inc.) provide this report and authorize its release to the South San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission for further study. Attached are key points of the San Bruno Mountain Watch Proposal for the Preservation of San Mateo 40, 92 & 234 Archaeological Sites on San Bruno Mountain as the Nucleus of an Ohlone Cultural Property Preserve issued by Jerome Irwin, dated February 7th, 1996, for your review. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our comments and look forward to being kept informed as additional information becomes available. in ly, // / G jG~~ Francisco Veira Chair FV:mr cc: SSFHPC Members a00 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 9~t080 San Bruno Mountain Watch Proposal For - The Preservation of San Mateo 40, 92 & 23,4 Archaeological Sites On San Bruno Mountain as the Nucleus of an Ohlone Cultural Property Preserve - Key Points: #1 The Ohlone (Yelamu-Amuctuc) archaeological sites found within the TerraBay Development Project in South San Francisco -said to be the oldest, most important cultural resources on the Mountain, as well as being the largest existant undisturbed native hamlet and burial ground site in San Mateo County - represent a resource of unprecedented cultural, spiritual and economic value. Were they to become an Ohlone Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) or Archaeological Preserve, it could become as culturally important and financially lucrative an asset for the City of South San Francisco and San Mateo County Park and Recreation systems as the Coyote Hills Interpretation Center within the East Bay Regional Park System. #2 The real preservation of the hamlet-burial mounds in question, rather than capping them which would most certainly destroy forever their traditional cultural property value and probably their archeological value as well, would be a sterling way for both the City of South San Francisco and San Mateo County to prominently and formally honor the native peoples of our area -past, present and future. #3 These mounds are said to be anywhere from two to six feet in depth. According to John Rick, Associate Professor of Anthropology at Stanford University, this would almost certainly suggest that many people are buried somewhere within them. Rosemary Cambra, Director of the Ohlone Family Consulting Services in San Jose, says the sparse amount of shell material in relation to the size of the mounds suggests that the sites are indeed _ . "funerary mounds rather than shell mounds, with perhaps up to 10,000 bodies buried." Thus the case could easily be made that these mounds constitute a traditional cultural property of special spirituaUreligious interest to native peoples which richly lend themselves to the further renewal of such interests. #4 In decades and centuries to come, what the children of tomorrow will need for guidance and solace, in a world we of this living time cannot even begin to imagine, is not yet one more freeway `scissors' offramp, hotel or commerical building, which no doubt will quickly become obsolete and torn down in due course, but this sacred site left exactly as it has been for 5,000 years or more. This may be the most profound legacy of hope we can possibly leave them. Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 155 29. Francisco Vieira, Chair, Historic Preservation Commission, City of South San Francisco; March 18, 1996 29.01 Comment noted. If capping is selected as the preferred mitigation approach, while it would not permit convenient access to the shell mounds during the life of the Terrabay project, it would "preserve" the sites (i.e., beneath a cover of landscaping and/or parking areas) for potential access, study and use in the future. Please also see response to comment 1.07. 29.02 Please see response to comment 1.03. WP5115481 FSE/Rl F-11.548 Match 19,1996 CITY OF BRISBANE 50 PARK LANE Brisbane. California 94005 (41 b) 467-1515 FAX (415) 467.4989 Planning Commission City cf South Satz Francisco Punning Division PO Box 711 South San Francisco, Ca_ 94Q83 Attention: Steve Solomon RE~~IV~~ ~ MAR ~ o ~~as P.ANNtNG Sus.fECT: coM~ENTS oN THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL t=NY1R0~ME~AL IMPACT SENT TIME TEXTEl15i0N BAY SPECIFIC PLAN. AND DEVELOPMENT ACRE Ladies and Gentlemen, wank yoc: far the opportunity tv comment on the Draft Supplemental Ernrironmental Impact Repose wilStconcentbrayte ourcommerlt o ~pm~jQent Agrsem~nt time extenstor issues, traf`iC and circulation and the preservation of cultural (archeological) resources. 1 TEA ~ qNp } L Ti N in reviewing the i]SEIn, we found the analysis based on outdated assumptbns as wall as snv9ronmental conditions, and, therefore, believe that, itt order for this Supplemeniai EeRd sham eftle is t~ completionfoC heAOyster Point must be obtained and anayz lrrterchange and updates the assumptions that Were used for the analysis from the East of 101 Area Plan. a to oint I h n e As we are alt aware, this project Was under and has now bean completed. constr~:ction while the DSEIR was being drafted, Under CI=QA 'ri is simply not appropriate to hypothesiis about a physical situation that is here before us, in reality, on the ground. The abt4itmeasuredrand should be X01 Interchange to accommodate sxisting traffr can now be before this DSEIR' without Terrauay affich hegnterchlan9e ~ congested to point out that, even especially in the AfVt peak hours. Southbound traffic on Bayshcre Boulevard regularly backs up tQ the scissors ramps. Post-It" brand `ax ;ransmitial memo 7671 •6!P'~' of G' iFo:+ %si~? -- 5-~D ~ 4 ~''a , b Hook R~rr~S ~-g~•Ysh rp va~~n page 2 of the Development Agreement propcsad for time extens~oti, there is a sequence of improvements. The aayshors 3cu4evar s H uence .*asuited tram ear~lieucst di2sfwhich fou dahat, Point intarcncnge• Thtis aq for the with the removal cf the Linden on-ramp, the Hook Ramps were necessary function of the lnterchan6e• ~y were an integral part of the protect. There is no explanation it the. EiR as to wny `n base of ttmie Te abay development Trg and proposed to be insta{led at a late la DSEtR also rormulates a ~`~ rDe elo merttot Agrteemet~t~abl'shels the Tsrrabay improvements. However, i p develcper as the party completely responsible for the Nookramp instaitation, _ • ~ reed to share the cost. 30.02 unless another entRy r-as ag Ass m ins of ~ ~ r P At the time we commented on this utted in underestimating the amount of taffic 9 lnerated from ~p, 03 ~mptions that res tfie protect area. in order for this DSE1R to be adequate, t e eea ion copunts, an should be corrected. 1 u~ctllion based on BtAAQMD Rule p3 which is no longer in assumed rrdersh~p red force,. and an excessive presumption of transit ridership. ~ r~t_TURAL~E~ The DSEiR identities several archaeological resourncaes h~~midde~n the a large shell-mound located in the dBVelopmert area; development area; and smaNer midden deposit, near, but just outside of the development etas. CEQA includes a preferVat n a resource onhaodevelop m rn s ee, tmy face, undisturbed. Rather than exca 9 experience has been ~~ the resource ed uw h several fe t of soildand fittall~y to serve as a marker, then .,arefully cov caPP~ by compacted soil or fzardscape so that, at a later time, the resource could be recovered intact. sad to be In this OSEIR, the large shall mound in the prof we as ~ ro nvinced 3o p1' *capped"with plastic matting and a shaltaw soil covertng. that this apprcacri would not ~ It is oumcont noon that the p oposal v,rou d not constitute avoidance of xnpact. serve as mitigation. under CEQA. For the smaller shell ~u~r the smaialte~ m•dden depos t, tt sDoEc ear ?~p.p5 Mitigation is left to later studies. FO whether the ?Xtt3t+S(V8 cOnSif ~ for ad~vgrse~mpact~Tr~e DSE1R m st address resource'nrould have potentia mesa Issues adequaiery before it can be certified. ,Q~p We ur.•der5and that these mounds and midderts are potentially eligible for fisting on the National flegistsr Q} Historic Pizsns Gv enghe nac!equacygof he cultural and spiritual importance ,o many GOIVt; GoKt. mitigation measures identified in t 0e ldD aEoW~ hem oe ema;n and to ~aa ~'c ~D.D~p attematives to preservation that w by persons who find inspiration and solace in their existence. Si L,E G. ICE ©N anninfl: Directo TuTHL r. u. Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 159 30. Carole Nelson, Planning Director, City of Brisbane; March 19, 1996 30.01 Existing traffic flow and observed AM congestion through the recently completed Oyster Point interchange has been continually influenced during the course of this SEIR preparation program by the part-time closure of the Grand Avenue interchange northbound US 101 on-ramp. All traffic from industrial areas east and residential areas west of the freeway that formerly used the Grand Avenue northbound on-ramp has had to travel through the Oyster Point interchange to access northbound US 101. The extra signal time allocated for these (temporarily) added vehicles tends to produce longer than normal back-ups during the AM commute in the peak travel direction from US 101 into employment areas east of the freeway. It should also be noted that Caltrans has done minimal signal coordination during the AM peak between the Oyster Point Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue intersections, and has done no signal coordination between the Oyster Point/Dubuque and Dubuque/US 101 northbound off-ramp/southbound on-ramp intersections. As indicated by Table 16 in DSEIR section IV.C (Transportation), these intersections are projected to experience acceptable operation in the year 2000 in both the AM and PM peak hours with or without the project. Therefore, existing operation with a fully operational Grand Avenue interchange (and resulting lower traffic volumes at the Oyster Point interchange) is expected to be acceptable. 30.02 With respect to the timing of construction of the US 101 hook ramps at Bayshore Boulevard, project compliance with the provisions of the development agreement is a separate, non-CEQA issue. With respect to the fair-share apportionment of the cost of mitigation recommended in the DSEIR, the hook ramps were treated in the DSEIR not as mitigation, but rather as part of the project--i.e., they would be constructed as part of project Phase III and the applicant/developer would be responsible for the full cost of these improvements, Nowhere does the DSEIR discuss fair-share cost apportionment for the hook ramps. 30.03 Comment acknowledged. In response, the SEIR year 2010 traffic analysis for the Oyster Point interchange area has been revised to eliminate the assumed BAAQMD employer-based trip reduction rule (i.e., to eliminate the associated 20 percent reduction assumption) in trip generation from employment areas east of US 101. Gross trip generation projections from areas east of US 101 have now been reduced by 6 percent to reflect a modest level of transit ridership (the rate of ridership currently experienced by existing local employers). The DSEIR traffic analysis did not assume any additional BAAQMD-related trip generation reductions for 2000 Base Case (without project) or 2000 Base Case plus project Phase I analyses. Also, the DSEIR did not assume any additional BAAQMD or transit trip generation reductions for any component of the Terrabay development. The EIR authors and EIR transportation engineer have also determined that, in addition to the TSM-based vehicular trip reductions already reflected in the analysis (6 percent), an additional vehicular trip reduction of at least 12 percent can be anticipated in the project/East-of-101 vicinity WP5115481 FSE/R I F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 160 due to continued voluntary TSM activity in the future (see revised Transportation chapter pp. 146-147). The revised traffic analysis was recirculated fora 45-day public review and comment period on August 30, 1996 and is included in the revisions to the DSEIR Transportation section (errata) presented in Section III of this Final SEIR. 30.04 Please see response to comment 21.07. 30.05 The DSEIR (Supplemental Impact CR-3 on p. 246) notes that site CA-SMa-92 is within the area of proposed Terrabay development and, because the site has a high potential for containing Native American resources, and because subsurface testing for the 1982 EIR was limited, there is a substantial probability of encountering and disturbing cultural resources at this site. The DSEIR-recommended mitigation (p. 247) consists of further testing prior to Phase III grading to accurately determine the subsurface boundaries and significance of the site. If it is determined that the site meets the criteria for an "important archaeological resource" specified in Appendix K of the state CEQA Guidelines, then mitigations, including proper recording and possibly a sampling program followed by capping in a manner similar to that proposed in the 1982 EIR for CA-SMa-40, may be recommended. The recommended mitigation is adequate and appropriate under CEQA (the SEIR provides a program EIR-level assessment for Phase III, and the identified mitigation would avoid damaging effects to the archaeological resource), given that the specific development plans for Phase III are not known at this time. When Phase III is to be developed and eventually comes before the city for required precise plan approval in the future, the additional studies can be undertaken and more detailed mitigation developed at that time. 30.06 Recognizing that capping may result in some damage to the resource, mitigation for SEIR Supplemental Impact CR-2 requires that the project applicant finalize and implement, as necessary, a mitigation plan for Phase III that may recommend a mitigation approach other than the site capping recommended in the 1982 EIR (see response to comment 1.07). In addition, if capping is selected as the preferred mitigation approach, then mitigation for Supplemental Impact CR-2 also recommends measures recommended by staff at the State Historic Resource File System Northwest Information Center to minimize any potential damage to the resource. Also, the state CEQA Guidelines permits capping only in instances where the soils to be covered will not suffer serious compaction and the site would not otherwise be damaged. If it is determined during subsequent environmental review of the detailed Phase III development plans that capping the site could not be accomplished without damaging the resource, then alternative mitigation may need to be considered, including avoidance in a manner which would preserve access or a detailed excavation plan. WP5115481 FSE/ R I F-ll. 548 RECEIVED MAR 1 9 1996 San Brrano ilfountain Watch PLANNIfvG ~~ _ o~-=~- ~c etxr of the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco l~larch 19, 1996 Dear Steve, We are writing you because of our hope that the pre-historic Indian shellmound, threatened by Phase III of the Terrabay development, can be preserved. This shellmound is the largest remaining archeological site left in the Bay area. Every other large Indian midden has already been cover over by asphault and buildings. SB~IW would like to see this site left undeveloped, with the possible exception of a re-created Indian village andl or a set of educational kiosks containing information about the mountain's flora and fauna, weather and geology, etc. The Sipliskin buried their dead on the mountain. There are 1,000's of members of this pre-historic race of people laid to rest on this part of the mountain. There may came a time in the future when archeologists would like to excavate part of this site and do a careful study of the remains. Covering the site a~th blacktop asphault will overheat the ground and destroy the delicate remains. ' People who hike up the shellmound have the same view the Sipliskin Indians had, not so long ago. After the European settlers began appearing, the Indians used that hillside as a refuge and as a lookout. The shellmound is on the border of SSF and Brisbane, and also borders the county park. If this large shellmound becomes part of the park than it will be only part of the park that is within SSF, by the bay. The shellmound site is botanically very rich Franciscan habitat. It contains many of the food plants for the rare and endangered butterflies; as well as habitat for foxes, raccoons, possums, skunks and birds. There is also the £ood plant oCthe mountain's former inhabitants, the Sipliski.n's chief source of carbohydrates, the acorn of Bucket' a trees which grow near the creeks. 31 3t.ol San Bruno \~lountain V6'atch requests that this letter be part of the official Draft Supplemental F.IR. Thanks, David Schooley, SB1~1~V Chair ~6 ~ -6631 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 162 31. David Schooley, Chair, San Bruno Mountain Watch; March 19, 1996 31.01 Please see responses to comments 1.02 and 1.07. With respect to the question of site overheating due to the introduction of pavement, covering such a site with a blacktop (asphalt) parking area represents a typical mitigation approach for such shellmound sites (De Silva Island Condominium Project in Marin County, Dominican College expansion in San Rafael, etc.). Any subsurface heat buildup due to the increased heat absorbency of asphalt has not been an issue. The difference in temperature within a few inches of the surface would not be expected to have a significant effect on the subject shellmound, but should nevertheless be one consideration in implementing SEIR-recommended mitigations for Supplemental Impacts CR-2 (CA-SMa-40), and CR- 4 (CA-SMa-92). WP5115481 FSEI R I F- 11.548 32- B1~KER & iV1~KE~,'ZIE EUA'OPf Asu ATTORNEYS AT LAW MIODIE EAST PAClfIC TWO EMBARCADERO CENTER ALN.TT MADRID eANCROK AHSTERO.N MILAN sa~INC TWENTY-FOURTH FLOOR OARCCLONA MOSCOW HANOI BCRLM PARtS HO CHI MILAN CITY CALIFORNIA 94111-3909 SAN FRANCISCO anussELS PR.cuc HoNc.oNC . BUOAPE ST RITAON MANILA TELEPHONE !4151 576-3000 c.wo RoAtc NCLBOVRNE fRANKfURT si PCTER58URG SINGAPORE CABLE ABOGADO • TELEX 278588 GCNC~A sTOC%HOI.N s.DNET ~,[„ WARSAW rcK.c FACSIMILE 1415) 576-3099 LONDON ZURICH March 20, 1996 Steve Solomon Planning Division City of South San Francisco P. O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 NORTH AND SOUTH AAIERJU 9000T• NC %ICO CtTT SANfwANC15C0 BRASILIA MIAMI SAO PAULO lUCNOS AIRCS MONT[RRC1 TIJI: ANA CARKjLS P^W TOR% TORONTO GNIC AGO LO ALTO V.LLNCIA DALLAS RIO OE JANCIRO WASHINGTON. D.C JuARE2 SAN DIEGO ~ECE1VEb MAR 2 Q 196 ~~~~ Re: Comments on Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for Terrabay Specific Plan and Development. Agreement Extension Dated January 5, 1996. Dear Mr. Solomon: On behalf of the project applicant, SunChase G.A. California, Inc. ("SunChase"), we submit this comments letter on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension dated January 5, 1996 ("DSEIR"). The DSEIR supplements information and analyses for the Terrabay Project contained in the EIR for the Project which was certified in 1982 ("original EIR"). This letter addresses issues raised in the DSEIR and in comments letters submitted on the DSEIR on or before March 15, 1996. The issues are organized into the areas discussed in the DSEIR: (1) Soils and Geology; (2) Drainage and Water Quality; (3) Vegetation and Wildlife; (4) Public Services; (5) Noise; (6) Cultural Resources; and (7) Project Alternatives. The issues relating to each of these areas is discussed below. A. Soils and Geoloay 1. Issues Raised in DSEIR The DSEIR recommends certain mitigation measures relating to the following: small localized, post-grading Z.~~ landslides; erosional gullies; "goat farm" cut-slopes; and 3 landslide D. SunChase has taken various steps to address these issues. Some of this work was completed prior to the release of 5153484. W 1 ~~' BASER ~ i~'I~KE~7ZIE Steve Solomon Planning Division March 20, 1996 Page 2 the DSEIR but was not reflected in the DSEIR. The completed work has been performed consistent with the proposed mitigation measures in the DSEIR. Erosion and slumps on several slopes were repaired by grading and hydroseeding. In several instances, the sites were over-excavated to create benches and those benches were drained and the soil was reinstalled to ninety percent (90~) compaction. In certain cases, drains were built within the repair site to mitigate possible areas of perched water. All restored slopes were treated with hydroseeding and hydromulch to effect restoration as rapid as possible. The actual seed mix was devised by Pacific OpenSpace (the company that conducted the HCP restoration work - see Sections C.1 and C.2.b below) with the concurrence of Thomas Reid and Associates (the Plan Operator under the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan). All work was performed under the supervision of SunChase's soils engineer (PSC) and the City's soils engineer (Eric McHurron). Work was completed last fall prior to the rainy season. The success of this work will be evaluated at the end of the rainy season around the beginning of May. With regard to landslide D, a remediation plan has been accepted by the City and SunChase is actively proceeding with the proposed repair. SunChase has engaged a technical and soils engineer to supervise both the civil work plan development and the on-site repair work. SunChase has met with several civil engineers to develop a proposal for a work plan which will be used to perform the repairs. SunChase expects to commence work on the repair of landslide D on or about May 1, 1996 with completion of the repairs expected on or before September 1, 1996. 2. Issues .Raised in Comments Letters ~~t: .32.01 Richard Harmon, City Senior Engineering Technician, raises the following issue relating to soils and geology: the funding mechanism for on-going maintenance for ?jZ••OZ soils and geotechnical programs and facilities. SunChase is in the process of completing the Master Homeowners Association Agreement ("Master Agreement") for the Project. Under the Master Agreement, repair and maintenance of geotechnical facilities and soils programs will be funded by homeowner association 5153484. W 2 ~„ 1. BAKER & iV1~AE\ ZIE Steve Solomon Planning Division March 20, 1996 Page 3 GOMf. assessments and/or dues. Another option would be creating a geologic hazard abatement district ("GRAD") for funding this maintenance work. The decision as to which funding mechanism '32.02. works best for both the homeowners and the City and which mechanism to implement will be made in the future. However, in any event, an appropriate on-going funding mechanism to address these issues will be implemented. B. Drainage and Water Ouality 1. Issues Raised in DSEIR The DSEIR contains mitigations measures which require that, in performing any activities at the Project site, SunChase: comply with all applicable provisions of the City's "Stormwater Management and Discharge Control" program; file a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board ("SWRCB") in order to be covered by the City's General NPDES Permit; and prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. ("SWPPP") and a Stormwater Management Plan ("SWMP") describing measures and practices that will be undertaken to control stormwater and related pollutants. SunChase has complied with these provisions in all actions it has taken for grading and other activities relating to the Project. All approvals required by the City were obtained for the grading activities for Phase I. The 1995 Winterization Plan complied with all applicable regulations and was approved by the City on August 15, 1995. The entire Plan has been completed and the finished work approved by the City. SunChase filed a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB for project activities and the activities are covered by the City:s NPDES Permit. The permit was issued on August 15, 1995. As it has in the past, SunChase will continue to comply with all regulations relating to 32.03 stormwater and pollution control applicable to the Project in they future. ...,,j The DSEIR also discusses issues relating to catch basins and drainage ditches on the Project site. (DSEIR, p. 177.) SunChase has addressed these issues. SunChase removed all the silt and '1~Z,.~4 debris from the v-ditches, catch basins, and storm drains in the Project area in the Fall of 1995 prior to the rainy season. SunChase also removed and replaced all of the rock and fabric GOIVT 5153684.VP 3 $AgER & iV1~E~ ZIE Steve Solomon Planning Division March 20, 1996 Page 4 GGt~t: filters in each basin to ensure a dependable flow. The brush alongside the v-ditches was cut. During the recent heavy rains, representatives of SunChase observed the operation of the v- ditches, catch basins and storm drains and they were performing very well. The rains, and particularly the violent storms of ~,~ December, 1995, have resulted in some silt and debris in the v- ditches. SunChase will continue to monitor and clean these ditches on an as-needed basis. As discussed in Section A.2. above, SunChase is in the process of implementing an on-going funding and responsibility program to maintain erosion and sedimentation control facilities after the Project is built. 2. Issues Raised in Comments Letters Cheryl Mitchell Wade, City Storm Water Program Coordinator, submitted a comments letter stating that the City Engineer and/or Stormwater Coordinator should be designated as the City official with authority to approve the SWPPP and that the SWPPP must be approved prior to the issuance of grading or other permits. We recommend that these changes be made to the proposed mitigation measure in the Final SEIR. As stated above in subsection 1, SunChase has complied with these provisions in performing project activities in the past. Ms. Mitchell Wade also suggested that the DSEIR should refer to the owner rather than the applicant to make it clear that the provisions apply to any subsequent owners of the property. This change is not necessary because, under the terms of the Specific Plan and Development Agreement, subsequent owners are bound by the terms and conditions of those agreements and the mitigation measures i the DSEIR which are adopted as part of the approval of the extension of the project entitlements. r The State Regional Water Quality Control Board ("SRWQCB") submitted a letter stating that the Project should comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state and local storm water regulations. Specifically, the SRWQCB listed the following requirements: filing a Notice of Intent for coverage by the City NPDES permit; development of a SWMP; the development of a SWPPP for the Project to address erosion control, chemical waste management, post-construction pollution minimization and other issues; evaluation of Project for presence of jurisdictional wetlands; and review of Project by SRWQCB for compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. I 3a.os ~32.D6 5 t 53686 . ua 4 CD~1('~ BASER & MtiTiENZIE Steve Solomon Planning Division March 20, 1996 Page 5 ~~. As stated above in subsection 1, SunChase has obtained all ,~Z.~/ approvals required by the City for the grading and winterization work it has performed. With regard to wetlands, the SRWQCB made a generic comment that projects must be reviewed for the presence of jurisdictional wetlands. Its comment was not based on any information that indicated that any wetlands were likely to be located on the Project site. The analysis of vegetation and wildlife in the ~j'L.07 original EIR did not identify any wetland areas on the site. (Original EIR, p. 103-112.) The DSEIR also does not identify any wetland habitat on the Project site. For this reason, the DSEIR does not identify a Section 404 permit as one of the approvals needed for the Project. C. Vegetation and Wildlife 1. Issues Raised in DSEIR The primary issue raised in the DSEIR is the remediation of the habitat restoration activities for Phase I under the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan ("HCP"). The proposed mitigation measure recommends following the suggested remediation plan outlined in the letter from Pacific OpenSpace to SunChase (Appendix C to DSEIR). All the remediation under the mitigation measure has been. completed. SunChase contracted with Pacific OpenSpace to perform the work it recommended after evaluating the site. All this work was completed in October, 1995. Most of the revegetation has been successful with a strong crop of habitat plants developing. Some slopes required additional seeding and spraying to eliminate exotic plants. SunChase plans to fertilize and infill the restored areas during 1996 to ensure strong habitat plant development. Pacific OpenSpace has submitted a proposal for monitoring of the remediation measures which SunChase is currently reviewing. SunChase is committed to monitoring the remediation efforts to ensure successful completion of the ~ restoration program. _ ~ SunChase did not perform work that required remediation performed by the prior owner. restoration work was done in a the original habitat restoration The habitat restoration work In any event, the habitat ccordance with the Terrabay Phas 5153484.W 5 ~~•~ was ~.,~ e I ~~ BASER ~ tiI~ErZIE Steve Solomon Planning Division March 20, 1996 Page 6 PANT. Reclamation Plan ("Reclamation Plan"), which was approved by the City in 1988 as required under the HCP. Although the reclamation work needed remediation, all work was done in compliance with the Reclamation Plan and, therefore, in compliance with the HCP. It is premature to reach conclusions on whether the restoration is successful or unsuccessful. Under the HCP, the success of the Restoration Plan is to be determined by a long-term evaluation. The reclamation in Phase I is not required or expected to be established during the buildout of Phase I. The HCP states: "The HCP approach to the South Slope is to prevent sudden loss of habitat all at once by phasing the project so that reclamation of cut and fill slopes with host plant species can begin in the first phase before the final phase of development takes place." (HCP, p. VII-165.) Under the HCP, reclamation is a long-term project which will continue throughout the development of each phase of the Project. 2. Issues Raised In Comments Letters ~32•~ The following issues were raised in the comments letters concerning vegetation and wildlife. The comments all focused on the HCP. The issues raised are: funding of HCP; revegetation of temporarily disturbed areas; establishment of success criteria for HCP; City delay of all authorizations and approvals for project until successful restoration established; correction in DSEIR classification of plants; survey of plants; impact of human habitation on wild areas; evaluation of project impact on ecosystem of mountain as opposed to only plants which benefit butterflies; regeneration of larval food plants for butterflies; HCP provisions for monitoring and evaluation; and dedication of land for conserved habitat. Each of these issues . is addressed below. a. Fundinct of HCP. The HCP established three stages of funding for activities under the Plan. For the pre- development stage, each landowner/developer was required to contribute a lump sum to the Plan fund. This initial lump sum payment was made by the prior landowner, W.W. Dean. During 32.10 development, the developer is required to pay the Plan Operator (Thomas Reid and Associates) under a contractual arrangement. SunChase currently pays its proportional share of the monthly service charge for work by the Plan Operator (which is billed through the Plan Administrator (i.e., the County)). An on-going :153484.61P ~~ BASER & ~'I~$E~IZIE Steve Solomon Planning Division March 20, 1996 Page 7 GDAC'r funding mechanism for the HCP after development is completed and lots sold to individual homeowners has been established. For all of Phase I (Terrabay Village and Terrabay Park), Collection 32,0 Agreements requiring the payment of HCP fees by homeowners have been recorded. A monthly charge to cover the costs of continuing work under the HCP will be paid by individual homeowners as part of their HOA assessment. Therefore, all funding requirements under the HCP have been met. b. Reveaetation of Temporarily Disturbed Areas. As discussed above in subsection 1, SunChase has already implemented the recommended remediation measures under the DSEIR to address the problems with the restoration of disturbed areas in Phase I. In addition, any temporary problems with the restoration plan was not due to noncompliance with the HCP. The prior restoration was done in accordance with the Reclamation Plan approved by the City. The Plan Operator is the person who designated the types of vegetation materials and is responsible for monitoring the Reclamation Plan implementation. (HCP, p. VII-167-VII-168.) As the DSEIR states, the restoration difficulties were primarily due to unfavorable weather condition: - cold temperatures and drought. (DSEIR, p.197.) 3Z. l With regard to the comment on Appendix C, the letter from ?j2.IZ. Pacific OpenSpace is five pages long and all pages are included in the Appendix. c. Success Criteria For Restoration Plan. The HCP sets forth the standards for determining whether the restoration of disturbed areas is properly implemented. First, the restoration must be done in accordance with the Reclamation Plan approved by the responsible entity. This was done. Second, the success of the restoration effort may only be evaluated from a long-term perspective. Under the HCP, the reclamation in the first phase of the project was only required to begin before the construction of the final phase commenced (see discussion above in Section C.1.). (HCP, p. VII-165.) So, the HCP requires only a good faith implementation of an approved Reclamation Plan that is implemented and monitored by the Plan Operator. 32.13 5153484.uv 7 $?~SER & ~1~KE27ZIE Steve Solomon Planning Division March 20, 1996 Page 8 d. Suggested Delay In Authorizations and Approvals By City Until Restoration Established. The City is not authorized under the HCP to delay authorizations and approvals for the Project until the Phase I restoration is successfully established. In order to go forward with Phase I construction, SunChase is only obligated to implement the approved Restoration Plan and the Plan Operator must monitor the results. Both of these steps have been accomplished. In addition, SunChase went •32.19' beyond the requirements of the HCP and obtained an independent '1 evaluation of the restoration and performed further work to address problems that occurred with the implementation of the Reclamation Plan. Under the HCP, the City is prohibited from imposing additional mitigation measures beyond those contained in the HCP relating to habitat preservation and restoration. (Agreement Regarding San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan ("AHCP"), Section V.B.2, p.13-14.) Therefore, the City is not authorized to deny a Phase I approval based on the fact that the restoration project has not been completely established. e. Correction in Classification of Plants. The DSEIR states that the Arctostaphylos Imbricata is a California state listed plant. In addition, the plant has been federally ~.~5 proposed as threatened. The DSEIR states that the Lessinga Germanorum Germanorum is a federally listed plant. However, the correct status of that plant is proposed endangered. We recommend that these corrections be made in the Final SEIR. f. Survey of Plants. Surveys of plants on San Bruno Mountain and the Project site have been conducted annually by the Plan Operators and, in 1994, by the California Native 2.1(0 Plant Society. No rare species of plants have been found on the . Project site. We recommend that the Final SEIR contain a brief description of how these surveys were conducted. As described in the DSEIR, the primary types of plants found on the Project site are grasses; however, substantial floral diversity exists on the site. (DSEIR, p. 183-184.) We recommend that the Final SEIR contain a brief description of the floral ?jZ..~7 plants located on the site. However, none of these plants are rare species. The finding in the DSEIR that no rare plants are located in the Project area is consistent with the finding of the original EIR. Since no rare plants occur on the site, no mitigation measures are required. S 153484.61P 8 BASER & i12~EVZ7E Steve Solomon Planning Division March 20, 1996 Page 9 Future surveys of plants on Phase II and III will be 3Z.~S conducted as part of the Project EIR for approval of a precise plan for those Phases. g. Impact of Human Habitation on_Wild Areas. This is an impact that was discussed in the original EIR. (Original EIR, p.105-112.) It was also discussed in the HCP. The fact that humans will be living close to the habitat ~'~~ conservation area is not a new or changed circumstance that requires re-evaluation under the DSEIR. The impacts discussed in the original EIR are the same because no circumstances relating to this issue have changed since the time of the original EIR. h. Description of Ecosystem Versus Focus on Plants Which Benefit Butterflies. The DSEIR discusses the ecosystem of the Project area and surrounding habitat area. 32.-fo Grassland and wildlife conditions are described in addition to sensitive plants. (DSEIR p. 183-193.) The evaluation and description of impacts under the DSEIR is not limited to plants which benefit the butterfly. (DSEIR, p. 183-186.) .._. i. Regeneration of Larval Food Plant. The seed mix for the restoration area includes larval food plants, in 'Jj'L.2~ particular, the lupines. Some of these plants have been successfully established in the restoration area. j. Provisions for Monitoring and Evaluation Under HCP. The HCP contains provisions requiring the Plan Operator to monitor the implementation of habitat conservation and restoration plans. (HCP, p. III-I9-ZII-22 and VII-169.) The monitoring activities are continual. The Plan Operator produces annual reports on the HCP providing information on the status of butterfly populations, exotic plant species control work, development activities, and other information. The most recent annual report is dated January, 1996 covering calendar year 1995. The information under the vegetation and wildlife section in the DSEIR is based on recent evaluations done by the Plan Operator. In addition, SunChase contracted with Pacific OpenSpace to perform a special evaluation of the restoration program. This evaluation was done in the spring of 1995 and its recommendations have been implemented (See Section C.1. above). Monitoring is an essential element of the HCP. It has been done regularly in the past and will continue in the future. ~..~. Z•~- 5153484.W 9 B.~R & M~Er zIE Steve Solomon Planning Division March 20, 1996 Page 10 k. Dedication of Land for Conserved Habitat. SunChase has prepared a grant deed to submit to the County for review and acceptance. The grant deed covers the land that is ?JZ.Z?j required to be dedicated under the HCP. SunChase expects issues related to the dedication to be resolved in the near future. D. Public Services The DSEIR discusses supplemental impacts on public services and mitigation measures relating to the following areas: schools, and on-site and off-site sewer systems. The comments letters address impacts in two areas: schools and police services. Each of these issues is discussed below. 1. Issues Raised In DSEIR SunChase agrees with the primary mitigation measure for the impacts on schools which is to pay the school impact fee. SunChase also agrees that, under state law, the 3Z•~'4' amount of the fee is limited and any payment beyond the maximum amount permitted under state law would be "voluntary". (See discussion below in subparagraph 2.) SunChase objects to the mitigation measure requiring the installation of sidewalks along Bayshore Boulevard to allow students from the Project to walk to Brisbane Elementary School and Lipman Intermediate School for two reasons. First, transportation of students residing in the Project area to these schools is not identified as a significant impact under the original EIR or DSEIR. Second, the construction of the proposed sidewalk is infeasible. The transportation of children residing in the Project area' to the Brisbane schools is not a significant impact on the environment that requires mitigation. There is no analysis or facts in the DSEIR that identifies transportation to schools as a significant impact requiring mitigation. Additionally, this is not a changed circumstance that requires reevaluation under the DSEIR. The original EIR discussed the fact that a portion of the Project would be in the Brisbane School District. (Original EIR, P.134-136.) The original EIR stated that students living within! the Brisbane School District would have to travel longer distances to attend schools outside of their own neighborhoods. 32.Zs 5153484.VP 1 0 ~ GpNT, BASER tgL 1V14~E~7ZIE Steve Solomon Planning Division March 20, 1996 Page 11 GO-Mf ; (Original EIR, p. 136-137.) However, this was not identified as a significant impact. Instead, the original EZR stated that these issues may be addressed by interdistrict transfer agreements which allow students to attend schools in other districts, and, possibly, a change in school district boundaries. (Original EIR, p. 136-137.) The original EIR did not require any mitigation for this insignificant impact and did not require the installation of a sidewalk along Bayshore Boulevard to address this issue. The construction of the proposed sidewalk is also infeasible. The portion of Bayshore Boulevard between the Project and the Brisbane schools is the roadway running along the east end of San Bruno Mountain. Portions of Bayshore Boulevard run right up against the steep slopes on the edge of the mountain. Therefore, in certain areas, there is no available land between the mountain and the roadway on which to construct a; sidewalk. Furthermore, SunChase does not own the land on which the proposed sidewalk would be built and the land is located in the City of Brisbane. Bayshore Boulevard is also a busy arterial roadway and a narrow sidewalk between the mountain and the roadway would present safety issues for pedestrians. Based on the foregoing, the proposed sidewalk is infeasible because: there is little available land area between the mountain and the roadway; SunChase does not own land on which the sidewalk would be built; the land is under the jurisdiction of the City of Brisbane; and the proximity of the sidewalk to Bayshore Boulevard may be an unsafe condition for pedestrians. ..~, _..~. With regard to on-site and off-site sewer systems, SunChase has conducted a thorough inspection of the sewer collection system by both television inspection and visual inspection by removal of manhole covers. The visual inspection was conducted under the supervision of officials of the City Public Works Department. The inspections did not reveal any problems with the on-site sewer system that would cause excessive infiltration. However, the inspections did reveal that the firehouse is connected to the on-site sewer system and is likely providing the observed waterflows. Additionally, the flows may be caused by an allowable degree of ground water infusion. SunChase has submitted its inspection reports and information to the Director of Public Works for his review and approval. SunChase expects r .2.26 5153484.VP 1 1 BASER & iVS~KENZIE Steve Solomon Planning Division March 20, 1996 Page 12 GD/V'j' this issue to be resolved shortly and the City to accept 3Z~ dedication of the sewer systems. 2. Issues Raised In Comments Letters The South San Francisco Unified School District submitted a comments letter requesting a new mitigation measure in the DSEIR that requires SunChase to enter into an agreement with the School District to provide sufficient additional-funds or other mitigation measures necessary to mitigate all project impacts to a level of less than significant. The City Police Department submitted a comments letter stating that: security during non-construction hours should be provided on the Project site; the safety of students in the Project walking to schools should be evaluated; and that the mitigation measures for police services in the original EIR should be included in the summary section of the DSEIR. Each of these issues is addressed below. a. Schools. The proposed additional mitigation measure by the School District is not supported by the facts relating to the impact of the Project on schools or the law limiting the type and extent of mitigation measures for school impacts. The School District estimated the costs of impacts of the Project on its schools to be $1.4 million. (DSEIR, p. 209.) Since the actual amount of the fees is~not known at this time, the current fee amount may provide the $1.4 million that the school district states is required. The school district's own estimate of the value of the fees is $1.372 million, which is only $28,000 less than $1.4 million. (DSEIR, p. 209.) In addition, it is unclear whether the $1.4 million is related solely to costs of impacts caused by the additional students generated by the Project. The impact fees should only cover costs directly caused by the students from the Project, not costs relating to upgrades or facilities that the School District would need regardless of whether or not the Project was built. 2? State law also limits the mitigation measures that may be imposed on a project to address school impacts. The financing of school facilities with development fees is preempted by state law. (Government Code Section 65995(e).) State law establishes 27.~ the maximum school impact fee that may be imposed on a 77~~ development. (Government Code Section 65995(b).) Government Code Section 65996 limits the methods of mitigating environmental 5153486. W 12 ~~ BASER & VI~KE`ZIE Steve Solomon Planning Division March 20, 1996 Page 13 Go~tlT. effects relating to the adequacy of school facilities for a project. Based on these Government Code sections, the courts have held that, since the state has preempted the field of financing school facilities, a local agency is prohibited from imposing fees greater than the maximum amount established by state law as a condition of approval of a project in order to reduce the project's impact on schools. (Murrieta Valle Unified School District vs. County of Riverside (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d Z.Z~ 1212, 1233-1234; Goleta Union School District vs. Regents of University of California (1995) 37 Ca1.App.4th 1025, 1033-1034.) Additionally, a recent case has held that classroom overcrowding, per se, does not constitute a significant effect on the environment under CEQA requiring mitigation. (Goleta Union School District, 37 Ca1.App.4th at 1032.) Based on the state la discussed above, the City is prohibited from imposing any additional mitigation measures beyond the maximum school fees already imposed on the Project. Therefore, the mitigation measure proposed by the School District must be rejected and the mitigation measure in the DSEIR should be retained. b. Police Concerns. The letter from the City Police Department states that security should be provided during non-construction hours. The home builder on the Terrabay site ?JZ.Z~ (Centex) does have on-site security on duty whenever the job is shut down for evenings or weekends. Therefore, the Police Department's concerns are addressed. The Police Department also raises the issue of how children living in the Project will safely walk to school. The children will be able to safely walk to all schools in the South San Francisco School District. Children attending Hillside Elementary School, which is located adjacent to the Project, wil be able to walk directly to the school along a lighted path located wholly within the Project area. Children attending ?)Z.'? Q , Parkway Heights Middle School and E1 Camino High School will be able to safely walk to those schools by walking along the Projec pathway to the Hillside School area and crossing Hillside Boulevard via the pedestrian bridge at Chestnut Avenue. Once the children are on the other side of Hillside Boulevard, they have various options for walking to both the Parkway and E1 Camino schools. GOIVt, 515348L . W 13 $3SER c~ 1Z~KE\'ZIE Steve Solomon Planning Division March 20, 1996 Page 14 Gol vT Brisbane Elementary School and Lipman Intermediate School in the Brisbane School District are located in the City of Brisbane, several miles from the Project Area. It is unlikely that 2 children will walk this distance to school. Jefferson High %2•~ School and Westmore High School are in Daly City, located several miles from the Project area. Again, this distance is too great for children to walk. Therefore, pedestrian safety is addressed for the only schools to which Project students will walk -- the South San Francisco District schools. The Police Department also states that the summary of impacts and mitigation measures should indicate that the Project will have an impact on police services, but that the mitigation measures in the original_EIR address this impact. The DSEIR ~jZ.3l restates the impacts of the Project on police services discussed in the original EIR and the required mitigations in the text of the document. (DSEIR, p. 199-200.) Since the DSEIR is a supplement to the original EIR, only new mitigation measures were included in the summary to show the changes recommended by the supplement. E. Noise Two comments letters were submitted on noise. One was from John Costas, San Francisco International Airport, stating that the mitigation measure for a supplemental noise impact N-3 should be revised to specify noise compatibility standards under the Uniform Building Code ("UBC"), Title 24, Appendix 35, Sound Transmission Controls and FAA Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program for an aircraft noise event. It should be noted that the mitigation measure that Mr. Costas is referring to is N-1, not N-3. The DSEIR noise mitigation measures as written address the concerns raised in Mr. Costas' letter. The noise analysis under mitigation measure N-1 is required to include consideration of aircraft noise to achieve the FAA single event noise standard (supplemental noise impact N-2). (DSEIR p.35, 227.) The specification of the noise standards under the UBC and FAA Part 150 are not necessary because these standards are the same as the standards incorporated under the mitigation measure. The mitigation measure is based on standards established by the state and the City~s noise element. The UBC standard is the same as the state standard under Title 24 of the 3Z 32- 5 t s3cs~c . w 14 ~~ BASER cSL ;VI~FiE~TZ1E Steve Solomon Planning Division March 20, 1996 Page 15 CouT, California Code of Regulations which is incorporated into the mitigation measure. (DSEIR, p.221.) The standard under FAA Part 150 requires that residences with an exterior CNEL of 65 dBA or above incorporate measures to reduce the interior noise to 45 dBA CNEL. This is the same standard contained in Policy N-1 of the City's General Plan Noise Element which is incorporated into the mitigation measure. (DSEIR, p.218.) Therefore, the noise mitigation measures in the DSEIR address the concerns raised by Mr. Costas. Richard Harmon, City Senior Engineering Technician, stated that the DSEIR should discuss any noise impacts on Phases II and III from traffic along Sister Cities Boulevard, Bayshore Boulevard and Bayshore Freeway. The noise analysis in the DSEIR evaluates noise from both aircraft and traffic. (DSEIR, p. 221- ?>2,33 225.) Specifically, the analysis of noise impacts included the effect of traffic noise from Sister Cities Boulevard, Bayshore Boulevard and the Bayshore Freeway on Phases II and III. (DSEIR, p. 222.) Therefore, the impacts raised by Mr. Harmon were properly included and analyzed in the DSEIR. F. Cultural Resources Josephine Coffey and Jerome Irwin submitted comments letters on cultural and archaeological resources located in the Project area. These comments are discussed below. Ms. Coffey states that the analysis of CA-SMa-40 should not be deferred to Phase III because once Phase I is complete, the City will have a strong financial interest to approve Phase III. The analysis of CA-SMa-40 is not deferred to the consideration of the precise plan for Phase III, it is addressed currently. Both the original EIR and the DSEIR analyze available data on the archaeological significance of the CA-SMa-40 site and mitigation measures to prevent its disturbance. Based on available information, the significance of CA-SMa-40 for the cultural heritage of the Ohlone people and cultural and archaeological study has been acknowledged in the original EIR and DSEIR. Therefore, both the original EIR and DSEIR recommend avoidance of impacts to CA-SMa-40 by capping the area with an engineering fabric and fill-soil prior to any construction activities above or near the site. This capping is required to be monitored by a 3Z.3~' GO/1('f, 5153684.vP 1 5 BAR & M~~~zrE Steve Solomon Planning Division March 20, 1996 Page 16 qualified archaeologist. In addition, trenching activities should be avoided on the site. Since the plans for Phase III have not been established at this time, there is no way to determine whether the site will be impacted by proposed development. However, the mitigation measures in both the DSEIR and the original EIR provide protection of the site from any construction activities located on or adjacent to the site. In addition, the final plans for development on Phase III will be subject to further environmental review, and further mitigation measures to protect the site may be imposed at that time, if necessary. Any prediction of whethe the City will or will not approve Phase III since it has already approved a precise plan for Phase I is speculative. There is no way of determining at this time whether or not the City will approve Phase III. None of the existing project approvals require the City to approve any precise plan that is presented for Phase III. Ms. Coffey also states that a survey performed on behalf CalTrans was not included in the DSEIR discussion of the CA- SMa-40 site. We recommend that the consultant review the Caltrans survey and summarize any relevant information about CA-SMa-40 site in the Final SEIR. 32.39' of 32.35 the Mr. Irwin states that the CA-SMa-40 site should be ~' considered for an Ohlone Cultural Property Preserve. He also attached letters from the Society of California Archaeology and the International Indian Treaty Council which recommend that the site be preserved and indigenous people be involved in decisions on land on or around CA-SMa-40. The creation of a Ohlone Cultural Property Preserve is not necessary to mitigate the potential significant impacts of the Project to less than significant. The capping of the site and limitations on disturbance of the site are adequate to preserve the significant resources of the site. The consideration of designation of the site as a Cultural Preserve is also premature at this time because there are no specific development plans for Phase III. The creation of a preserve may be considered at the time a precise plan is submitted for Phase III, if development o that area is not proposed under the plans. However, the recommended mitigation measures in the original EIR and DSEIR ar 32?~b 5153484.11P 16 SABER & iK4$E\'ZIE Steve Solomon Planning Division March 20, 1996 Page 17 GOAIT. adequate to protect the site and the creation of a Preserve i~ ~Z.~ not necessary at this time. The preservance of the site recommended by the Society of California Archaeology is met by the mitigation in the DSEIR. ?2.3'7 The requirement of capping will assure that the site is preserved. The recommendation of the International Indian Treaty Council that indigenous people be involved in decisions on the land on CA-SMa-40 is required under mitigation measures in the 32.~ original EIR. The mitigation measures require that if construction earthwork disturbs the soils at CA-SMa-40 and human remains are encountered, a Native American representative should be consulted. (Original EIR, p. 155.) G. Project Alternatives The Environmental Mitigation Exchange Company submitted a comments letter on the alternatives considered in the DSEIR. They raise the following issues relating to the alternatives: the range of alternatives is inadequate; there should be an alternative evaluating open-space uses for Phases II and III; the DSEIR does not contain an updated evaluation of environmental impacts of the alternatives under current conditions; the viability of and means to achieve implementation of the Modified No Project Alternative is not discussed (for example, purchase of land and management as open space); failure of restoration warrants reconsideration of development of Phases II and III; no development of Phases II and III would eliminate unavoidable impact on air; incorrect identification of environmentally superior alternative; and further exploration and analysis of Modified No Project Alternative. Each of these issues is discussed below. 1. Range Of Alternatives. The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") requires a reasonable range of alternatives that would feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any 3Z.~ significant effects on the Project. Two alternatives, the No Project Alternative and the Concept Plan Alternative, would lessen or avoid the impacts identified for the Project. The other alternatives considered, Sphere Of Influence Study 5153484. W 17 ~~. B_4SER & ~1'1~E~ZIE Steve Solomon Planning Division March 20, 1996 Page 18 Alternative and General Plan Amendment Alternative, are analyzed because they reflect existing plans for the area even though, in some instances, they create greater impacts. . Furthermore, since the DSEIR is a supplemental EIR, the range of alternatives does not need to be reconsidered because the Project itself has not changed from the project analyzed in the original EIR. Additionally, the analysis of the impacts created by the alternatives is not affected by any of the changed circumstances considered in the DSEIR. Therefore, the adequacy of the alternatives in the original EIR cannot be revisited in the DSEIR under these circumstances. GOA~'~ ~•7~ 2. Alternative Evaluating Open Space Uses For Phase II and III. The original EIR and DSEIR consider two alternatives that evaluate open space uses for Phases II and III. The No Project Alternative in the original EIR evaluates no development 32•~ on any of the Project site which would result in both Phase II and III areas remaining undeveloped open space. The DSEIR analyzes the effects of the Modified No Project Alternative which would result in Phase II and III areas remaining undeveloped open space. 3. Updated Evaluation Of Environmental Impact Of Alternatives Under DSEIR. The DSEIR properly concludes that the analysis of impacts of the alternatives is the same as that presented in the original EIR. The proposed project has not changed. None of the changed circumstances resulting from the passage of time from the adoption of the original EIR affect the comparative analysis of the impacts of the alternatives. As stated in the DSEIR, the No Project Alternative and Concept Plan 3z.R'~ Alternative would still result in lesser impacts than the 7 Project. The Sphere of Influence Study Alternative and General Plan Amendment Alternative would still result in greater impacts than the Project. (DSEIR, p.260.) The DSEIR analyzes the impacts of a Modified No Project Alternative which includes the buildout of Phase I and the substantial on and off-site improvements constructed as part of Phase I, but no development of Phases II and III. The DSEIR concludes that most of the impacts identified in the DSEIR for development of Phase I would occur under this alternative. However, the impacts identified for Phases II and III would be avoided. 5753484.ua 1 8 $~+iBER ~ IT~ED7ZIE Steve Solomon Planning Division March 20, 1996 Page 19 4. Viability Of And Means To Achieve Implementation Of Modified No Project Alternative. The comments letter states that the viability of and means to achieve the implementation of the Modified No Project Alternative is not discussed; in particular, the purchase and management of the land as open space. The Modified No Project Alternative is properly rejected in both the original EIR and DSEIR because it is infeasible. The retention of Land in Phases II and III as open space is part of the No Project Alternative in the original EIR. This alternative is rejected as infeasible. Similarly, the Modified No Project Alternative is rejected as infeasible under the DSEIR. The benefits of the Project to the City are derived from the Project as a whole. The goals and objectives of the Project may only be met if all phases are built. For example, if Phases II and III are not built, the City objective of commercial development on the site with its enhancement to City revenue would not be achieved. Furthermore, the benefits under the HCP are based on development of all three phases. Selling a portion of the land as open space would reduce, and possibly eliminate, the obligations of the developer under the HCP. Public amenities required to be built as part of Phases II and III also would not be constructed if Phases II and III are not built. Therefore, since the Modified No Project Alternative does not accomplish most of the objectives of the Project, it is rejected as infeasible. 5. Failure Of Restoration Warrants Reconsideration Of Development Of Phases II and IIZ. As discussed in Section C.1. above, SunChase has implemented the remediation plan recommended in the DSEIR to address the restoration difficulties. Initial monitoring of the remediation plan shows that the plan is working. However, success of the restoration may only be determined by a long-term evaluation under the HCP. The restoration in Phase I is not required to be established prior to the commencement of construction of the final phase. Therefore, it is premature to evaluate the success of the restoration effort. Since the restoration has been conducted in accordance with the HCP and is not required to be fully established at this time, the restoration difficulties do not warrant reconsideration of development for Phases II and III. ... 6. No Development Of Phases II And_III Would Eliminate Unavoidable Impact On Air. If Phases II and III are S 153484. W 19 3Z.~{-3 7~• ~oNT. BASER & ~'S~KE\TZIE Steve Solomon Planning Division March 20, 1996 Page 20 ~~T not developed, the unavoidable impact on air identified in the DSEIR would be eliminated. However, as discussed above in subparagraph 4 above, no development of Phases ZI and III is ~~ infeasible. Since this alternative is infeasible, the City may adopt a statement of overriding considerations for the unavoidable significant impact on air identified in the DSEIR for the development of all three phases. 7. Identification Of Environmentally Superior Alternative. The DSEIR properly identifies the Concept Plan Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative. Since the Project under the DSEIR is the extension of existing entjtlements, the Modified No Project Alternative is the "No 32~ Pro ect Alternative" under CEQA because if the extension (i.e., Project) is not approved, Phase I may be built out by February 14, 1997, the current entitlement termination date. Under CEQA, if the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the DSEIR must pick the alternative with the next least impacts as the environmentally superior alternative. Therefore, the Concept Plan Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative under this analysis. 8. Exploration And Analysis Of Modified No Project Alternative. The DSEIR analyzes the Modified No Project Alternative under its supplemental findings. (DSEIR, p. 260- 261.) The DSEIR concludes that, under this alternative, a limited portion of Phase I residential development would be complete and project contributions toward construction of Sister Cities Boulevard, Fire Station 5, playfield improvements at Hillside Elementary School, waste water collection system improvements and other public improvements would be completed. However, the impacts of development of Phases II and III would not occur and further public improvements required under those phases would not be built. H. Other Issues i3z~ Richard Harmon, City Senior Engineering Technician, comments that the DSEIR states that the linear parks will be 3Z~ maintained by the City in contradiction of prior approvals which require that the linear park be maintained by the developer. Mr. Harmon is correct. The linear park-will be maintained by developer and we recommend that the information be corrected in 5153484.6rP 2 0 BASER & M~SENZlE Steve Solomon Planning Division March 20, 1996 Page 21 the Final SEIR: Mr. Harmon also requests copies of the three PSC reports contained in the geotechnical appendix to the DSEIR. ~.ZQ$ SunChase will file two bound copies of these three reports with the City Engineering Division. SunChase appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DSEZR and certain comments letters on the DSEIR. If the City has any questions about the information in this letter, please call us. Sincere G' Timothy A. sta 5153684. W 21 Terrabay Project , City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 184 32. Timothy Tosta, Baker & McKenzie; March 20, 1996 32.01 The remediation and repair plans for Area D were reviewed by City and County officials, determined to be adequate, and approved. The City and County issued grading permits authorizing work to proceed on Area D. The work is expected to be completed by October 31, 1996. The comment notes that the applicant is proceeding with needed geotechnical repairs and has completed some of the work recommended as mitigation for small, localized landslides, erosional gullies, "goat farm" cut slopes, and Landslide D. Comment acknowledged; no additional response is necessary and no SEIR revisions are warranted. 32.02 The comment suggests a response to comment 5.05 from Richard Harmon, Senior Engineering Technician, City of South San Francisco regarding the funding mechanism for on-going geotechnical maintenance, noting that the applicant ("SunChase") is completing a Master Homeowners Association Agreement which specifies assessments and/or dues to fund geotechnical repair and maintenance and that a geologic hazards abatement district (GRAD) is another option. Please see response to comment 5.05. 32.03 The comment notes that the applicant has complied with all Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and city stormwater regulations for Phase I and will continue to comply iri the future. Comment noted; no additional response is necessary and no SEIR revisions are warranted. Please also see response to comment 18.02. 32.04 The comment notes that the applicant has already addressed issues pertaining to catch basins and drainage ditches by cleaning and monitoring and is addressing ongoing maintenance funding and responsibility. Comment noted; no additional response is necessary and no SEIR revisions are warranted. Please also see responses to comments 1.13 and 1.16. 32.05 The comment responds to comment 9.01 from Cheryl Mitchell Wade, stormwater Program Coordinator, City of South San Francisco, noting that the suggested changes to the SEIR should be made but that the suggested change to refer to owner rather than applicant is unnecessary. The referenced changes to the SEIR have been made, including the addition of the reference to "owner" rather than applicant. (See errata to DSEIR pp. 29 and 181-182 in section III herein.) 32.06 The comment responds to comments 18.02 and 18.04 from the RWQCB regarding NPDES requirements, noting that the applicant has obtained all required approvals for grading and winterization work performed. Comment noted; no additional response is necessary and no SEIR revisions are warranted. Please also see responses to comments 18.02 and 18.04. WP5115481 FSE/Rl F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses•to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 185 32.07 The comment responds to comment 18.03 from the RWQCB regarding wetlands, noting that neither the original EIR nor the DSEIR identify wetland habitat on the site. Please see response to comment 18.03. 32.08 The comment notes that remediation of Phase I habitat restoration work has been implemented in accordance with DSEIR-recommended mitigation and that the applicant is committed to monitoring for successful completion. Comment noted; no additional response is necessary and no SEIR revisions are warranted. Please also see responses to comments 10.01 and 13.01. 32.09 The comment notes that it is premature to conclude that the original habitat work, which was done in compliance with the HCP, was unsuccessful; reclamation is a long- term effort which will continue throughout the project. Comment noted; no additional response is necessary and no SEIR revisions are warranted. 32.10 The comment responds to comment 13.01 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding compliance with HCP requirements, noting that all HCP funding obligations have been met. Please see response to comment 13.01. No additional response is necessary and no SEIR revisions are warranted. 32.11 The comment responds to comments 10.01 from the California Native Plant Society (GNPs), 13.01 from the USFWS, and 16.01 from Ken McIntire, noting that the original habitat restoration work was done in compliance with the HCP and had temporary problems due to unfavorable weather, and that the applicant has since implemented the recommended remediation mitigation. Comment noted; no response is necessary and no SEIR revisions are warranted. Please also see response to comment 13.01. 32.12 The comment responds to comment 13.06 from the USFWS, noting that all pages of the five-page Pacific Open Space letter are included in the DSEIR. The EIR authors confirm that this response is correct. No response is necessary. 32.13 The comment responds to comments 13.01 and 13.02 from the USFWS and 16.01 from Ken McIntire, noting that the HCP requires only good faith implementation of an approved reclamation plan implemented and monitored by the Plan Operator. Please see responses to comments 13.01 and 13.02. No additional response is necessary. 32.14 The comment responds to comments 13.01 and 13.02 from the USFWS and comment 16.01 from Ken McIntire, noting that the city is not authorized under the HCP to delay approvals until Phase I restoration is successfully established. Please see responses to comments 13.01 and 13.02. No additional response is necessary. 32.15 The comment recommends that the changes to the SEIR suggested. in comment 13.03 from the USFWS regarding the listing status of sensitive plant species be made. The noted changes to the discussion on DSEIR p. 198 have been made. (See errata to DSEIR p. 198 in section III herein.) WP5115481 FSE/RI F-!l.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR 11. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 186 32.16 The comment responds to comment 13.05 from the USFWS, noting that annual plant surveys conducted by the Plan Operators have found no rare plant species onsite and recommending that the Final SEIR describe the surveys. Please see response to comment 13.05 for information regarding these surveys. 32.17 The comment responds to comment 13.04 from the USFWS, suggesting that the Final SEIR should describe the floral plants located onsite. Please see response to comment 13.04. Also, a representative list of plants found on the project site can be found in the Terrabav Phase I Reclamation Plan. No additional response is necessary and no changes to the SEIR are warranted. 32.18 The comment responds to comment 13.05 from the USFWS and supports the DSEIR vegetation and wildlife impact and mitigation findings, noting that plant surveys will be conducted as part of project EIRs for future phase precise plan approvals. Please see response to comment 13.04. No additional response is necessary and no changes to the SEIR are warranted. 32.19 The comment responds to comment 10.03 from the CNPS and supports the DSEIR vegetation and wildlife impact and mitigation findings, noting that the impact of human habitation on wild areas was evaluated in the original EIR and does not require reevaluation in the SEIR. Please see response to comment 10.03. 32.20 The comment responds to comment 10.04 from the CNPS and supports the DSEIR vegetation and wildlife impact and mitigation findings, noting that the DSEIR describes the onsite and surrounding ecosystem as well as plants which benefit butterflies. Please see response to comment 10.04. 32.21 The comment responds to comment 10.05 from the CNPS, noting that the seed mix for the restoration area contains butterfly larval food plants, some of which have been successfully established. Please see response to comment 10.05. 32.22 The comment responds to comment 10.06 from the CNPS, noting that regular monitoring, as required by the HCP, has been and will continue to be performed. Please see response to comment 10.06. 32.23 The comment states that the applicant has prepared a grant deed to submit to the county for land to be dedicated under the HCP and expects resolution of outstanding issues in the near future. Comment noted; the comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the SEIR and no response is necessary. 32.24 The comment notes that the applicant agrees with the DSEIR that the primary mitigation for school impacts is to pay the school impact fee and that any payment beyond the maximum permitted by law would be voluntary. WP5115481 FSE/RIF-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 187 As mitigation for SSFUSD and Brisbane School District impacts (Supplemental Impacts PS-i and PS-2) the DSEIR (p. 213) recommended requiring the applicant to comply with the school impact fee requirements. Because this measure may not be sufficient to mitigate identified school impacts to aless-than-significant level, the DSEIR also recommended that the applicant voluntarily agree to negotiate with each school district and provide additional funds and/or measures to mitigate school impacts. However, based on comments received during the DSEIR public review period (comments 7.01 and 33.19} and on the possibility that such "voluntary" mitigation does not provide reasonable assurance that the identified impact would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, the mitigation for school impacts recommended on DSEIR p. 213 has been revised in this FSEIR as follows: The city shall require the applicant, as a provision of the project development agreement, to prepare and submit for city review and approval, a school financing plan that includes: (1) Payment of State-Mandated School Impact Fees. Require the applicant to comply with applicable SSFUSD and Brisbane school impact fee requirements. If it is determined by the city that the project fees would not be sufficient to reduce project school impacts to aless-than-significant level, the city may also: (2) Additional Impact Fees. Require that the project applicant/developer pay additional impact fees or some other additional in-kind contribution, or establish other financing mechanisms in consultation with the city and acceptable to the SSFUSD and the Brisbane School District sufficient to cover the cost of providing classroom space and ancillary school facilities needed to serve the increased enrollment generated by the project, to the city's satisfaction. It should be noted that the school impact fees accruing from the project, as calculated by SSFUSD and BSD, appear to have been underestimated because the estimated size of the residential units used is smaller than the units actually being built. Thus, the fees paid by the project may be sufficient to cover the districts' estimated costs. Please also see response to comment 7.01. 32.25 The comment notes that the DSEIR does not identify transportation to schools as a significant impact and suggested that the recommended mitigation requiring installation of a sidewalk along Bayshore Boulevard is infeasible. In response to comments 2.03 and 21.05 above, the SEIR has been revised to further discuss transportation to Brisbane schools together with impacts on the Brisbane School District generally. Although, the DSEIR does not identify a separate significant impact specifically for transportation to Brisbane School District, the district has noted that, "The Brisbane School District does not provide transportation for its students. As Brisbane and Lipman are within walking distance from Terrabay, I anticipate the need for sidewalks WP511548 I FSEI R I F- ll. 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 188 to be placed along Bayshore Road between the development and the current sidewalks. Otherwise, additional funds may be needed for student transportation." The SEIR has been clarified to refer to transportation to schools as part of the identified significant impact on the Brisbane School District (Supplemental Impact PS- 2). The comment notes that the 1982 EIR stated that students living within the Brisbane School District would have to travel longer distances to attend schools outside of their own neighborhoods and that these issues may be addressed by interdistrict transfer agreements and, possibly, a change in school district boundaries. The school districts disputed the boundaries in 1991. The state Board of Education ultimately resolved the issue by leaving the district boundaries intact. The mitigation recommended for Supplemental Impact PS-2 in the DSEIR assigned the project applicant responsibility for installing sidewalks along Bayshore Boulevard to allow students from the project to walk to Brisbane Elementary School and Lipman Intermediate School. Because a sidewalk along Bayshore Boulevard may not be the most desirable solution for transportation to Brisbane School District schools, the recommended mitigation on DSEIR p. 213 has been revised to provide more flexibility to the district, the applicant and the city in reducing the impact to aless-than-significant level. Provision of the required safe transportation may be accomplished by installing a sidewalk along Bayshore Boulevard and/or other streets to allow students to walk to Brisbane Elementary School and Lipman Intermediate School, or in some other manner acceptable to the district, and by requiring the applicant to submit to the city an official statement in writing from the Brisbane School District declaring that the needed transportation has been adequately provided for to the satisfaction of the district. Please also see responses to comments 2.03 and 21.05 and errata in Section I11 herein for DSEIR pp. 210 and 213. In summary, finalization of school access sidewalk needs and associated design details are properly deferred to the Phase II and III environmental documentation sequences, since the City currently does not know what the actual configuration of these phases will be. 32.26 The comment notes that onsite and off-site sewer system inspections by the applicant revealed no problems and that resolution of this issue and city acceptance of system dedication is expected shortly. Comment noted. In addition, since release of the DSEIR, the city has conducted its own inspections of off-site sewer system improvements installed as part of the project and has determined the source of observable flows. The city has accepted all off-site sewer system improvements and all on-site sewer improvements within public roadway rights-of-way that were required to be dedicated to the city. No additional response is necessary and no SEIR revisions are warranted. Please also see response to comment 33.23. WP5115481 FSEIRI F-Il.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 189 32.27 The comment responds to comment 7.01 from Janice Smith, Assistant Superintendent, Business Services, SSFUSD, noting that it is unclear whether the identified project- related costs to the SSFUSD of $1.4 million is attributable entirely to the project. The DSEIR on p. 209 states that, "Based on an estimated cost of $140,000 per re/ocatable classroom, the total estimated cost to the district to provide classrooms would be $1.4 million." The project-related costs were explained by the district as follows: The cost of a relocatable classroom with plumbing installed on a permanent foundation with appropriate landscaping, sidewalks, handicapped access and furnishings, including architect and state and local fees, is estimated to be $140,000 (Lee Kerney, VBN Architects). The district should be prepared to serve 260 students from the project (Lapkoff memorandum of 9/21/95). Assuming level distribution of students per grade is 29 students per class for elementary and 23 students per class for middle school and high school (80% utilization) and a $140,000 cost per classroom, the estimated cost to provide classrooms is $1,400,000. (K-5) (6-8) (9-12) Elementary Middle School High School Total Project Enrollment Increase 120 60 80 260 Students Per Room 29 23 23 Classrooms Needed 4 2.5 3.5 i0 Cost Per Classroom $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 Total Classroom Cost $560,000 $350,000 $490,000 $1,400,000 Additional rest room facilities and core classrooms may be needed at Hillside Elementary School and Parkway Heights Middle School for child care (before and after school), ESL, Special Reading and Special Education. Costs to add permanent classrooms, a more desirable option, would need to be determined by an architect for each site. It appears that developer fees will not generate sufficient revenue to provide facilities in the area for new enrollment from the project and that additional revenue from the development will be needed.' Please also see response to comment 7.01. 32.28 The comment responds to comment 7.01 from Janice Smith, suggests that state law establishes a maximum school impact fee and limits the city from imposing additional mitigations beyond the maximum school impact fees. The EIR authors believe that because the project involves a legislative action, the city may elect to impose additional 'September 25, 1995 Memorandum from Janice B. Smith, South San Francisco Unified School District to Wagstaff and Associates Re: Terrabay Project--Re4uest for Information. WP5115481 FSEIRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 190 mitigations, provided that an adopted general plan basis exists for such a requirement. Please see response to comment 7.01 for additional explanation. 32.29 The comment responds to comment 2.06 from Sgt. Ron Petrocchi, South San Francisco Police Department, noting that the Phase I homebuiider provides onsite security during evenings and weekends. Since submittal of this comment, the Police Department has indicated that the applicant has addressed their concerns about onsite security. (Please also see response to comment 2.06.) 32.30 The comment responds to comment 2.03 from Sgt. Ron Petrocchi, noting that children will be able to safely walk to all SSFUSD schools and that Brisbane School District and Jefferson Union High School District schools are too far for children to walk. No response is necessary. Please also see response to comment 2.03. 32.31 The comment responds to comment 2.01 from Sgt. Ron Petrocchi, noting that the SEIR is a supplement to the original EIR and thus only new mitigations were included in the summary. No response is necessary. Please also see response to comment 2.01. 32.32 The comment responds to comment 11.01 from John Costas, Administrator, Planning and Environmental Affairs, San Francisco International Airport, noting that the DSEIR noise mitigation measures address his concerns. The comment supports the DSEIR noise impact and mitigation findings. Comment 11.01 suggests additional language to clarify recommended mitigation for Supplemental Impact N-2. Pages 35 and 228 of the DSEIR have been revised as suggested. (See errata for DSEIR pp. 35 and 228 in section III herein.) 32.33 The comment responds to comment 5.03 from Richard Harmon, noting that the DSEIR noise analysis does address impacts of Sister Cities Boulevard, Bayshore Boulevard and US 101 traffic. The comment supports the DSEIR noise impact and mitigation findings; no response is necessary.. Please also see response to comment 5.03. 32.34 The comment responds to comment 20.01 from. Josephine Coffey, noting that analysis of CA-SMa-40 has not been deferred to Phase III. The original EIR and DSEIR both address the site's significance and recommend mitigation. Moreover, since plans for Phase III have not yet been established, impacts on the site cannot be determined. Also, a Phase III precise plan will be subject to further environmental review and may or may not be approved by the city. The comment supports the DSEIR noise impact and mitigation findings; no response is necessary. Please also see response to comment 1.02. 32.35 The comment responds to comment 20.02 from Josephine Coffey, noting that the results of the referenced Caltrans survey should be summarized in the DSEIR. Comment 20.02 refers not to a Caltrans survey, but to an archaeological investigation of site CA-SMa-40, the large shell mound located in the Phase III portion of the project, WP5115481FSE/RI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 191 which was performed by Holman 8~ Associates, consulting archaeologists, for the previous property owners. As indicated in the response to comment 1.03 above, a report on the Holman investigation findings was not completed, no related information was submitted to the city, and no related record has been filed with the California Historical Resources Inventory. 32.36 The comment responds to comment 15.01 from Jerome Irwin, noting that the creation of an Ohlone Cultural Property Preserve is not necessary to mitigate the potential significant impact to a less than significant level, and suggests that such a measure is premature because there are no specific development plans for Phase III. Please see response to comment 1.07. 32.37 The comment responds to comment 15.02 from Jerome Irwin, noting that preservation of the site recommended by the Society for California Archaeology would be achieved by the proposed capping. Please see response to comment 1.07. 32.38 The comment responds to comment 15.04 from Jerome Irwin, noting that involvement of indigenous peoples recommended by the International Indian Treaty Council is achieved by the DSEIR mitigation requiring consultation with a Native American representative if human remains are encountered during construction. Please see response to comment 15.04. 32.39 The comment responds to comment 8.01 from Farnum Alston, President, Environmental Mitigation Exchange Company (EMAX), noting that the original EIR evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives and that the SEIR need not reconsider the range of alternatives because the project has not changed and changes in circumstances do not affect the original EIR alternatives analysis.... Please see response to comment 8.01. 32.40 The comment responds to comment 8.01 from EMAX, noting that the original EIR and DSEIR considered two alternatives that evaluate open space uses for Phases II and 111: the No Project Alternative and the Modified No Project Alternative. The comment is not entirely correct. The no project alternative evaluated in the DSEIR did consist of the Phases II and III areas of the project site remaining as open space. However, the DSEIR did not evaluate a "modified" no project alternative separate from and in addition to the no project alternative; the "modified" no project alternative referred to in the comment is the no project alternative evaluated in the DSEIR. Please see responses to comments 8.01, 8.02 and 8.03. 32.41 The comment responds to comment 8.01 from EMAX, noting the SEIR properly concludes that the impacts of the alternatives have not changed from the original EIR. The comment supports the SEIR alternatives analysis. WP5115481 FSE/Rt F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 192 32.42 The comment responds to comment 8.02 from EMAX, noting that the viability of a means to achieve implementation of the modified no project alternative is not discussed because the alternative is infeasible. 32.43 The comment responds to comment 8.02 from EMAX, noting that restoration has been conducted in accordance with the HCP and is not required to be fully established at this time, and that restoration difficulties do not warrant reconsideration of development of Phases II and III. No response is necessary. Please also see response to comment 13.01. 32.44 The comment responds to comment 8.02 from EMAX, noting that if Phases II and III are not developed, the unavoidable air quality impact would be avoided but that, since elimination of Phases II and III development is infeasible, the city may adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Please see responses to comments 8.01 and 32.42. 32.45 The comment responds to comment 8.03 from EMAX, noting that the DSEIR correctly identifies the Concept Plan Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative after the Modified No project Alternative. The comment supports the DSEIR alternatives analysis. Please also see response to comment 8.03. 32.46 The comment responds to comment 8.03 from EMAX, noting that the DSEIR analyzes supplemental impacts of the Modified No Project Alternative. Please see response to comment 32.40. 32.47 The comment responds to comment 5.04 from Richard Harmon, concurring that the DSEIR should be corrected to state that the linear park will be maintained by the developer. The SEIR has been corrected as suggested. 32.48 The comment responds to comment 5.06 from Richard Harmon, noting that two copies of the three reports contained in the geotechnical appendix will be filed with the city Engineering Division. No response is necessary. WP5115481 FSE/Rl F-1!.548 RECEIVED 33 MAR ~ ~ 1996 THOMAS R. AOAMS ANN BROADWELL DANIEL L. CARDOZO MARC D. JOSEPH LIZ ANNE REYNOLDS ADAMS e BROADWELL A PRO CCSSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 63t GATEWAY BOULEVAR O. SUITE 900 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94060 PLANNING O~ COUN9CL CARL L. MCCONNELL PACKAR D. MELLBERG S McCONNELL TELEPHONE la t5) 389-1660 HAND DELIQERY ~~ March 20, 1996 FACSIMILE 1415) 589-5062 Lida Budko Terrabay Project Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Re: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Dear Ms. Budko: Enclosed are the comments of the Building and Construction Trades Council of San Mateo County, Mary Huber, Aurelio (Ray) Mendoza and Michael Swanson on the Draft SEIR for the Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement extension. All of these commenters object to approval of the project. We very much appreciate the courtesy of the City's staff in helping us locate and obtain copies of documents which were necessary for our review o~ the DSEIR. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Six ~. copies are enclosed for your convenience. Very truly/ yours, S~ - .. Ann Broadwell AB:cwt Enclosure cc: Marcy Schultz Gary Saunders C1067.010 ~" t~ onm.uw ncru.a P.w~ COMMENTS OF THE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF SAN MATEO COUNTY ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE TERRABAY SPECIFIC PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION March 20, 1996 Prepared by: Ann Broadwell Lizanne Reynolds Adams & Broadwell A Professional Corporation 651 Gateway Blvd., Suite 900 South San Francisco, CA 94080 (415) 589-1660 In consultation with: William Lettis & Associates, Inc. 1777 Botelho Drive, Suite 262 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (510) 256-6070 Daniel Smith Engineering & Management 5311 Lowry Road Union City, CA 94587 (510) 489-9477 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pacte I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 Extension of Development Agreement and Specific A . Plan 2 Number of Dwelling Units to be Approved is B . Unclear 2 III. TRANSPORTATION 3 A. Traffic Counts Are Out of Date and Not Meaningful 3 B. Standard of Significance 4 C. Required Approvals 6 D. "Hook" Ramps at Bayshore Boulevard 6 E . Project Traffic Impacts 7 F. Feasibility of Mitigation Measures 7 The Cumulative Impacts Discussion Does Not Comply G . With CEQA 8 IV . SOILS AND GEOLOGY 8 V . DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY 9 A. Drainage Ditches and Catchment Basins 9 B. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 10 C. Wetlands and Streambed Alteration 10 1. Factual Background . 11 2. Federal Clean Water Act Permit May be Required 11 3. Streambed Alteration Permit May be Required 12 VI. PUBLIC SERVICES - Schools 13 A. Background 13 C1061.005 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) Page B. Statutory Limits on School Impact Mitigation 14 C. Mitigation Measures 17 1. The Mitigation Measures in the DSEIR are Inadequate 17 2. The City has Failed to do All it Can to Mitigate School Impacts 17 D. Attendance at Brisbane Schools 18 E. Calculation of School Impact Fees 18 VII. PUBLIC SERVICES - Sewer Service 19 VIII. PUBLIC SERVICES - Water Service 19 _ IX. NOISE 19 X. AIR QUALITY 21 A. Standards of Significance 21 B. Construction Impacts .' 22 C. Cumulative Impacts 22 D. Transportation Systems Management 22 XI. CULTURAL RESOURCES 23 A. Introduction 23 B. Factual Background 23 C. Discussion 23 1. Failure to Consult with the State Native American Heritage Commission 23 2. Inadequate CEQA Mitigation 24 a. CEQA Section 21083.2 Requirements 24 ciobi.oos ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) Paae b. Terrabay EIR Compliance 25 (1) Capping of #40 25 (2) Deferred Mitigation for #92 25 - (3) Insufficient Information and Mitigation for #234 26 (4) Inadequate Mitigation for Unidentified Resources 26 (5) Potential Noncompliance with Funding Guarantee Requirement 26 Potential Applicability of National Historic 3 . Preservation Act 27 a. Property "eligible for inclusion" in National Register . 27 b. What Constitutes a Federal "Undertaking" 28 c. Applicability to Terrabay 29 • XII. ALTERNATIVES 29 XIII. PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH ADOPTED PLANS AND POLICIES 30 p,, 1994 Bay Area Clean Air Plan 30 B. Noise Element of South San Francisco General Plan 30 C. Habitat Conservation Plan 30 - • 1. Dedication of Open Space to County 31 2. Recording of CC&Rs for Habitat Funding 32 Covenants For Fire Buffers and Restricting 3 . Pesticide Use 33 4. Location of Proposed Landslide Repairs 33 C1067.005 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) Paae 5. Funding of Habitat Maintenance 33 6. Compliance Determination 34 7. Application to New Owner 34 D. Precise Plan 34 E. Grading Permit 35 F. Development Agreement 35 1. Applicable Law 35 2. Compliance with .Development Agreement 35 G. Specific Plan and Municipal Code 37 1. Geotechnical Requirements 37 2. Drainage Requirements 38 3. Construction Phasing 39 4. Transportation Systems Management Plan 39 5. Hook Ramps From Southbound 101 40 6. Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions 40 XIV. CONCLUSION 40 c~ob~ .oos iv COMMENTS OF THE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF SAN MATEO COUNTY ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE TERRABAY SPECIFIC PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION I. INTRODUCTION The Building and Construction Trades Council of San Mateo County submits these comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impacts Report for the Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement extension. This project raises significant environmental issues, which should be carefully considered before the City determines whether to approve the proposed project. The Building Trades Council, its affiliated construction unions and their members are interested in sustainable economic development. Continued environmental degradation may jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in California, and by making it less desirable to live here. Continued degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth which, in turn, reduce future employment opportunities. Additionally, construction workers themselves live in the communities which suffer the impacts of environmentally detrimental projects. Union members breathe the same polluted air that others breathe and suffer the same health and safety impacts. Unions have an interest in enforcing environmental laws to protect those workers. Construction workers are concerned about projects which cause serious environmental harm without providing countervailing economic benefits such as decent wages and benefits. CEQA itself provides a balancing process where economic benefits are weighed against significant impacts on the environment. The environmental issues posed by the Terrabay project are presented in these comments. ciobi.oos 1 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Extension of Development Agreement and Specific Plan The proposed project is an extension of the life of the Development Agreement and Specific Plan. (Draft Supplemental 2 Environmental Impact Report, "DSEIR," p. 9.) However, the DSEIR 73 0~ does not state the proposed new termination date of either the Development Agreement or of the Specific Plan. Nor does the DSEIR explain how the Development Agreement could have been extended. The Agreement was originally authorized by ordinance in 1983 and executed in 1988. (DSEIR, p. 1.) The Development Agreement states that it expires on December 1, 1992. (Dev. Agt., p. 2 ~ 2.) The City Council has extended the expiration date to February 14, 1997. ~ However, at the time the expiration date was extended, the South San Francisco Municipal Code did not contain any provisio for tolling a development agreement. Instead, it contained strict limitations on the duration of development agreements. The Code provided that: no development agreement entered into by the city shall be of a duration to exceed ten years from the effective date of the adopting ordinance; nor shall any development agreement ten years after the effective date of the original ordinance adopting said development agreement. (§ 19.60.180; emphasis added . ) Under this provision, it appears that the Development Agreement for Terrabay could not be extended for more than 10 years beyond the effective date of the original ordinance. The ordinance approving and adopting the Development Agreement with W.W. Dean and Associates was adopted on May 18, 1983, with an effective date 30 days thereafter, or on June 17, 1983. Therefore, it does not appear that the Development Agreement could have been extended beyond June 16, 1993. Yet, it was extended to February, 1997. The DSEIR should explain how the Development Agreement could have been extended beyond ten years and what the proposed termination date of the Development Agreement would be. Amendment of the Development Agreement to extend its expiration would be a legislative act, subject to referendum. 33.02 B. Number of Dwelling Units to be Approved is Unclear Table 2 of the DSEIR refers to the number of dwelling units ?~?J ~?> approved in the 1982 Specific Plan. (DSEIR, p. 52.) However, 01061.005 2 W~ 1 . GOMT. footnotes 1 and 2 explain that the number of dwelling units was reduced slightly in the 1989 Precise Plan. Because the applicant is seeking an extension of the 1982 Specific Plan, it appears that the City is being asked to reinstate approval of the larger ~~?J number of units. However, in other places, the DSEIR proceeds as though the smaller number of units is the approved number (e.g., Initial Study, p. 4-7). The DSEIR should make clear which number of units will be approved if the Specific Plan approval is extended.l III. TRANSPORTATION Enclosed is a letter from Smith Engineering and Management providing comments on the traffic impacts of the proposed project'. The following are in addition to those comments. . A. Traffic Counts Are Out of Date and Not Meaningful The turning counts for the Oyster Point interchange and related intersections are not based on current meaningful information. As stated in Appendix B to the DSEIR, the traffic counts are based on 1993 and 1994 fragmentary information from distant intersections. (DSEIR, App. B, p. 1.) The reason given is that the Oyster Point interchange had not been completed when the DSEIR was prepared. However, one of the most significant traffic impacts from this project is the impact on the Oyster Point interchange and other related roadways and interchanges. The Oyster Point interchange was completed and opened for service before this DSEIR was released for public comment. No reason is given for the failure to obtain current traffic counts, and no meaningful mitigation measures can be proposed or adopted in the absence of current information. The DSEIR should be revised to include current information on traffic impacts, taking into account operation of the new Oyster Point interchange. This is particularly important because even without any Terrabay traffic, the interchange becomes congested. Traffic southbound on Bayshore Boulevard often backs up through two traffic light changes in the morning, sometimes the backup reaches nearly to the southbound freeway exit. Additionally, traffic exiting northbound 101 onto Dubuque backs up through the first stop-light in the mornings. This congestion is shown in the photographs submitted with these comments. 1 The map on page 67 is entitled "existing land uses," but it does not show any land uses. Instead, it is a street map. ?j~-.0 7r The existing land uses should be shown. C1061.005 3 B. Standard of Sictnificance The DSEIR establishes a standard of significance for traffic increases on freeways, ramps and at interchanges. Where the LAS is already at level F, the DSEIR states that a significant impact will not occur unless the traffic level increases by at least 2~. (DSEIR, p. 114.) That standard of significance is not appropriate when a significant environmental impact has already occurred. I,OS F means that traffic is already suffering a significant impact. When an environmental problem is already enormous, anv additional contribution may be significant. The courts have held that it is a violation of CEQA to compare the project contribution with the magnitude of the existing problem to develop a ratio of significance. Focussing on the ratio between the project's impacts and the overall problem is contrary to the intent of CEQA. The result of such a ratio is that the greater the overall problem, the less significant are the project's contributions to the cumulative impacts. Instead, of dismissing the project's cumulative impacts as small in comparison to the overall problem, the EIR must assess the collective effect that this and other projects have upon traffic. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692 [270 Ca1.Rptr. 650J.) Instead of establishing a 2~ level of significance, the DSEIR should consider as a significant impact any contribution of additional traffic to a freeway segment, ramp, or intersection which is already functioning at LAS F. That impact should be mitigated if feasible. If not feasible, then the City would have to consider whether there are overriding considerations which justify approval of the project. According to the information in the DSEIR, the following freeway segments, ramps and intersections would suffer a significant environmental impact from this project, because they are adding traffic to an LAS of F. The DSEIR states that the following areas would be operating at LAS F, even without this project. CAK'T C1061.005 GO N(T Year 2000 (DSEIR, p. 105, 108) • US 101 southbound off-ramp/northbound Bayshore Blvd intersection (AM) • Hillside Blvd./Chestnut Ave. intersection (PM) • US 101 segment north of Sierra Point (PM) [• US 101 southbound off-ramp to Bayshore Blvd. (AM)2] Year 2010 (DSEIR, p. 105, 108) • Sister Cities Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd./Bayshore Blvd./Airport Blvd. intersection (AM) • Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque Ave./US 101 northbound on- ramp (AM) • US 101 southbound off-ramp/northbound Bayshore Blvd. (~"i) • Sister Cities Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd./Bayshore Blvd./Airport Blvd. intersection (PM) (LOS E signalized) • Dubuque Ave./US 101 northbound off-ramp/southbound on- ramp (PM) • Hillside Blvd./Chestnut Ave. intersection (PM) • US 101 southbound off-ramp/northbound Bayshore Blvd. (PM) • All US 101 southbound freeway segments near the project (North of Sierra Point; Sierra Point to oyster Point; Oyster Point to Grand Avenue; Grand Avenue to South Airport) (PM) (Table 7, p. 98.) (.ON/f. - 2 The DSEIR does not provide any information about the LOS for this off-ramp in 2000, but it does say that the southbound off-ramp/Bayshore Blvd. intersection would be operating at an ~ p? unacceptable AM peak LOS E and "it would be expected that the off-ramp traffic would back up to the southbound freeway mainlin unless additional lanes were provided on the intersection approach or unless off-ramp detectors would control signal operation and allow off-ramp traffic to clear whenever backups approached the freeway mainline." (DSEIR, p. 108.) If the off- ramp backs up to the freeway mainline, that should be considered a significant impact. ctobt .005 5 US 101 southbound off-ramp to Bayshore Blvd. (AM) US 101 northbound off-ramp to Dubuque Ave. (AM) Any impact on any of these areas should be considered a significant impact, which must be mitigated if feasible. For example, the DSEIR states that Phase I of the project would not increase volumes by 2$ or more along the freeway segment north of Sierra Point in either 2000 or 2010. (DSEIR, p. 129.) However, any additional traffic impact on these segments should be considered a significant impact, because they are operating at LOS F even without the project. Similarly, the DSEIR states that in the year 2000, Phase I of the project would not significantly affect any intersections during the AM peak hour (DSEIR, p. 118), but the US 101 southbound off-ramp/northbound Bayshore Boulevard intersection will be functioning at LOS F in the year 2000 in the AM peak hour unless signalized (DSEIR, p. 105). The project's impact on this intersection is significant and it should be mitigated. The same is true for the intersections, ramps and freeway segments listed above in the year 2010. All project impacts in those areas should be considered significant and should be mitigated. C. Required Approvals The list of required approvals indicates that approval fro the City of Brisbane would be needed only for implementation of any mitigation for traffic impacts involving Bayshore Boulevard (DSEIR, p. 62.) However, in several places, the project description itself shows a left turn from northbound Bayshore Boulevard into the commercial area. (E.g., DSEIR, Figure 13, Figure 19, Specific Plan Exhibit 535.) Because Bayshore Boulevard is divided at that point by a median, approval would needed from the City of Brisbane for such a left turn. The DSEIR should therefore indicate that implementation of the project itself requires approval from the City of Brisbane, not just implementation of mitigation measures. D. "Hook" Ramps at Bayshore Boulevard !rll. Grp The DSEIR recommends improvements to the US 101 Southbound off-ramp to Bayshore Boulevard. It states that as a mitigation measure, each phase of the Terrabay project should provide a ~j3;0g "fair share" contribution towards the recommended Base Case improvements. (DSEIR, p. 152.) However, the Development Agreement provides that: C1061.005 6 ~~, LONT: The developer of the Terrabay project shall be completely responsible for the preparation of plans and the construction of the following public improvements, unless by prior agreement, another public or private agency or party has agreed to share in the cost of said improvements ... 5. "Hook" on and off Highway ramps from Highway 101 to Bayshore Boulevard in the vicinity of the Oyster Point Boulevard/Highway 101 Scissors Ramps. (Dev. Agt., Exh. G.) Therefore, it appears that the developer of the Terrabay project must pay the cost of construction of the hook ramps, unless another entity has agreed to share the cost. E. Proiect Traffic Impacts The DSEIR proposes that Terrabay pay its "fair share" of intersection and LOS improvements, as mitigation for several of the traffic impacts of the project. However, the DSEIR does not address the appropriate mitigation if no other projects come to fruition, so that there are no other projects with which to share the cost of expensive mitigation measures. For example, the flyover from southbound 101 to eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard is undoubtedly expensive. If Terrabay is the only project to be approved and built-out, it is unlikely that it could bear the entire cost of constructing that flyover. Yet, without the flyover, the impacts of Terrabay traffic would not be mitigated. The DSEIR should require substitution of another measure to mitigate Terrabay traffic if other projects are not available to share the cost of expensive proposed mitigation measures. In the absence of a substitute mitigation measure, and in the absence of any guarantee that others will be available to share the cost of expensive mitigation measures, the City would not have evidence upon which to base a finding that the traffic impacts had been mitigated. F. Feasibility of Mitigation Measures The DSEIR proposes several traffic mitigation without discussing their feasibility. One example from southbound US 101 to eastbound Oyster Point. should discuss whether such a mitigation measure i that the City will have adequate information befor which mitigation measures should be imposed. ~~ 33.0 measures is the flyover ~j,~~ The DSEIR s feasible, so e deciding C1061.005 7 G. The Cumulative Impacts Discussion Does Not Comply With CEQA The discussion of cumulative traffic impacts does not provide the information required by CEQA. The CEQA Guidelines state that a discussion of cumulative impacts shall include either a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects, or a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document. (14 Ca1.Code Reg. § 15130.) Here, the DSEIR states that the projections of future traffic volume are based on traffic volume projections in the East of 101 Area Plan Draft EIR and the Brisbane General Plan Circulation Element. (DSEIR, p. 90.) However, the DSEIR does not provide a summary of the projections contained in those planning documents. In the absence of that information, it is not possible to determine whether the traffic analysis is adequate. IV. SOILS AND GEOLOGY Enclosed with these comments is a letter from William Lettis and Associates, Inc., commenting on the geotechnical aspects of the DSEIR. The following is in addition to those comments. The DSEIR concludes that landslides and gullies have occurred on the site since it was graded and that they will occur in the future and should be considered a part of the homeowners' association's maintenance responsibilities. (DSEIR, p. 169.) As to slumping and erosion from the "goat farm" area, the DSEIR concludes that the streets would function as a buffer for the slumped and eroded material. (DSEIR, p. 170.) These landslides and gullies appeared after the original approvals and after the site was graded. (DSEIR, p. 168.) The possibility of future landslides and gullies should be considered a significant environmental impact. CEQA provides that a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will "cause substantial flooding, erosion or siltation." (CEQA Guidelines, App. G(q).) The DSEIR states that the landslides would be approximately 40' by 100'. (DSEIR, p. 169.) According to the DSEIR, gullies are up to four feet wide and three feet deep. (DSEIR, p. 169.) Erosion would be on-going according to the DSEIR. People who buy homes in Terrabay would certainly consider periodic landslides onto their streets and erosion from gullies to be significant events. In addition to the potential danger due to lack of emergency access, the inconvenience of streets blocked by landslides and the worry about the danger of landslides, the homeowners would have to pay to repair and {33.12- 33.13 r.>~ :: c~o6t.oos ° W ANT maintain these landslides and gullies through their homeowners' association, according to the DSEIR. There is no discussion in the DSEIR of the feasibility of requiring the homeowners to pay for repair and maintenance of these landslides. The DSEIR should provide a cost estimate, and estimate the level of reserves that would be necessary to meet these expenses. According to the attached letter from William Lettis & Associates, Inc., this issue was discussed during the preliminary stages of Phase I design, and no satisfactory solution was found. (Lettis, p. 2.) Unless the need to repair and maintain the landslides is addressed, the City would have no basis for concluding that these impacts have been mitigated. These landslides and gullies should be considered significant environmental impacts, and the DSEIR should suggest methods for mitigating the impacts prior to construction of any homes. The City should consider reducing the density of the project if it is necessary to protect residents from landslides.' If the impacts cannot be mitigated, then the City would have to consider whether overriding considerations justify approving the project.' V. DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY A. Drainage Ditches and Catchment Basins by of or It seems clear that the drainage ditches and catchment basins are not functioning to mitigate the impacts of drainage from the project site. The DSEIR itself notes that the drainage ditches and catchment basins which were installed after the prior approvals are not functioning properly. The DSEIR states that they should be cleaned and repaired and that perhaps their design should be reconsidered. (DSEIR, p. 177.) i Additionally, the South San Francisco Municipal Code (Terrabay Specific Plan District) and the Specific Plan require a storm drain system designed to handle runoff of an intensity equal to the worst storm of record or one-hundred year return period, whichever is worse (Municipal Code § 20.63.080; Specific ' The Specific Plan provides that, "The density of the residential portion of the project may be modified or reduced the City if detailed geotechnical data and/or implementation City development requirements indicate that said modification reduction is necessary, provided, however, that the overall density of the project is not exceeded." (Specific Plan Amendment ~ 12.) 33 ~3 GONT ' The DSEIR should provide information about the performance of the South Slope area during the 1989 earthquake. ciob~.oos 9 tom Plan, p. 17). The catchment basin/ditch drainage system has not withstood recent storms. The DSEIR does not propose specific modifications in the design of the system and does not provide any assurance that an adequate system can be designed in light of the steep slopes. Instead, the DSEIR proposes as a mitigation measure that the applicant fund a study of the possible malfunctioning of the catchment basin and ditch drainage system, and that the applicant shall be required to comply with any recommended mitigation measures before dedicating the system to the County. (DSEIR, p. 181.) In light of the failure of the previous system, a proposed future study is not an adequate mitigation measure. There is no assurance that this impact can be mitigated, and therefore investigation and consideration of mitigation measures cannot be deferred to the future. (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Ca1.App.3d 296 [248 Ca1.Rptr. 352J.) The study should be performed prior to project approval, so that the City can determine whether this impact can actually be mitigated. If this impact cannot be mitigated, the City must decide whether the project should be approved. ,~.~ B. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Under the federal Clean Water Act, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan must be adopted to prevent pollution of the San Francisco Bay from project run-off. The project site has been partially graded and, according to the DSEIR, the catchment basins and drainage ditches are not functioning. It is entirely likely that silt and other pollutants are being washed into the Bay in violation of the Clean Water Act, and possibly in violation of Municipal Code § 14.04. The DSEIR should provide information about the current ~ environmental impacts on San Francisco Bay and should suggest specific and effective mitigation measures. Additional grading should not be allowed until the adverse impact is fully mitigated. If a SWPPP has been adopted, its provisions should be discussed in the DSEIR, so that its adequacy as a mitigation measure can be assessed. C. Wetlands a__nd Streambed Alteration ~•~~ 33.15' The 1982 EIR and the DSEIR contain passing references to seasonal streams and riparian/vernal vegetation. However, ~3•lb neither document discusses whether activities associated with the project will affect these areas and trigger permit requirements under state and federal law. In particular, the project may require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps") under section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, and a streambed C1061.005 1 0 ~~" ~o~ alteration permit from the California Department of Fish and Game ("CDFG"). The DSEIR should discuss whether these areas will be affected and whether these legal requirements will be satisfied. 1. Factual Background The 1982 EIR and the DSEIR state that there are several seasonal streams above or on the project site which have "cut well-defined channels that appeared as ravines on steeper slopes, and swales on shallower slopes." (DSEIR, p. 173; 1982 EIR, p. 70.) These ravines and water courses "create a variety of microclimates favorable for the growth of plants requiring greater moisture," (DSEIR, p. 184), and, thus, support "riparian- like vegetation." (DSEIR, p. 183; 1982 EIR, p. 104.) In some portions of the site, such as the northeastern segment, "abundant moisture supports patches of vernally wet type vegetation." (1982 EIR, p. 103.) There also are several springs and ponded drainage areas above landslide areas at the western end of the site. (DSEIR, p. 174; 1982 EIR, p. 71.) The storm drainage system is intended to divert water that normally runs off of upper slopes onto the lower slopes proposed for development. (DSEIR, pp. 178, 180.) . Despite the presence of several streams and riparian areas on the project site, the Initial Study determined that there would be no significant changes that would modify the channel of a river or stream. (DSEIR, App. A, p. 12.) There was no mention in either the Initial Study' or the DSEIR text of whether the project would affect any wetland or riparian habitat. ._~ 2. Federal Clean Water Act Permit May be Recruired If the project would disturb a watercourse or involve the dredging or filling of wetlands, either during construction or landslide stabilization, the project applicant may need a permit from the Corps. The Corps has jurisdiction over all waters of the United States under section 404. of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344. This jurisdiction has been broadly interpreted and extends to intermittent streams and creeks. (Quivira Mining Co. v. U. S. EPA (10th Cir. 1985) 765 F.2d 126, 129-30; United States v. Phelps Dodge Corp. (D. Ariz. 1975) 391 F.Supp. 1181, i~ -~ ~'7 GoNf. ' The suggested Initial Study checklist in Appendix the CEQA Guidelines lists "Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)" as a potential environmental to be evaluated. (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix I, § VII.d.) Initial Study for this project omitted this issue. (See App. A.) I of impact The DSEIR, C1061.005 1 1 COii/T: 1187.)6 The Corps has asserted jurisdiction over areas that pond after rainstorms.' Even if the disturbed area is small (i.e., less than 10 acres), the activity may be subject to the conditions of a nationwide permit.° These conditions include the use and maintenance of appropriate erosion and siltation control, no actions jeopardizing endangered or threatened species or adversely modifying their critical habitat, and no activities affecting properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. (33 C.F.R. Part 330, App. A(C).) The State also must issue a water quality certification before the nationwide permit may be issued. (33 C.F.R. § 330.4(c), App. A(C)(9).) The DSEIR should clearly indicate whether any activities associated with the project (e.g., activities affecting seasonal streams and riparian areas) would affect any watercourses or wetlands subject to the Corps' jurisdiction, and whether these activities comply with the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act described above. _.. 3. Streambed Alteration Permit May be Required Before a person may "substantially divert or obstruct th natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or ban any river, stream or lake designated by the [CDFG]," CDF&G mus first be notified and its approval obtained. (Fish & Game Co 1603.)' 33. ~7 e 33. ~$ k of t de § c~NT 6 Most Corps districts interpret such streams to include drainages that receive water only during rain events. (Want, Law of Wetlands Regulation § 4.04[2].) However, most districts will not assert jurisdiction unless a drainage bed with an identifiable high-water mark or ledge has been established. (Ibid. ) ' Want, supra, § 4.04[3], fn. 45 (citing letter from Charles Murray, Asst. Administrator,.U.S. EPA, Region IX, to Col. Fred Butler, Dist. Engineer, Corps L.A. District, regarding jurisdictional determinations of the Ballona Creek land tract at Playa Del Ray, CA (dated Feb. 17, 1987).) See 33 U.S.C. § 1344(e)(1) (establishing Corps authority to issue general ("nationwide") permits authorizing activities with minimal environmental impact); 33 C.F.R. Part 330 (nationwide permits). 9 CDFG has 30 days after receiving notification to determine whether a fish or wildlife resource may be substantially adversely affected and to submit proposed C1061.005 1 2 GOI~IT: For purposes of implementing section 1603, CDFG has designated "all rivers, streams, lakes, and streambeds in the state, including those with intermittent flows ." (14 Ca1.Code Regs. ("C.C.R.") § 720.) "Streams (Includes Creeks and Rivers)" are defined as follows: [AJ body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation. (14• C.C.R. § 1.72.) The DSEIR states that there are seasonal streams with well- defined channels on or above the project site and that ravines and water courses support riparian-like vegetation. (DSEIR, p. 173, 183.) If activities associated with the project will substantially divert or obstruct the flows of the seasonal streams identified in the DSEIR, or substantially change their beds and banks, CDFG should be notified so that appropriate mitigation measures can be imposed. The DSEIR should also state that this is a required government approval for the project. VI. PUBLIC SERVICES - Schools The City has the authority to impose additional mitigation measures or deny the request to amend the Specific Plan based on unmitigated school impacts. The DSEIR's conclusion that school impacts have been mitigated to insignificance is not supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the City must either impose additional mitigation measures, deny the Specific Plan amendment, or adopt a statement of overriding considerations stating that project approval is warranted despite the significant, unmitigated school impacts. A. Backcrround The residential portion of Terrabay is to provide homes for nearly four hundred school-age children. (DSEIR, p. 209.) These children will be served by three school districts.10 Some of mitigation measures to the applicant. (Ibid.) Unless CDFG fails to act on the notice within 30 days, the affected person cannot commence activities until mutual agreement is reached with CDFG regarding mitigation of impacts. (Ibid.) io The three districts and the estimated additional schoolchildren are the South San Francisco Unified School District (260}, the Brisbane School District (90), and the ?iii. l $ 33,1 C1061.005 1 3 the affected schools are already operating at or over capacity, and all of the affected schools are expected to be operating over capacity by 1999-2000. (DSEIR, pp. 202-03.) The DSEIR states that increased enrollment generated by the project will lead to insufficient classroom and ancillary school facilities. {DSEIR, pp. 209-10.) Hence, it is foreseeable that the project ultimately will lead to physical impacts on the environment from school construction. Overcrowding could also lead to additional traffic impacts or an increased need for public services such as buses. (Goleta Union Sch. Dist. v. Regents of the Univ. of California (1995) 36 Ca1.App.4th 1121, 44 Ca1.Rptr.2d 110, 115.) The General Plan for the City of South San Francisco establishes the following policy: No development proposal should be approved if supporting utility systems and public services are inadequate to accommodate the proposed development. (General Land Use Policy 6, p. 3-2.) According to the CEQA Guidelines, land use plan inconsistencies are a presumptively significant impact. (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G(a).) The primary mitigation measure for school impacts which is suggested in the DSEIR is a requirement that the developer pay the statutorily required school impact fees. (See Gov. Code §§ 53080, 65995.) However, these fees will not be sufficient to cover the full costs of this overcapacity (e.g., additional classrooms, restrooms, physical and special education facilities) in two of the three affected school districts. (DSEIR, pp. 209- 10.) Therefore, the DSEIR recommends that the developer "voluntarily agree" to negotiate with the school districts to provide additional funds or implement other mitigation measures. (DSEIR, p. 213.) B. Statutory Limits on School Imr~act Mitigation In 1986, the Legislature passed a set of laws aimed at curbing fees and other requirements imposed on development projects to remedy school impacts. (Stats. 1986, c. 887.) Government Code section 5308011 authorizes school districts to Jefferson Union High School District (20). (DSEIR, p. 209.) 11 All further references in this discussion of school impact mitigation measures are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated. ~•~~ ct obi .005 14 ~N7. r. levy fees and other requirements on development projects.12 But section 65995 establishes fee limits and prohibits local agencies from imposing any other "fee, charge, dedication or other requirement" on development projects. (§ 65995(a).)13 Section 65996 establishes the "exclusive methods of mitigating environmental effects related to the adequacy of school facilities" when establishing mitigation measures or considering whether to approve a development project under CEQA. (§ 65996(a).)14 This section also prohibits an agency from denying project approval under CEQA on the basis of inadequate school facilities. (§ 65996(b).) In Grupe Devel. Co. v. Superior Court (1993) 4 Ca1.4th 921, 917, 16 Ca1.Rptr.2d 226, the court held that, with the exception of special taxes levied under Mello-Roos,ls the Legislature intended to preempt all other methods of imposing fees andlother requirements for school facilities on developers. (Ibid.) 12 A "development project" is defined as: "[AJny project undertaken for the purpose of development, and includes a project involving the issuance of a permit for construction or reconstruction, but not a permit to operate." (§ 53080(a)(2).) 13 Special taxes under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act ("Mello-Roos"), §§ 53311-53317.5, are expressly excluded from this prohibition. (§ 65995(f).) Mello-Roos authorizes local government agencies, including school districts, to form community facilities districts to finance the purchase, construction, expansion, improvement or rehabilitation of any real or tangible property. (§ 53313.5.) (§§ 53326, 53328.) To establish a Mello-Roos district, the agency must adopt a resolution of intent and provide for public notice and hearing. After a district is formed, the agency may hold an election to authorize a proposed special tax (2/3 voter approval required). " These methods include, in addition to impact fees required under sections 53080 and 65996, school building lease- purchases, emergency leasing of school facilities and portable classrooms, issuing bonds, and establishing a Mello-Roos community facilities district. (§ 65996(a)(1)-(7).) is See, supra, footnote 13. is These limitations have even been found to preempt land use planning and zoning consistency requirements.. In Corona- Norco Unified Sch. Dist. v. City of Corona (1993) 13 Ca1.App.4th 1577, 1585, 17 Ca1.Rptr.2d 236, the court held that, although "the consistency doctrine is 'the linchpin of California's land ~~7 `~ c~obi.oos 15 Gd~tT: Notwithstanding the strict court rulings on the preemption issue, the courts of appeal have limited the restrictions in sections 65995 and 65996 to adjudicative agency action (e.g., variances, subdivision map approvals, building pera-its, conditional use permits).17 The courts have reasoned that sections 65995 and 65996 only apply to "development projects,"16 which are limited to adjudicative actions. (Ibid.) Hence, a local agency can impose additional mitigation measures or deny project approval based on inadequate school facilities as long as the approval is legislative in nature (e.g., general/specific plan adoption 'or amendment, zoning changes). (Ibid.)19 Section 65996(b)'s project denial prohibition is also inapplicable to legislative actions. In William S. Hart Union High Sch. Dist. v. Regional Planning Comm'n (1991) 226 Ca1.App.3d 1612, 1626-27, 277 Ca1.Rptr. 645, the court held that a school district could challenge a county's legislative approvals related to a proposed development under CEQA on the grounds that the county failed to do all it could to mitigate adverse school impacts. (226 Ca1.App.3d at: pp. 1626-27 (e. g., county could have denied requested zoning change); see also Mira Deve1. Corp. v. City of San Diego (1988) 205 Ca1.App.3d 1201, 1216-1218, 252 Ca1.Rptr. 825 (§ 65995 does not limit City's ability to deny zoning application).) The proposed Terrabay project consists of two legislative actions: amending the Specific Plan and amending the Development Agreement to extend their terms. Therefore, the limitations and use and development laws,' the Legislature has clearly mandated that development takes precedence to the adequacy of school facilities." 17 See Murrieta, 228 Ca1.App.3d at p. 432, 434 (general plan amendment approving 210,000-acre community plan was legislative); William S. Hart Union High Sch. Dist. v. Regional Planning Comm'n (1991) 226 Ca1.App.3d 1612, 1626-27, 277 Ca1.Rptr. 645 (approvals for CUP, zoning changes, local plan amendment, development agreement and tentative subdivision tract map were legislative; court's analysis focused on zoning change); Mira Deve1. Corp. v. City of San Diego (1988) 205 Ca1.App.3d 1201, 1230-31, 252 Ca1.Rptr. 825 (rezoning of 11 acres was legislative). Compare Corono-Norco, 13 Ca1.App.4th at p. 1586 (tentative tract map approvals were adjudicative). 18 See definition, supra, footnote 12. is The courts have acknowledged that, for all practical purposes, a legislative action may have the same effect on a developer as an adjudicative action. (Hart, 226 Ca1.App.3d at p. 1623-24 & fn. 12; Mira, 205 Ca1.App.3d at p. 1218.) '~331~ c~obi.oos 16 GONT: ANT prohibitions in sections 65995 and 65996 do not apply to those actions. C. Mitigation Measures 1. The Mitigation Measures in the DSEIR are Inadequate - The DSEIR imposes three mitigation measures to address school impacts. First, the developer is required to pay the school impact fees required by section 65995. Second, the developer is to install a sidewalk along Bayshore Boulevard for children walking to school. Third, the developer is to "voluntarily agree" to negotiate with the school districts regarding additional mitigation. (DSEIR, pp. 31-32.) No information is provided regarding whether or when such a voluntary agreement might take place. The DSEIR admits that the statutorily required impact fees are inadequate to mitigate the project's school impacts to below significance. (DSEIR, p. 31.) And there is no assurance that the developer will agree to provide additional mitigation, or that this voluntary mitigation will be sufficient to reduce these impacts to insignificance. Yet the DSEIR concludes that school impacts have been mitigated to a less than significant level. (DSEIR, pp. 31-32.) There is no substantial evidence to support this conclusion. (See, e.g., Murrieta Valley Unified Sch. Dist. v. County of Riverside (1991) 228 Ca1.App.3d 1212, at pp. 1234- 35; 279 Ca1.Rptr. 421.) Moreover, approving the project without ensuring that adequate school facilities exist violates General Plan Policy 6, discussed above. This land use inconsistency should be identified as an additional significant impact of the project. The City should either impose additional mitigation measures, disapprove the project, or issue a statement of overriding considerations justifying these impacts. ?73 The DSEIR should also evaluate school impacts beyond 1999- 2000, which is a mere 3-4 years into the future. An extended analysis may reveal much more significant impacts. When ?j?j,7,0 evaluating other impacts, the DSEIR forecasts to 2010 (e.g., traffic, water). (DSEIR, pp. 128, 204.) There is no reason why school impacts should not be given similar treatment. 2. The City has Failed to do All it Can to Mitigate School Impacts 2 t The developer has asked the City to extend the expiration 73 `~ date of the Specific Plan. This constitutes an amendment to the Specific Plan and, thus, is a legislative action not subject to C1061.005 1 ~ W~. ~K'T: the limitations in sections 65995 and 65996. Thus, the City is not constrained by sections 65995 or 65996 from considering and imposing additional mitigation measures in the DSEIR, or from denying the requested extension based on inadequate school impact mitigation. (Murrieta, 228 Ca1.App.3d at p. 1234.) 2 Q~ One mitigation measure the City could consider is phasing ~%•' / the project until adequate school facilities are in place. The City or the school districts could also create a Mello-Roos district to levy a special tax to pay for additional school facilities. The DSEIR should examine the possibility of other mitigation measures. D. Attendance at Brisbane Schools The DSEIR states that students from portions of the Terrabay project will attend elementary and junior high schools in Brisbane. The DSEIR asserts that these schools are within walking distance of the project. (DSEIR, p. 203.) The DSEIR should find that having students walk from the Terrabay project to Brisbane schools could create a significant adverse impact. These students can only walk to Brisbane by walking along Bayshore Boulevard, which is a busy thoroughfare. Further, when the project is fully built-out, the students will have to walk past the commercial area, and Bayshore Boulevard will have additional traffic. CEQA provides that the local agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment when it will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. (Guidelines § 15065(d).) The potential harm to young students having to walk along Bayshore Boulevard from South San Francisco to Brisbane and back should be a significant impact. The DSEIR should suggest ways to mitigate this impact (funding of school buses, installing a sidewalk with fencing between the street and the sidewalk, installing street lights). If the impact cannot be mitigated, the City would have to consider whether overriding considerations justify extending the project approvals. E. Calculation of School Impact Fees 33. ZI The DSEIR calculates that 270 students will attend elementary and middle schools (120 in City elementary schools, 60 ~j?j ZZ in City middle schools, 90 in Brisbane schools), and that 100 students will attend high school (80 in City schools, 20 in Jefferson schools). (DSEIR, p. 209.) The DSEIR should explain how these figures were derived. It would appear that the 270 C1061.005 1 8 G~7Pl1: elementary and middle school students will eventually attend high school, causing additional impacts on the high schools. The derivation of these figures and the calculation of the impact fees should be further explained. VII. PUBLIC SERVICES - Sewer Service ~..,~ According to the DSEIR, both the on-site and off-site wastewater systems "have problems" due to storm and/or groundwater infiltration. (DSEIR, p. 211-213.) The DSEIR proposes that those systems be inspected and repaired to the City's satisfaction prior to City acceptance of any maintenance responsibilities. (DSEIR, p. 214.) However, a more appropriate mitigation measure would be to require the applicant to repair those-systems to the City's satisfaction before any other physical work is done on the project site. It is by no means clear that this problem can be satisfactorily mitigated, and the DSEIR does not set forth any proposed repair measures. The City should not allow the project to go forward until this problem is resolved. If the problem cannot be resolved, approval of the project should be reconsidered. ,. 33.23 VIII. PUBLIC SERVICES - Water Service The 1982 Specific Plan states that the portion of the ?j'lj.~ project east of the PG&E easement was not within the service area of the California Water Service Company, and would have to be annexed. The DSEIR should state whether that annexation has occurred. IX. NOISE The 1990 Noise Element of the City's General Plan addressees noise impacts from freeways and highways, and adopts the following policy: Development proposals located within the 65 dB CNEL contour due to traffic noise shall include analysis by a qualified acoustical engineer so as to determine appropriate measures to mitigate traffic noise impacts. (Policy N-11.) The Technical Appendix to the Noise element shows that parts of the Terrabay project are within the 65 dB CNEL contour due to traffic noise. (Noise Element, Technical Appendix, Map following p. 7.) The DSEIR does not indicate that a qualified acoustical engineer has analyzed the noise impacts on the portions of Terrabay that are located in the 65 dB contour due to traffic, as ~,? 25 C1061.005 1 required by the Noise Element. The only noise measurements mentioned in the DSEIR were taken in 1982. (DSEIR, p. 222.) Because the Noise Element requires that a "development ?j'~ Z5 proposal" include a noise analysis, and the current Specific Plan does not include such an analysis, approval of an extension of the Specific Plan without the required analysis would not be consistent with the Noise Element of the General Plan. GON'r; Further, the information in the DSEIR is not current. The DSEIR has taken a sentence from the 1990 Noise Element and, presented it as current information. Thus, the 1996 DSEIR states: Caltrans prof ections for US 101 traffic volumes range from 158 000 to 225,000 vehicles per day, as compared with the current volume of 214,000 vehicles per dav. As a result, future changes in US 101 noise levels are also unpredictable. (DSEIR, p. 222; emphasis added.) The underlined sentence is virtually verbatim from the 1990 Noise Element, which states: Caltrans currently is revising their forecast for freeway and highway noise in the South San Francisco area. The current p,roiections for the Bayshore freeway (for instance) are 158 000 to 225.000 vehicles per dav, compared with the current volume of 214,000 vehicles per day. Thus the current Caltrans estimates for the Bayshore Freeway, for I- 280 or for E1 Camino Real provide no basis for predicting future noise exposure. Therefore, the best noise exposure estimate for South San Francisco in the year 2005 is the current noise exposure. (1990 Noise Element, Technical Appendix, p. 6, emphasis added.) The DSEIR should not present information which dates back at least to 1990 as though it were current information. Instead, the current information should be provided. Further, the DSEIR's statement that future noise levels are "unpredictable" is contradicted by the City's 1990 Noise Element, which states that current noise is the best predictor of future noise. The DSEIR should measure current noise, analyze traffic projections, and provide an estimate of future noise. The information about future traffic projections is clearly available, as is shown by the DSEIR itself, which projected future traffic levels on US 101 in the "Transportation" section of the DSEIR. For example, the DSEIR predicts that the segment of US 101 southbound between Sierra Point and Oyster Point will have a volume of 11,180 cars per hour in the year 2010 during the PM peak hour. (DSEIR, p. 130.) Such estimates should have been ~~ ~j'' .Z7 cioe~.oos 2 0 v GOf~!"'r ~oAIT used to predict noise levels. There is no basis for the DSEIR's conclusion that future noise levels are unpredictable. The project proponent should submit a current noise analysis ~j7.Z7 conducted by a qualified acoustical engineer prior to approval of 7 the project, as required by the Noise Element. The analysis should be submitted and considered as part of the DSEIR process, so that adequate mitigation measures may be considered. If there are no adequate mitigation measures, the City should consider redesigning the portion of the project which is located within the 65 dB CNEL contour. Further, the DSEIR should contain an analysis of airport noise, so that the City can consider whether there are adequate 'j~3.~ measures to mitigate airport noise, or whether the project should be redesigned. Instead, the DSEIR simply recommends a future study. (DSEIR, p. 228.) X. AIR QUALITY p,. Standards of Significance 33• Z`~ The DSEIR discusses the project's consistency with the 1991 Clean Air Plan adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management _ District (DSEIR, p. 254). However, the BAAQMD adopted a "Bay Area '94 Clean Air Plan" on December 21, 1994. The DSEIR should discuss the project's consistency with the 1994 Clean Air Plan. The DSEIR notes that after the original approval of the Terrabay project, the BAAQMD established standards of significance for criteria pollutants. (DSEIR, p. 237.) However, those standards of significance were adopted in 1985, prior to passage of the California Clean Air Act. (Health & Safety Code § 40910, et seq.) The BAAQMD is now proposing to reduce those standards of significance in order to try to meet the goal of the California Clean Air Act of a 5$ per year reduction in emissions of nonattainment pollutants. (Health & Safety Code § 40913.) Instead of a standard of 150 pounds per day for ROG, NOx and PMior the BAAQMD is currently proposing a reduction to 80 pounds per day of those pollutants. (BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, DRAFT, December, 1995, p. 16.) The DSEIR should consider whether, even with the proposed mitigation measures, the project's emissions of NOx would exceed this standard of significance. ~~ c~oe~.oos 2 1 B. Construction Impacts The proposed BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines list various measures to control construction emissions. The DSEIR should consider ~~ 3I whether those measures should be imposed to mitigate such emissions. (Id., Table 2.) C. Cumulative Impacts The DSEIR does not appear to consider cumulative impacts on air quality. The DSEIR should .consider whether the project will cause or contribute to a violation of state or federal air ?j?j,?j2. quality standards. The San Francisco Bay Area is not in attainment with the state standards for PM,o or for ozone. Further, the Bay Area's Clean Air Plan does not meet the state standard of a 5~ annual reduction in emissions of nonattainment pollutants. In these circumstances, it is particularly important to evaluate the project's cumulative impacts on air quality. D. Transportation Systems Management The DSEIR should consider additional TSM measures to reduce the project's impacts on air quality. For example, the project could include additional bike routes, pedestrian routes to bus stops, and coordination of signals along arterials to improve traffic flow. The developer could provide initial funds to establish a ridesharing program (to be supported by homeowners thereafter), provide some clean fuel school buses, and establish shuttles to Cal Train and shopping centers. The Circulation Element of the City's General Plan states that the Cal Train rail station "should be improved and expanded into a community transportation center with provisions for bus, rail, bicycle, jitney, and other mass transit modes." (Circ. Element, p. 4-8.) The Circulation Element also notes that "[a] significant portion of South San Francisco residents work in San Francisco or south San Mateo County." (Id.) Requiring the project sponsor to participate in funding to improve and expand the Cal Train station would help mitigate impacts on air quality, as well as impacts on transportation systems. The 1994 BAAQMD Clean Air Plan also lists possible TSM measures. (Citation are to pages in the CAP.) All of the following measures should be considered for the Terrabay project: 1. Contribute to local bus 2. Connect with Cal Train; Cal Train (p. 28) 3. Improve bicycle and bus service (p. 27) shuttle from commercial to access to CalTrain (p. 28) ~~ ci o6:. oos 2 2 GOVT. GOlv7 , 4. Provide high occupancy vehicle (i.e., carpool) lanes for freeways; provide bicycle lanes on bridges (e.g., the oyster Point overcrossing) (p. 29) 5. Provide clean fuel school buses (p. 29) 6. Provide car pool information at schools (p. 29) ?j?j,33 7. Contribute to local signal timing programs; signal preemption on arterials for buses; improve arterials for buses (p. 30) 8. Sell transit passes at recreation center; fund transit passes; arrange ridesharing at the recreation center; provide vans for vanpooling (P. 31) 29). 9. Convert buses to clean fuels (p. XI. CULTURAL RESOURCES A. Introduction There have been several archaeological resources identified on the Terrabay project site. The DSEIR must comply with CEQA's requirements for archaeological resources, as well as other state and federal laws that apply to such resources. In sum, it appears that: (1) there has been no consultation with the State Native American Heritage Commission, as required by state law; (2) the DSEIR may not meet CEQA's requirements for identifying and mitigating impacts to important archaeological resources; and (3) federal permits issued for the project may trigger review under the National Historic Preservation Act. B. Factual BackcLround There are at least three identified archaeological deposits on the Terrabay project site. Resource CA-SMa-40 ("#40") is a large shell mound with significant archaeological value located in the direct zone of development. (1982 EIR, p. 154.) Resource CA-SMa-92 ("#92") is small shell midden also located in the development area. (Ibid.) There have been oral reports of human remains in #92. (Ibid.) Resource CA-SMa-234 ("#234") is a smaller midden deposit "just outside" the zone of development. (Ibid.) In addition, the staff at State Historical Resources System has indicated that the entire site has a high potential for previously undiscovered Native American sites. (DSEIR, p. 244.) C. Discussion 1. Failure to Consult with the State Native American Herita a Commission Public Resources Code section 5097.95 requires local agencies to cooperate with the State Native American Heritage 23 c~os~.oos Commission ("NAHC") to fulfill the NAHC's duties under Public Resources Code section 5097.94. This cooperation includes, bL~ is not limited to, providing the NAHC with relevant sections of EIRs where the EIRs relate to property identified by the NAHC to be of special religious significance to Native Americans, or for which it is reasonably foreseeable to be of such significance.~0 The Public Resources Code requires local agencies to help the NAHC fulfill its statutory duties, "including, but not limited to" consulting with the NAHC on EIRs for properties with special religious significance. The NAHC!s duties include the identification of places of special religious and social significance to, and graves and cemeteries of, Native Americans. (§ 5097.94(a).) The DSEIR does not indicate whether the NAHC has identified any of the resources on the site as places of special religious or social significance to, or with known graves and cemeteries of, Native Americans. (Pub. Res. Code § 5097.94(a).) Nevertheless, based on the information disclosed in the 1982 EIR and DSEIR, the existence of such resources is certainly reasonably foreseeable. For example, the large shell mound (#40) has been identified as potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. (See National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. § 470a.) (DSEIR, p. 244; 1982 EIR, p. 154.) The staff at the State Historical Resources System has indicated that the entire site has a high potential for previously undiscovered Native American sites. (DSEIR, p. 244.) There is no mention in the DSEIR that the NAHC was consulted during the preparation of the EIR. (See DSEIR, p. 275.) Rather, the documents state that the NAHC is to be consulted only if cultural resources are found or disturbed during construction. (DSEIR, p. 246.) The relevant sections of the DSEIR should be provided to the NAHC and its comments considered by the City prior to project approval. 2. Inadequate CEOA Mitigation a. CEOA Section 21083 2 Requirements Section 21083.2 of CEQA establishes standards for determining whether a project may have a significant impact on unique archaeological resources and prescribes methods for 33.3~- X3.35 20 See Environmental Protection Information Center v. Johnson (1985) 170 Ca1.App.3d 604, 216 Ca1.Rptr. 502 (setting ~~ aside approval of timber harvest plan because Department of Forestry failed to consult with the NAHC and provided inadequate response to the NAHC's comments regarding damage to culturally significant site). cio6~.oos 2 4 GON7: mitigating such impacts. (Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2.) There is a strong preference for leaving unique archaeological resources in place or undisturbed, and the lead agency can require that reasonable efforts be made toward this end. (§ 21083.2(b).) If avoidance is not feasible, the project applicant must guarantee to pay 50$ of the estimated mitigation costs up to a certain percentage of the project cost. (§ 21083.2(c)-(e).) If the applicant does not agree to pay 100$ of the costs of mitigation identified in the EIR, the lead agency must provide a 60-day period after completion of the EIR and before project approval for interested persons to provide voluntary funding guarantees for the unfunded portion of the mitigation. (§ 21083.2(c).) The lead agency also may make provisions for archaeological sites accidentally discovered during construction. (§ 21083.2(1).) These provisions may include immediate evaluation of the resource, contingency funding, and construction delays to sample the resource or develop avoidance measures. (Ibid.) (See also, Appendix K of the CEQA guidelines.) b. TerrabaV EIR Compliance According to the 1982 EIR, resource #234 is "just outside of the proposed development activity," and resources #40 and #92 "are in the direct location of the development." (1982 EIR, p. 154.) Thus, avoidance or mitigation is required for resources #40 and #92 if they are unique or important. (1) Capging of #40 Resource #40, the large shell mound, is to be capped with a plastic matting and one foot of soil. "Capping" qualifies as avoidance of the resource if certain requirements are met (e.g., no serious soil compaction, chemically inactive covering materials). (§ 21083.2(b)(3); Appendix K, § II.B.3.) The 1982 3?~.?js' EIR noted that the capping activities would "unavoidably create some direct impact" to the resource due to scarification and movement of heavy equipment. (1982 EIR, p. 155.) Thus, it is questionable whether the capping of #40 constitutes avoidance of the resource. If not, the mitigation requirements of section 21083.2 and Appendix K must be followed. (2) Deferred Mitigation for #92 According to the 1982 EIR, resource #92, the small shell _ _ midden, "appears to be very rich and is assumed to be relatively ~~~'- intact." (1982 EIR, p. 154.) There also are oral reports that ~j~'j.~p #92 contains possible human remains. (Ibid.) This resource "is in the direct location of the development." (Ibid.) The only mitigation measure specified for this resource is a determination C1061.005 25 y tour. GoN`r' of its subsurface boundaries and significance before Phase III grading commences. (DSEIR, p. 247.) Additional mitigation measures "may be recommended" at that point. (Ibid.) It is unclear why the boundaries and significance of this potentially important site have not yet been identified in light 33•~ of the substantial delay that this project has experienced. These activities should occur prior to project approval so that adequate mitigation measures can be identified. . (3) Insufficient Information and Mitigation for #234 The DSEIR does not discuss whether resource #234, the smaller midden deposit, is still "just outside" the zone of development. (1982 EIR, p. 154.) The DSEIR should note whether ?j?!.?!7 the extensive grading and landslide repair work necessary to stabilize the area has the potential to impact this resource. If so, adequate mitigation measures should be incorporated in the DSEIR. (4) Inadequate Mitigation for Unidentified Resources In addition to the specific resources identified, the staff at the State Historical Resources System has indicated that the entire site has a high potential for previously undiscovered Native American sites. (DSEIR, p. 244.) The only mitigation measure for this potential significant impact is to stop work and conduct an archaeological evaluation if cultural resources are 33.~ encountered during construction. (DSEIR, p. 246.) This is the mitigation measure CEQA specifies for archaeological resources "accidentally discovered" during construction. (§ 21083.2(1); Appendix K, § IX.) It is difficult to understand how such resources could be accidentally discovered when the project is undertaken with the knowledge that the site has a high potential for their discovery. The site should be evaluated for archaeological resources prior to project approval and, if necessary, appropriate mitigation measures identified. (5) Potential Noncompliance with Funding Guarantee Requirement The DSEIR does not require the developer to guarantee to fund half of the required mitigation. The "capping" of resource _ #40 may qualify as avoidance, not mitigation, if there is no damage to the resource. However, mitigation may be required for ?,~r.2~ the other resources. Because the mitigation measures for these other resources are so indefinite, it is difficult to estimate the developer's funding requirement or provide information to interested persons to make voluntary funding guarantees. The cioe~.oos 2 6 ~~~ GO~j; mitigation measures for these other resources should be set forth in detail so these funding guarantees can be obtained. ~~.~ 3. Potential Applicability of National Historic Preservation Act The National Historic Preservation Act ("NHPA"), 16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq., provides for the listing of historical properties on the National Register of Historic Places. The NHPA also requires a federal agency to do the following before undertaking or assisting any action that may affect properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register: (1) consider the effect of the project on such properties; and (2) provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the activity. (16 U.S.C. § 47Of.)21 Any Indian tribes that attach religious or cultural significance to the affected properties must be consulted during this process. (16 U.S.C. § 470a(d) (6) (A).)Z~ a. Property "eligible for inclusion" in National Register Property "eligible for inclusion" in the National Register is not limited to properties that have been officially determined to be eligible, but includes properties that may qualify for inclusion under the regulatory criteria. (Boyd v. Roland (5th Cir. 1986) 789 F.2d 347, 349; Colorado River Indian Tribes v. Marsh (C.D. Cal. 1985) 605 F.Supp. 1425, 1437; 36 C.F.R. § 800.2(e), 800.3(f).) The determining factor is the inherent historical and cultural significance of the property. (Ibid.) Properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native Americans may be determined to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register. (16 U.S.C. § 470a(d)(6)(A).) GON7 ; 21 Although the State Historic Preservation Office is primarily responsible for implementing the NHPA, (16 U.S.C. § 470a(b)), both the State Office and the National Advisory Council have extensive authority to comment on and delay permit applications. (Kostka & Zischke, 2 Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act § 20.111.) 2Z The Secretary of Interior also has a general duty to foster cooperation between Indian tribes and State Historic Preservation Officers to ensure that interests in preserving Native American historical properties are given due consideration. (16 U.S.C. § 470a(d)(1)(A).) C1061.005 2 7 GO/~' f b. What Constitutes a Federal "Undertaking" The Advisory Council has issued regulations broadly defiz~:.y federal "undertakings" as follows: Any project, activity, or program that can result in changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any such historic properties are located in the area of potential effects. The project, activity, or program must be under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency or licensed or assisted by a Federal agency. Undertakings include new and continuing projects, activities, or programs and any of their elements not previously considered under section 106. (36 C.F.R. § 800.2(0).) Federal courts have upheld this broad definition, finding NHPA's consultation requirement applicable to projects subject to ongoing federal licenses at any stage of the undertaking where the agency has the ability to require changes that could mitigate the project's impact on historic preservation goals. (E.g., Vieux Carre Property Owners, Residents & Assoc., Inc. v. Brown (5th Cir. 1991) 948 F.2d 1436, 1445.) Here, the City and the developer are operating under an ongoing federal permit under the federal Endangered Species Act. Further, as discussed below, it does not appear that the conditions of the permit are being fulfilled and therefore, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service would currently have the authority to take action to enforce the permit conditions. Additionally, other permits for new or continuing projects directly issued by a federal agency would constitute an undertaking subject to NHPA requirements. For example, a nationwide permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers for dredging and filling of wetlands on the project site,' or a revision of the section 10(a) Endangered Species Act ("ESA") permit by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service would constitute an "undertaking." In addition, a permit issued by a state agency with delegated authority to implement a federal law may qualify as an undertaking. For example, a permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board under the Clean Water Act (e.g., NPDES permit for stormwater discharges). (See, e.g., Indiana Coal Council, Inc. v. Lujan (D.D.C. 1991) 774 F.Supp. 1385, 1400-03.) z3 Vieux Carre Property Owners, Residents & Assoc., Inc. v. Brown (5th Cir. 1989) 875 F.2d 453, 465 (issuance of nationwide permit may trigger NHPA review). ~•~ GON?' C1061.005 2 8 c. A~olicabilitY to TerrabaY Resource #40, the large shell mound, has been identified as potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. (DSEIR, p. 244; 1982 EIR, p. 154.) This resource is "in the direct location of the development." (1982 EIR, p. 154.) Neither the 1982 EIR or the DSEIR discuss whether resource #92, the small shell midden, or resource #234, the smaller midden deposit, are eligible for listing on the National Register. According to the 1982 EIR, #92 "appears to be very rich and is assumed to be relatively intact" and "is in the direct location of the development." (1982 EIR, p. 154.) There also have been oral reports that #92 contains possible human remains. (Ibid.) Additionally, the staff at the State Historical Resources System has indicated that the entire site has a high potential for previously undiscovered Native American sites. (DSEIR, p. 244.) Assuming that at least one of the above resources is eligible for listing on the National Register (most probably #40), the project almost certainly would qualify as an "undertaking" triggering NHPA review and consultation if a federal permit is issued in connection with the project, and may trigger review if a state agency issues a permit pursuant to federal authority. The DSEIR should discuss the necessity for additional federal permits or an amendment to the ESA §10(a) permit (e.g., for landslide repair). If NHPA review and consultation is required, it should be identified in the DSEIR as a required government approval. XII. ALTERNATIVES The DSEIR does not discuss the "No Project" alternative of disapproving the requested extensions, but proceeding with a new dd specific plan and either with or without a new development ~.'i' agreement. The DSEIR should discuss the environmental impacts of proceeding with a new specific plan and proceeding either with a new development agreement or without a development agreement at ._ a 11. ""-'~ If the term of the Development Agreement is extended, then the City cannot impose any requirements that were adopted after the 1983 Development Agreement was approved. The DSEIR should discuss the environmental impacts of agreeing in advance not to~,',~ impose any requirements that were adopted after the Development Agreement was originally approved. If the term of the Development Agreement is not extended, then the City will be free to impose current up-to-date requirements on the project. The DSEIR should discuss whether C1061.005 2 9 l~~ GO(~; there are any current requirements which could be imposed if the term of the 1983 Development Agreement is not extended. Additionally, if the project proceeds without a development agreement, then the City will be free to impose new requirements ,- on the project in the future, so long as the developer has not obtained vested rights. ~~'' The DSEIR should discuss the environmental impacts of proceeding with and without a development agreement. .~. XIII. PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH ADOPTED PLANS AND POLICIES The DSEIR addresses the project's consistency with adopted plans and policies. However, the discussion is incomplete. A. 1994 Bav Area Clean Air Plan As noted above, the DSEIR discusses the project's consistency with the 1991 Clean Air Plan adopted by the Bay Area ?~i.~}'Z Air Quality Management District (DSEIR, p. 254), instead of the more recently adopted 1994 Clean Air Plan. The DSEIR should discuss the project's consistency with the 1994 CAP. B. Noise Element of South San Francisco General Plan The City adopted a Noise Element for its General Plan in 1990 which replaced the prior noise element. The DSEIR does not '•j3 47 mention the 1990 noise element in the discussion of consistency with adopted plans. (DSEIR, p. 253.) It should discuss the project's consistency with the 1990 noise element, particularly because the project does not appear to be consistent with the noise element, as discussed above. C. Habitat Conservation Plan The City of South San Francisco has received a permit under Section 10(a) of the federal Endangered Species Act. That permit allows the City to authori2e construction on designated areas of San Bruno Mountain, so long as the construction is in compliance with the provisions of the Agreement With Respect to the San Bruno Mountain Area Habitat Conservation Plan ("HCP Agreement"). The permit states: "All aspects of the 'Agreement with Respect to the San Bruno Mountain Area Habitat Conservation Plan' must be complied with and completely implemented." (Permit, 1 11.D.2.) The HCP Agreement contains several requirements which should have been complied with prior to recordation of the final 77.~ ~l~1T. ciobi.oos 30 ~~r. subdivision map for Phase I, as well as requirements which must be complied with prior to issuance of building permits.Z' The HCP Agreement provides that the City of South San Francisco "shall take no ... discretionary action without first finding that the action complies with this Agreement ..." (HCP Agreement, p. 21.) Thus, in order to approve extension of the Specific Plan or Development Agreement, the City must find that the project is in compliance with the HCP Agreement. If the project is not in compliance, then the City cannot approve the extension of the Specific Plan or Development Agreement because it cannot make the required compliance finding. Nor can the City issue building permits until the project is in compliance with the HCP Agreement and Section 10(a) permit.2S 1. Dedication of Omen Space to County The HCP Agreement provides that designated open space adjacent to the Terrabay project on San Bruno Mountain shall be dedicated as conserved habitat to the county. .The HCP Agreement 2jZ L~tj provides that the offer of dedication shall occur with recordation of the final subdivision tract map.26 The HCP provides that the offer of dedication shall take place with the first grading permit is received.' Z' The HCP Agreement provides that "Each local government may issue grading permits and building permits upon satisfaction of the applicable conditions of the Agreement and of the Section 10(a) Permit, and other local requirements unrelated to wildlife conservation." (HCP Agreement, p. 17.) The Development Agreement also acknowledges that building permits may be issued only after "[a]11 applicable provisions of the Habitat Conservation Plan for that phase, including the dedication of open space to San Mateo County, have been complied with to the satisfaction of the Planning Director." (Dev. Agt., Exh. E.) ~' Violation of the permit also carries penalties set forth in federal law. (15 U.S.C. § 1540(a)(1) and (b)(1).) s6 The HCP Agreement provides that "The offer of dedication of Conserved Habitat may be phased at the option of the Landowner but shall occur prior to or concurrently with the recordation of the final subdivision tract map for the area to be dedicated." (HCP Agreement, p. 16; emphasis added.) Z' The 1982 Habitat Conservation Plan provides that the open space shall be offered for dedication to the County "at the time of receipt of the first grading permit with respect to the n obi .005 31 ~/-v~ The Terrabay project has received its first grading permit. In addition, the final subdivision tract map for Phase I has be recorded.28 Therefore, the offer of dedication of the open space should already have occurred. The DSEIR does not state whether the offer of dedication has been made. However, the DSEIR refers to dedication of open space to the County in the future. (DSEIR, p. 51 ("...the remaining 132 acres ... are to be permanently dedicated to the County of San Mateo for inclusion in the San Bruno Mountain State and County Park.").)29 If the offer of dedication has not been made, the DSEIR should explain this failure of the project to comply with the HCP, the federal Endangered Species Act section 10(a) permit and the HCP Agreement. The extension of the Specific Plan approval and Development Agreement cannot be approved until after the offer of dedication has been made. Nor can building permits be issued. I~ 2. Recording of CC&Rs for Habitat Funding The HCP Agreement provides that each Landowner must record a //~~,,~~ covenant providing for funding of habitat activities and that the ~•'1(J covenant must be in the form attached as Exhibit G to the HCP ~~O/VT. parcel to which it pertains ...." (HCP, p. VII - 166.) The 1982 EIR also refers to offering dedication when grading permits are granted. It provides that: "The San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) stipulates dedication of the project's undeveloped open space area to the County at the time the first grading permits are granted for the parcel of the project to which it pertains. The undeveloped open space would be, therefore, dedicated to the County in conjunction with the two grading phases: upon completion of the residential portion and upon completion of the commercial portion." (1982 EIR, p. 3- 4.) 28 The DSEIR states that a final subdivision map was approved for Phase I in 1990 (DSEIR, p. 61), but does not state when the map was recorded. However, the City planning department has advised use that the map was recorded in 1990. Z' An offer with an inaccurate property description may have been made, and rejected by the County. The HCP requires an offer of Conserved Habitat. An offer of the wrong property would not comply. cioei.oos 3 2 Agreement. The covenant must be recorded with recordation of the final subdivision tract map.30 The final subdivision map has been recorded for Phase I of the Terrabay project. However, the DSEIR does not state whether the required funding covenant has been recorded as to Phase I. 22,Q•/ That information should be provided. If the covenant has not 77 11O been recorded, then the extension of the Specific Plan and Development Agreement cannot be approved. Nor can building permits be issued. 3. Covenants For Fire Buffers and Restricting Pesticide Use The landowner must record covenants (1) providing for a 30 foot buffer zone between the development and the habitat to protect the development from fire, and (2) prohibiting the use of pesticides in the habitat area. This must be done when the final subdivision map is recorded. (HCP Agreement, p. 16.) The DSEIR does not state whether such covenants were recorded when the final subdivision map for Phase I was recorded. Unless such covenants have been recorded, the City and the developer are not in compliance with the Section 10(a) permit. The Specific Plan and Development Agreement cannot be extended and building permits cannot be issued. _ 4. Location of Proposed_Landslide_Re~airs i~.¢~ The DSEIR does not state whether the proposed landslide repairs will require an amendment to the Habitat Conservation ~~~ Plan Agreement and Section 10(a) permit. If the proposed landslide repairs require intrusion into the habitat to a greater extent than currently allowed under the Section 10(a) permit, then an amendment to the permit would be required. The DSEIR should show the location and extent of the proposed landslide repairs, and state whether a permit amendment is required. 5. Funding of Habitat Maintenance The Habitat Conservation Plan and HCP Agreement provide that specified Landowners are to contribute to an interim habitat fund. The Landowner of the South Slope is to pay $781.67 per month. (HCP Agreement, p. 24.) The DSEIR does not state whether the required monthly payment has been made. 30 "Such covenant shall be recorded ... prior to the dedication of Conserved Habitat (or portion thereof), and concurrently with (i) the recordation of the final subdivision tract map ... creating lots or units for sale to the public ..." (HCP Agreement, p. 23.) ~"!. l ./ ctobt.005 3 3 ~~r; Additionally, permanent habitat funding was to come from homeowner assessments based upon the number of approved dwell: units. The assessment was to be $20.00 per unit, based upon 74~ units, for a total annual assessment of $1,490.00 in 1983 dollars. (HCP Agreement, Exhibit G.) If the approvals are extended, the assessment should be recalculated to reflect the actual number of units approved (745 units in the Specific Plan or 721 units in the Precise Plan). If the failure of the habitat restoration efforts is relate to any failure to pay the habitat assessments, then the developer should be required to fully fund the remedial habitat restoration activities. 6. Compliance Determination The DSEIR states that the County of San Mateo will make the HCP compliance determinations for phases 2 and 3 of the Terrabay project (p. 62.) However, the HCP Agreement requires the City of ?j?!,~ South San Francisco to make HCP compliance findings prior to each discretionary approval. (HCP Agreement, p. 21.) Therefore, the City should make these compliance findings prior to approving the project . 7. Application to New Owner I A new landowner is entitled to proceed under the federal Endangered Species Act Section 10(a) permit only if he, she or it has signed the Agreement with Respect to the San Bruno Mountain ~~~r Area Habitat Conservation Plan. (HCP Agreement, p. 17.) The DSEIR should state whether the new landowner has done so, or whether the new landowner will obtain its own separate Section 10(a) permit. D. Precise Plan According to the DSEIR, the Precise Plan for the project was approved in 1989. The South San Francisco Municipal Code (Terrabay Specific Plan District) provides that a precise plan expires after two years unless a building permit has been obtained. (§ 20.63.240.) Therefore, it appears that the 1989 Precise Plan has expired. . The City's Municipal Code provides that may be issued unless a precise plan has been Council (§ 20.63.160). However, approval of not on the DSEIR's list of future approvals obtained. (DSEIR, p. 61.) The DSEIR should of the 1989 Precise Plan. no building permits approved by the City a precise plan is which must be explain the status 33.SZ cO~tCf. c~o6~.oos 3 4 The DSEIR should include description and should discuss adopting a new precise plan. GO/(f"r the Precise Plan in the project the environmental impacts of Building permits cannot be issued until there is an precise plan. E. Grading Permit 3352 approved The DSEIR does not state whether the grading permit has ~ 53 expired. The status of the grading permit should be explained. F. Development Agreement 1. Applicable Law J The DSEIR states that the project is an extension of the Development Agreement for the Terrabay project, as well as an extension of the Specific Plan. (DSEIR, p. 1.) However, the DSEIR does not state whether the extension would preserve current paragraph 17 of the Development Agreement. That paragraph provides that the City rules, regulations and official policies which were in effect at the time that the Agreement took effect shall govern the project. If the Development Agreement is to be extended, then the City rules, regulations and official policies which govern the project should be those in effect at the time the extension is approved. For example, the City enacted a TSM ordinance after the original Development Agreement was approved. (DSEIR, p. 134.) The DSEIR assumes that the TSM ordinance is applicable to the project. (DSEIR, p. 134.) Similarly, the City subsequently adopted a Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Program (DSEIR, p. 178). The DSEIR states that all construction projects are required to comply with this program (id.), and proposes compliance as a mitigation measure (DSEIR, p. 181-182). Unless the Development Agreement is amended to provide for application of current law, however, these ordinances would not necessarily apply. If the ordinances do not apply, then the DSEIR must discuss the environmental impacts of the project in the absence of compliance with these ordinances. 2. Compliance with Development Agreement The applicant is asking the City to extend the term of the Development Agreement, which is dated April 14, 1988. However, the DSEIR does not state whether the terms of the Development Agreement have been complied with. The Development Agreement provides that, prior to recordation of a final subdivision map, financial guarantees c~ob~.oos 3 5 I~•'~ l 33,55 coNtr. ~~ related to the installation of subdivision improvements shall be executed (p. 1). The Development Agreement also states that, prior to the recordation of the initial final subdivision map for the first phase, agreements shall be executed to satisfy the requirements that the project sponsor participate in the cost of the proposed Oyster Point Overcrossing, and the project sponsor shall immediately initiate action to expedite construction of the proposed Hook Ramp improvements and shall participate in the cost of the proposed Hook Ramp improvements. The nature and total participation was to be determined prior to approval of the tentative subdivision map or precise plan. (Dev. Agt., p. 2; Exh. E-1.) The DSEIR does not state whether these provisions were complied with prior to approval of the tentative subdivision map, approval of the Precise Plan and recordation of the final subdivision map. The project has not proceeded as originally proposed. The oyster Point interchange has been partially constructed, but the "hook" ramps called for in the Development Agreement have not been constructed, nor has there been any improvement to the scissors off-ramp at US 101 southbound and Bayshore Boulevard. The Development Agreement envisioned completion of the "hook" ramps either as part of the Oyster Point interchange or prior to construction of the Oyster Point interchange. (Dev. Agt., Exh. E-2, p. 2.) That has not occurred. Because the Oyster Point interchange has been partially completed and no work has been commenced on the "hook" ramps, the traffic impacts are not the same as those considered in the 1982 EIR. Several questions remain unanswered. Has the City determined the nature and extent of total participation in the cost of the "hook" ramp improvements, as required by the Development Agreement? (Dev. Agt., Exhibit E-1.) Did the project sponsor, immediately upon Specific Plan approval, initiate action to expedite construction of the "hook" ramp improvements? (Id.) Did the project sponsor prepare plans and obtain approvals from CalTrans? (Id.) If not, are "hook" ramps still feasible as a mitigation measure? The DSEIR should provide an evaluation of the status of compliance with the Development Agreement so the environmental impacts of compliance or failure to comply can be evaluated, and the feasibility of the proposed mitigation measures can be analyzed. 7'j.TJ I~~ c~oe~.oos 3 6 G. Specific Plan and Municipal Code The DSEIR does not state whether the requirements of the Specific Plan and the Municipal Code (Terrabay Specific Plan District) have been complied with. 1. Geotechnical Requirements The section of the South San Francisco Municipal Code which applies to Terrabay provides that geotechnical studies must be prepared and their recommendations implemented before building permits may be issued. (§ 20.63.040.31) The Specific Plan contains a similar requirement. (Specific Plan Amendment # 8.32) The Specific Plan also provides that, "The City shall retain complete authority to determine the final build out schedule of the project to insure that environmental ... problems do not occur in the future." (Specific Plan, Amendment # 4.) Several geotechnical issues have come to light as a result of the grading and the passage of time, and the EIR recommends repairs which have not yet been implemented. Further, at least 31 "No buildinct permits shall be issued by the city for any phase of construction within the Terrabay specific plan district until the project sponsor obtains detailed soil and geotechnical studies for each phase of construction and implements the recommendations contained in said studies for each phase of proposed construction. The project sponsor shall provide the city engineer with satisfactory evidence that all grading and drainage work was accomplished in accordance with the approved soils and geotechnical studies." (§ 20.63.040(a); emphasis added.) "Prior to approval of any precise plan or the issuance of any building permit within the Terrabay specific plan district, the project sponsor shall provide the city engineer with satisfactory evidence that all elements of the project are designed in accordance with the recommendations of the approved soils and geotechnical studies relating to ground slippage and landslides, erosion, and storm drainage." (§ 20.63.040(b).) a2 "Detailed soil and geotechnical studies shall be prepared and their recommendations implemented before building permits will be issued for each phase of the Specific Plan area. The project sponsor-shall pay the cost of such supplemental soil and geology studies. The project sponsor shall provide the City Engineer with satisfactory evidence that all elements of the project are designed and engineered to preclude potential problems relating to ground slippage and landslides, erosion, and storm drainage within the City limits." (Specific Plan, Amendment # 8; emphasis added.) X57 C1061.005 3 7 ~~ G01~'r, one proposed landslide repair is based on a study which differs from the studies prepared in 1983, and results in implementation: of less protective measures." Failure to implement the geotechnical recommendations prior to issuance of building permits appears to violate the Specific ?t?j,~ Plan, as well as the City's Municipal Code. The DSEIR should discuss whether the project is in compliance with this requirement of the Specific Plan. If it is not, the DSEIR should discuss the environmental impacts of failure to comply, especially the adverse effects on human beings (14 C.C.R. § 15065(d)). Further, the DSEIR does not clearly state whether siltation and catchment basins must be installed on the upper slopes of San Bruno Mountain in order to minimize erosion and protect the developed property from flooding and earth slides. If they are required, then "no permits of any kind shall be issued for the project until the project sponsor obtains the necessary approval ~j.l~ and agreement for the installation of said required improvements." (Specific Plan Amendment # 9.) The DSEIR should state whether such siltation and catchment basins are required, and whether the consent of the County and, if necessary, an amendment to the Section 10(a) permit, has been obtained. Additionally, the Specific Plan, as set forth in the South San Francisco Municipal Code (Terrabay Specific Plan District), requires that winterization programs be put into effect for all graded areas prior to October 15th of each year. (§ 20.63.040.) ~~~j~ The DSEIR does not state whether winterization program were in effect for each year after the project was graded. If not, the DSEIR should discuss the environmental impacts of that failure to comply with the Specific Plan requirements. 2. Drainage Requirements ^~ Further, both the Specific Plan and the Municipal Code require a storm drain system designed to handle runoff. of an intensity equal to the worst storm of record or one-hundred year return period, whichever is worse (Municipal Code § 20.63.080; Specific Plan, p. 17, and Specific Plan Amendment # 44). The Municipal Code requires that before any building permits are issued, the project sponsor "shall provide the city engineer with satisfactory evidence that all elements of the project are designed in accordance with the recommendations of the approved 33 See attached letter from William Lettis & Associates, Inc., which comments that the more recent GeoResources study estimates the depth of Landslide D at only 20 feet, while earlier studies prepared for W.W. Dean estimated a deeper landslide. no6t.oo5 38 ~~,,~~ ~/.rr soils and geotechnical studies relating to ground slippage and landslides, erosion, and storm drainage." (§ 20.63.040(b); emphasis added.) The Specific Plan provides that, "The project sponsor shall provide the City Engineer with satisfactory evidence that all elements of the project are designed and engineered to preclude potential problems relating to ground slippage and landslides, erosion, and storm drainage with the City limits." (Specific Plan Amendment # 8.) The DSEIR states that the drainage system has been installed, but is not operating adequately, and that San Mateo County has requested that studies be performed to show that the system was properly designed and installed. (DSEIR, p. 177.) Failure of the system to operate properly appears to violate the provisions of the Specific Plan and of the Municipal Code. The DSEIR should discuss the environmental impacts of the failure to comply with these requirements. Until the system operates in accordance with these requirements, the Specific Plan should not be extended. Nor can building permits be issued. 3. Construction Phasing The Specific Plan required City Council approval of the precise grading and construction phasing for the Terrabay project prior to issuance of grading or building permits. (Specific Plan Amendment # 4.) The DSEIR should state whether such approval was obtained, and, if so, should set forth the specific grading and construction phasing which has been approved. The DSEIR should state whether that phasing has been complied with and, if not, should discuss the environmental impacts of failure to comply. The Specific Plan also required that the construction phasing schedule include a list of needed traffic improvements and the required timing for installation of those improvements. (Ibid.) The DSEIR should set forth that schedule and state whether it has been complied with,. and, if not, the environmental impacts of failure to comply. If the City Council has not approved the precise grading and construction phasing for the project, the building permits and grading permits cannot be issued. 4. Transportation Systems Management Plan The Specific Plan, as set forth in the Municipal Code, requires that a Transportation Systems Management Plan be approved prior to approval of a precise plan or tentative subdivision map. (Municipal Code § 20.63.060.) The DSEIR ctobt.oa5 3 9 ~3,G0 ~.~r also ,33.~OZ should t,ONT. state whether such a plan has been approved. If not, the environmental impacts of failure to comply should be discuss ~~•~~ 5. Hook Ramps From Southbound 101 Additionally, the Specific Plan requires that the "project sponsor shall immediately, upon Specific Plan approval, initiate action on behalf of the City to expedite construction of the proposed Bayshore highway/Airport Boulevard/Commercial Access 'Hook Ramp' Improvements." The Specific Plan goes on to require the project sponsor to.prepare plans and obtain CalTrans approva for the ramps. (Resolution Approving Specific Plan, December 2, 1982, Amendment # 21.) - I~•/2 The Specific Plan Exhibits show the hook ramps being constructed as part of the Oyster Point Overcrossing Project. (Specific Plan Exhibits Exhibit S35, sheet 3 of 3; see also, Exhibit S43, sheet 1 of 2, Exhibit S44, sheet 1 of 2 and Exhibit S56.) The DSEIR should state whether these and other provisions of the Specific Plan have been complied with and, if not, the environmental impacts of failure to comply. 6. Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions The Specific Plan provides that CC&Rs must be executed and recorded which prohibit the parking or storage of recreational vehicles in residential areas. The CC&Rs were to be executed and recorded as a condition of tentative subdivision map approval.3° The DSEIR should state whether this has been done. ~.~ The Specific Plan provides that at the time each precise plan is prepared, CC&Rs shall be prepared to implement TSM actions. (Specific Plan, p. 11.) The EIR should state whether this has been done. If not, the EIR should discuss the environmental impacts of failure to comply. XIV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, as well as in the attached letters, the DSEIR does not meet the requirements of CEQA and should be revised. 3' The approval of any Tentative Subdivision map for residential development in Terrabay "shall be conditioned upon the project sponsor executing and recording CC&R's which shall include a provision prohibiting the parking or storage of recreational vehicles in such residential area." (Specific Plan Amendment # 11.) 01061.005 4 0 March 15, 1996 7:47 a.m. Va_ch 13, 1996 7:~3 a.m. March 18, 1996 8:02 a.m. Marc^: 18, 1996 8:04 a.m. William Lettis & Associates, Inc. 1777 Botelho Drive, Suite 262, Walnut Creek, California 945% Voice: (510) 56-6070 FAX: (510) 256-6076 March 19, ] 996 Ann Broadwell Lizanne Reynolds Adams &Broadwell 651 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 900 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Ms. Broadwell and Ms. Reynolds: William Lettis & Associates, Inc. is pleased to submit this letter presenting the results of our geologic/geotechnical review of the EIR and draft SEIR for the proposed Terrabay Development in South San Francisco. The following scope of work was included to the review: • examination of 1943 and 1991 stereo aerial photographs; • compilation and review of existing U.S. Geological Survey maps and reports; • field reconnaissance; • evaluation of the EIR/draft SEIR for the project; • review of geologic/geotechnical reports on file with the City of South San Francisco; and, • preparation of this letter. From our review of pertinent project reports, we were able to identify six areas of potential concern that may not have been adequately addressed in the Setting and Impact sections of the draft SEIR. These potential concerns additionally do not appear to have been fully or appropriately mitigated rn the draft SEIR or project development plans. The six identified issues are outlined below. .~.. 1) "Maintenance" of roads and development improvements impacted by slooe instability. Steep natural and cut slopes along the margins of the proposed development have experienced numerous small- to moderate-sized landslides, debris flows, and pervasive erosion (su~cial instability). Many of the slope failures and areas of accelerated erosion have formed since completion of the Phase I grading, and some small slides and debris flows appear to have occurred during recent rainstorms in January and February, 1996. Some of the recent failures that we observed during our site reconnaissance are on the order of tens of feet wide, one hundred feet long, and three-to-five feet deep. The draft SEIR also describes that post-Phase I grading failures "...up to 40 feet wide by 100 feet long have occurred on cut and fill slopes throughout the graded area". Debris from recent slope failures and erosion has locally infilled and partially blocked drainage ditches and inundated roadways and graded pads. The draft SEIR documents recent and post-grading surficial instability, and stated that similar instability could be expected to occur rn the future. However, the draft SEIR did not present specific mitigation measures to counter surficial instability, but rather stated that "...their cleanup is expected to be part of the overall project maintenance program". Based on our review, it appears that continued su~cial instability will become a chronic problem that will require significant maintenance and expense above what is typically classified as routine maintenance. In our opinion, the following specific problems should be addressed: ~i3.6~ • Continued su~cial instability will rapidly infill or block slope drainage facilities. Cleanout of slope drainage facilities may be required after each major rainstorm, and often will have to be performed by hand due to difficult and restricted access on steep slopes. If slope drainage facilities are not kept functional and clear of debris, progressive instability and accelerated erosion could occur. In our opinion, ~1~ • ~~• WLARerrabay Review 1 March 19, 1996 maintenance plans should be developed to ensure that slope drainage facilities are inspected and maintained at a functional level. The volume of material involved in recent "su~cial" slope failures is cumulatively 7 - substantial, and individual failures could involve enough material to partially or fully block access to portions of the site until debris removal is performed. In fact, the draft SEIR states that roads within the development will serve as "buffer zones" for collection and clean-up of landslide debris. Since the probability for extensive su~cial slope failure is highest during or immediately after strong earthquake shaking or periods of intense rainfall, temporary blockage of access ~~/~ routes could become an issue for emergency response. In our opinion, an '• (~ emergency response plan should be developed that incorporates the possibility of blocked access routes if these conditions are not mitigated. Steep colluvial cuts, on the order of 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) have undergone pervasive erosion, and past erosion-control measures have not been effective. Past cut slope performance indicates that the inclination of these slopes is excessive for long-term stability. These cut slopes appear to have been designed assuming they would be cut into bedrock, therefore, an inappropriate bedrock stability analysis ?J~j ~~ may have been applied to lower-strength colluvial slopes. In our opinion, these slopes should be analyzed using appropriate strength parameters for colluvium. Inadequate documentation of the potential costs and scope of "maintenance" associated with su~cial instability may cause undue hardship to future property owners within the development. Our past experience suggests that Home Owners Associations or other mechanisms to provtde site marntenance often are not successful over the long-term. Project files indicate that this issue was discussed extensively in the preliminary stages of Phase I design, and that a homowners Association would have "difficulty providing adequate funding...since the Department of Real Estate would not accept large dues payments for such purposes. There was considerable discussion of the use of a GH.aD (Geological Hazard Abatement District)" (Roger Foote memo, 1122/91). Despite the abundance of documentation in project files about the need to finance along-term slope maintenance and restoration program, the draft SEIR does not mention the need for an organization to implement one. The formation of a GHAD likely would be the most successful means to address long-term maintenance within the project. Development of a GHAD involves a Plan of Control Study that consists of a comprehensrve assessment of potential hazards, evaluation of associated risks, and identification of appropriate mitigation measures. After the Plan of Control Study is performed, a reserve fund is established for hazard monitoring and mitigative/maintenance work. Substantial seed funding is typically required from the project developer to initiate the GHAD and provide working funds until annual dues or other income sources become sufficient to maintain the program. _ 2) Landslide "D". Much previous work has been performed to characterize and develop a stabilization scheme for Landslide D in the western portion of the development. The draft SEIR-recommended mitigation scheme apparently was based on the most recent study performed by GeoResources in 1995. The current repair plan consists of the removal of up to 20 feet from the surface of the slide, constructing a buttress keyed into bedrock at the tce, and emplacement of two drainage keyways higher in the slide complex. It is significant to note that GeoResources estimated a shallower depth of active landsliding in the toe area than referenced in earlier studies by PSC and Leighton and Associates, Inc. This revision was based on only two additional borings drilled by GeoResources in the toe area of the landslide (the earlier conclusions were based on 12 borings), and evaluation of data from inclinometers that were previously installed in the landslide mass. The GeoResources boring logs describe the active landslide material to be underlain by "ancient debris flow/valley fill deposits" that 7~.~ 7~•~0 WLAlTerraba}• Review 2 March 19, 1996 appear to be compositionally similar to the active slide debris. The draft SEIR identifies similar material encountered in "buried valleys" within Landslide Area R that contains shears. It is our opinion that the GeoResources estimate of the depth of active landsliding in the lower portion of the slope may be too shallow, and has not been conclusively established. The shallower depth of sliding proposed by GeoResources resulted in revisions to landslide mitigation schemes developed by PSC and Leighton and Associates, Inc. Additionally, even though the GeoResources report states that slope inclinometers do not show evidence of active slide movements, our evaluation of inclinometer profiles suggests that active sliding is occurring to depths of up to about 40 feet in the mid-portions of the slide mass, and possibly deeper in the landslide toe area. It also is possible that slope movements are occurring at deeper levels than monitored by the inclinometers because the inclinometer casings apparently were not extended into in-place bedrock below surficial unconsolidated deposits. It is critical that the buttress incorporated in the proposed landslide stabilization scheme be extended entirely through landslide debris and socketed into competent, in-place material below the lowest slide plane. GeoResources recommended excavation of test pits in the slide tce during remedial grading work to confirm the results of their boring program. We suggest that this additional investigation be completed prior to the completion of a mitigation plan, rather than during the repair work, as it may expose conditions that could require revisions to the repair scheme. We further recommend the use of large-diameter, downhole-logged borings, to better define the depth of landslide debris. This technique is commonly used in large landslide remediation investigations, and can significantly clarify the depth and extent of slope instability. 70 The proposed slope regrading incorporated in the Landslide D repair scheme would create an approximately l 80-foot-high, unbenched 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope. It has been our ~•~ experience that unbenched slopes of this length and inclination made in colluvium and landslide debris are prone to significant erosion and potential instability. We therefore recommend that the regraded slope configuration be re-evaluated to incorporate intermediate benches. 3) "Buried Valleys" and Deep Landslides. The draft SEIR reports that "buried valleys" containing thick deposits of colluvium and alluvium and deep landslide deposits were encountered during site grading in the following locations: (1) Landslide Areas C, D, and R; (2) the "Goat Farm" cut slope; and, (3) Skypark Circle. The occurrence of thick unconsolidated deposits or deeper-than expected landslide debris in these areas presented "conditions substantially different than anticipated". The unexpected occurrence of these thick deposits suggests that the subsurface exploration performed during the project geotechnical investigation by PSC Consultants may not have been of sufficient density to fully characterize possible hazards or adverse conditions of significance to site development. Thick "buried valley" deposits and landslide debris encountered to date have caused the following site grading problems: • Expanded grading efforts to excavate and remove loose or unsuitable "buried valley" material • Triggering of a large landslide in Area R during grading • More extensive landslide stabilization work (e.g., deeper buttress keyways and subdrain excavations) to penetrate slide debris and reach adequate foundation materials Furthermore, it is our opinion that the unexpected occurrence of these deposits has resulted in the following inadequacies in project design: 3'~,?Z Gory. WLA/Terrabay Review 3 March 19. 1996 u~~~~~~ Insufficient site characterization resulted in stability analyses for cut slope design that ~~r. inappropriately assumed bedrock conditions for slopes underlain by lower-strength and more erodible colluvial "buried valley" deposits in the "Goat Farm" and other areas • Possible placement of fill over compressible landslide debris or thick colluvium Based on the previous site grading experience, it would be prudent to expect that similar thick unconsolidated colluvium in "buried valleys" and deep landslide deposits will be encountered during future development phases. Specific mitigation measures should be developed to address similar "buried valley" and deep landslide deposits that could be encountered during future site grading. We recommend that the PSC slope stability analyses for proposed bedrock cut slopes be reanalyzed using colluvial soil properties in areas where "buried valleys" could be encountered. For example, we note that the material strength values used for analysis of Landslide Area D are lower than those used in the original PSC slope design analyses, and may be more appropriate for colluvial slopes. In addition, existing fills should be re-evaluated to determine if mitigation measures are required to prevent excessive or differential settlements. 4) Differential Fill Movement. Based on our review of the EIR/draft SEIR, and review of project geotechnical reports and plans, it appears that possible adverse effects from shrink, swell, creep, and consolidation of thick fills within development areas may not have been adequately characterized or mitigated. A basal rock fill layer was apparently incorporated in some areas of thick fill to help counter adverse total settlement. However, fill thickness varies substantially underneath many building pads, potentially as much as 20 to 25 feet. Many lots are located on cut/fill transitions. The need to address these issues was highlighted in the minutes of the 9/28/89 weekly Geotechnical Meeting, where Bill Enkeboll (consultant to Roger Foote) expressed concern about the potential for differential settlement within deep fills beneath houses. The possibility of special foundation considerations for affected houses was discussed at this meeting. No mention of specific foundation considerations is presented in the draft SEIR. In addition, it is possible that some fill has been placed over compressible landslide debris or saturated "buried valley" colluvium. Documentation of site grading conditions on file at the City of South San Francisco is not adequate to definitively evaluate adequate subgrade preparation for fills. Long term saturation, cyclic moisture fluctuation, consolidation, and hydrocompression could cause excessive differential movement of buildinss, utilities, and roadways constructed over varying fill thickness or fill placed over unsuitable foundation materials. Standard measures to provide drainage of thick fills often are either insufficient to prevent long-term water accumulation in the fill, or may degrade and become ineffective over time (Brandon and others, 1990). Fill saturation is exacerbated by excessive landscape irrigation on the surface of the fill. For future phases, grading should minimize differential fill thickness under developed areas. This may require overexcavation of native materials in some areas. Existing fills should be evaluated to determine if mitigation measures are warranted. ~- 33:72 333 5) Debris flow catch basins. The significant volume of debris flow-susceptible colluvium present in steep-sided, narrow drainages above the proposed development provides opportunity for large and fast moving debris flows. Steeper portions of San Bruno Mountain are zoned within the highest debris flow potential class in San Mateo County (Mark, 1992), and we mapped numerous recent debris flows from 1995/1996 winter storms during our site reconnaissance. Individual worst-case debris flows could extend hundreds of feet beyond the toe of the hill slope into development areas. Previous geotechnical assessments have specifically addressed debris flow hazard, including analyses that have estimated the location and possible volume of mobilized materials. Project development included construction of five debris catchment basins within the Terrabay Village and Terrabay Park areas to intercept and drain debris flow materials. VVe examined the debris basins during our site review, and although the basins may be appropriately sited, it appears in some cases that they may not provide sufficient storage for WLAlTerrabav Review 4 ;vlarch ]9, 1996~ry r • large events, or filling by successive debris flows or surficial slope failure/erosion. ~~ Comparison of the capacity of the Tetrabay debris catch basins with the estimated debris flow volumes that occurred in the City of Pacifica after very heavy rains in January 1982 suggests the basins may be undersized. Post-storm investigations in Pacifica (Howard Donley and Associates, 1982) estimated volumes for nine of the nearly 400 debris flows and landslides. Most of the slope failures described in the Donley report are in excess of the capacities of the debris basins at Terrabay. One debris flow in Pacifica was estimated at 3,000 cubic yards. Debris flow catch basins at Terrabay were constructed in 1990-91, and are apparently designed based on estimated volumes of between 241 and 507 cubic yards (as described in ~.~ the letter report of Dr. James Scholl dated 11/22/88). The relative susceptibility for debris flow hazards is the same for Tei-rabay and Pacifica, although the source areas for debris flows at Terrabay are greater than those studied in Pacifica. In addition, the initial debris flow volume estimates for Terrabay drainages in the February 15, 1983 PSC report are much larger than those used in the basin design. No documentation appears to exist between the 1983 and 1988 reports to justify the reduced volume estimates. In some instances, building pads are located directly below the basins, and would be in direct impact path of debris flows if the basins do not provide adequate storage capacity. In these cases, the design of the basin is critical. Since the basins were apparently designed in 1983, we recommend re-evaluation of the basins to assess whether the existing designs meet current state-of-the-art technology and include a reasonable level of conservatism. Furthermore, several issues regarding the malfunction of catchment basins were raised by the County, and we recommend follow-through on the suggested studies outlined in the draft SEIR. Th mechanisms to monitor, clean, and maintain debris basins need to be firmly established, and ~-~r incorporated into the GRAD or other appropriate site hazard mitigation and maintenance 77 program. There is no reference in the draft SEIR for plans to install debris basins in the remainder of ~.-,~ the development. Because a high debris flow hazard exists throughout the Terrabay ~~((~~ development, it is our opinion that the draft SEIR should explicitly state the mitigation plans for future project phases. ..,,~„ 6) jmpact to lands~roposed to be dedicated to the Count pursuant to Habitat Conservation Plan. The proposed extent of grading shown on the project grading plan (Figures 2-04 G; 2- 04 I; and 2-04 J) does not include several of the known landslides along the margins of the development area that are shown on the draft SEIR Geologic Map (Figure 29). The draft SEIR proposes that "all landslides and areas of weak soil in or near [the] proposed development should be repaired" (page 161, 4th paragraph). In addition, pervasive erosion and su~cial slope failure has already occurred along the margins of the development within the proposed land dedication zone since completion of the Phase I grading, even in areas that were reportedly stabilized. Based on our review of project geologic/geotechnical fissures, and post-Phase I grading performance, we believe that the draft SEIR-proposed mitigation measures may not adequately address long-term stability in the disturbed areas of the dedicated land. It also is likely that additional unstable areas and adverse geologic conditions (e.g., "buried valleys") will be encountered during the Phase II grading that may require even more extensive grading and stabilization work in the dedicated land than proposed in the draft SEIR and development plan. The attached figure shows the locations of known landslides and unstable ground along the margins of the proposed development that extend outside of the "Temporarily Disturbed by Grading" zone shown on the 1984 Grading Plan. We believe that many, or most, of these areas will require stabilization work to achieve adequate long-term stability and slope performance. Possible stabilization measures could include: (1) extensive grading repair work, (2) slope flattening, (3) installation of subsurface and surface drainage elements, and (4) erosion mitigation. All of these measures will result in temporary and/or permanent disturbance of natural slopes. The areal extent of required stabilization work may be significantly greater than shown on the figures if additional landslides or unstable areas, such as "buried valleys", are encountered during Phase II grading. 1~~7~ WLA/Terrabay Review 5 March 19, 1996 ~~~ It has been a pleasure to work on this interesting project. If you should have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call our office. Thank you for the opportunity to assist you on this project. Respectfully, WILLIAM LE~TTIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. W William R. Lettis, Ph.D., C.E.G. Principal Geologist Jeff Bachhuber, C.E.G. Senior Engineering Geologist WLAlTerrabay Review 6 March 19, 1996 r~~,k~- REFERENCES Brandon, T., Duncan, J.M., and Gardner, W., 1990, Hydrocompression settlement of deep fills: Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ASCE, Vol. 116(10), 1536-1548. Donley and Associates, 1982, Geological Investigation, Landslide Type and Distribution and Mechanics Details of Nine Representative Failures, January 1982 Rainstorms, City of Pacifica, CA. 100 pp. with appendices. Environmental Impact Planning Corporation, 1982, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabay Development Project. 231 pp. with appendices. Wagstaff and Associates; 1996, Draft Suplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension. 275 pp. with appendices. Wagstaff and Associates, 1996, Draft Suplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension: Geotechnical appendix. We reviewed the following documents: CanolUResources Engineering and Management, 1989, Site Improvements and Grading Plans for Terrabay Development- Stage I. 88 sheets. Hengesh, J. V., and Wakabayashi, J., 1995, Quaternary Deformation between Coyote Point and Lake Merced on the San Francisco Peninsula: Implications for Evaluation of the San Andreas fault. U.S. Geological Survey NEHRP Annual Project Summaries: XXXVI. p. 417. Leighton and Associates, 1992, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Landslide D, Phase I, Terrabay Project, South San Francisco, CA. Mark, R.K., 1992, Debris Flow Probability, San Mateo County. U.S. Geological Survey Map I-1257-M, 1:62,500. PSC Associates, Inc., 1983, Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report, Grading Design for the Proposed Terrabay Village and Terrabay Park, Neighborhoods A and B, Terrabay Development, South San Francisco, California. PSC Associates, Inc., 1983, Debris Flow, Potential Debris Flow Paths, and Estimated Volume of Debris Materials in Storm Drainage Basins. PSC Associates, Inc., 1984, Additional Slope Stability Analyses, Terrabay Development, South San Francisco, CA A Development by W.W. Dean & Associates for Resources Engineering and Management, Grading Design for Tetrabay Village and Terrabay Park (Neighborhoods A and B). PSC Associates, Inc. , 1990, Interim Supplemental Report on Slope Stability Analyses for Woods West and Woods East (formerly neighborhoods C and D) Portions of Terrabay Development. PSC Associates, Inc. , 1991, Foundation Investigation for Proposed Terrabay Village, South San Francisco, CA. WL.A/I'errabay Review 7 March 19, 1996 ~'_ PSC Associates, Inc. , 1995, Grading Report Showing Summary of Testing and Observation Services During Mass Grading of Ten abay Village at Terrabay Development: South San Francisco. Thomson, J.M., and Everden, J.F., 1986, Map Showing Predicted Seismic-shaking,Intensities of an Earthquake in San Mateo County, CA Comparable in Magnitude to the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake. U.S. Geological Survey Map I-1257-H. 1:62,500. Aerial photographs: 1943 stereo pair, from National Archives (frames DDB-2B-133, -134). Scale =1:20,000 1991 steres pair, from Pacific Aerial Survey (frames AV-4075-6-16, 17 and AV-4075-7-16, 17) WLA/Terrabay Review 8 March 19, 1996 ~~ ~~ E =e m o ~ ~ ~ ti n m~ ~, _ $ ~e 0 ~~ N ... $ d ~ 0 M.. ~ ~ _. • ~ m a ~' go m '~ -' U .~ O mm o = ~ ~ 3 N e ~: ••.. ~ h O O -^•. N N C O O ~ C m ~N ~ :ON in m ~ ~ Off, m ` > C ~ ~ ~ O ~ C ~ V O ~ O~ ~~ O _ ~j m ' ~' ~`~~~~ 'C t0 «. o~ m >> m' ~~ m ~ O ~ o m °° ~. a ~ v _ • y ~ T m O m O O C C o ~ ~ ~ a,~ am m t rca- w m ~o mo QO ~ mco ma as m;o~ .% w ~ ~$ ~m ~ mm E ON mcm Y ' : ~ ' O .1{. : . e ~ ~ OC G m0 ~ a ~O N L ;ff mm COQ ,,• ~'' ql v Ec°> 0 > ~a O ca mm ~~~~ .....- ~~ o a ~ Q O - oa ® ® ~ ~~~~~ WILLIAM R. LETTIS, Ph.D., R.G., C.E.G. Seismic Hazard Assessment Principal Geologist Neotectonics Engineering Geology EDUCATION University of California, Berkeley, CA: Ph.D., Geology, 1982 . University of California, Berkeley, CA: M.S., Geology, 1979 Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA: B.S., Forestry, 1977; B.S., Geology, 1977 REGISTRATION ' Professional Geologist: Registered Geologist, California No. 4079, 1986 Certified Engineering Geologist, California No. EG 1296, 1986 PROFESSIONAL HISTORY - William Lettis & Associates, Inc., Oakland, CA, Principal Geologist, 1990-date Geomatrix Consultants, Inc., San Francisco, CA, Senior Geologist, 1985-1990 Bechtel Civil and Minerals, Inc., San Francisco, CA, Geologist, 1982-1985 United States Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA, Geologist, 1978-1982 University of California, Berkeley, CA, Teaching Assistant in Geology, 1978-1979 Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, Teaching Assistant in Geology, 1976-1978 REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Dr. Lettis is responsible for conducting regional and site investigations to assess the seismotectonic setting and seismic and surface-faulting hazards in both active plate margin and stable intraplate tectonic environments. These investigations typically involve the deterministic and probabilistic characterization of seismic sources for hazard evaluations. A major emphasis of Dr. Lettis' work has been the interpretation of soil profile development, Quaternary stratigraphy, and geomorphology to assess regional neotectonics and the character and age of local surface deformation and faulting. In stable intraplate regions, Dr. Lettis has participated on studies to assess the regional seismotectonic setting and to identify and characterize seismic source zones based on analyses of seismicity, tectonic features, and tectonic provinces. He has conducted field and office studies for hydroelectric and nuclear generating facilities, missile silos, nuclear waste repositories, and mayor oil and coal slurry pipelines in the western and southeastern United States, and in southeast Asia, the Middle East, the People's Republic of China, northern Africa, and South America. SELECTED REFERENCES Hanson, K.L., and Lettis, W.R., 1994, Estimated Pleistocene slip rate for the San Simeon Fault Zone, South-Central California: Geological Society of America Special Paper, p.133-150. Kelson, K.I., Lettis, W.R., and Lisowski, M., 1992, Distribution of geologic slip and creep along faults _ _ - in the San Francisco Bay region: Proceedings of the Second Conference on Earthquake Hazards - _ in the Eastern San Francisco Bay Area, California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 113. • Lettis, W. R., Kelson, K. L, Wesling, J. R., Hanson, K. L., and Hall, N. T., 1994, Quaternary deformation of the San Luis Range, San Luis Obispo County, California, in Alterman, I. B., McMullen, R. B., Cluff, L. S., and Slemmons, D. B., eds., Seismotectonics of the Central California Coast Ranges, Geological Society of America Special Paper 292, p. 133-150. Lettis, W.R., and Hall, N.T., 1994, The Los Osos Fault Zone, San Luis Obispo County, California: Geological Society of America Special Paper 292, p. 73-102. Simpson, G.D., Lettis, W.R., and Kelson, K.I., 1992, Segmentation model for the northern Calaveras fault, Calaveras Reservoir to Walnut Creek: Proceedings of the Second Conference on Earthquake Hazards in the Eastern San Francisco Bay Area, California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 113. WL~~p~- REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS Seismic Hazard Assessment • Project Manager for seismotectonic evaluations of thirty-two U.S. Bureau of Reclamation dams in the western United States. The project involves the geologic and seismologic characterization of known and potential earthquake sources in specific geologic provinces of the western United States, and the deterministic assessment of ground motions at specific dam sites. Project Manager for numerous seismic hazazd evaluations for Pacific Gas & Electric facilities throughout California. These projects included the assessment of earthquake vulnerability to PG&E's entire gas supply and distribution system, including pipelines, compressor stations, terminals, and pressure-limiting stations. The project involved preparing liquefaction and slope stability hazard maps covering all of northern and central California, site assessments of above ground facilities, and assessments of fault activity at pipeline crossings. Dr. Lettis also is completing a comprehensive, seven-yeaz investigation of Quaternary faulting in central coastal California as part of PG&E's Long- Term Seismic Program for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant. For this study, Dr. Lettis directed a program of mapping, soil-stratigraphy, drilling, trenching, and age dating studies to evaluate the capability and behavior of over 20 potentially capable faults including the San Simeon, Hosgri, and Los Osos faults. • Project Manager for a seismic vulnerability assessment of the Marin Municipal Water District's backbone water supply system. Hazazds assessed include liquefaction, earthquake-induced slope failure, surface fault rupture, and strong ground motions from three scenario earthquakes. Dr. Lettis has conducted several seismic hazard investigations in the eastern San Francisco Bay azea and San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta. For the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA), he evaluated the impact of seismic hazards to water systems in the Delta. In addition, Dr. Lettis has characterized the activity, location and geometry of the Coast Range-Sierra Nevada Boundary fault zone in the southwestern Sacramento Valley for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and in the northwestern San Joaquin Valley for the U.S. Geological Survey. He has also performed numerous reseazch and consulting investigations of fault acttvity along the Calavetas, Haywazd, Ortigalita, Green Valley and San Joaquin faults. Research Investigations • Dr. Lettis has been the Principal Investigator on sixteen research projects sponsored by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Nattonal Science Foundation to assess earthquake hazards in California. These studies include paleoseismic investigations of the San _ Andreas, Calaveras, San Gregorio, and Shannon-Monte Vista faults in the San Francisco .-- Bay region, geomorphic analyses of the 1989 Loma Prieta, 1987 Whittier Narrows, and 1994 Northridge earthquakes, and liquefaction mapping of the Napa, San Francisco, and Stockton 1:100,000 scale quadrangles. Dr. Lettis provided technical review for seismic hazazds assessments of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in northern New Mexico and for the Shivta Nucleaz Power Plant in Israel. As Co-Principal Investigator, Dr. Lettis also completed an investigation sponsored by the U.S. Nucleaz Regulatory Commission to evaluate the late Quaternary history and seismotectonic setting of the Meers fault, Oklahoma. Technical Peer Review • Dr. Lettis provides technical peer review for seismic hazazd investigations throughout the United States and abroad. For PG&E, he has reviewed several paleoseismic investtgations conducted by the PG&E to assess seismic hazards to their hydroelectric facilities in the northern and central Sierra Nevada. He also is providing technical review for seismic hazards assessments of the Los Alamos National Laboratory and Sandia National u~~i~~ Laboratory in the Rio Grande Rift, New Mexico, and for the Shivta Nuclear Power Plant in the northern Negev Desert, Israel. Dr. Lettis has performed numerous technical reviews of proposed subdivisions and construction projects for the cities of Orinda and Vallejo. These reviews have covered projects involving complex geoloigc issues such as hillside mass grading and landslide stabilization. Expert Panels and Committees • Dr. Lettis serves on several expert panels and committees related to seismic hazard assessment. He is a continuing member bf an expert panel sponsored by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for the Department of Energy to assess earthquake hazards in the southeastern United States for the proposed New Production Reactor at Savannah River. In addition, he served as a member of the Geology/Seismology Subcommittee of the California Seismic Safety Commission and the California Division of Mines and Geology Committee on Liquefaction Hazards. Dr. Lettis also is a member of the Board of Directors for CONCERT, the Coordinating Organization for Northern California Earthquake Research and Technology. Slope Stability Investigations • Dr. Lettis has performed investigations of slope stability in a wide range of geologic settings, studies have included surface mapping, subsurface drilling, sampling, and instrumentation, large-diameter borehole logging, and static, pseudo-static, and dynamic analyses of slope stability. Specific projects include evaluating the cause and failure mechanism of the Sunrise Hill landslide in Orinda, CA; assessing native and cut slope stability of the Altamont Landfill expansion area including the identification and characterization of twenty-three landslides near Altamont Pass, CA; evaluating the cause and failure mechanism of a large debris flow in Yuba County, CA; and providing peer review for slope stability assessments for the Sky Valley development, Vallejo, CA. Dr. Lettis also has evaluated rock slope stability for the MX-Missile Test tunnel and silo at the Nevada Test site, and for the New Hogan Dam Powerhouse in the Sierra Nevada. COMMITTEES AND EXPERT PANELS Member, Board of Directors, Cooperating Organizations of Northern California for Earthquake Research and Technology (CONCERT) 1993 to present Member, Expert panel to assess earthquake hazards in the southeastern United States, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory/Department of Energy, 1990 to present Member, California Seismic Safety Commission, Geology/Seismology Subcommittee, 1988 to 1990 Member, California Division of Mines and Geology Advisory Committee on Liquefaction Hazards, 1991 to 1993 ~ :. . Member, NASA Science Committee, 1985 AFFILIATIONS AND AWARDS American Geophysical Union Association of Engineering Geologists Geological Society of America Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Seismological Society of America Geological Society of America, Penrose Grant, 1979 University of California Regents Fellowship, 1977-1978 ~7~`~~ JEFFREY L. BACHHUBER, M.S., R.G., C.E.G. Senior Engineering Geologist EDUCATION San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, M.S., Geology, 1990 San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, B.A., Geology, 1984 REGISTRATION Registered Geologist, California, No. 4909, 1990 Certified Engineering Geologist, CA, No. 1534, 1990 Earthquake Site Response Ground Failure Hazards Engineering Geology Slope Stability and Remediation PROFESSIONAL HISTORY William Lettis & Associates, Inc., Oakland, CA, Engineering Geologist, 1993-date Pacific Gas and Electric, San Francisco, CA, Contract Engineering Geologist, 1988-1993 Seidelman Associates, Inc., Pleasant Hill, CA, Project Geologist, 1987-1988 JCP Engineers and Geologists, Cupertino, CA, Project Geologtst, 1984-1987 REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Mr. Bachhuber is a Certified Engineering Geologist in California with over 11 years of professional experience. He is specialized in the evaluation and remediation of stability problems in soil and rock slopes, and assessment and design of foundations and grading to address potentially adverse geologic conditions. His Masters thesis project was a study of the engineering geology and seismic and landslide hazards of the city of Scotts Valley in Santa Cruz County, California. Brief descriptions of typical projects conducted by Mr. Bachhuber are presented below. Technical Peer Review • Mr. Bachhuber has performed technical reviews for residential developments for the city of Orinda and counties of Santa Clara and Santa Cruz. These reviews have included evaluation of geotechnical and geologic data, reports, and onsite inspections of foundations, grading, and landslide stabilization. Slope Stability Investigations • Investigated landslides in soil and weathered rock slopes involving all types of failure modes, and ranging in size from tens of feet, to over 1 square mile in area. Example projects include evaluations of massive ancient landslide complexes reactivated by the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, debris slide and flow failures affecting PG&E's Mokelumne River Project (7 sites), over 201andslides in the Santa Cruz Mountains and Oakland Hills, a large block glide failure affecting PG&E's South Yuba Canal, coalescing earthflow complexes in the California coastal ranges, and landslides within the over 50 square mile Marin Metropolitan Water District service territory. The scope of these investigations included geologic mapping and aerial photograph interpretation, exploratory drilling and trenching (including downhole logging), laboratory testing, pseudostatic stability analysis (LJ'TEXAS3), determination of slope failure mechanisms, assessment of potential future risks, compilation of landslide hazard maps, and development of recommendations for remedial measures including graded stabilization methods, drainage, and slope reinforcement. Performed mapping and stability evaluations of steep rock slopes (rock mechanics) that required climbing and rope safety procedures. These projects included the PCWA Ralston and French Meadows Penstocks, PG&E's Lost Canyon Penstock portals, Balch Diversion and Afterbay Dam abutments, and sea cliff instability affecting Point Bonita Lighthouse. Characterized rock mass properties, and evaluated slope stability using kinematic and pseudostatic methods. Evaluated rockfall hazard by computer modeling (CRSP3). Developed stabilization repair schemes including rock bolts and deep anchors, drainage, and cable netting for the Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) Ralston and French Meadows Penstock slopes, and the NID Rucker Tunnel. Design and field testing of geotechnical instrumentation arrays that included tiltmeters, inclinometers, extensometers, and piezometers connected to remote data collection, control, and alarm systems. r~~---~,y,~ Water and Gas Distribution Systems • Performed geologic and geotechnical investigations for numerous gas and water pipelines including the proposed WyCal Line 300 Expansion Project, McDonald Island Expansion Project, and Line 191 replacement through Briones Regional Park (Contra Costa County). Currently performing Marin Metropolitan Water District Backbone Water System seismic vulnerability assessment including 16 tanks, 2 reservoirs, 3 treatment plants and transmission pipelines and pump stations. Assessed hazards from liquefaction, earthquake-induced slope failure, surface fault rupture and ground motions from several scenario earthquakes. Produced hazard zonation maps, ground motion attenuation maps, and geotechnical characterization of tank and treatment plant sites. Hydropower Generation and Conveyance Projects • Geologic hazards evaluations of over 25 penstocks (vintage 1906 to 1993) for the PG&E Penstock Safety Program, and PCWA that are founded on diverse geologic materials including soil and colluvium, landslide debris, and steep rock slopes. Assessed hazards from slope instability, foundation failure, volcanism, seismicity, fault rupture, and erosion. Engineering geology- geotechnical discipline leader for Ensign & Buckley Consultants Steel Penstock Safety Assessment Program. • Performed geologic and foundation investigations of PG&E's Lyons, Kerkhoff Balch Diversion, Balch Afterbay, and Spaulding No. 1 Dams. Included geologic mapping, aerial photograph analysis, exploratory drilling through the dams into the underlying foundation rock, laboratory testing of recovered rock and dam-rock contact core samples, evaluation of abutment and foundation rock stability and erosion resistance, and development of recommended foundation criteria for 3-D FEA analyses. z, .. Geologic/geotechnical investigation and construction monitoring for the PG&E Grizzly Powerhouse project that included a 23 MW concrete powerhouse, 12,000-foot-long TBM tunnel, and 4,500-foot- long steel penstock. Studies included geologic mapping, direction and logging of exploratory borings and test pits (40 borings in soil and rock), development of geologic cross sections, laboratory testing, _ and general design recommendations. Assessed natural and cut slope stability for site excavations and penstock alignment. Designed slope drainage and stabilization system for colluvial Swale penstock crossing, and assessed foundation conditions for pier-supported soft ground span section. Evaluated tunnel muck disposal pile site, and developed recommendations for foundation preparation and drainage control and inspection facilities. Performed construction monitoring and quality assurance inspections during disposal pile construction, and mapped tunnel excavation. Performed project start up inspections, including evaluation of geotechnical instrumentation. Acted as the registered geologist representing PG&E to FERC and the USFS regarding geologic issues. Performed geologic and geotechnical investigations for the proposed PG&E Pit 2 Dam project, and supplemental geologic and geotechnical investigation for the proposed PG&E New Centerville Powerhouse. Work scopes included geologic mapping and aerial photograph analyses, exploratory drilling and geophysical surveying, borehole packer testing and analysis, downhole geophysical . surveys, laboratory testing, evaluation of slope stability hazards, and development of excavation and foundation design criteria. Assessed creek inflow into the powerhouse excavation. Geotechnical Instrumentation • Installed and evaluated geotechnical instrumentation to monitor slope movement, hydrogeologic conditions, rock slopes, and structure/foundation performance at over 50 sites throughout California. Instrumentation has included inclinometers, piezometers, survey networks, tiltmeters, crack gauges, and extensometers. At some sites, automated data collectors were installed and connected to a measurement and control unit that was connected to alarm systems. Foundation and Development Studies • Performed foundation investigations for microwave towers, wind turbines, canals, transmission line towers, and commercial and residential developments. Foundations included spread footings, concrete mats, combination retaining wall-footings, and friction and end-bearing piers/piles. Directed and conducted exploratory mapping, geophysical exploration, and drilling/penetration testing of u~~~~~~- foundation sites. Prepared laboratory testing programs. Performed field inspections of foundation excavations and pier borings. • Performed geologic and geotechnical investigations of hillside and mass grading projects throughout the San Francisco Bay area involving placement of fills on steep slopes, and stabilization of landslides and colluvial-filled hollows. Mapped and inspected keyways and drainage bench excavations, and down-hole exploratory borings during landslide repair grading to ensure penetration of landslide debris. Designed and inspected hillside drainage systems, including blanket and trench aggregate drains, and horizontal drains. AFFII,IATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Member, Association of Engineering Geologists Slope Stability and Landslides Short Course, 1990, Univ. of Wisconsin, Denver Stability and Performance of Slopes and Embankments, 1992, ASCE specialty conference, Berkeley Rock Slope Stability, 1994, Association of Engineering Geologists Short Course Advances in Earthquake Engineering Practice, 1994, University of California, Berkeley Rock Slope Stability Short Course, 1994, Association of Engineering Geologists, Virginia REFERENCES Bachhuber, J., and Lowe, J.A., 1994, Ralston Penstock rock slope investigation and stabilization, Sierra Nevada Mountains, Placer County, Califomia: Association of Engineenng Geologists 1994 Annual Meeting, Williamsburg, Virginia. Bachhuber, J., and Page, W.D., Evaluation of surface fault rupture hazard to a hydropower penstock using the 40Ar/39Ar dating technique, in Noller, J.S., Lettis, W.R., and Sowers, J.M., eds., Quaternary geochronology and paleoseismology: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Manual. Bachhuber, J., Page, W.D., Ahlgren, C.S., and McManus, R.A., 1995, Geologic Hazard Assessments of PG&E Penstocks in the Sierra Nevada; Association of Engineering Geologists 1995 Annual Meeting, Sacramento, CA. Hengesh, J.V., Bachhuber, J.L., and Theisen, R., 1995, Seismic hazard mapping for an integrated system vulnerability model, Marin County, California: Association of Engineenng Geologists 1995 Annual Meeting, Sacramento, CA. Sti1ITH E\'GI:~'EERI\G ~- ~1.-~\.~GE~1E\T I I March 18, 1996 Ann Broadwell Lizanne Reynolds Adams &Broadwell 651 Gateway Blvd Suite 900 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Subject: Terrabay Draft Supplemental EIR: Review of Transportation Component. p96o02~c0 Dear Ms. Broadwell and Ms. Reynolds: Per your request I have reviewed the transportation section of the above referenced DSEIR prepazed by Wagstaff and Associates and dated January, 1996. As part of the review I have also reviewed source documentation cited to the DSEIR, especially the East Of 101 Area Plan EIR. Following aze our comments. 1. The trip generation analysis in the DSE1R significantly understates project traffic generation from restaurants. Understatement of project traffic leads to understatement of project impact on capacity utilization and level of service computations at key intersections, freeway ramps and freeway segments and consequent probability of failure to identify significant traffic impacts of the project. The traffic generation analysis should be recomputed using appropriate trip generation rates and all traffic capacity utilization level of service assessments and impact assessments based thereupon should be recomputed. Tables 13 and 14 of the referenced report present the project trip generation analysis. The tables identify a land use category of "Quality Restaurant" at a development level of 150 seats. They also identify another category of "Restaurants" at a development level of 500 seats. Logically, the category "restaurants" references the more specific land use type "high turnover, sit-down restaurants" since the DSEIR distinguishes it in the table from "quality restaurants" and since it could not refer to "fast-food restaurants" which aze not permitted in this azea. However, the DSEIR calculates trip generation for the 500 seats of "high-turnover, sit-down" restaurant use at the same low rate as characteristic of "quality restaurants" rather than at the considerably higher rate for "high-turnover, sit-down" restaurants indicated for this land use in the trip generation reference source cited by the DSEIR. As the result of this use of an inappropriately low rate, the DSEIR understates total tripmaking for the entire project by 1850 daily trips, equivalent to 11.7 more trips than estimated for the project. For the P.M. peak period, inbound tripmaking would be 11 percent higher than estimated in the DSEIR for the entire project and outbound tripmaking would be 8.5 percent higher. In the A.M. peak hour, the DSEIR underestimates inbound tripmaking by 10.8 percent for the entire project and outbound tripmaking by 24 percent. These underestimates are of such scale as to probably alter TRAFFIC TKA~~P~~R1.-~il~~~ ~f~~~~~'t>tE\T ...~ r ,,~.n R,,ad. l~r,i,,n C-r,.. ~-~ ~~,;;- r~l: ~Ir~.=. .~~_-- ~~.,~: ~It~.~~~'.~?:-~ ~• lS .. G~11 Ann Broadwell Lizanne Reynolds March 18, 1996 Page 2 GOII/T. the results of capacity utilization/level of service computations and the consequent findings of ~,~y~ significant impact based thereon. All of the traffic analyses should be recomputed and reassessed !~ based upon appropriate trip generation rate for the restaurant component. 2. The base case traffic volume projections for years 2000 and 2010 are not prepared in accordance with either of the methodologies described in CEQA guidelines. As a result, the ordinary citizen has no way of knowing whether these "base" forecasts, hence the entire analysis of impacts and significance, have any realistic relationship to a particular stage of Iikely future growth in the area. As a consequence, the transportation component of the DSEIR is critically deficient as a document disclosing potential significant impacts of the project. CEQA guidelines provide that future base traffic forecasts may be projected on either of two approaches. One involves forecasting the increments to existing traffic from a specific list of known likely land use development projects in the area. The other involves estimating the traffic from a specific level of land use development as projected in an adopted general plan or related planning document. The DSEIR transportation element takes neither of these fundamental approaches. Instead, it synthesizes future base year traffic forecasts by blending the traffic forecast results, not the underlying land use projections, of three independent and not necessarily consistent specific area plan and general plan studies. Hence, the ordinary citizen (or the public policymaker faced with the responsibility of certifying the DSEIR) has no clear way of understanding whether this mix of prior traffic forecast results has any reasonable relationship to likely land use development in the area for the base forecast years and hence whether there is any validity to the analysis and its conclusions. In this sense the DSEIR fails to achieve its purpose as a disclosure document. ,~ 3. The DSEIR traffic analysis utilizes information compiled in 1993 as the representation of "existing conditions". The DSEIR fails to disclose how the project and general traffic growth will adversely affect the actual existing conditions on the major traffic improvements that the citizens of South San Francisco and San Mateo County have recently completed in this area. Indeed, the DSEIR fails to compute "existing" capacity utilization level of service at any of the key intersections in the vicinity of the Oyster Point Interchange. In this way the DSEIR is deficient as a disclosure document. The DSEIR explains that available 1993 traffic data and analyses were used as representative of existing conditions because, during the period of preparation of the DSEIR traffic study, the area street network and traffic patterns were so disrupted by the construction activity that meaningful measures of actual existing traffic conditions could not be taken. However, this DSEIR was released in January, 1996. The Oyster Point Interchange area roadway improvements were fully operational by September, 1995. The intervening period was ample time for the DSEIR preparers to have observed and quantified real existing traffic conditions and included them in the document. Because the DSEIR provides no capacity-level of service information on true existing conditions at the key intersections in the vicinity of the Oyster Point Interchange, it provides no basis for the public and public policymakers to judge how much project traffic will deteriorate level of service from existing conditions at these locations. In this sense it is critically deficient in disclosing the project's impacts. ~.7~ ~~ -- Ann Broadwell Luanne Reynolds March 18, 1996 Page 3 4. The Year 2000 baseline level of service/capacity utilization projections in the DSEIR indicate significantly better conditions than the actual observable currently existing conditions at some locations. This completely undermines the credibility of the level of service analyses which form the basis for the transportation evaluations in the DSEIR. Actual 1996 conditions should be counted and observed and all baseline projections and level of service computations should be revised accordingly. In Point 3 above we commented that the DSEIR should have counted and computed existing conditions subsequent to full opening of the Oyster Point interchange in September, 1995. The importance of that comment is reinforced by the subsequent observation that the intersection of Airport, Bayshore, Oyster Point and Sister Cities Boulevards and the general area of the interchange currently experiences lengthy standing traffic queues in the AM peak period. This observable reality is indicative of conditions far worse than the DSEIR's projection of quite adequate LOS D-.72 conditions for Airport- Bayshore-Oyster Point-Sister Cities or B-.52 for Oyster Point-Dubuque-101 NB On Ramp. Since the baseline level of service projections are so clearly divorced from reality, the credibility of the entire transportation analysis is undermined. The entire analysis should be redone based on an accurate measurement, documentation and assessment of currently existing conditions. ~" 5. The DSEIR fails to fully disclose the extent of likely Year ZO10 project impact at the Bayshore Boulevard-Airport Boulevard-Oyster Point Boulevard-Sister Cities Boulevard intersection and the intersection of Dubuque Avenue with U.S. 101 northbound off and southbound on ramps. Due to the lack of appropriate quantification of actual traffic impact, there is no assurance that the mitigation measures the DSEIR identifies for these locations will satisfactorily mitigate the impact. The Year 2010 intersection level of service analysis presented on Table 16 (page 127) of the DSEIR shows the superficially counter-intuitive result that implementation of all three phases of the project would cause PM peak conditions at the intersection of Dubuque Avenue with the US 101 northbound off and southbound on ramps to improve. The apparent explanation for this situation is that the DSEIR preparers assume that opening the new US 101 ramps at the project's Commercial Access would draw off some of the traffic projected for the Dubuque ramp location under the "2010 Base" and "2010 Base + Phase 1" scenarios. However, the DSEIR projects that with full Project development at Year 2010, the intersection of Commercial Access, Bayshore Boulevard and US 101 southbound ramps would operate in the PM peak period at level of service F (129 % of capacity). With the intersection operating at this severely deficient condition, much of the traffic forecast here would reasonably be expected to deviate to the routes it had been projected to use in the scenarios where there are no freeway ramps at the Commercial Access point. This would increase the traffic volume and the consequent capacity utilization and project impact at the intersection of Bayshore Boulevard-Oyster Point Boulevard-Airport Boulevard-Sister Cities Boulevard and the intersection of Dubuque Avenue with the US 101 ramps and would call into question the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures at these locations. The DSEIR should recompute project impacts and mitigation needs based upon a more reasonable pattern of traffic dispersal over the area street network rather than presuming an impossible concentration of traffic at a single location. ~~~ -33.8e2 Ann Broadwell Luanne Reynolds March 18, 1996 Page 4 6. The DSEIR presents no indication that the proposed mitigation for the project's significant impacts on freeway operations would have satisfactory mitigating effect. The DSEIR is deficient in failing to disclose that the project's impacts on freeway operations may likely be a significant unmitigated adverse impact. The DSEIR identifies Project Phases I, II and III as having significant adverse impact on US 101 freeway operations in peak commute periods. It identifies implementation of a Transportation System Management Program as mitigation for this impact. However, it fails to estimate the reduction in peak project tripmaking which could realistically be expected to result from a TSM program or to demonstrate whether that likely level of trip reduction would be sufficient to successfully mitigate the project's significant adverse impacts. The actual dimensions of the project's impacts on freeway operations are estimated on Table 17 (page 130 of the DSEIR). The table shows that traffic from full development of all project phases would increase traffic on the freeway in the pm peak by 2.96 percent (410 project trips added to a 2010 base volume of 13,850) from Oyster Point to Grand Avenue and by 2.91 percent (390 project trips added to a 2010 base volume of 13,390) between Grand Avenue and South Airport. The DSEIR's stated level of significance criterion for circumstances where the freeway is already in level of service F operation is a 2 percent change in volume (277 and 268 project trips at the above locations respectively). The implication of these projections is that TSM would need to decrease total project tripmaking by about 33 percent' to mitigate the identified significant project impact. Since TSM operates best on commercial uses in peak periods, almost the entire effect of peak period TSM would have to be realized from the project's commercial component. The project's commercial component accounts for 71 percent of total project pm peak tripmaking (1305 commercial generated out of 1840 total project pm peak trips per DSEIR Table 13). Hence, to achieve a 33 percent overall reduction in project tripmaking, TSM would have to achieve a reduction of nearly 46 percent of the project's pm commercial traffic generation.2 TSM programs which achieve a 10 to 15 percent reduction in commercial tripmaking are considered highly successful. Achieving a peak trip reduction approaching 46 percent in a commercial development of this character, or even approaching 33 percent of the development taken as a whole, is highly implausible. Hence the DSEIR is deficient for failing to ' It takes a reduction of 134 trips to bring the forecast project increment of 410 on the Oyster Point -Grand segment below the the 2 percent significance threshold level (277 trips at this location). This is a 32.68 percent reduction in the forecast project trip total at this location. Since TSM programs are not selective in targeting trips using a particular roadway external to the project site, this percentage reduction of overall project tripmaking would be necessary to assure mitigating the freeway impacts. The necessary reduction on the Grand-Airport segment is similar: a reduction of 123 from 390 - 31.54 percent - to get below the 2 percent significance threshold of 268. 2 The TSM trip reduction goal to avoid a finding of unmitigated significant adverse impact is 32.68 percent of the forecast 1840 total pm peak trips or a reduction of 601 trips. However, a 601 trip reduction, if actually drawn solely from the project's 1305 pm peak commercial trips, would comprise a 46 percent reduction in that pm peak commercial trip component. Ann Broadwell Luanne Reynolds March 18, 1996 Page 5 GOKT, disclose that the impacts of the project on freeway operations are probably unmitigated significant ~r3 gZj adverse impacu. 7. The traffic analysis in the subject document uses as the predominant basis for forecasts of future background traffic in the project impact area the forecasts contained in the East of 101 Area Plan Environmental Impact Report (Brady & Associates and associated consultants, 1994). Traffic forecasts in this reference document were significantly understated. Because the ~Q. background traffic forecasts aze significantly understated, capacity utilization and level of service 33T/ 1 '- ~- computations at key intersections, freeway ramps and freeway segments are probably understated and there is a consequent probability of failure to identify significant traffic impacts of the project and related mitigation requirements. The traffic analysis should be recomputed using appropriate adjustrnent to background traffic estimated from the East of 101 Area Plan Environmental Impact Report and all traffic capacity utilization/Ieve1 of service assessments and impact assessments and mitigation analyses based thereupon should be recomputed. A. Changes Affectin¢ TranSDOrtatlon Demand Management/Average Vehicle Ridership Assumptions. In the East Of 101 Area Plan EIR, it was assumed that imposition of Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Regulation 13, Rule 1, (which mandated an Average Vehicle Ridership of 1.35 by 1999 compared to the present observed 1.18 Average Vehicle Ridership for the area) would result in a 25 percent reduction in the normal trip generation for trips from/to the Highway 101 corridor and a 20 percent reduction in trips from/to the west locally and along the I-380 corridor. However, during the period of preparation of the subject Terrabay EIR, as the result of state legislative action, Regulation 13, Rule 1 was invalidated. Hence, there was no longer any basis for ~~ the 20 to 25 percent reduction in East Of 101 Area Plan traffic which had been assumed earlier. Preparers of the current EIR did not make any adjustments to take account of this fundamental change in conditions from the assumptions of the primary source document. An understatement of 20 to 25 percent in the traffic from the East Of 101 Area would have enormous consequences in the analysis - of the Terrabay project's impacts and mitigations, particulazly at the key intersections and freeway - - ramps along the Highway 101 corridor. The entire analysis should be recomputed with the - - background volumes from the East of 101 Area Plan EIR adjusted to reflect the invalidation of BAAQMD Regulation 13. Given the change in the law, the Terrabay SEIR should not rely upon the high vehicle ridership estimated in the East Of 101 Area Plan unless there is evidence that such high levels exist. B. Excessive Reduction of Traffic Assumed Due To Use Of Mass Transit A further flaw in the traffic projections that has the effect of significantly understating background 33.~ traffic from the East Of 101 Area Plan (hence possible understatement of Terrabay project and cumulative impacts) is the traffic reduction assumed on the presumption of transit ridership. After computing traffic generation in a normal way, authors of the East of 101 EIR assumed a blanket 5 percent reduction claimed to adjust for transit ridership to the area (East Of 101 Area Plan EIR, page rol~t T, Ann Broadwell Luanne Reynolds March 18, 1996 Page 6 193). Yet the trip generation rates originally used are ones which are characteristic of auto tripmaking in suburban office and industrial parks and mixed use developments. While it would be reasonable and expected to adjust these rates to reflect high transit use in a dense downtown or special transit j~3.$~, hub, such a blanket adjustment in an area of the planned character East of 101 is highly questionable. The Terrabay SEIR should not have continued to assume this 5 percent reduction in background traffic generation from the East Of 101 Area. 8. In the cumulative impact analysis of the full Terrabay Project, the DSEIR preparers use base year 2010, a year far more distant than the stated expected buildout date of the proposed Terrabay project, 2004 (Terrabay DSEIR, P61). Inclusion of an analysis year at or reasonably close to the expected buildout date of the subject project provides a more reasonable basis for understanding the actual impacts of the project, conditioning specific mitigation and its timing and determining reasonable "fair share" contributions to cumulative mitigations. The DSEIR transportation section should include a complete analysis on a base year of 2004 or some reasonably close post-buildout year (say 2005). Use of a forecast year far beyond the subject project's expected buildout date can have three misleading effects which are contrary to the purposes of the environmental review process. First, use of a far distant forecast year may make the subject project's contribution to mitigation need seem a modest increment to mitigation need caused by cumulative development when in fact it is the early maturing subject project which will cause conditions to cross the threshold where mitigation becomes needed. A case in point is the AM peak analysis of the intersection of Airport, Bayshore, Oyster Point and Sister Cities Boulevards. In the DSEIR year 2010 analysis for this intersection it appears that Terrabay just makes a bad situation worse, taking conditions from an already unacceptable Level of Service (LOS) F-1.11 to LOS F-1.37. However, had the analysis been performed for year 2004, the year Terrabay is expected to be built out, interpolation from the baseline forecast projections contained on Table 16 (page 127) indicates year 2004 baseline conditions of LOS E-.87. Adding in the Terrabay traffic contribution, the condition changes to LOS F-1.13. So it is actually the Terrabay project which pushes this location over the threshold where mitigation becomes crucially warranted, contrary to the impression given in the DSEIR that is just an additive factor to a situation that already needs mitigation due to other events. The second flaw in a far distant cumulative analysis forecast year is that it can appear that the project's impacts will be rendered insignificant by implementation of cumulative mitigation measures when those mitigation measures are in fact contingent on the less certain development of other projects at afar more distant date. This means Terrabay's traffic impacts could go unmitigated for many years or may never be mitigated if the other development projects do not take place as expected. Third, if the project's "fair share" contributions to mitigations are determined by computing the percentage its traffic constitutes in relation to the total traffic expected to be generated by development over a far more distant future, the apparent "fair share" allocated to Terrabay will be far less than if fair shares were computed by proportionate traffic contributions among those developments that create GONI'T, Ann Broadwell Luanne Reynolds March 18, 1996 Page 7 l.~ll~'T. an immediate mitigation need. Both of these flws would be avoided by including in the DSEIR 22'~~ transportation section a complete analysis at the project's buildout date (2004) or a year relatively soon 77 thereafter (say 2005). 9. The DSEIR poses two alternative options for mitigating cumulative conditions at the intersection of Airport, Bayshore, Oyster Point and Sister Cities Boulevards, a surface intersection improvement and a "flyover" construction. However, the surface intersection improvement is of doubtful operational functionality and questionable physical feasibility. The DSEIR should identify the "flyover" as the sole appropriate mitigation treatment at this location. The proposed surface intersection mitigation alternative for the intersection of Airport, Bayshore, Oyster Point and Sister Cities Boulevards (for Supplemental Impact T-7) involves adding a third left turn lane on the southbound approach of Bayshore Boulevard and an additional lane on the westbound approach of Oyster Point Boulevard. This would bring the total number of southbound approach lanes on Bayshore to six, the westbound approach lanes on Oyster Point to five while the eastbound approach of Sister Cities and the northbound approach on Airport would remain at five and four respectively. Theoretical capacity/level of service calculations such as offered in the DSEIR may indicate satisfactory conditions on such multi-laned configurations as this proposal. However, for actual functional performance to come even close to the theoretical calculations at very complex intersections involving this extraordinary number and complex configuration of approach lanes, the intersection and the transitions to its approaches from upstream midblock segments must be constructed to idea[ geometric design properties. Triple left turn lanes require extraordinary geometric features to have an actual operational functionality approaching that reflected in the theoretical capacity calculations. Likewise, intersections which aze the confluence of extrordinary numbers of approach lanes such as in this proposal require extraordinary geometric features to have an actual operational functionality corresponding to the theoretical capacity/level of service calculations. This is especially true when opposed approaches have an imbalance of lanes and asymmetry of lane configuration as is evident in the 61ane southbound, 41ane northbound approaches in the subject mitigation proposal. Moreover, when extraordinary numbers of lanes and ideal geometric features aze necessary to gain functionality, there is a high probability that the proposal will not fit within the confines of available right of way and structures (note that the freeway and crossing structure on Oyster Point may impose structural limitations on feasibility). In all probability the proposed intersection would not have an operational functionality neazly so satisfactory as indicated in the theoretical capacity level of service computation the DSEIR presents for the mitigation proposal. The DSEIR should demonstrate that it can indeed be constructed with ideal geometric features and demonstrate that it will fit within the right-of--way and structural constraints of the site. To so demonstrate, it is necessary to provide a scale geometric drawing of the proposal including the full transitions from midblock to intersection approach configurations. The "stick-diagrams" of lane configuration (such as Figures 21 and 25) are a completely inadequate basis to demonstrate that the subject proposal for surface intersection improvements is operationally 33.5 G01~T. Ann Broadwell Luanne Reynolds March 18, 1996 Page 8 ~~ functional and feasible within right-of--way and structural constraints. Absent such a demonstration, the DSEIR must conclude that the "flyover" proposal is the only suitable mitigation for this location. ?J?!.~ We note that the DSEIR also proposes a triple left turn lane at the intersection of Commercial Access and Bayshore Boulevard to mitigate project traffic impact. For the same reasons as stated above, the DSEIR should present scale engineering concept drawings to demonstrate that suitable intersection and approach geometrics can be developed and will fit on this site. 10. The DSEIR's criterion for dete*mining significant impact where baseline conditions already exceed acceptable standards is not a generally accepted one as is implied in the DSEIR, is considerably more lenient than the criterion used in some other communities and does not provide reasonable separation between conditions that are "insignificant" and those that are "significant". The DSEIR postulates as a criterion of impact significance where baseline conditions already exceed acceptable norms, the threshold of a project traffic contribution of 2 percent or more of base case traffic. The DSEIR states that in the absence of any official significance standards adopted by the City or the County Congestion Management Agency, the 2 percent threshold was postulated by the authors because "a 2 percent increase is commonly considered by professional transportation planners as noticeable to most drivers, whereas anything less than two percent would typically not be noticeable." '' We are unaware of any authorative traffic and transportation engineering reference source which suggests use of the 2 percent threshold in this manner or even documents that 2 percent is a threshold of noticeabiliry by drivers under such conditions. However, we are aware of many diverse and widely ~j.~ separated communities that have adopted more rigorous criteria for these situations, such as, to cite two communities where we have recently performed work, Santa Monica where a .005 LOS change is considered significant or Corte Madera where a .O1 LOS change is considered significant. The lack of reasonableness of the criterion posited by the DSEIR is quite evident. It sets the significance criterion at the noticeability level. If a condition or event is to be regarded as truly insignificant, the threshold separating significance -from insignificance should be set so that it takes ~ _ more than just a tiny variance, just a tiny understatement in estimate or just one unforseen and equally insignificant event to constitute something that far surpasses a threshold of noticeability. There should be a built-in tolerance for some reasonable margin of variance or error so that if estimates slightly understate project traffic or fail to anticipate some other project making an equally small traffic contribution, the threshold of noticeability will probably still not be exceeded. In this particular instance, if the threshold of driver noticeability truly is 2 percent, the significance criterion threshold should be set at 1 percent (that is, to be insignificant project traffic must not exceed 0.99 percent) so that it takes more than one other equally insignificant event to exceed the noticeability threshold. We suggest that the DSEIR authors subject this significance criterion to a more thoroughgoing assessment and then reassess the project's impacts based on the revised criterion that results. Ann Broadwell Luanne Reynolds March 18, 1996 Page 9 These conclude my comments on the transportation section of the DSEIR and the implications of the primary source document from which it draws its background traffic projections. I will be pleased to discuss these comments at your convenience. Sincerely, SMITH Engineering & Management A California Co ion ~u Daniel T. Smith, Jr. P.E. President ~~1ITH E\~~1\EE:hI\~; `- '~1:',:~.~~~[:~IE:~I" I DANIEL T. SMITH, Jr. Principal EDUCATION Bachelor of Science, Engineering and Applied Science, Yale University, 1967 Master of Science, Transportation Planning, University of California, Berkeley, 1968 PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION Califomia No. 21913 (Civil) Nevada No. 7969 (Civil) Washington No. 2933? (Civil) Califomia No. 938 (Traffic) Arizona No. 27.131 (Traffic) PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Smith Engineering & Management, 1993 to present. President. DKS Associates, 1979 to 1993. Founder, Vice President, Principal Transportation Engineer. De Leuw,Cather & Company, 1968 to 1979. Senior Transportation Planner. Personal specialties and project experience include: Urban Corridor Studies/Alternatives Analysis. Principal-in-charge for State Route (SR) 102 Feasibility Study, a 35-mile freeway alignment study north of Sacramento. Consultant on I-280 Interstate Transfer Concept Program, San Francisco, an AA/EIS for completion of I-280, demolition of Embarcadero freeway, substitute light rail and commuter rail projecu and TSM strategies. Principal-in-charge, SR 238 corridor freeway/expressway design/environmental study, Hayward (Calif.) Project manager, Sacramento Northeast Area multi-modal transportation corridor study. Transportation planner for I-801v' West Terminal Study, and Harbor Drive Traffic Study, Portland, Oregon. Project manager for design of surface segment of Woodward Corridor LRT, Detroit, Michigan. Directed staff on I-80 National Strategic Corridor Study (Sacramento-San Francisco), US 101-Sonoma freeway operations study, SR 92 freeway operations study, I-880 freeway operations study, SR 152 alignment studies, Sacramento RTD light rail systems study, Tasman Corridor LRT AA/EIS, Fremont-Warm Springs BART extension plan/EIR, SRs 70/99 freeway alternatives study, and Richmond Parkway (SR 93) design study. Area Transportation Plans. Principal-in charge for transportation element of Ciry of Los Angeles General Plan Framework, a program to shape nations largest city two decades into 21'st century. Project manager for the transportation element of 300-acre Mission Bay development in downtown San Francisco. Mission Ray involver 7 million gsf office,'commercial space, 8,500 dwelling uniu, and community facilities. Transpertation features include relocation of commuter rail station; extension of MUNI-Metro LRT; amulti-modal terminal for LRT, commuter rail and local bus; removal of a quarter mile elevated freeway; replacement by new ramps and a boulevard; an intemal roadway network overcoming constrainu imposed by an intemal tidal basin; freeway structures and rail facilities; and concept plans for 20,000 structured parking spaces. Principal-in-charge for circulation plan to accommodate 9 million gsf of office/commercial growth in downtown Bellevue (Wash.). Principal-in-charge for 64 acre, 2 million gsf multi- use complex for FMC adjacent to San Jose International Airport. Project manager for transportation element of Sacramento Capitol Area Plan for the state governmental complex, and for Downtown Sacramento Redevelopment Plan. Project manager for Napa (Calif.) General Plan Circulation Element and Downtown Riverfront Redevelopment Plan, on parking program for downtown Walnut Creek, on downtown transportation plan for San Mateo and redevelopment plan for downtown Mountain View (Calif.), for traffic circulation and safety plans for California cities of Davis, Pleasant Hill and Hayward, and for Salem, Oregon. Projecu involved traffic and parking surveys, travel forecasu, modal split evaluation, regional and local transportation network assessment, freeway corridor location, traffic operations evaluations and circulation plan improvemenu. Special Event Facilities. Evaluations and design studies for football baseball stadiums, indoor sports arenas, horse and motor racing facilities, theme parks, fairgrounds and convention centers, ski complexes and destination resoru throughout western United States. j:.. ~,i~cr~. lZ~,a,:. ~ mm~ C~it~. C:\ `iz» t~,. ~!t =~''.~~Y-- t.:c: ~It'~~a.u"~ Daniel T. Smith, Jr. /page 2 Transportation Centers. Project manager for Daly City Intermodal Study which developed a $7 million surface bus terminal, traffic access, parking and pedestrian circulation improvements at the Daly City BART station (including successful negotiation for a state TCI grant to fund the improvements) plus development of functional plans for a new BART station at Colma. Project manager for design of multi-modal terminal (commuter rail, light rail, bus) at Mission Bay, San Francisco. Campus Transportation. Campus transportation planning assignments for UC Davis, UC Berkeley, UC Santa Cruz and UC San Francisco Medical Center campuses; San Francisco State University; University of San Francisco; and the University of Alaska and others. Also developed mazter plans for institutional campuses including medical centers, headquarters complexes and research & development facilities. Transportation System Management & Traffic Restraint. Project manager on FHWA program to develop techniques and guidelines for neighborhood street traffic limitation. Project manager for Berkeley, (Calif.), Neighborhood Traffic Study, which pioneered application of traffic restraint techniques in the U.S. Developed residential traffic plans for Santa Cruz, Mill Valley, Oakland, Palo Alto, Piedmont, San Mateo County, Pasadena, Santa Ana and other. Participated in development of photo/radar speed enforcement device. Co-author of Institute of Transportation Engineers reference publication on neighborhood traffic control. Parking. Prepared parking programs and facilities for large area plans and individual sites; also,resident preferential parking programs. Bicycle Facilities. Project manager to develop an FHWA manual for bicycle facility design and planning. Project manager on bikeway plans for Del Mar, (Calif.), the UC Davis and the City of Davis. Consultant to bikeway plans for Eugene, Oregon, Washington, D.C., Buffalo, New York, and Skokie, Illinois. Consultant to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for development of hydraulically efficient, bicycle safe drainage inlets. Consultant on FHWA research on effective retrofits of undercrossing and overcrossing structures for bicyclists, pedestrians, and handicapped. Litigation Consulting. Provides consultation, investigations and expert witness testimony in highway design, transit design and traffic engineering matters including condemnations involving transportation access issues; traffic accidents involving highway design or traffic engineering factors; land use and development matter involving access and transportation impacu; parking and other traffic and transportation matters. MEMBERSHIPS Institute of Transportation Engineers Transportation Research Board PUBLICATIONS AND AWARDS Residential Street Design and Traffic Control, with W. Honnburger et al. Prentice Hall, 1989. ~ . Co-recipient, Progressive Architecture Citation, Mission Bay Master Plan, with I.M. Pei WRT Associated, 1984. Residential Traffcc Management. State of the Art Report. U.S. Department of Transportation, 1979. /mproving The Residential Street Environment, with Donald Appleyard et al., U.S. Department of Transportation, 1979. Strategic Concepts in Residential Neighborhood Traffic Control, International Symposium on Traffic Control Systems, Berkeley, California, 1979. Planning and Design of Bicycle Facilities: Pitfalls and New Directions, Transportation Research Board, Research Record 570,1976. Co-recipient, Progressive Architecture Award, Livable Urban Streets, San Francisco Bay Area and London, with Donald Appleyard, 1979. R1294 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 267 33. Ann Broadwell, Adams &Broadwell; March 20, 1996 33.01 The project applicant is requesting aten-year extension of the termination dates of the specific plan and development agreement from the present termination date of February 14, 1997 to the proposed date of February 14, 2007. 33.02 The comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the SEIR; no response is necessary and no revisions to the SEIR are warranted. 33.03 The Terrabay Specific Plan, which was adopted in 1982, and the subsequent development agreement, provide for development of up to 745 homes, including up to 181 townhomes in Terrabay Village and 136 single-family detached homes in Terrabay Park. The Phase I Precise Plan approved in 1989 allows up to 168 townhomes in Terrabay Village and 125 single-family detached homes in Terrabay Park. The proposed extension of the termination date would not amend the total number of units provided for in the specific plan and development agreement (745). However, the Phase I Precise Plan reduction in the number of units provided for in the specific plan and development agreement changes the total number of units that could be constructed at full buildout of the project from 745 to 721. Therefore, the DSEIR analyzes the impacts of project buildout of 721 homes. 33.04 Please see response to comment 30.01. A recently conducted AM peak period traffic count at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue intersection (while the Grand Avenue interchange US 101 northbound on-ramp was closed) showed volume levels similar to those projected for year 2000 Base Case conditions in the DSEIR. These minor increases were attributed to probable diversion of traffic from the Grand Avenue interchange to the south. Recently conducted PM peak hour counts at the Oyster Point interchange and along Hillside Boulevard during times when the on-ramp at Grand Avenue was open did, however, show somewhat higher volumes for selected movements than were projected for year 2000 Base Case conditions in the DSEIR. For this reason, year 2000 PM peak Base Case and Base Case plus project projections have been adjusted and recalculated. The revised 2000 traffic volumes have not resulted in any additional impacts from Phase I of the Terrabay project. However, unacceptable 2000 Base Case PM peak hour freeway operation is anticipated on all segments near the project with one exception: the segment from Sierra Point to Oyster Point would be in the acceptable LOS E range. 33.05 Figure 5 on DSEIR p. 67, "Existing Land Uses" does clearly convey the local land use pattern and identify key areas of land use described in the text. 33.06 The DSEIR established a 2 percent increase in traffic volume as the standard for determining the significance of project impacts on the intersections or roadways operating at unacceptable levels of service without the project. The standard is based on the professional opinion and experience of the traffic consultant and other professional transportation planners, including City staff. The standard of significance WP5115481FSE/RI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 268 was established because it identifies the point at which incremental increases in traffic volumes are likely to result in a perceptible change in traffic congestion noticeable to most drivers. The establishment of a standard of significance for evaluating the impacts of projects on intersections already operation at unacceptable levels of service, is permitted under CEQA. (Citizens Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley, 1990, 22 Cal.App.3d 748, 755-756; standard of significance of 10 percent increase in delay at the deficient intersection is valid.) (Schaeffer Land Trust v. San Jose City Council, 1989, 215 Cal.App.3d 612, 623-625; standard of significance of increase in traffic volume by one or more percent at intersections operating at LOS E or LOS F is valid). The comment suggests that this two percent criterion is not stringent enough and that, at locations already experiencing unacceptable operation without the project, project-related increase in traffic should be considered significant. In response to this comment, 25 Bay Area cities, counties and congestion management agencies were surveyed for the traffic impact significance criteria they use in preparing planning and CEQA environmental documents where a facility is projected to already experience unacceptable operation without the addition of project traffic. None of the jurisdictions surveyed use V/C ratio impact criteria for freeway ramp, freeway main line segment, or unsignalized intersection operation, or for intersection signal warrant analysis. A few of the jurisdictions surveyed have adopted criteria for signalized intersections: both the Town of Corte Madera and the City of Mountain View use a change in V/C ratio of .01 (it should be noted that the two percent addition in traffic used as the significance threshold in the DSEIR traffic analysis would typically result in an approximately .01 change in the V/C ratio at a signalized intersection, which is the strictest significance standard used in any of the surveyed communities except for one city); other jurisdictions vary the threshold depending on the project and its location. Surveyed jurisdictions that have segments of a congestion management program (CMP) freeway network within their boundaries typically specify a minimum acceptable freeway ramp intersection operation the same as that of the associated freeway link. Although the 1995 San Mateo County Congestion Management Program specifies a minimum acceptable operation for US 101 through South San Francisco of LOS E, all ramp intersections at the Oyster Point interchange have been evaluated in this EIR using the city's more stringent criterion of LOS D. 33.07 The DSEIR provides year 2000 information about the US 101 southbound off-ramp to Bayshore Boulevard in Tables 10 and 18 (DSEIR pp. 109 and 131, respectively). The off-ramp is projected to be operating well under capacity during the AM and PM peak hours. Potential back-ups on the ramp to the freeway main line during the AM peak hour would be due primarily to the operation of the US 101 southbound off-ramp/ northbound Bayshore Boulevard intersection and not the off-ramp leading to the intersection. The potential back-up of off-ramp traffic to the freeway main line is considered as part of the significant impact identified under the finding of unacceptable operation of the US 101 southbound off-ramp/northbound Bayshore Boulevard intersection (Supplemental Impact T-~. WP5115481 FSEIRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 269 33.08 The DSEIR (p. 62) states that city of Brisbane approval would be required for implementation of any mitigations for traffic impacts involving Bayshore Boulevard, which is within the Brisbane city limits. The comment correctly notes that, in addition to these recommended mitigations, some components of the project itself (e.g., the left turn from northbound Bayshore Boulevard into the commercial area or realignment of Bayshore Boulevard onto the project property to accommodate the new US 101 hook ramps) would require city of Brisbane approval. The SEIR has been revised accordingly. (See errata to DSEIR p. 62 in section III herein.) 33.09 The US 101 hook ramps at Bayshore Boulevard are to be constructed by the project applicant/developer as part of subsequent project Phase III. The applicant/developer is responsible for the full cost of the hook ramps; nowhere does the DSEIR discuss fair- share cost apportionment for the hook ramps. The comment appears to refer to Supplemental Impact T-2, pertaining to unacceptable operation of the US 101 southbound off-ramp/northbound Bayshore Boulevard intersection with year 2000 Base Case plus protect Phase I traffic. The DSEIR recommends a project Phase Ifair-share contribution towards the needed signalization of this intersection as mitigation for Supplemental Impact T-2. The hook ramps to be constructed by the applicant/ developer as part of the project were assumed to be in place for purposes of the DSEIR traffic analysis for year 2010 Base Case plus project Phases I, II and III. 33.10 The recommended mitigations are appropriate for the program EIR-level assessment provided in the SEIR for subsequent project phases ll and III. When Phases II and III are to be developed and eventually come before the city for required precise plan approval in the future, more specific development plans would be submitted and more detailed environmental review would be undertaken at that time (see paragraph one of response to comment 1.02). Subsequent traffic analyses would consider the detailed project development plans and up-to-date area traffic counts and projections to more accurately determine Phase II and Phase III traffic impacts and mitigation needs. The subsequent traffic analyses, mitigation recommendations and mitigation cost apportionments would be able to account for the possibility of any currently anticipated development in the area that may not proceed as planned. Also, if currently anticipated projects do not proceed as planned, then there would be an expected corresponding reduction in the magnitude of traffic impacts and the extent and cost of needed mitigations. 33.11 The comment suggests that the DSEIR should discuss the feasibility of recommended traffic mitigation measures; for example, the flyover off-ramp from southbound US 101 to eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard. The city may make findings on the feasibility of recommended mitigations at the time of SEIR certification. With respect to the southbound flyover off-ramp, the flyover off-ramp was considered as part of the Oyster Point Interchange Reconstruction EIR prepared and certified by Caltrans. 33.12 The DSEIR discussions of cumulative impacts, including cumulative (i.e., Base Case plus project) traffic impacts, are based on land use projections and, in turn, traffic WP5115481 FSE/RI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 270 volume projections in the East of 101 Area Plan and the Brisbane General Plan Circulation Element. These documents describe in detail the projections on which the DSEIR cumulative impact analyses are based. The DSEIR cumulative analysis projections are based in part on land use projections for the East of 101 Area Plan's Directed Growth Alternative. The land use allocations of the Directed Growth Alternative at buildout are presented by Table 5 in the East of 101 Area Plan EIR, which has been reproduced in Appendix B herein. Appendix B also presents Table PD-7 of the Brisbane General Plan, which presents different land use alternatives for different subareas of the city. The DSEIR cumulative analysis projections are also based on the Brisbane General Plan's Scenario K development, which combines the land use alternatives with the highest development intensity for the different subareas presented in Table PD-7. 33.13 The comment states that the SEIR should consider landslides and erosional gullies as significant impacts, recommend mitigations, and evaluate the feasibility of having homeowners pay for geotechnical repair and maintenance. Please see responses to comments 33.64, 33.65 and 33.70, and DSEIR errata pp. 169-172 in section III herein. Please also see response to comment 1.13 and DSEIR pp. 164-166 for information pertaining to earthquakes and fault zones on the project site. With respect to the adequacy of information about the performance of the South Slope area during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake (footnote 4 on p. 4), the various grading reports completed for the project since 1989 (PSC, 1990; PSC, 1991; PC, 1995(a); PSC, 1995(b); Leighton & Associates, 1992; Geo/Resource Consultants, 1995(a); and Geo/ Resource Consultants, 1995(b)) inherently and adequately took into account the effects of the quake on the South Slope and other areas of the site. 33.14 All necessary municipal storm drainage improvements for Phase I of the project have been completed. The on-site drainage improvements for Phase II and Phase III have not been completed. DSEIR Section IV.E, Drainage and Water Quality (pp. 173-182), discusses post-1982 storm drainage improvements. In response to comments concerning the adequacy of the catchment basins in Phase I, the City geotechnical consultant, Eric McHuron, conducted an extensive review of the studies and records pertaining to the sizing and capacity of the catchment basins. The results of this review were presented to City staff. On the basis of that review, the City determined that the catchment basins for Phase I are adequately sized and properly designed. The applicant ("SunChase") has also indicated that the issue of catchment basin and drainage ditch malfunctioning has already been addressed (please see comment 32.04): "SunChase removed all the silt and debris from the v-ditches, catch basins, and storm drains in the project area in the fall of 1995 prior to the rainy season. SunChase also removed and replaced all of the rock and fabric filters in each WP5115481 FSE/RI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 271 basin to ensure a dependable flow. The brush alongside the v-ditches was cut. During the recent heavy rains, representatives of SunChase observed the operation of the v-ditches, catch basins and storm drains and they were performing very well. The rains, and particularly the violent storms of December, 1995, have resulted in some silt and debris in the v-ditches. SunChase will continue to monitor and clean these ditches on an as-needed basis...SunChase is in the process of implementing an on-going funding and responsibility program to maintain erosion and sedimentation control facilities after the project is built. " 33.15 Please see response to comment 24.01. 33.16 The DSEIR (p. 184) notes that the ravines traversing the portion of the property that is to be dedicated to San Mateo County as permanent open space (i.e., HCP Administrative Parcel 2-04-02) create a variety of microclimates favorable for the growth of plants requiring greater moisture. Riparian vegetation is also found in some of the project catchment basins which were installed at the base of the ravines above the Phase I development area. The SEIR biological consultant has noted that no jurisdictional wetlands exist within areas of project Phases I and II that are to be developed. However, jurisdictional wetlands may exist within. areas of Phase III that are to be developed. The EIR biologist has observed that during wet years water collects in the flat portion of the site near Bayshore Boulevard and it appears to be a "wetland." However, they have not conducted any formal wetland delineations of this area. They suggest that detailed surveys of this area be undertaken as part of future development processing. Under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers administers a program to regulate discharges of fill into "waters of the United States," including wetlands. Under Section 401 of the act, the state Regional Water Quality Control Board must certify that the permit issued by the Army Corps pursuant to Section 404 complies with state water quality standards. A jurisdictional wetland delineation and, if warranted, compliance with all Section 404 and 401 permit procedures, will be required as part of subsequent detailed environmental review conducted when Phase III is to be developed and eventually comes before the city for required precise plan approval in the future. (Please also see paragraph one of response to comment 1.02.) 33.17 Please see response to comment 33.16. 33.18 The response to comment 33.16 above explains the potential presence of jurisdictional wetlands in Phase III and thus the potential applicability of the wetlands provisions of Sections 404 and 401 of the federal Clean Water Act. The EIR biologist has observed that during wet years water collects in the flat portion of the site near Bayshore Boulevard and it appears to be a "wetland." However, they have not conducted any formal wetland delineations of this area. They suggest that detailed surveys of this area be undertaken as part of future development processing. WP5115481 FSEI R I F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 272 In addition, under Fish and Game Code Sections 1601-1603, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) may have jurisdiction over any proposed activities involving riparian-like areas in Phase III and the execution of a Streambed Alteration Agreement between the CDFG and the project applicant may also be required. A jurisdictional wetland delineation and, if warranted, compliance with all Section 404 and 401 procedures and execution of a Streambed Alteration Agreement with the CDFG in accordance with Sections 1601-1603 of the state Fish and Game Code, will be required as part of subsequent detailed environmental review conducted when Phase III is to be developed and eventually comes before the city for required precise plan approval in the future. 33.19 Please see response to comment 7.01. 33.20 The schools impact analyses on DSEIR pp. 209-213 are based on information provided by the districts regarding current enrollment and facilities, the numbers of students generated by the project based on the districts' own generation factors, school impact fees, additional facilities and improvements needed to accommodate students from the project, and the costs of those facilities. An extended analysis of school impacts beyond 1999-2000 is implicit in the districts' estimates of the numbers of students that would be generated by the project that were used for the SEIR. For example, the SSFUSD noted that: "Initially, we would expect a student yield of .21 students per unit from the Terrabay development. As these units age, we expect student yields to increase to .53 students per unit. This means the district should initially expect only 104 students from the Terrabay development. In the long run, however, the district should be prepared to serve 261 students from the development (.53 yield #493 units). " In addition, the districts' assessments and the SEIR considered one-time h sical improvements that would be needed to accommodate students from the project into the future. Potential project impacts on ongoing district operational costs over time were not considered. This is consistent with the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15382) which states that "An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. Asocial or economic change [i.e., a project- generated enrollment increase) related to a physical change [i.e., school facilities construction to accommodate the increase enrollment] may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant. " Also, a precise plan must be approved before Phase Il of the project may be built. Although the anticipated uses and densities are generally described in the specific plan, the actual number of homes to be built will not be known until a precise plan is approved. When Phase II is to be developed and eventually comes before the city for required precise plan approval in the future, more specific project information, updated district student generation factors, and current information about the available capacity WP5115481 FSE/RlF-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 273 and improvement needs of district facilities can be considered as part of the more detailed environmental review that will be undertaken at that time (see paragraph one in response to comment 1.02). 33.21 Please see response to comment 2.03. 33.22 Approximately 493 homes would be located within the South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD): 168 in Terrabay Village, 125 in Terrabay Park, and 200 in Terrabay Woods. Applying the district's generation factor of 0.53 students per unit yields 261 students (0.53 x 493 = 261). The SSFUSD assumed an impact fee of $1.50 per square foot of residential development and the following average unit sizes: 1,800 square feet in Terrabay Village, 2,500 square feet in Terrabay Park, and 1,500 square feet iri Terrabay Woods. The Brisbane Schoo- District calculated that, assuming 228 homes within the district and one child per household randomly divided among ages zero to 21, approximately 10 students at each grade level or a total of 90 students would be added to the district. Impact fees accruing to the Brisbane School District were calculated assuming an impact fee of $0.90 per square foot of residential development and 228 units of an average size of approximately 1,200 square feet. Approximately 228 homes would be located within the Jefferson Union High School District (JUHSD): 129 in Terrabay Commons and 99 in Terrabay Point. Applying the district's generation factors of 0.08 students per unit for the terraced units in Terrabay Commons and 0.10 students per unit for the condominium units in Terrabay Point yields 20 students. The JUHSD assumed an impact fee of $0.60 per square foot of residential development, 228 units and an average unit size of 1,200 square feet. However, the school impact fees accruing from the project, as calculated by SSFUSD and BSD, appear to have been underestimated because the estimated size of the residential units used is smaller than the units actually being built. Thus, the fees paid by the project may be sufficient to cover the districts' estimated costs. Please also see response to comment 33.20. 33.23 The mitigation recommended in the SEIR has already been successfully implemented. The applicant has conducted a thorough inspection of the on-site sewer system by both television inspection and visual inspection by removal of manhole covers. The visual inspection was performed under the supervision of representatives of the City of South San Francisco Department of Public Works. According to the applicant, the inspections did not reveal any problems with the on-site sewer system that would cause excessive infiltration. The city has conducted its own inspections of off-site sewer system improvements installed as part of the project and has determined the source of observable flows. WP5115481 FSEIRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 274 (Observable flows are caused by an allowable amount of groundwater infiltration and by Fire Station 5, which is connected to the system.) The city has accepted all off-site sewer system improvements and all on-site sewer improvements within public roadway rights-of-way that were required to be dedicated to the city. 33.24 The SEIR has been revised to indicate that the project site is located within the California Water Service Company (CWSC) service area. As explained on DSEIR p. 211, the CWSC has delivered a letter of assurance to the city that commits CWSC to providing water service to the project. All needed water system improvements are in place to serve the Phase I portion of the project except for the water pump station. The remaining water system improvements are anticipated to proceed as originally planned for the project. 33.25 Mitigation recommended for traffic noise impacts (Supplemental Impact N-1) on DSEIR p. 228 requires the project applicant to retain a qualified acoustical engineer to prepare and submit for city review and approval a detailed acoustical analysis of noise reduction requirements and specifications for all project phases, as called for in the Noise Element of the .South San Francisco General Plan. The required acoustical analyses will be completed prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase I homes, consistent with condition #46 of the Terrabay Specific Plan Amendments which states that, "Residential structures within the Specific Plan area shall be designed to assure that interior noise levels do not exceed a Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) of 40 dBA and maximum noise levels of 60 dBA. Said residential structures shall also be so designed and constructed as to mitigate or suppress structural vibrations that are harmonically responsive to low pitch noise emanating from aircraft climbing over San Bruno Mountain on a northeast to southwest heading and emanating from aircraft spooling up their engines for takeoff from Runway 10." . The regional acoustical analyses for subsequent phases will be completed as part of subsequent environmental review that will be undertaken when the required precise plans for Phases II and III eventually come before the city for approval. Such acoustical analyses are common practice for developments in urban areas. Common noise attenuation measures, including the construction of berms or soundwalls and/or provision of fresh air supply systems or air conditioning and use of sound-rated glazing in windows, would reduce noise levels on the project site to within the land use/noise compatibility standards established by the state and set forth in the Noise Element. Thus, there is reasonable assurance that the impact would be mitigated to aless-than-significant level. Moreover, detailed acoustical analyses for Phases II and Ilt of the project would be inappropriate at this time because the specific development plans for these subsequent phases have not yet been determined (see paragraph one of response to comment 1.02). 33.26 The comment notes that the DSEIR (p. 222) is technically incorrect in identifying 1990 traffic volumes as current volumes. The SEIR has been revised to refer to 1990 WP5115481FSEIRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 275 volumes. The use of 1990 information from the city's Noise Element is adequate and appropriate because the projected traffic volumes in the FSEIR traffic and noise analyses are within the range evaluated for the 1990 Noise Element. As explained in the Noise Element and discussed in the DSEIR (pp. 222-225), traffic noise levels on the project site are not expected to change substantially. Also, increases in traffic levels are expected to be offset at least in part by replacement of current vehicles with quieter vehicles. In addition, needed noise attenuation measures would be determined based on accurate and up-to-date noise levels determined by the detailed, site-specific acoustical analyses required under the mitigation recommended for Supplemental Impact N-1. 33.27 The analysis suggested by the commenter (i.e, "measure current noise, analyze traffic projections, and provide an estimate of future noise") is an accurate depiction of the analytical approach that will be used in the analyses for Phase I homes conducted in accordance with condition #46 of the Terrabay Specific Plan Amendments, and for subsequent Phases II and III conducted as part of subsequent environmental review that will be undertaken at the precise plan stage for Phases II and III. Please also see response to comment 33.25. 33.28 As explained for Supplemental Impact N-i in the response to comment 33.25, the availability of common acoustical analysis procedures and common noise attenuation. measures provide assurance that aircraft noise impacts could be mitigated to a less- than-significant level. Also, because of the nature and location of the noise source, noise impacts from aircraft overflights must be mitigated through such measures as the use of sound-rated glazing in windows rather than by site design modifications. 33.29 Pages 235 and 254 of the DSEIR have been corrected to refer to the 1994 Clean Air Plan rather than the 1991 Clean Air Plan. As required by federal law, the Clean Air Plan was updated in 1994 primarily to incorporate the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) 1994 projections of regional population and employment growth. The changes between the 1991 Clean Air Plan and the 1994 Clean Air Plan are not substantial with respect to project-related air quality control measures and do not affect the DSEIR findings of project consistency with the Clean Air Plan. (See errata for DSEIR pp. 235 and 254 in section III herein.) 33.30 The DSEIR supplemental impact and mitigation findings for regional air quality (pp. 237-242) used significance thresholds for reactive organic gases (ROG), oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and fine particulate matter (PM-10) of 150 pounds per day or greater, as established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) in the 1985 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. In April 1996, after circulation of the DSEIR for public review, the BAAQMD adopted revised CEQA guidelines containing a more stringent threshold for ROG, NOx and PM-10 of 80 pounds per day. WPS 115481FSE1Rl F-1/.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 276 The SEIR has since been revised to apply the new 80 pounds per day threshold (see errata for pp. 237-242 in section III herein). Use of the new, more stringent threshold does not change the DSEIR regional air quality impact and mitigation findings. Project emissions for Phase I of the proposed development would not exceed 80 pounds per day, and would therefore have aless-than-significant regional air quality impact. However, the analysis indicates that project Phases I, II and III would generate new regional emissions of ozone precursors and PM-10 exceeding 80 pounds per day (Supplemental Impact AQ-2). The mitigation measures recommended for regional air quality impacts would have the potential to reduce regional impacts of the project by from five to 15 percent. This reduction would reduce project regional emissions of PM- 10 to below 80 pounds per day, but would not be sufficient to reduce emissions of ROG and NOx to below the 80 pounds per day BAAQMD significance threshold. Even after mitigation, the impact of buildout of project Phase I, II and III on regional air quality would remain an unavoidable significant adverse impact. These impact and mitigation conclusions are the same as those in the DSEIR using the old 150 pounds per day significance threshold. 33.31 Mitigation for Supplemental Impact AQ-7 requires implementing construction dust mitigation practices commonly in use today (listed on DSEIR p. 242) in place of the construction period air quality mitigation identified in the 1982 EIR. The recommended practices reflect the measures contained in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines. However, because of the large size of the project construction area and the proximity of sensitive receptors, the recommended mitigation for Supplemental Impact AQ-1 has been revised to specifically include all basic, enhanced and optional construction period dust control measures contained in the 1996 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. These revisions do not change the DSEIR impact and mitigation conclusions. 33.32 The DSEIR reevaluation of project local and regional air quality impact and mitigation needs represents a cumulative analysis. The analysis uses the current methodologies, standards and thresholds of significance established by the BAAQMD. The local air quality impact analysis contained in DSEIR pp. 238-240 adds the project traffic volume increment to projected future without project traffic volumes to calculate carbon monoxide concentrations and thus represents a cumulative analysis. The analysis of regional air quality impacts calculates project emissions of pollutants that are of concern at the regional level and compares project emissions to BAAQMD-established thresholds. These thresholds are established by the BAAQMD at levels necessary for attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards, assuming the levels of regional (i.e., cumulative) population and employment growth projected by ABAG. 33.33 Recommended mitigation for Supplemental Impact AQ-2 (DSEIR p. 242) and Supplemental Impact T-15 (see pp. 155 and 156 of the revised transportation section included in section III, herein) requires the incorporation of a vehicle-trip reduction requirement applicable to all land uses. The applicant is to adopt and enforce the requirement with the advice of the BAAQMD, the city, and the local transportation WP5115481 FSE/RI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 277 management agency. Within this program, the applicant would be able to develop any number of strategies, including those identified by the commenter. The Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) for the 1994 Clean Air Plan listed in the comment are all regional strategies that identify the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, transit system operators, the BAAQMD, Caltrans, cities, counties, and school districts as implementing agencies. These kinds of programs are too general and regional in nature to be applied to a specific land use project like the Terrabay development. However, the applicant would be free to consider similar strategies or even contributing funds toward any of these programs within the trip reduction program required to mitigate Supplemental Impact T-15. 33.34 The DSEIR was circulated to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by the State Clearinghouse. Please see comment letter 17 and the attached distribution form. 33.35 Mitigation for sites CA-SMa-40 and CA-SMa-92 must adhere to the mitigation requirements of Appendix K of the state CEQA Guidelines. Capping would consist of covering the site with fill soil a minimum of one foot deeper than the maximum depth of construction activities above or near the site. In order to minimize the potential for damage to the resource, the mitigation also allows for additional or different site capping measures if recommended by the archaeologist monitoring capping activities. If it is determined that capping cannot be accomplished without damaging the resource, then alternative mitigation may need to be considered, including avoidance or a detailed excavation plan. Please also see response to comment 30.04. 33.36 Please see response to comment 30.05. 33.37 There have been no changes to the area of proposed development contained in the 1982 specific plan. Site CA-SMa-234 is still located outside the area of proposed development. Any future development of Phase III would generally occur within this area. However, the specific plan and the San Bruno Mountain HCP do allow for minor adjustments in the development area boundaries.. If any grading or geotechnical repair work becomes necessary outside of the current development area boundaries, such work could potentially disturb site CA-SMa-234. Potential disturbance of site CA-SMa- 234 by any Phase III grading or repair work that may be needed outside the current development area boundaries represents a significant adverse impact (Supplemental Impact CR-4--see errata for DSEIR pp. 246 and 247 in section III herein). Future detailed environmental review for subsequent project Phase III should further consider site CA-SMa-234 to confirm that no impacts, including potential impacts from grading and geotechnical repairs or from project occupancy, would occur and to recommend mitigation, if warranted. 33.38 As explained on DSEIR p. 244 for Supplemental Impact CR-1, "Potential for Additional Cultural Resource Discoveries," records at the state Historical Resources Information WP5115481 FSEIRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 278 System Northwest Information Center indicate that 100 percent of the project site. has been studied for cultural resources (Anastasio, Garaventa, Gueden, Harmon, and Schoenfelder 1988; Cartier 1982a and 1982b; Chavez and Holman n.d.; Majer 1988; Pastron 1993; Weigel 1984). Nevertheless the staff at the state Historical Resources Information System Northwest Information Center indicate that the project site as a whole, which is located on the bay margins and at the base of hills near sources of fresh water, has a high potential for previously undiscovered Native American sites, which could be encountered during project grading. Grading could potentially reveal sites which were not evident during previous surface reconnaissances. As an additional precautionary measure, the DSEIR (p. 246, mitigation for Supplemental Impact CR-1) recommends measures to be taken in the event that previously undiscovered cultural resources are encountered during project construction. 33.39 Mitigation measures for site CA-SMa-92 and, if necessary, additional or different measures for site CA-SMa-40, will be developed in greater detail as part of subsequent project-level environmental review undertaken when specific Phase III development plans are submitted to the city for required precise plan approval in the future. When any necessary mitigation requirements for Phase III are developed in detail, funding requirements can be calculated and funding guarantees obtained at that time. The mitigation recommended in the DSEIR is adequate under CEQA and appropriate given that the specific development plans for Phase III are not known at this time. 33.40 The comment correctly notes that, if sites CA-SMa-40, CA-SMa-92, or CA-SMa-234 are eligible 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. If it is determined, as part of subsequent environmental review to be undertaken when Phase III eventually comes before the city for required precise plan approval in the future, that the project would require a federal permit or state permit pursuant to federal authority (e.g., a Section 404 permit for fill of potential jurisdictional wetlands), then the review and consultation requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA would apply (see paragraph one of response to comment 1.02 regarding subsequent environmental analysis). The project would need to comply with all procedures and requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA, including establishment of a Memorandum or Agreement with the State Historic Preservation Office that specifies the mitigation required for Section 106 compliance. 33.41 Evaluation of an alternative that involves disapproving the requested extensions but proceeding with a new specific plan and development agreement, as suggested in the comment, is not necessary to avoid most of the significant impacts identified in the DSEIR. Through its approval of the specific plan and development agreement extension, the city has full discretionary authority to impose any additional conditions or requirements on the development that it deems desirable. Please also see responses to comments 8.01 and 8.02. 33.42 Please see response to comment 33.29. WP5115481FSE/RI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 279 33.43 The proposed project does not present any inconsistencies with the South San Francisco General Plan Noise Element. The supplemental mitigation measures recommended on DSEIR pp. 228-229 for noise impacts from traffic (Supplemental Impact N-1), aircraft overflights (Supplemental Impact N-2), and project construction activities (Supplemental Impact N-3) would reduce noise levels on the project site and at adjacent residential areas to within the land use/noise compatibility standards established by the state and set forth in the city's Noise Element. 33.44 Comment acknowledged. Before taking any discretionary actions on the project (i.e., approving the proposed extension of the termination dates of the specific plan and development agreement, or approving subsequent precise plans, grading and building permits, etc.) the city must first make a written finding that the action complies with the HCP and the associated Section 10(a) permit and Agreement With Respect to San Bruno Mountain Area Habitat Conservation Plan. Compliance with the HCP, Section 10(a) permit and Agreement will be considered during the public hearings scheduled by the city to consider the proposed specific plan and development agreement extension and subsequent project actions. 33.45 Comment noted. San Mateo County recently approved an offer by the project applicant, SunChase, to dedicate HCP Administrative Parcel 2-04-02 to the county. The county approved the offer after its concerns regarding landslides, erosion problems and restored habitat on the property were resolved (please see comment 35.01). The applicant has performed repair and remediation work to address the noted drainage and habitat restoration problems and has prepared a grant deed for county acceptance. In any event, the comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the SEIR; no additional response is necessary. 33.46 The CC&Rs approved by the South San Francisco City Council and recorded with San Mateo County~for Phase I of the project include a covenant providing for funding of habitat activities as required by the HCP agreement. 33.47 Compliance of the already approved specific plan, development agreement and Phase I precise plan with the conditions of approval for those existing entitlements is not a CEQA issue required to be analyzed in the SEIR. Nevertheless, the CC&Rs approved and recorded for Phase I of the project include the covenants referred to in the comment. 33.48 The proposed Landslide D repair scheme will not require an amendment to the HCP agreement and Section 10(a) permit. In order to repair the landslide, an approximately 4.2-acre area and 110,860 total cubic yards of soil will need to be re-engineered, of which 45,300 cubic yards (1.5 acres) are located on lands within the jurisdiction of San Mateo County, and 65,560 (2.7 acres) are located on lands within the jurisdiction of the city. None of this Landslide D repair work will occur within the HCP "conserved habitat" area HCP administrative parcel 2-04-02. The city and county have determined WP5115481 FSE/Rt F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 280 that the repair scheme complies with the Section 10(a) permit, the Agreement to Implement the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan, and the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan, and have approved the required grading permits. The remediation and repair plans for Landslide D were reviewed by City and County officials, determined to be adequate, and approved. The City and County issued grading permits authorizing work to proceed on Landslide D. The work is expected to be completed by October 31, 1996. 33.49 The SEIR biologist has confirmed that the project applicant is current with all HCP funding obligations. The applicant has indicated that the previous property owner made the required initial lump sum payment. The current applicant has paid its proportional share of the monthly service charges for work performed by the Plan Operator. Collection agreements requiring the future payment of HCP fees by homeowners have been recorded for Phase I of the project. A monthly charge to cover the costs of continuing work under the HCP will be paid by individual homeowners as part of their homeowners association assessment. Please also see comment 32.10. 33.50 Please see response to comment 33.44. 33.51 The comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the SEIR. SunChase has signed the referenced agreement. 33.52 The status of the already approved Phase I precise plan is not a CEQA issue required to be analyzed in the SEIR. The comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the SEIR. Nevertheless, the Phase I precise plan was to expire within two years only if no building permits or construction activities were commenced in reliance on the precise plan approval within that time. Building permits for Phase I activities were in fact issued within the two-year period. The City Council approved a revised construction and grading activity schedule in October, 1995. 33.53 The status of already approved Phase I grading permits is not a CEQA issue required to be analyzed in the SEIR. The comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the SEIR; no response is necessary. (Multiple grading permits rather than a single permit have been issued for Phase I.) 33.54 The comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the SEIR; no response is necessary. In any event, through its approval of the specific plan and development agreement extension, the city has full discretionary authority to impose any additional conditions or requirements on the development that it deems desirable. 33.55 Compliance of the already approved specific plan, development agreement and Phase I precise plan with the conditions of approval for those existing entitlements is not a CEQA issue required to be analyzed in the SEIR. In any event, the applicant has complied with all provisions of the development agreement. WP5115481 FSEIRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 281 33.56 The comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the SEIR. In any event, the applicant has complied with all provisions of the development agreement. 33.57 Project compliance with the conditions of approval for existing entitlements is not a CEQA issue required to be analyzed in the SEIR. The comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the SEIR. In any event, the applicant has complied with all provisions of the specific plan related to geotechnical studies and the issuance of building permits. 33.58 The basins needed for Phase I of the project have already been approved and installed. Four catchment and debris basins were constructed at the foot of ravines above the developed areas of Phase I of the project (DSEIR p. 175), one at the upper limit of grading in the western swale in Terrabay Village and three at the upper limit of grading in the three swales in Terrabay Park (DSEIR p. 163). Also, siltation basins were constructed in the lower portions of the three swales in the central, Phase II portion of the site. The county has consented to the construction of the catchment basins, as evidenced by the "Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for Maintenance of Catchment Basins on San Bruno Mountain" adopted by the city and county in 1983, which is discussed on DSEIR p. 176. Additional basins that may be needed for _ subsequent project phases would be approved and constructed in a similar manner. Also, the comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the SEIR; no additional response is necessary. 33.59 The applicant has indicated that the 1995 Winterization Plan (i.e., the NPDES General Permit-required Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for Phase I construction and grading activities), approved by the city on August 15, 1995, was implemented. The comment does not pertain to a CEQA issue required to be analyzed in the SEIR. No additional response is necessary. 33.60 In response to comments concerning the adequacy of the catchment basins in Phase I, the City geotechnical consultant, Eric McHuron, conducted an extensive review of the studies and records pertaining to the sizing and capacity of the catchment basins. The results of this review were presented to City staff. On the basis of that review, the City determined that the catchment basins for Phase I are adequately sized and properly designed. Please also see response to comment 33.14 and comment 32.04. 33.61 Compliance of Phase I of the project with the conditions of approval of the already approved specific plan, development agreement and Phase I precise plan entitlements is not a CEQA issue required to be analyzed in the SEIR. In any event, the South San Francisco City Council approved the construction and grading schedule for the development in October 1995. 33.62 The comment refers to Section 20.63.060 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (Terrabay Specific Plan District zoning) which requires that, "Prior to approval of any precise plans or tentative subdivision or parcel map for development within the Terrabay commercial district, the project sponsor shall obtain ...approval of a WP5115481 FSE/RI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 282 transportation systems management plan" (emphasis added). No precise plan has yet been prepared and no approvals have yet been sought for the Phase III commercial portion of the project. Also, compliance of the already approved specific plan, development agreement and Phase I precise plan with the conditions of approval for those existing entitlements is not a CEQA issue required to be analyzed in the SEIR. No additional response is necessary. 33.63 It is possible that the Sister Cities Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard intersection could not be improved to operate acceptably (even with the flyover mitigation) without the new southbound on-ramp part of the hook ramps. The lack of hook ramps would not affect year 2000 conditions. Compliance of the already approved specific plan, development agreement and Phase I precise plan with the conditions of approval for those existing entitlements is not a CEQA issue required to be analyzed in the SEIR. The comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the SEIR; no additional response is necessary. 33.64 The comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the SEIR. The recorded CC&Rs for Phase I included a prohibition on parking or storage of recreational vehicles. 33.65 The SEIR geotechnical consultant concurs that future surficial instability is likely to occur in Phase I graded areas as stated in the DSEIR ("Small, Localized, Post-Grading Landslides", p. 169, paragraph 2). The city has found it acceptable for continued future surficial instability to be considered as a long-term maintenance issue that can be adequately addressed as a part of the overall continued, ongoing project maintenance program needed for the project (Eric McHuron, McHuron Geosciences, city geotechnical consultant, city of South San Francisco, personal communication, November 6, 1995). The need for an overall, long-term project maintenance program was recognized in the DSEIR ("Supplemental Mitigation Needs", p. 170, paragraph 3). A number of mechanisms for continued, ongoing maintenance of project geotechnical features, including future surficial slope instability, have been considered by the city (Roger Foott Associates, 1991). The project Master Homeowners Association Agreement approved by the South San Francisco City Council provides for ongoing repair and maintenance of geotechnical facilities and programs. The Slope and Drainage Maintenance Plan for Terrabay Master Association (June 19, 1996) prepared by the applicant's geotechnical consultant (Exhibit C of the agreement) clarifies the master homeowners association responsibilities and specifies management, design and construction, monitoring, maintenance, repair, funding, and reporting requirements. These requirements provide sufficient resources for and assurance of continued drainage and slope maintenance.' 33.66 surficial instability has locally infilled or blocked slope drainage facilities in the past, and will likely continue to do so in the future as stated in the DSEIR ("Supplemental 'Arthur Wong, City Engineer, memorandum to Lida Budko, Terrabay Project Planner, July 16, 1996. WP5115481 FSEIRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 283 Impact Findings", p. 169, paragraph 2). In addition, the DSEIR recognized the need for a maintenance program to periodically inspect and maintain erosion and sedimentation control facilities ("Supplemental Mitigation Needs", p. 171, paragraph 3). This issue is addressed by the Slope and Drainage Maintenance Plan described in response to comment 33.65. 33.67 The likelihood of continued surficial instability was previously recognized in the DSEIR ("Small, Localized, Post-Grading Landslides", p. 169, paragraph 2). It is important to note that the only location for which use of the adjacent street as a "buffer" area for the collection and clean-up of landslide debris was proposed by PSC Associates, Inc. (PSC) was the "Goat Farm" cut slopes ("'Goat Farm' Cut Slopes", p. 171, paragraph 4). This approach is considered acceptable to the city (John Gibbs, Director of Public Works, city of South San Francisco, personal communication, April 4, 1996). The SEIR geotechnical consultant agrees with the comment that, since the probability for extensive surficial slope failure is highest during or immediately after strong earthquake shaking or periods of intense rainfall, temporary blockage of the adjacent street may impair or block emergency access to several single family homes. The SEIR has been revised to require the applicant to prepare an emergency response plan that identifies measures and procedures to ensure adequate emergency access in the event of temporary blockage due to surficial slope instability at the "Goat Farm" cut slopes. (See errata for DSEIR page 171 in section III herein.) 33.68 Steep cuts in colluvium in Phase I, on the order of 1.5:1 (horizontal:vertical), are reportedly limited to the "Goat Farm" cut slopes (Eric McHuron, McHuron Geosciences, city geotechnical consultant, city of South San Francisco, personal communication, April 4, 1996). The planned inclinations and anticipated long-term stability of the cut slopes were apparently based on shallow bedrock conditions as suggested in the comment and discussed in the DSEIR ("Bedrock Geology Encountered During Grading", p.164, paragraph 1 }. This issue was recognized and a subsequent geotechnical reevaluation of the cut slopes was prepared by PSC (1991) and summarized in the DSEIR. PSC (1991) performed a qualitative engineering assessment of the cut slopes after final grading, but did not provide supporting test data or stability analysis using appropriate strength parameters for colluvium. Their report concluded that the completed cut slopes were acceptable from a geotechnical point of view. This report was reviewed by the city's geotechnical consultant and judged acceptable (Eric McHuron, McHuron Geosciences, city geotechnical consultant, city of South San Francisco, personal communication, April 4, 1996). Based on the PSC report, on an independent review of the report by Roger Foott Associates (RFA), and on PSC responses to RFA comments, the city's geotechnical consultant (Eric McHuron, McHuron Geosciences), has concluded that minor slumping on the cut slope may continue to occur but poses no significant hazard to downslope residential development and is appropriately considered a maintenance problem. A summary of the reevaluation of the "Goat Farm" cut slopes by the city's geotechnical WP5115481 FSEIRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 284 consultant, which includes copies of the PSC report, the RFA review and the PSC response, is presented in Appendix D herein. Future cut slopes excavated in unconsolidated materials should be no steeper than 1.5:1, unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant of record and approved by the city geotechnical consultant. 33.69 The need for an overall project maintenance program was previously recognized in the DSEIR ("Supplemental Mitigation Needs", p. 170, paragraph 3). The project Master Homeowners Association Agreement approved by the South San Francisco City Council provides for ongoing repair and maintenance of geotechnical facilities and programs. The Slope and Drainage Maintenance Plan for Terrabay Master Association (June 19, 1996) prepared by the applicant's geotechnical consultant (Exhibit C of the agreement) clarifies the master homeowners association responsibilities and specifies management, design and construction, monitoring, maintenance, repair, funding, and reporting requirements. These requirements provide sufficient resources for and assurance of continued drainage and slope maintenance.' The scope of anticipated maintenance and repairs is considered to be acceptable to the city (Eric McHuron, McHuron Geosciences, city geotechnical consultant, city of South San Franciscot personal communication, November 6, 1995). (See errata for DSEIR p. 170 in section III herein.) 33.70 Landslide D was discussed previously in the DSEIR ("Updated Landslide Information", p. 166, paragraph 6, and "Supplemental Impact Findings", p. 170, paragraph 2). Studies by Leighton and Associates, Inc. (LA) and Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc. (GRC) culminated in a repair/design concept approved by the city and the city's geotechnical consultant, as stated in the DSEIR ("Supplemental Mitigation Needs", p. 171, paragraph 5). In developing the "approved" repair plan, the SEIR authors understand that GRC reinterpreted the depth of active landsliding near the landslide toe based on two additional soil borings drilled after the completion of the LA report. The "approved" repair plan was subsequently reviewed by LA who judged that the repair will increase the factor of safety of the landslide to greater than 1.5 (LA, 1995). The SEIR geotechnical consultant concurs that the buttress should be founded in competent, in-place material below the lowest landslide plane. As noted in the comment, GRC (1995) has recommended excavation of test pits in the landslide toe to confirm that the recommended keyway depth is adequate. It is unclear when the exploration pits are recommended to be excavated, only that they be completed "in advance" of the keyway excavation (GRC, 1995). Large-diameter borings, as described in the comment, are possible supplements/alternatives to the test pits. Deferral of such confirmatory exploration to the construction phase would not increase the potential for geologic hazards, although it may involve significant additional cost if 'Arthur Wong, City Engineer, memorandum to Lida Budko, Terrabay Project Planner, July 16, 1996. WP5115481 FSEI R I F-l!. 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 285 the design must be revised due to changes in anticipated geologic conditions encountered during grading. 33.71 The remediation and repair plans for Area D were reviewed by City and County officials, determined to be adequate, and approved. The City and County issued grading permits authorizing work to proceed on Area D. The work is expected to be completed by October 31, 1996. (See errata for DSEIR p. 171 in section III herein.) 33.72 The issue of "buried valleys" and deep landslides was previously addressed in the DSEIR ("Bedrock Geology Encountered During Grading", p. 163, paragraph 4, and "Updated Landslide Information", p. 166, paragraph 4). The first part of the comment deals with cut slope analysis and design for steep cuts within colluvial "buried valley" deposits. As discussed under response to comment 33.66, steep cuts in colluvium in Phase I, on the order of 1.5:1, are reportedly limited to the "Goat Farm" cut slopes (Eric McHuron, McHuron Geosciences, city geotechnical consultant, personal communication, April 4, 1996). A supplemental report by PSC (1991) concluded that the completed cut slopes were acceptable from a geotechnical point of view, and this report was subsequently reviewed and judged acceptable by the city (Eric McHuron, McHuron Geosciences, city geotechnical consultant, personal communication, April 4, 1996). Based on the PSC report, on an independent review of the report by Roger Foott Associates (RFA), and on PSC responses to RFA comments, the city's geotechnical consultant has concluded that minor slumping on the cut slope may continue to occur but poses no significant hazard to downslope residential development and is appropriately considered a maintenance problem. A summary of the reevaluation of the "Goat Farm" cut slopes by the city's geotechnical consultant, which includes copies of the PSC report, the RFA review and the PSC response, is presented in Appendix D herein. The second part of the comment deals with possible fill placement over compressible landslide debris or colluvium. Fill was reportedly not placed during Phase I grading over compressible landslide debris or colluvium (Eric McHuron, McHuron Geosciences, city geotechnical consultant, city of South San Francisco, personal communication, April 4, 1996). Grading recommendations provided by PSC (1983a) call for the removal of incompetent materials in areas to receive fill. In addition, the 1982 EIR contained a mitigation measure recommending that weak or unstable soils be overexcavated and replaced with properly compacted and keyed material (1982 EIR p. 85, paragraph 8 and DSEIR Table 21, pp. 160-161). Eric McHuron, the city's geotechnical consultant, indicated during a meeting on April 4, 1996 that incompetent materials encountered were removed prior to placement of fill. Soils encountered in "buried valleys" were reportedly often cemented, and typically "bulked up" when excavated and recompacted as engineered fill, indicating in-place density of the natural material was at least equal to or greater than that of engineered fill. A representative of PSC, the geotechnical consultant of record at the time of grading, observed and tested grading operations. In addition, a representative of Roger Foott Associates (RFA), the city's geotechnical consultant at the time of grading, was present on a WP5115481 FSEIRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project Ciry of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 286 full-time basis during grading operations (PSC, 1995a and 1995b). All grading operations were completed to the satisfaction of RFA (Eric McHuron, McHuron Geosciences, city geotechnical consultant, personal communication, April 4, 1996). The SEIR geotechnical consultant concurs that similar "buried valleys" and deep landslide deposits may be encountered during future development phases. As the changes in anticipated geologic conditions became apparent during Phase I grading, RFA recommended that reassessment of the Phase II design be performed while changes could still be made without unnecessary problems (RFA, 1991). PSC has completed some supplemental reports on potential geologic hazards and slope stability analyses for the Woods West and Woods East (formerly known as neighborhoods C and D) portions of the Terrabay development. Similar design-level studies should be completed by the geotechnical consultant of record to adequately characterize the remainder of the Terrabay development prior to the start of grading. All geotechnical documents should be reviewed and approved by the city's geotechnical consultant prior to issuing grading permits. 33.73 The issue of cut/fill transition lots was previously addressed in the DSEIR ("1982 EIR Soils and Geology Impact and Mitigation Findings",.p. 161, paragraph 3). According to the grading notes provided on the Phase I grading plans (CREM, 1988), lots located on cut/fill transitions ("transition" lots) were to be overexcavated by a minimum of three feet and recompacted with engineered fill. In a foundation investigation report for Terrabay Park, PSC confirmed that the "transition" lots were overexcavated by up to three feet in cut areas and uniform fill was placed across the entire lot during Phase I grading operations, and included a list of transition lots (PSC, 1990). Representatives of the city similarly confirmed during a meeting on April 4, 1996 that all lots with cut/fill transitions were mitigated by this approach. We concur that there is a potential for differential fill settlement to occur in areas of deep fill in Phase I. This issue has recently been addressed by the current geotechnical consultant of record for the Phase I residential development, Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants (BGC). BGC encountered "reasonably compacted engineered fill" in two soil borings recently drilled in Terrabay Park (BGC, 1995). BGC also noted that the engineered fills have been in place for approximately six years and concluded that the majority of settlement resulting from fill placement has likely already occurred (BGC, 1996). Based on their findings, BGC provided design-level foundation criteria for the Terrabay Park development. Design-level geotechnical reports should be prepared by the geotechnical consultant of record for other areas of existing fill in Phase I and areas of future fill in Phase II, and should similarly evaluate the potential for differential fill settlement and provide recommendations as needed to mitigate potential fill settlement, including foundation type. The reports should be reviewed and approved by the city's geotechnical consultant prior to issuing building permits. WP5115481FSElRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 287 As discussed under response to comment 33.70, it is the SEIR geotechnical consultant's understanding that fill was reportedly not placed during Phase I grading over compressible landslide debris or colluvium (Eric McHuron, McHuron Geosciences, city geotechnical consultant, personal communication, April 4, 1996). All grading operations were completed to the satisfaction of RFA, the city's geotechnical consultant at the time of Phase I grading (Eric McHuron, McHuron Geosciences, city geotechnical consultant, personal communication, April 4, 1996). 33.74 In response to comments concerning the adequacy of the catchment basins in Phase I, the City geotechnical consultant, Eric McHuron, conducted an extensive review of the studies and records pertaining to the sizing and capacity of the catchment basins. The result of this review were presented to City staff. On the basis of that review, the City determined that the catchment basins for Phase I are adequately sized and properly designed and no reevaluation is warranted. 33.75 As discussed under response to comment 33.64, the need for a maintenance program to periodically inspect and maintain erosion and sedimentation control facilities was recognized in the DSEIR ("Supplemental Mitigation Needs", p. 171, paragraph 3). The comment supports the DSEIR mitigation requiring the establishment of a long-term maintenance program to monitor, clean, and maintain the debris basins, and recommends that a GRAD be established to implement the maintenance program. As discussed in responses to comments 1.16, 5.05, and 33.63, the project Master Homeowners Association Agreement approved by the South San Francisco City Council provides for ongoing repair and maintenance of geotechnical facilities and programs. The Slope and Drainage Maintenance Plan for Terrabay Master Association (June 19, 1996) prepared by the applicant's geotechnical consultant (Exhibit C of the agreement) clarifies the master homeowners association responsibilities and specifies management, design and construction, monitoring, maintenance, repair, funding, and reporting requirements. These requirements provide sufficient resources for and assurance of continued drainage and slope maintenance.' 33.76 The comment states that the SEIR should address installation of debris basins as mitigation for future project phases. The SEIR authors agree that the potential for debris flows should be reevaluated for subsequent project Phases II and III based on current knowledge and practice. PSC (1983} discusses debris flow potential and provides recommendations for use in design for the Phases II and III portions of the project site as well as for Phase I (please see response to comment 33.72). The sizing and siting of the debris basins should be based on the recommendations provided by the geotechnical consultant of record, and reviewed by the city's geotechnical consultant. The DSEIR (p. 172) has been revised accordingly. (See errata for DSEIR p. 172 in section III herein.} 'Arthur Wong, City Engineer, memorandum to Lida Budko, Terrabay Project Planner, July 16, 1996. WP511548iFSE1Rl F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 288 33.77 As a general rule in any development, grading plans should reflect recommendations of the geotechnical consultant of record in areas where slope repair is required. As stated in the DSEIR, this should include all landslides and areas of weak soil in or near proposed development ("1982 EIR Soils and Geology Impact and Mitigation Findings", p. 161, paragraph 4). Areas of gullying and surficial slope failures in the dedicated lands should be repaired to the satisfaction of the county. The geotechnical consultant of record should evaluate the need for supplemental recommendations to address the long-term stability of disturbed areas in the dedicated lands. The SEIR geotechnical consultant concurs that, as is the case for any large grading project, the extent of grading and stabilization work required on portions of the property that are to be dedicated to San Mateo County (i.e., HCP Administrative Parcel 2-04-02) may be greater than shown on the grading plans, depending on geologic conditions encountered. As discussed in the response to comment 33.70, design level studies shall be completed by the geotechnical consultant of record to adequately characterize the areas to be graded for subsequent project phases before the start of grading, and any supplemental recommendations shall be reflected in the final grading plans. All geotechnical documents shall be reviewed and approved by the city's geotechnical consultant prior to issuing grading permits. 33.78 All restaurant uses proposed for project Phase III were considered to be "quality" rather than "high turnover-sit down" restaurant uses in the 1982 EIR traffic analysis. Since the project applicant has not indicated any change in the characteristics of the proposed restaurant uses in the Phase III component of the project, all restaurant uses have continued to be calculated as "quality" restaurant uses for trip generation purposes. 33.79 The three primary sources of future traffic information used in the DSEIR year 2000 and 2010 Base Case (without project) traffic forecasts--the 1993 Brisbane General Plan Circulation Element, the East of 101 Area Plan EIR, and the EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Program EIR'--provide: a detailed list of projects considered in their projections; regional traffic modeling projections used as a component of future freeway volume projections (East of 101 Area Plan EIR only); and, in the East of 101 Area Plan EIR and the Brisbane General Plan analyses, indication of what development in adjacent jurisdictions was not considered. Knowing this information, it was possible to develop a conservative "worst case" set of future traffic projections. It is true that, due to the minimal assumption that future Brisbane traffic projected to be traveling to and from South San Francisco may have been some of the same traffic projected in previous South San Francisco analysis to be traveling to and from Brisbane, an overall subregional traffic analysis of the future land uses proposed for both Brisbane and South San Francisco may have produced a slightly lower set of volumes for the Bayshore Boulevard and US 101 connections between the two cities WP5115481 FSElRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 289 than was developed for the DSEIR traffic analysis, by the blending of traffic forecast results. 33.80 Please see responses to comments 30.01 and 33.04. These responses explain that recently observed congestion at the Oyster Point interchange is due to the construction period diversion to the Oyster Point interchange of Grand Avenue interchange traffic bound for northbound US 101. The Grand Avenue interchange US 101 northbound on-ramp has been closed most of the day and, in particular, during the AM peak commute traffic period due to construction. In response to this and similar comments pertaining to conditions at the Oyster Point interchange, existing and projected traffic volumes at the Oyster Point interchange were recounted and re-analyzed. The revised findings pertaining to this interchange are described on pages 89, 96, 100, 102-105, 106, 108, 109, 126-133, 135, 137, 138, 140-145, 147, 150-154, and 156 of the revised Transportation chapter. 33.81 Please see response to comment 33.80. 33.82 Traffic analysis projections used for the DSEIR traffic analysis, as well as for previous analyses in the area, were developed using distribution patterns based on the most logical (and potentially the shortest by distance) travel routes. The commenter notes that once this initial distribution pattern had been developed, and before mitigation measures were tested, a second iterative step using capacity constraint as a controlling factor should have been used to redistribute traffic. Since proposed mitigations (Table 20 on DSEIR p. 138) were shown to result in acceptable operation at the intersection in question (Bayshore Boulevard/US 101 southbound ramps/project commercial access) for the most logical travel route scenario, the SEIR traffic consultant sees no reason why a capacity constrained analysis would be warranted at this interim, pre-mitigation step. 33.83 The SEIR traffic consultant agrees that successful implementation of the transportation demand management (TDM) measures recommended as mitigation for Supplemental Impact T-15 would not reduce the identified significant project impact on US 101 freeway operation to a less than significant level. Based on recent surveys of employers and commuters in the region (following the invalidation of BAAQMD Regulation 13, Rule 1), including a 1996 telephone survey by RIDES for Bay Area Commuters, Inc.,' a vehicular trip reduction of at least 12 percent can be anticipated due to voluntary TDM activity. Nevertheless, even after mitigation, the impact of buildout of project Phases I, II and III on US 101 freeway operation would remain an unavoidable significant adverse impact. This finding has been included in the revised Transportation section recirculated for public review on August 30, 1996 and included in section III herein. 'RIDES for Bay Area Commuters, Inc., Commute Profile '96, July 1996, MTSMA Region Supplement, based on an April 1996 telephone survey of commuters. WP5115481 FSEIRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 290 33.84 In response to this comment, the SEIR 2010 traffic analysis for the Oyster Point interchange area has been revised and now assumes no implementation of BAAOMD Regulation 13, Rule 1--the employer-based trip reduction rule. The 20 percent reduction in trip generation incorporated into the East of 101 Area Plan EIR 2010 traffic projections have been eliminated. An approximately six percent reduction due to anticipated transit use (the same level of transit use currently experienced by employers in the East of 101 area) has been retained in the projections. The EIR authors and EIR transportation engineer have also determined that, in addition to the TSM-based vehicular trip reductions already reflected in the analysis (6 percent), an additional vehicular trip reduction of at least 12 percent can be anticipated in the project/East-of-101 area due to continued yoluntarv TSM activity (see revised Transportation chapter pp. 146-147). It should be noted that the East of 101 Area Plan EIR year 2000 projections used in the DSEIR traffic analysis did not include a 20 percent reduction for the BAAQMD trip reduction rule. Thus, there has been no change to the DSEIR year 2000 Base Case and Base Case project Phase I traffic analysis. 33.85 Please see response to comment 33.84. 33.86 Please see response to comment 33.84. 33.87 The year 2010 was selected as a logical and reasonable ultimate horizon year for the DSEIR traffic analysis considering the uncertainty of the timing of buildout of subsequent project phases. An economic slow-down as evidenced over the past three to four years may dampen the market for commercial space and thus delay buildout of the project beyond the anticipated completion date presented in DSEIR Section III, Project Description. Such a developing trend could be adequately considered in the subsequent environmental review required for the precise plan stages of project Phases II and III. 33.88 With respect to mitigating cumulative conditions at the intersection of Airport, Bayshore, Oyster Point, and Sister Cities Boulevards, the southbound flyover off-ramp has been retained in the revised Transportation chapter as the only feasible long-term mitigation alternative. With respect to the mitigation proposed for the Commercial Access/ Bayshore Boulevard intersection, the revised Transportation section proposes a double rather than a triple left at the north- and southbound approaches to the intersection. Future more detailed traffic planning and mitigation design for project Phase III will include preparation of engineering drawings, and identification of any additional right- of-way acquisition needs, if any, to implement this mitigation. 33.89 Please see response to comment 33.06. WP5115481 FSElR 1 F-1 /. 54 8 h1aF.-20-199b 1~3~ 17 SIERRA CLUB • LAMA PRIETA CHAPTER 5•an Mateo • Santa Clara • San Benito (;panties March 20,1996 iita Budko City of South San Frantasoo RE: Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Draft Supplemental l~R Deaz Ms. 8udko: RECEIVED MAR 2 0 1996 PLANNING The I,om$ Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club has followed the development proposals for San Bruno Mountain for many years. We did participate in the scoping meeting to solicit coalnnents for the supplemental SIR. Our mnceriis are limited to two areas: 1) concern over the timing and effectiveness of remediatiart and restoration of conserved azeas and 2) concern over the impacts of the phase 3 development. Remediation and Restoration of Conserved Areas While we have had general concerns about the proposed development, we have been quite concervved. over the recent state of the property. We are pleased to see the efforts currently underway to clean up and remediate problems caused by the abandoned construction. The degradation of the area has been in violation of the HCP agreements and, if not addressed imutediabPly, could lead fio long term severe impacts. We urge that all rErrnediald' activities be completied in a timely manner. We believe that these activities should be closely scrutinized and urge frequent reporting and review. Specific goals for erosion control, revegetation and the control of invasive exotic plants should be developed. in addition, bonds should be posted to ensure that such operations are completed to the satisfaction of the City and HCP trustees. We also urge along-term effort by the developers or homeowners tia maintain the oanserved areas. This effort should include an education and community involvement component. The education and involvement of the homeawners in the Poante Pacific development in Daly City has led to a locally based eradication and lupine cultivation effort. Such community involvement will help all involved to meet the goals of the HC~. 4- 391 Fps: Bayshcxe Road Suitc 204 Palo Afro, C`.A 94303 415-390-8411 ~`~-•'' FAX 415-3?0-~4l7 41535L~84'~? F . 0'2 ' ~~ ..::, . Phase 3 We believe that the City of South San Francisco should only approve a development agreement for phases 1 and 2 We are concerned that the commercial development in phase 3 will severely impact sensitive archaeological resources and future recreational opporhuudes. We believe that the approval of this phase should be given more couRSideration and that there should be more effort to get this parcel into public ownership in a maiu~er that wily compensate the landowner. We do have corioerns that there may be more commeraal development in the East of 101 Specific Plan area than the market can support. If this is shown to be the «~se, this parcel would best be suifed for open space. This open space mold actually be an amenity to both the residential and oommerciai communities. By approving an extensioat of the development agreement, the City could be locking in development that may not be needed or foreclosing any opportunity for future mitigations t+o address the archeological and recreational concerns. Respectfully subnutted, ' Bott, Chapter Direcbar direct line 415/390-8414 ~OZ TOTAL P.03 ,~ z Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 293 34. Julia Bott, Chapter Director, Loma Prieta Chapter, Sierra Club; March 20, 1996 34.01 Please also see responses to comments, 10.01, 10.03, 10.06 and 13.01. 34.02 Comment noted. The specific plan and development agreement identify the general type and density of commercial development contemplated for project Phase III in 1982, as discussed in section III of the DSEIR, Project Description. However, the development plans contained in the specific plan are unlikely to actually be developed if the level and type of development cannot be supported by the market. The actual specific development plans for Phase III are not yet known. When Phase III is to be developed and eventually comes before the city for required Phase III precise plan approval, a more detailed development plan would be submitted and additional, more detailed environmental review would be undertaken, possibly including formulation of more detailed cultural resources mitigation and consideration of preserving a portion of the site as open space in collaboration with the proposed development. Please also see responses to comments 1.02 and 1.08. WP5115481 FSEIRI F-11.548 I'WK-..U-1 77C 1° _ _ -Lniy •~ 1 i +u o ~! • ~ `~• ~ i ~~~ Environmental Services Agency Planning and Building Division ~oun~y of San Mateo Llsii Cn~ P'JV'22.590 HatniRo^Str2e: • 2nd FlOOr P.ar}Nt~i City ~alitor~ia 94063 -°ierhone 415~'3E;:~ t E1 Fax 415/363849 Board of Supervisors ~uGec B:.r.alcr- ~tary Grit+~n ipn F+uPn~n;~ Ted lcmpcrt kt~crtae~ U ~cv~ Director or Environmental Services Pau! M Kccn+g Ptanning Administrator Terre '` Entries March ~. 1996 • RECEI`; Lida Budko MAR 2 0 South San Francisco Planning Departznent PLANNI" 4Q0 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Ms. Budlto: 1 am wntit>l, in regard to several issues that have arisen during the County Planning and Building Division's review of the Drab Supplemental F.nviroumental Impact Report (DSF.IIt) for the Tertabay Specific Plan and Development Agreem,eat Extiension. The County Planning and $nilding Division's concerns regard geologic ha~.ards, erosion, and revegetation associated with lands that are currently owned by the County and lands that w~l be offered for dedication to the County Parks and Recreation Division as conserved habitat in accordance with the San Bruno -Motmtain Area Habitat Coaservarian Plan (HCP). Per Volume TI of the HCP (pages VII-166 through VII-168), the property owner has the oblige- lion m offer to dedicate fee ownership of the area identified as Administrative Parcel 2-04-02 to the County of San Mateo, to provide conserved habitat. In the past, the former developer W . W . Dean did sign docimnsnts offering c~onsetved habitat W the County. These documents require some minor revisions and will need m be re-executed. Further, at that time we explained to the developer and representatives of the Ciry of South San Francisco that the offer would not be accepted tantd concerns regarding landslides, erosion problems, an+d restored habitat on those lands arc resolved. We presented the developer and the City of South San Francisco with a docamern entitled: "Standards for determining successful revcgetatiou especially for disturbed areas being reclaimed for conserved3 habitat and [o be ded'~cated to the County of San Mateo in accordance with the San Btuuo Mountain Area Habitat Conservation Plan." These stanidards arc expected to be complied with before we can recommend that the Boazd of Supervisors accept the conserved habitat. -• j~ol In the DSEIR, a landslide is identified in Area "D° above the area proposed for develop~t. In the future, this area will be offered by tbe developer to the County as conserved habitat. In the DSEIR, a number of remediation methods aze proposed to repair this landslide. The Engineering ~!. aZ Geologist who prepared the t,;eotechnicaI Appendi:c reeornmended Alternative #4 as the best way to repair tbs :andslide. RTe concur that Alternative #4 appears to be an appropt:iatc fix iri ~~vr. NWF,`-ski-199E 1= ~ ~>> FLHN'J [ NG .~ )=~J I LU I haG 41 ~• 35~ 484'? P . 0~ Lida Budko -2- March 2a, 1946 GvNT: accordance with current geotechnicaI engineering standards. Airy final selection of an alternative will depend on the outcome of future detailed gcotechnical investib~ons. Our understanding is . that the landslide repair and all incidental work will be located within file existing fence lines of the HCP development area boundaries. On March t4, 1996, representatives from the County and Cixy met to clarify issues and procedures to ensure efficient permitting. 'The landslide is located on L~dS under the jurisdiction of both the City and the Coanry; thcrcfr?re, Grading Permits wiIl be repaired from both 2r- jurisdictions. It is our opinion that a cooperative review of the Grading plans is appropriate by 7'j ,d =j City and Coanty staff. 7'tve Coaary will consider approval of issuance of a Grading Permit for landslide FeIDediBtiott after the City approves the project and certifies the DSEIIt. The Couaty will use the City's SEIR for environmental review puzposes. There are eurrEntly landslide monitoring instrumentations put in place to assess current ~ 0~ movement of the landslide. It is our opinion that those monitoring irutrumears should remain in place to assess future conditions. We have reviewed the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restructians {CCBcRs) of the Terrabay Village Association. Conditions 16 and 17 of the CC~cRs appear w address the obligations of the Horueownets Association far slope mA;nt~r+_r~p 3Dd• landslide repair should it 2 /~ be necessary bo do any future work on the e~dstiag landslide following the proposed remediarion 77~ ~(p disctused in the DSfiIR. We believe that the 1)SEIR shuuid also recognize t3zc possible rue of a Geological Hazards Abatement District as a vehicle to ensure future maiirteosnce of the rtpairs. Thank you for the opportunity to corrrmem on the DSETR for the Terrabay Specific Ilan and. Development Agreement Extension. Please feet free fi contact me at 4I5J363-1823 if you have any gaestions_ Sincerely, Samuel Herzberg Planner III SH:fc - SFHG0372.6FN ce: Paul Koenig, Director of Environmental Services Teat' Burnes, Planning Attmintstrawr Bill Rozar, Development Re~tiew Manager Mike Murphy, Deputy County Counsel Pete Bentley, Senior Engineer Say l~iazzetta, Geetrchnical Engineer 7oe1 Medlin, U.S. Fsh and Vl'ildlife Service TOTAL P.~ Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR 11. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 296 35. Samuel Herzberg, Planner III, Planning Division, County of San Mateo; March 20, 1996 35.01 The county has recently approved the applicant's (SunChase) offer to dedicate HCP Administrative Parcel 2-04-02, based on its determination that erosion and restored habitat problems have been resolved and the county's standards for revegetation have been complied with. The comment does not pertain to the EIR adequacy. 35.02 The comment concurs that the recommended Landslide D repair Alternative #4 is an appropriate fix. 35.03 The comment notes that Landslide D will require both city and county grading permits. The county will consider issuance of a grading permit after SEIR certification and project approval and will use the city's SEIR for environmental review. Comment acknowledged. Since receipt of this comment letter, the City and County have issued grading permits authorizing work to proceed on the repair of Landslide D. The work is underway and is expected to be completed by October 31, 1996. 35.04 The DSEIR (mitigation for Supplemental Impact G-2 on p. 172) recommends implementation of a long-term monitoring plan for Landslide D that makes use of selected existing piezometers and slope inclinometers. 35.05 The DSEIR (mitigation for Supplemental Impact G-i on p. 171) recommends a Geologic Hazards Abatement District (GRAD) for continued ongoing geotechnical maintenance and repair. Maintenance could also be accomplished by the project master homeowners association. The project Master Homeowners Association Agreement approved by the South San Francisco City Council provides for ongoing repair and maintenance of geotechnical facilities and programs. The Slope and Drainage Maintenance Plan for Terrabay Master Association (June 19, 1996) prepared by the applicant's geotechnical consultant (Exhibit C of the agreement) clarifies the master homeowners association responsibilities and specifies management, design and construction, monitoring, maintenance, repair, funding, and reporting requirements. These requirements provide sufficient resources for and assurance of continued drainage and slope maintenance.' 'Arthur Wong, City Engineer, memorandum to Lida Budko, Terrabay Project Planner, July 16, 1996. W P5115481 FSE/ R I F- 11.54 8 3tp C ~ ~( ~ ~ ` Ci ~~ e u.~. ~~ ~ro..1. ~~ S ca-) C!g- RECEIVED MAR 2 0 1990 Pi.ANNlNG ~i`h'~C .~o ~77~~ ~ Tom- ~- d-g2 ad~,'{~v"`.c~~ t 4,( Ply. ~. ~X~ ~'1~ ~_.~-`. . y ~~..~-, ~w ~ ~~ ~~ _ - e~~.~~ y- f~ ~/ _ it.8'O'T L ct~~ ~ '7~.Z, , ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ K b.~.~~~ -n - u~. ~- ~ ~..~ 1 q o ~ ~~ - / ~~-~- ~. Ste, B r wn.a- . Fr ~.~- ~ ~ ~ f~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~m~ ~. ~- ~ l q8 0 ~~ a~~ '~- ~ ~~ o o se ~ ~i S YLc~ ~'~ ~ ,~2- .~-~- ~.. ~~~ ~. of ~? e-o~ o'~- -f~.e. -7~v~-a,~~ S .~%~.-~.~. ~ ~s ~~~Ys'~ ~ .~,~ l X80 , ~~~ _ -,~~ ~ ~~ a ~ ~~ c 0. 7r1 a.',g~1; %-t. ~ -1 c~wC~~ ~ra~w~. ~a•~Q. CQ ct.~ '~/Yt i /Gt,Q,,' ~ `~ ~ a,~c,~•2~Q U ~a~ 7~; gym; ~ cc,,~, ~ ~ ~ ~. c~ ~~~~ o ~~ ~ ~ 0 y ham' ~ ~ e, e~e.~. ~,/~. ,:~e~ ~,~Q ~ ,~;~.. 0 ~~- a-tie, a~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~'1 a,Z'~eo- Cep ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ a..~,~+~a, lil ~o. ,Sah ~rakc;scv~ ~~ gyo8a TO' ~an sh a t ~ uc 9G7 u/ C~.~,n a. l Dr / q ~~8~ 3~ d C.~n~,~-- X6.02 ~`r"-~ . ~-~- '~ . a~~ ~- S~-r, B~~e- ~Yl,e~~ ~r%a n,aus ~ ~; vim. ~ V~u/ ~~' may' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ . Ce-~`~~ -~~ q,~,~.~~~ c~-c~ ~V ~ mss.. ~~a".(~~~~ t~o~~~ ~~~~ ~./ aC.~;~~- ' ~^~~ a~G.~~-' ate.-~ Y ~ a ,w~ -may cc~e ~ ~c / a. ,~-,-, a V~,,.~,~ ~;, w.~.~.. 36.0 ~-f~. ~ d. !moo -{~~ ~Lti~;~`- ~ Y .~c.~d ~.~-1 a-~ /~ ~~,cc.~a // cent ~ ~f° Biodtvcraity Resource Ceater Californiz Academ.~ of Scieares Golden Gate Part; Sall t'faDCt$CQ, Cn ~ I ]R-~~9C WILDFLOWER CONSERVATION GUIDELINES' 1. Let your acts reflect your respect for wild native plants as integral pares of biological com- munities anti natural landscapes. Remember that if you pick ur disturb wildflowers, your action af- fects the natural world, anti that the cumulative effects of the actions of many people can be particu- larly harmful. 2. Do nut dig or take cuttings from native plants in the wild except as p:art rf rescue or salvage operations six,nsorcd h}• resixmsihlc organizations. 3. Encourage the use of regional native plants in home and public landscapes, but before obtain- ing wildflower plants or seeds for your home land- scape, le:-rn enough about their cultural reyuire- ntents to he sure you can { ~ro~•ide a suitable habitat. 4. if you collect seeds from the wild, collect a few seeds ur fruits from each of many plants and only from cammnn species t}wt`are 4xally afnertdunt. Purchase wildtluwer seeds only from companies that collect re~punsihly. S. Purchase live wildflower plants only from suppliers or or~ani=ations that propagate their own plants or that purchase their material arum those who propagate them. Ask sellers about the origin of the l+lants you arc consitlcring buying. If there is any doubt aht,ut a plant's origin, do not purchase it. 6. lac cautious and knowlcdgcahlc in the use of exotic wildflo>,~•crs. VUllilc many of these non- native wildflot~•er species can be attractively user! in gardens and I:u~dscapcs, some slxcit•s arc overly aggressi.•e and these weeds may displace natrvc species. Aecume aware o(your state's noxious weed laws by contacting your state Department of Ag• riculture or Ai;ricultural Extension Sen•ice. 'AJaprcd fur hn+ader apt+lir.,hility (rum the Virt;inra W,Id(l~+ver ('resen•atiun Scxiety's "Wildflower Cc+ncen•atiun Guidelines." 7. When photographing wildflowers, or inspect- ing diem clusel}•, be careful not to trample plants nearby. 8. If you pick wildflowers, dried seed stalks, or greens fi,r lx,me decoration, use only common species that are abundant at the site. Leave enough flowers or seeds to allow the plant population to reseed itself. Avoid picking herbaceous perennials such as wilt] orchids, jack-in-the-pulpits, or gen- tians tlt:rt, like daffcxlils, need to retain their veg- ctativeparrs to store energy far next year's develop- ment. Avoid cutting slow-growing plants, such as rtrnnirig cedar, club musses, or partridgebetry, for Christmas wreaths or other decorations. 9. l3ecumc familiar with your state's wildflower protection laws. ]f your state does not have laws protecting wildflowers, or if the existing laws are weak, support the passage and enforcement of strong and effective legislation fur the preservation t,f native plants. Report unlawful collection of plants to proper authorities and, when necessary, remind others that collecting plants or disturbing a natlrr:il area is illegal in parks and other public places. IO. 1( )'t,U ICafll lhat an area WI[h W11dflOWers r5 scheduled for dcvelui~mcnt, notify a native plant st~cicty in your region. Discuss with the developer the possibilities of compatible development alter- nativcs or of conducting a wildflower rescue or salvage operation. t I. It is impcxtant to protect information about the locations of rare species. ]f you discover a new site ~~(a 1~l:tnt sl~ecics that you know is rare, report it to responsible conservation officials, such as your state's Natural Hcritabe Program, a native plant sc,ciety, Nature Conservancy chapter, or the U.S. Fislt anti Wildlife Service,.as soon as possible and _ before discussing it with others. rr . Ti lE ~'lLnFLOVt'ER GARDENER'S GUIDE 451y'ia:~?Y~~.S~~."'° ~~~r._a:~r',;~y[°'°'~ _~3~..~a,c.~YZ.+~YrSG:if'ti`.'~_Jd~2tii:~3i~tRi" ~esy~~.~rae~_.. "~-t'~-~~fl~-Z:~S3.iiti.C.~:- ~~ • NVIRONMENTAI.. EVIE~ VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 3 • FALL 1994 _ _,~ -__ 3REES PLANTED AT FREMONT'S MATTOS t:LEMENTARY TO COMMEMORATE NUMMI'S ~ EN YEARS OF PARTNERSHIP WITH THE LOCAL COMMUNITY small "grove" of Evergreen Pear trees was planted on the campus of Mattos Elementary School in the lower San Francisco Bay Area city of Fremont, California, to commemorate the 10th anniversary of New United Motors Manufacturing, Inc. and its partnership with the communih•. Known far and wide by the acronym ' 1VUM.Ivll," it's the place where Geo Prizms are built. The trees were purchased through a grant from Chevrolet/Geo Em~ironmental. Superintendent of Schools Ralph Belluomin, Mattos Priruipat Barbara Sims, L}•nn Palos, coordinator of the Partners in Education Program for the Fremont School District, and student representatives from Mattos all took part in the planting ceremony. "These trees represent the partnership that NL~MN11 has had with he community here in Fremont," 3elluomin stated. "The trees will stand as a reminder of what that means both to our city and to our school district." - - A tenth tree was planted on April 15, 199, on the grounds of NL';~-1'v1I by Chevrolet/Geo General Manager Jim Perkins. During that ceremom• Perkins said, "As you all know, it's traditional to ve a gift on the occasion of an anniver- sary so, in celebration of our first ten years, we are planting ten new trees in Fremont: one ceremonial tree here at the '~'UM1v1I plant, and nine at Mattos Elementary. Our gift, these trees, will be a reminder of the living partnership which N1~MMI represents, as well as the commitment that we have made to this community." A special plaque installed at Mattos School reads: "These Trees Hai a Been Planted by Chevrolet/Geo To Commemorate Ten Years Of Qualiri~, Teamwork & Commitment To The Community By \ew United Motors Manufacturing, Inc. -April 1S, 199-1, Fremont, California." CAN'T FIND AN ENViRONtb1ENTAL GROUP .. . WHY NOT START YOUR OWN? hen Al Grubbs, administra- tive assistant to the general manager of Three-~ti'ay Chevrolet/Geo, in Bakersfield, California, decided that it would be a good thing for the comm~..utity if his dealership took an active role in the Geo Tree Program, he started looking around for anon-profit environmental group. He could not locate one. Undaunted by this fact, Grubbs did some research, talked to some people and helped form a completely new non-profit organization called "Tree Foundation of Kem." Named for the county of which Bakersfield is the seat, the "Tree Foundation" is aprivate-public partnership made up of communit}; go~-- emmentand business leaders who are vitally interested in Kem County's envi- ronment. Less than one year after its birth, Tree Foundation of Kem volunteers were hard at work. On Arbor Dav 1994 they planter a gro~•e of honey locust trees at the entrance to Meadows Field (Bakersfield' airport). The event drew active support from the community as well as from the lcxal media, which was nn hand for what promised to be the fast of many commu- nity-based environmental projects for the Geo Tree Program's neti~-est partner. .~ tittle bet• ~'on how -ro#it urban mailing Ilst, ~ Tree Superintendent Belluomin (right) accepts plaque from Chevrolet/Geo General Manager Jim Perkins. NEW "LIVING CLASSROOM" PROJECT OFF TO A STRONG START imnicht Chevrolet/Geo in Jacksonville, Florida, r<~centh' became the first Chevrolet deal- ership to participate in a new and excit- ing hands-on em•ironmental education program called "Living Classroom." To start, a trained historian provides the class with an overview of local historic figures and events. The second phase of the program is an actual tree-planting ceremony using seedling trees grafted from famous and historic trees related to the people and events studied in the classroom. The beautiful, oxygen-giving, shade-provid- ;~~ +:•°~ • :'''~c'<: s'so serve as a piece ;,f living history, make for a truly unique and very memorable Teaming experi- ence. In Jacksonville, through the efforts of Bill Nimnicht, and his association with the Geo Tree Program, some =1.00 school chilc'.ren became a little closer to history .'.1'lj .1 u`t ,':r`••~'r fh \t~`t~li'r { arth. The ~ ~`un~ ::~.,,;~•nt. of \<n~`tia Elementary }~arlici~ at~'d in the Lip ing Classroom by pl.ultin~ .1 beautiful Tidal Basin Cherry Tre~•~. 1;7~se historic tree ~~ ere achtalh~ ;raf;~`d 'nom trrc~ pre~rnted to the U.S. b~' thr Em}~erur of Japan in the nine- teenti~ century. The fo'lowing poem ~.•as written and recited b~• the students of Venetia Elementary School: We get these seedlings from across the nation, Planted here for our education, These trees alt come from famous pieces, Ytth stories that txing smites to cur faces, As we watch our seedlings grow, UNe'd like to thank our sponsor ...Geo! ~ 9e<4 Geo EN~~~oNNlENT~~. E~CE~LEte~CE FOR UF~B~1N ~IoRESTF~Y o~ouPs Top Participating Chevrolet/Geo Deafer To Be Honored As Wetl... nit; tluee nears of existence, the G~ - Award for Environmental Excellent has become one of the most presti- ous awards among volunteer non-pr` - envimnmentalgroups. Amr non-profit. 501 ~ c)3, volunteer-based tree-planting organization that has been in operation • at least rn o nears is eligible for nomina- tion. Cf{EVROLET/Geo VOLUNTEERS, GUESS?, AND TREEPEOPLE COMBfNE TO REPLANT BURNED-OUT - ClRCLE XRANCH AREA, MALIBU, CA cars from the Malibu/Thousand Oaks fires of last October received a healing planting on the morning of Saturday May 7,199-t, from 200 volunteer "foresters" ~empiovees, families, and friends] ft~m GLESS?, Chevrolet Motor Division in Thousand Oaks and TreePeople. Led by Chevrolet/Geo Reb*ional'~lanager Neil Perkins, assistant Regional Manager Jim Chester and their wives, Sherrie and Norille, the volunteers all "truckpoc~led" up to the Circle X Ranch campground in the Santa Toluca Mountains National Recreation area to take part in a comi~ined trey-planting effort. The eager ~'ohmteers planted some 350 nati~•e trees in a public use area near the cenier of the original firestorm. This was an area . reviously covered bvnnn-native trees. "T'ne ste~~'ardship of GUESS? and Che~'mleti Geo Em'irunmental in berth un~ir ~~ ritin th~• e~•ent and brin};ing their ct:~~ nr<~ces and families to jour ~~•ith our vol- unl~';~r> in this plantin` puts a human face ~m tl-:eir companies' det'p and ongoing atm- miiment to the envirunmcnt," stated TreePci~ple founder :'lndv Lipkis. For 199.1;, an additional ''C:ec" slated to be presented to the Che~-rolet/Geo dealer whe is deemed to have made the most outstanding contribution to the Geo Tree Program for the year. In the words of Jeff Hurlbert, general marketing manager of ~'~ Chevrolet/Geo Division of Gene Motors: '?he recognition and prestige will mean a great deal ~. the dealer who is awarded the ;:- 'Geo'. Our dealer body has bee- very• helpful in contributing to t:' success of the Geo Tree Progr, ^-. It's most appropriate that we honor them as well." Six regional dealer finalists a.n. their guests will be flo~~m to Washington, U.C., on Novemb~- 3rd to take part in the awards ct mony. Each of those dealers ~.~ i:. receive a 51,000 grant to be git'e: that dealer's non-profit et~~'iral•.- mental parh~er group. t99a THE PEARLMAN CROUP INCORPOfi~' ~-- - -~-T'"""., x_.=._-,'..."~:='f'1'~ - -- --- ----- - ;~ Rocyrlcd Paper ~?' - - -~ C'hrcrnlrt/rru Krginrral .Lfanagrr .~'ri! 1'rrkirts ~•urks with 7'rv•rl'rrgrlr Apr rin! f'rojrr•rc .llaeagrr ('lvic GnhnjJat Cirrlr .t' plantin,r; iu rhr Janta .tl.mica mnunrain<. Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 305 36. Jan Pont, 111 Belmont Avenue and Don Shattuc, 907 W. Cardinal Drive, Sunnyvale; March 20, 1996 36.01 The city does not have authority to grant access to the property. Access to the property must be obtained from the property owner, SunChase G.A. California I, Inc. 36.02 The commenter feels that there was inadequate notice and availability of the DSEIR for review and comment. Opportunities for public involvement in the SEIR process have included an initial public scoping meeting on August 4, 1995 and a Planning Commission public hearing on February 1, 1996. Each property owner within 300 feet of the proposed project and every individual and organization which has expressed interest in the project and has been placed on the project mailing list has also been mailed notice of the public scoping meeting and the public hearings. Notice of the public scoping meeting and the public hearings were published once a week for four weeks in the local newspaper. The DSEIR was circulated for public review and comment on January 5, 1996. Before the required 45-day review period on the DSEIR ended, the City Council extended the public review period by 30 days to March 20, 1996. 36.03 The City Council had already extended the original 45-day review period by 30 days, to March 20, 1996. The commenters additional written comments were submitted on April 8, 1996 and are included herein as comment fetter no. 37. WP5115481 FSEIRI F-1/.548 -' ~ ~ 5'~`~lC. :5~~-~ ~~u ,z~cH ~ ;'s w r^la..~,.~~~ (yizlrL~i1~;'A~ R E :, c I V E C ~:,,.~, : ~/w~. ~~H :l~uvrn-~ °~ r1~'~ Z 1 1996 ~~ % ~iyyyke~ ~ `~ ~/Ya ~- ~r.~ ~ ~ ~f ~~k.r~-~'~ ~/~ PLANNING ~ ~~ S~.cX ~o ~' k~.!~v -Y $-c.c.,L (/L ~ i~~c' ~f' Vc~-77 ~'1 ~ ~ I ~~~ ~.IR e~ ~' ~ta:S{ S ~ -~-v~ ~aY~e ~ i~ r~~,1oc4~- t ~, 7j7.0~ ~ `y' ~ L~ R..C, ~-l~tp z.~,~ C~-~ e cL ~•¢( ~o~C.4vt'~ ~6 ~ pp f f ~ ), ~~`~-~ 4 61'` ~.C~ r~. '~t. Y ~u~:, ~r ~c~ ~tt~ce. ~S~-~' ~~] M ~.'f ~ f~.c rrr~.>~ . I 0 ~ V ~t'G~-~ ~~ l c~c..~' S.~ l~ ~ ~} - 5i'~'1a- - `f0 ~;~C.a-k-~c1~ j ~,+~f~-cc~ t~ r~ l~i o~-t ~ a ~ p~ 3~.s ~ -~1u s C~~Io,P~~=' '~,c~,ct ~~ '~~~ _~ ~ ~~ ~-veal ~~ can~.w /a.,~-io1-, n~.e.`~-~~s ~D ~' a SLt~'~ . (ACS-1 G~ G ~G~lti'1~QX t~S ~v ,r --~ Lc.~~ S g~ ~ ~-~, , i ~/ d ~ (/ ~~ S~~ J cs-~ x~~~ Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 307 37 Kathleen S Dunning, 46 San Jose Avenue, Pacifica; March 18, 1996 37.01 Please see responses to comments 1.02 and 1.07. 37.02 Please see response to comment 1.03. W P5115481 FS EI R I F-11.548 3~ RECEIVED APR - 8 i39o PLANNING ~ ~ ~ ,/~ ~ ~~ C ~ ~ ~ .Sa-~.t,~ti- ~ rte- ~s c.~- ~~ ~~ ~~ .~ri~/ ~~ ~~v~ 34 ~o m ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~r ~ Su~~~~,~ ~~ ~ -~~. ~. ~.~-a.6~ s~~~ ~~dn ~d ~~~~o~~~j~99~~~~~s;~ _ _ _ - ~~ _ ----~ V -- ~ - -- - 9_ -- --- _-~------ -- - J ---- -- - ---- - - - -- ---- --- --- --.~--~ o - ~_f ~ Q - ~ _ -- -- -- --- --- a"""~-- - ------- - --- _ ___ .~ --- -~ -I~"~ __ ~~`'`-"~ae~.__ ~ _e_ti~~- e - - _ wee.- ,a,~ s -- - I ~-' _ ~ ----~-~ -- ~~ - -- - o_------ -_ -- _ - - _ _ _. _ _- I / _ _ __ _-- - ~ _ _ ~~ ~ ~ h ~ 1 i 6Yl ~.(rryrv2- ~ ~Z ~jS~~- / ~'~ l.d ~~.e 9%~__ Lid' t~ Ona - - -- - -- - `J ---- - c _ __ - - - - ---- C _ ~ ~ /~ / ----- 1- -- - S - ~ ~._~, _ ~dv:nq 0._~'I'lea~nin~ - eS _ ~w~-~__o'~,~,~?p~- - ----- ~ ~` - ~/J'l'u-~- -'-- - °~ • 5-99 QS f~ h ~J- p 1- :C'~!~~.vriri~? 61 S4?'n-2 -- L' OV~ 6'L -- -- --- I ~ Y ( p ~- - ^ ~ a ~. - - -------- --- ---- - ---- ~ - - . ~ . _ _.- - -- - -- -- _-_ a _, ~-- -- - - _. ~ J _. - - ---~ ~--- -- - - -- __ 3. Su g9 ~s ~% ve n esS, Sig ~1, ~'; cad , ~2 - ~y~z _ _ Sez 7~a-.?:h j_~m ~.c,~, _ - ---- - ~- - -f' ------ - - i - __ ~ -- - - - -_ r 34 - ,-- ,. _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ -- - ~~~~z-~. _ --- - - _ ~_ ~ r a~ , 1) ~.~~ ~ - z _ _ -- - _ - __ -- ._ ~ YJo ~s.-e.. - 3 /7 -- --- . i P r • ~; ~ Q~~ - z -- -- -- _---- __ _ - - ~ - - _' - 3g _----- 54 3 ~-e. l0„_" ~' ,~ ~~ _ pct, - --/??i,~,~---- _ _ ~.~-~~e.. -- --- - -- T _ ~, - - ~ ~~ - - ~ ~ ~ -- - i /~ von ~ ~~~ ; ~. - - - -- ~ _ ~~~. ~~~?~,~-vim ~ __ 6 ~ . ~~ / ~y ~-w~^~l ~~.e-- o~ a-c~%~6-~-c. ; vin a.~ -- ~'~c a 7?~v~-~---- - . ~ ~ ,- , _9 ~ _ - _--_- ~ _ _ __ -: -- - - _ ___ .~ ~ -- ~- ~v.~v~'~x,~ -~ fin.. C; '~ w ! /I ~ s~ ~f'~ C~-.~. -- GOAT. 3$ co/t1T, j Cf/~..Q, ~.e--~~~e-C.f'` Gin ac~~o~/..1,c%L ~Z,~ c~-~ _ _. I _ /~~ ~~ ~An - _.. - --- (~it}" 1~0~/l ~rG~ ~ µ ' 4 I _ ~., U _ i- _ - ----- -l -- ~~.~.-- - -~.- - ~_ ----- ~~~ ~ ` , -~ _ ~- , ~--- ~ ~, ~- , dx ~ ~~' - - ---- ~- - - ~~~ .~ ~~ ~-OKT, 3~ s coNT; ~~ ~ ~ 7~ . ~~~" ~~ ~~~ $ _C~ _ _ _. c,- - ---- _ - ------- - -- - ~" - ` /r` -- _. - - - - - --- ~s -~-~- ~ ~.~,~ ,cam' _ _ . ~ Ste- ~r~s~- ~ ~?~~,~~~ ~, ~ s /~ _ °~- ~~-~ - . .57 0 0 c ~v~ .~/1 . ~ d, ~ - - - - - - ~ - --- - ,. ice. ~ __~ - - - lt/W,L~cl/{l~-~ ~.C'vl ~ i 1'' ~'t/~- 7~ Ct/l.~ N~ lam' ~ ..,~~:,~.~.~ ~. c~-~,~.,~,,~`-`~ . ~~.. ~.~~ ~~-~. ~~ x.05 j LOIq~'f to ~ i - . IAA /i / n 72.Y~ G~~u-~/~~6~-~. - .,.cti~ `~,~,~ _ _ w,,,, ~. ~~~ ~ ~,,,,~ ~ ~a ~,~ ,~ ~~ 36.05 t ~ C~11.~/a.a,~"~;ez-~, ~ -~c,.2 ~ ~'~ 1 ate. `~ _/Z2_ ~ ~~ ~ 1 - -- _ _. __ _ _ -- - _ - - - - -------- i 7~ ~~ " ~ ~ _ ___ _ _ _ _-- ---~ ~ _ _ _ ,va. - _ ___ _ , _.,--------- ~_-~.._?n sf --- .~--~~~~ - ---- -- -- ~_~_ _ _,~ i~au._.. W ~ S a~,~_ _,~~ _ oft _ _ /J-d~-~~ ,c,~. --~-- ~`''~-'(- -- --- - ~/ - a ~--- ------ w ~ ~ ~ ~' r~ _ -_ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ ___ 7~ ,~ ~_ ~y - ~ -~~ ,vw~~ Q/~..- a lt~~.Lwf/1 . ~ _ ~ ,42,~n,..a/~,e~,_ ~: _ 7"~-_ _ ~-~"J ~~ _ . Q a~~ i ~ i to ~~~!~-~, ~'~` ~ ci Q/~-~'"^- T.E~v'L~;/~1 /14/.L~ a~~~ . .~ .C~"'~'~• I I ~" 3Po G~~. ~~~ J ~ _ A G~~,~ ~' ~" ` . ~_ _. G~y,~ --- _ ~-~- ----- _ -- _ __ <_-- ~ o -_--- - ~ ~ - ~ -- - ~ _~~~,~~, __ __; ~- T~ s~Z~ .~.~~ ~-~f ; .~-~~~ ~~ -- - ~-_ --- ca--~, 7 ~ ~ ~ _ - - _ _ ~ v sue, ~u 8~~,.~~ -~_ w,_-~ -_ ~__~~___ ~~ 1 ~ r~ Trams ,~ ~~~ ~~- ,~ 1 vim/ i F' ~ ,~°,~u,~.~.v~ i(.t7 ~w-v ~.~ .l~ T`i ~ wy~ /~~ ~'`~-2. ~-~G~m~ ~.~ ~,2~v/ ~1. l ~ C~ ate- ~ 1~`'~'~J ~~- c% / 07 3$.~: roiVT. GO/lfl. ~ ~'~ ~ _ __ ~ra-~-ai S co-. -rG~rA.e., . fh c~Gr s ~~'Lu/~ a~,Q - - ~_ !'v -- ----- - - -- /h..F'C'~!' - - - - - .- - - __ ~_ y _ _-__ ____._ _ _ __ _ -- _ __ _ ~~ L~Q ~'P~`-`.erg.. ~~/ ; - --- - - - - - -- -- -- - -- --- ----E-~- L /1 _ .- -t- -~ - ~~~ ~1 ~ ~ 6%12 9P / /L j . 1. Q//~- 4'L Ti-. ~ 5 -- --- ~r ;G, y --------- - __ _~ _ 1/ _ - - `,c''Z - - ---- -- . h-~ ~~C- .~~ ~c~a.T!~-.. _ u~.F,~.c.C 7~l !` --- - - -t,~ r~/e.~/d- .--- t---- - - - /_ U eti,. ~ 0 j .tiwu~ ~ r..w~-c/~. .~ ~~/ 0 1 ~r ~~ ,~-~z -- -_ - ---- -- - - ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~~Z~ -- -- -~ ~ 7~ Ta~~ C! cwl 5 f ~~.;f v~-Qf/~( ~C (~ a~ Q~ 7r~ -~~a .~'lQa, ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 3~•~ 5~ o , ~r ~ 6h ~~2 T~~/ ~ ~ ~ . ~v .__~a-i -~,~ - ._ _ w~-- ~~--~~------ ,; :.~.: std ~ _ _ - ~- ------ ----- ----- - -- - -- - -- -- -- - _ ~ --- ~-; - ~,~ r~'~,. ~ ~ - ~ ° ~'---- - ~~ - -~- _ Vie. - - - -- ~ ~8 ~ / / -- - y~, ~ ~ _~~ c~~, , _ - - - --- --- -- ---- - - -. ~~`~ ~ ~ ,~;,,,/ ~.e ~-w~-Q~~ 12.E-e-~ - - - - S~ ~~ - - - --- --- - ~,~e~.e.2 , a,~Q ~ _ ..~ ~ arm. T cL,-,,~ `~-e e7'l~i~ -~, ~ ~~, T~ amt-era- /l~~e- /~-2~n-~ 7'1'1 a~~o,F/~- ~ ~ Z(. S. G, ,~, a.,..i~, a,.._.er lu-ca~(/f~- ~ yn~ M ~ d ~ .3 off ~ l r~; wt ; k emu' ~'1'I~~ c~ 1...~.Y,,~ ,q,~c~dz de.~2e2r ~s .~-~ ~. ~OAlT. ,o~~~ -r - - - - -- - - - _.- _i _ _ --_. --- - ----_;- - _ - - ~. --~a~~.~L~ce- _ ---~ ~~e _ _ c~~-ate. _-- ~,~._ he a --1~~_c -- ~.,~ ~~ ~-~- // --- - -- _ -- ~ _ - - - _ ~'5--- - ~ - - -- ~_.-_- ~ - - -- -- - ,~ 1 -- - ? -~(~~2.,f'~.~C/~N~~JJ~-QQ~~-! _L_ _ /1~-{-__ ~ , _G~~Caryc- _ ~O ~,~Ci/~~C~ _ _ _ - __ --- _ Cqi~~ --'... _.._ _._ - _ -____-._...-__ ~~ ~ ___ _ __ _ ___ ~-_ ____-_ _- . __ 01 ~_ ~ft,.~___ _ _ __ ___ _ __ _ _ C - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ c~,~- ~~ - --- ~_ __. _ _- -- ----I o ~ ~ - - ~--- - - ----~_ ~ ~ ~- r~ i ~ -~~--- ~ - -_ ti ~~~- --`--- -- - --- - - - - -- _ -- -- ---- _ ~b/~-- ~ - - - -- - ---^ ;_ ~~~~ ~d ~l -- - ~ __ - - .Pr~ - ,J ' - - ---- - - - I ~.e ~~ - ~~. GO/V'r ~j ~~°~' ~ . ~ ~~ n~w~ ~ ~~ ~ bl~ __ ~_ _ - - - f /~ ~ u ---- ---- .. __. .. ___ _ __ - ~-- Sd ate„ ~ -~'; (f e ~. .~%~-, -~-~ ~~~ u, ~.~1~ ~ s_ ~.- . - ---- ~.~- Q / n ~ __ -- -- -- -- --- ~,,~,r~ ~2..~-fie de,< _ _ - - _ _-- - -- Pte, ~'~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~-~asr' l~~f~~ r,~~~~~~ . __ _ -- -- :.. _. _ __ - ~~~~ cos ~ f , ., ~ , ~ ~/~- ~7`} c~2,t~~.- `f~. V a.~c,~w~ ~ -~~ ~ 38.12, 4 ~- ~_ /' s ~-~~ ~~. 9~~~ ~ arm ~ " w, l~ ..~ ~ J ~~ ~ CONT. ~7~ /~ GONy" i ~~ ~ 1 - ;gyp ~ - - _ -- - -- - - C . _ J _~ ~ o,^ ~-y ~~ - 1 ~-P-- - - - --_ _ - ~, - - -- -- _ ------W ~-'~'- Rte- .--- _~-~''~. -a-_ --- -- -- ---- -~ ~ _ '1 _ - __~-_ ~~~-=`~3-- --- _-------------- --_ __ _ _-_-- - - - -- -------- - --------- ----- - - - -- - -- - - -" - f - ---- ,- - - - - -- -_- - ---- - - - -- ~- !~S7 -- -- _- __ - -- - ~~~ ~- ~• 1 _ _ // ~_~ ~~,~v.~'`~'- a ~-- -- ~ o _ 3 000 ~-~e.~ a-K ,_._._ -- ,~,~,. ~~ - - j -- _ _ . - ----- ,~- jam;,-~ ~ -- '., - I ~-. ~ _ _ /t,ti~ u.,~%) d-'~' `~~ 1 `l P~ `J . ~ e~-.z a ~it,~.e~..~ ~cciJ~" _ ~ .- _ - - - - - .~~~ c~ . -11 ~-- - P,C.~-c.~. ' ~ " ~ ~- /..,~. ~ acs. _ C~-~-'~ ~0 C~ r ~/~, r% C1 '~/(~l-, ~" -~ S % k.~ rY ~ ~ `/!' _ ~c+~ ~ ,Qji^~'"~-~~ GLi-(.0 / k.F/L ~1~G-f Or'2.. I ~.~~ ~~' ~oNT. 3B ~~ .~-GW/~~-',~ ~ ~~(,~.'L2_. , (S-~v.~~-~.~17 ~ r t~ ~t~i~ cC~U-6~,cT ~',~c£,1,7/ ~'`.°`tj~4' ~ ~ -- ,___ _fa/__~_ -- .~. - ~_ ___ _ - 6-C~un/~-~!~-- - Via- _ a ~~ e-~ u~,i -- _ ~-__ ~ ~ / ----- Gm ~~ w ~ - - ------- -__-- ---- _ -_ Clew ~,~. _ ~-~ ~l ~~ Ca~-~~ o-r~.,wt.e a.~ ~. ~u~,~,~,~~I`- _ _ "T J U -____ _ _~..~ :~' ~~`.s"'v/~ (~C"i2~~/1~c%~~'l~ ~/.~Lt/~~ ~rti.~ / ut~c.~ ~j~'v.1,~_ ~,'`~' ~/ / ~ ~ /,, L ~ ~~i~Gwi.L Cc- ~/v~ ~~~,/wc-L ~i(~7~'~a/'~ .v~t~.lµ''-a'r"C~- 3$ ~~ :; ~~ ~ . ~,,c_ _ ~~, ~ ~ . ~~ . /d; Ilse.- ~ I~~ .• _O~,e --~`-~ -------- ---- - --- - -- -- -- --- -- - _ JI ,~ - - -~~~t a-w~ _~i''ke -- -- - - - /t ~ -- - l~ /~'i~-a~-'-t--------- Cw- -?~ _ _ ~c-e_ _-~ ~ - --- ~~ - - - - -- - - - - -;_ f-- __ _ __ . _ -- -- -- - - ----- ---- ----- -- _ ~ ~ ~~. J ~ --- ----- - .. i ~~~~~ ~ ~2_ .v~ . _ ~~; - - -~~ - -- - - S_s~ _ -/~ cam- - --- ------ __ _ i,v~,/~.~ _---c~i~M-tea,----~~I~u-~-c.~ -_o~, -f'~-` -~`-'^=- (i'/ ~'~- / ! / ~ ;~GvG2 Ova ~/ ,vvvGe ~'.,~„~'"/"'L- ~t-~'~ ~..Q~.- ~ ~ - 3~ ~S . /.~~s~' ~,.,.~ ~~-~,~.~~~ ~ ~ , , ,l-~,,~ ~ ~~.,~.,~,~ , . ~~- i ~ ~ ~ ova _ _ ~,~.~---. _ _ _ -- --- _ --- -- --~~~- ~. ~ ~L ~ - -- - --~ ~ - -- --- -- -- - - z 0 a ___-- ~ ~ _ 7 _ w _~ ~. --- -- - - _ _ ~o ~~(~t// i 67~ _ ~iz~~-C%f /~O 7`~_ ~~57~? ~G % ~'t/~- --- - a_ ._ ___ -- - --- - --T~~z. ~~. ~ ~ d~.~.e-~. /~-~~~,-~: ~-~,~_ `~. Q ~.~;~,<.,e~ 35.17 b ~ ~ ~ - - - ~ - -'~------- . ~ ~'~ _~~ % %L1~-o -~-Q .5~. ~1~~-C.iSCo ~~ . - -- __ __ _ _ - - _- - -- cpp ~ ~~ ~ ~~. ~7~ /6 l.OrVT. I J --.----I~~.--.~.....~~,1..~-~e~-.~--~.--.~,~III711///~~~(((--~- --~-----__~~~ -- -~- ~- - - ~ ~-ca. _ ~----- -- ICJ ~~/?- - -C.~'~ - - f 2e. -4- _ a~.~..~.~~ -- - - ~------ ----- --- - ~`" - -- ---- - ------- - --- u-_-~ - . - -- - ~- - - - - -- ~ ..a- - -- - ~-..~ nom. -~.. ~ ~,~. ~6Sf - ~.~. - ---_- ----- -------- --- ~~~~__ I ~ - - ---- f- _ _ -_ - . ~~ _-- n ~ - ~ . , o v~i~ 1 _~ E IS Ct,w e - `~~~" "`-B-vi d~ l Y~ T' d ~ 71'l ~ / ~i 6y~ ~ -,Cai1~~ - -- -- ---I --- - ,..yJ , lino ~ i'Y„tc~~, _ a~~-,.e~~.~.,~,.~,-~.~'-- a.~--- -- 1 //~~ 11 ~ -- - ~ -- C ~~Yl.~.c/J%; __~Le _ ~'YL a.~c~..P /~o _ /Vr.V_ - 7~ ~~G%1~l`-_ Qit,~-cLa-.---- b-e-c~~ --- r . -~ - ~ w~;l,Q ... ~~`~. ~' ~' y ~j/ - 1. /'~/~'Q'6L _ YY~// - _- - -... - - _. -- -- _ . ~ I / a y-/^ // 7 GO/1~. 3~ /7 ~otll ,, -~i~.~%~ c~,~.~' % , , ~-~ ~ -~~ ,~. d ~~`'' ~ ~/~ 38.1°1 ~ /~,~,v~-c~~; U~2 6 -Ylv~r - 't zv,. - __ ---- ~ ~ y ~ ~~,~. t~c,~e.~=„~i-- ~e,~~ ~ ~~ ~ _ die ~-,,,~ - - -- - ,,// .. 3~.~ - - r __ - : ` ,"7~'~'~'=~ ~ ~~ ~- G-vt~~ CUct,./~./t_ ~ G~ ~~~C 7~Q-Q LC~Lt, .. __ _ ----- ~~a~ ~ s ~,~.,: ~ iu r ~ - ~i~o'~t,'e d ~ :1 ~ o~ ~ 7.e~vaa ,~~ y -_ S ~ ~- -- - _. __ A ~~ Gw1 ~ai.,..Y/~-„y~~1` (~tt-v~f ~u ,~1~r4~- ,~2ah-,~ ~" I~ `~Y~ /~~u.,,Gvi~) ~G %i ~ a~~ F/rr ~Yu r' ~ r~ ~ ~f~'2k'XS~ p~,~j G~~~ ~ .Cif ~/I'l !~ ~ ~ °"~ ~ ~.li~ l ~ ~ ~ %`~.. ~~ ~i ~/G~ T~,(/L Oil- `28ti/C~ r n 3B ~~ ~ ~~ c~~ ~ ~h~~-o- - n~'~" "~,r ~„~ W~ u~ _ ~-. _ 38.E-! ~._ a.,.2 v --- - -- _ _YLo~-~-?-- - - - --- __ _ --- _ - -- _____----- - -I--- - -- --7 - ,-- ---- -- -~ -7--~-,~,-~,, -~ d~--~--A~ ~-2 _~'---- ----- --~ - -----~- ~' J-- _ _~ _-- -'----- -- -- ~~r ~u~~_~G~---- --__----- __ -__ ---------- - ___~__. --- --- - _ _ _____ ,_ __ . ~ ~ ~ ~ -~r .~ ', o..e_,T, ~,' ~. __c,~-~~ _~.cw~,~%,.~? _ ~,,-~ ~ Mfr. o /1~ l a _ --~1 - ------ -- -,- - -`` 1 / ~` _ - - ~ cu.ca.. ~ Wit- - -- . __ ~~ ~~~ -- = -.L ~- _ rte- - --- - -- - - - - - -1- - - - _ _.. -- - - - - - -_ _ - - - - - ------------- -- _.~~-- - _. ~- w ~,~ ~.~ k~ ~vNr. 3$ /9 coNT• / ~~ . ~/ ~~~_ '~'1 i f ~ a~`i on ~K,e. ,vy,-c~ ~ o-n /Le~ ~ c~v~.a.,~ r~.z q„ `,~, ~ ` Gc/-6-'`' ~ /~~m ~tv,-t ~--t Zt~t av c-~ ~.r~t.~--~{ ,O,i~in'' ~i: c~vf 1 - _ --_ _-?~.?d a ~ vie.. .~-~~,~.~I ~ ~s 7,~a~' ,~~_ _~ ~% ~``- , T~,..~ - - --- -~~tt ~~ ...:. ._. -. ._ -_ - y-. - _ ~/ ~ h.vr-C __ _- - __ ~~ - T ~` •w• ~. ~! ~-~- , ~ /~ .~!-~ cam- SOUO ~-~. --, I f~~. v~- - - . Jam- ~~Z Y~0 ~ ~~ ; %'f-~zn avf ~v-~ ~•c~ (.~:~-~~~ cL~ ~ _ ~rrct.fiC Q;ri-r~(ru' ycr` ~, ,,,,,~,,~ ,(,c,.,C,e( a~,-~ _~,E, _ ~f ~, Gl/1-a a~1. av~/~ ~~ ~~~ Z~-Le. ,w~ ~.e Q~ia~.C. ~ . ~,J,.~,~ ~ %~.w, ,-nom ~. d.~~.c_ ~ ,~.c~~.wv / u j~ ~ ?~ ~%G i ~,pNT, 3~ ~~ GO~t/T, ~ ~~ /~'~ Gt,~ ~~ Lw cz rl~~ ~~z.L ~~ G' ~ i?^~ y''7~'V(~c.~~ l ~ .~~uv-ar.~) w i ~/ti /, 6 S.P/,.~-C~uC.~ .1LC-e i ~~Zyu,~ ~'~'- i/i li.~.C.C_ ~ ,~-wi ~ .S ~- , _ /h.~ r~+-a,; ~•-~, ~y Lam ~v~~.e~ .~+-~, L .r.,, _ ~.E ~~ ~1 _ a.~,.~~ --- __ ------ _f ~_ ,~.~%~ - - ---- __ - ~- -, ~~ _ , -- -- ,,-- - -- ---- h,t,~~ ~ ~ ?~e~n.a--c.~~ ~~~%a- ~ J.~~~ __ f~/mss ~- - a _ n~:-ce-- - ------- ~ .~ _~ _/~'1. `f~ ~~t.f~`"' ~ - , 07__.'x'1 !-C~'~-.. _ ~!/__. B~Zi..Jd~_ . ~" _~ ~- -. ~_"- __- - -- _; _ ~ ~~ -~ _ ./1.c.~i..e%~ ~e-,~„G~ /~8~ c~ °.,vutr ~ ,~.ewL'~.K~_ _ -- C. /~ '~ i ~J'.~ .vim `l~Q ~ :.~. ~ C e ~ ~S~!~~ ~ D r-cy 8~.._ ~ din H'r ~`%h: v, f~~ j _. _ C~,~r--~, c'~ ~ ~ s G~ ~,, c~~ ~ f;Y Ti ~d, ~~-~ ~K yam; C~ e _ . -_ ,r .~ soar. 3'~ ~~:~ 1 coNT /~i7,/t - ate. ~ T~ ..~ q,~ __7r _ _ ~a%x~-... -- -- - - - - - - //// A / ~'I'~2~r:e~~'~c~ 6y` Sys ~~~~ __ ~ __ -- _ _ _ ~ ~_. _ -. ~~~ a ; v-e__ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ate,. 0~ ,~~-~c f ~~ .c,ri ~. ~~ cue-wva..~ ~ ~-c~~--~ ~'~,e. _ ~~ ~~ ~,~.~-.~~ ~~ ~ i~~~~ ~~ T~ ~ ~ - ~ -- - ~ ' ~ ~-'~ ~ ~ -o %~~Gc ~~ ®f~-cam- _ _ ~~ 2~1 ~sJf Qi~c~ ~ d Diu-a~~ a ~.~-~ ~.r~m ldih u cwt- c~~~ ~ _----------- ---- Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 330 38 Jan Pont, 111 Belmont Avenue and Don Shattuc, 907 W. Cardinal Drive, Sunnyvale; April 7, 1996 Note: This comment letter was received by the city on Apri18, 1996, after the close of the public review period. (The City Council had already extended the original 45-day review period by 30 days, to March 20, 1996.) 38.01 Most of the environmental mitigation measures recommended in the DSEIR will be subject to effective monitoring through the city's normal development review procedures, including precise plan and subdivision applications, design review approval, building permit approval, and associated plan check and construction period field inspection procedures. In addition, to satisfy CEQA Section 21081.6, a documented record of implementation will be necessary. Section VIII (pp. 269-271) of the DSEIR contains a mitigation monitoring checklist that includes spaces for identifying: (1) each mitigation measure included in the SEIR; (2) the party responsible for implementing that mitigation measure and any related requirements with respect to the timing of implementation; and (3) the party responsible for performing mitigation monitoring plus information on the type and required timing of the monitoring procedures. 38.02 Please see responses to comments 8.01 and 8.02. 38.03 With respect to the costs to the city of the mitigation measures recommended in the DSEIR, the costs of mitigating the identified significant impacts of the project will be the responsibility of the project applicant, either directly or through normal cost recovery procedures used by the city. Many mitigation measures recommended in the DSEIR (e.g., land use, soils and geology, drainage and water quality, vegetation and wildlife, cultural resources, noise, etc.) require on-site improvements and/or project design provisions that would be the implementation and full cost responsibility of the applicant, developer, builder or future project homeowners association(s). Other recommended measures (e.g., traffic mitigations) require off-site improvements in the project vicinity that will require implementation and full funding or a proportionate fair share cost contribution by the applicant. With respect to the fiscal impacts (municipal cost-revenue implications) of the project, Section 15131 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines states: "[e]conomic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment." CEQA Section 15131 (c) allows the Lead Agency to present economic or social information in whatever form the agency desires to allow such factors to be considered in reaching a decision on a project. Therefore, the fiscal effects of the proposed project represent non-environmental issues which are not identified in the EIR. The fiscal effects of the proposed project (i.e., revenues and capital benefits, service issues and costs, and conclusions as to whether the project would "pay its own way") were initially evaluated in 1981 during preparation and consideration of the specific plan. Please refer to the San Bruno Mountain: South Slope Fiscal Impact Study, September, 1981, by Recht WP5115481 FSEIRI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 331 Hausrath & Associates, available at the City of South San Francisco, Department of Economic and Community Development. 38.04 The open space impacts of the project are described on DSEIR p. 74. As determined by the previous 1982 EIR, the project-related conversion of 200 acres of open space on the 332-acre project site would constitute aless-than-significant impact which would be offset by dedication of the remaining 132 acres to San Mateo County as permanent open space for inclusion in the San Bruno Mountain State and County Park. The project would also contribute to cumulative reductions in the amount of local and regional open space. These cumulative impacts would be mitigated by the provisions of the HCP for dedication of open space. The parks and recreation impacts of the project are discussed in DSEIR Section IV.G. The city currently provides about one acre of traditional developed city parkland for every 1,000 residents, and 3.15 acres per 1,000 population if existing school grounds are added to the developed parkland. This is substantially below the national standard of five acres per 1,000 residents and below the amount provided by other nearby younger cities. The project would make considerable contributions to city parks and recreation facilities. In addition to the open space dedication provisions described above, the project parks and recreation improvements are summarized in Table 26 on DSEIR p. 207. 38.05 The potential supplemental impacts of the site's geologic/geotechnical conditions on project structures and improvements are reevaluated in Section IV.D of the DSEIR (pp. 155-172) and warranted supplemental mitigations are recommended. 38.06 Please see response to comment 26.01. 38.07 The trip generation projections for each of the three project phases presented on DSEIR pp. 115-118 are based on trip generation rates from the 1991 and 1995 Institute of Transportation Engineers. (ITE) Trip Generation manual, 5th Edition. The .trip generation projections represent a conservative, "worst case" scenario which assumes no use of transit by project residents, employees and visitors, and no application of transportation demand management measures to the project (e.g., the carpool, carpool preferential parking, flex-time, and limousine service provisions contained in the specific plan or other trip reduction measures). 38.08 The future traffic projections used in the DSEIR traffic analysis, which are based on projections contained in the East of 101 Area Plan EIR, the 1993 Brisbane General Plan Circulation Element and the EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Program EIR, do take into account truck traffic. Also, as traffic volumes and related congestion on the project vicinity roadway network increase over time, truck trips will become a smaller component of the overall traffic volumes because trucks can be expected to change the time of their trips to not be delayed by the increased congestion. It is also worth noting that the congestion and a portion of the truck volumes observed in the recent WP5115481 FSE/RI F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 332 additional traffic counts performed by the SEIR transportation planning consultant at the Oyster Point interchange are due to the construction period diversion to the Oyster Point interchange of Grand Avenue interchange traffic bound for northbound US 101. The Grand Avenue interchange US 101 northbound on-ramp has been closed most of the day and, in particular, during the AM peak commute traffic period due to construction. 38.09 Section IV.D Geology of the DSEIR (pp. 155-172) addresses small, localized, post- grading landslides, erosional gullies, and other forms of continued surficial instability. Please also see responses to comments 33.63, 33.64, 33.65, 33.66, 33.76 and 33.75, and DSEIR errata pp. 169-172 in Section III herein. 38.10 Ongoing operation and maintenance of private facilities and common areas within the project, including maintenance of project geotechnical features, would properly be the responsibility of future project property owners (e.g., through the master homeowners associations and individual residential neighborhood homeowners associations). The project CC&Rs contain such maintenance provisions. These provisions would be disclosed to potential purchasers of project homes. 38.11 As noted on DSEIR p. 174, "groundwater" on the project site-- and the "natural spring and marsh wetland area" referred to in the comment--are considered to represent shallow seepage of infiltrated surface water rather than a true water table. A catchment basin has been installed at the base of the ravine referred to in the comment to catch runoff from the slopes above this "Goat Farm" portion of the project site. The catchment basin drains runoff into storm drain trunk lines which extend through the project site and under Sister Cities Boulevard to US 101. The catchment - basin and storm drain trunk lines are expected to adequately drain the "Goat Farm" area. 38.12 Please see response to comment 26.03. 38.13 Slope stability and engineered fill are addressed in project geotechnical documents on file with the city and summarized in the DSEIR (pp. 155-172). Please also see responses to comments 33.72, 33.73 and 33.77. 38.14 Please see response to comment 1.13. 38.15 Please see response to comment 1.13. 38.16 Please see response to comment 1.13. 38.17 Please see response to comment 24.01. 38.18 Please see response to comment 26.01. WP51 !5481 FSE/RI F-1!.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 333 38.19 The comment refers to a botanical garden that is to be developed at the entrance to San Bruno Mountain State and County Park off of Guadalupe Parkway. Existing native plants in the Phase II and Phase III portions of the project site are already being used to collect seeds to use in the Phase I reclamation effort. Seeds from sensitive native plant species in these areas could also be used for the proposed botanical garden, as suggested by the comment. Transplantation of the plants themselves, however, is impractical and has proven unsuccessful in previous attempts on the mountain. 38.20 Please see response to comment 18.03. 38.21 The 1982 EIR (p. 116) notes that the project would consume an average of about 320,370 gallons of water per day, or approximately 0.32 million gallons per day (mgd). The DSEIR (p. 211) notes that the water service impacts described in the 1982 EIR (i.e., water consumption rate, etc.) remain generally unchanged.. The California Water Service Company (CWSC) has delivered a letter of assurance to the city that commits CWSC to providing water service to the project. 38.22 The noise impacts of the project are described on DSEIR pp. 215-230. The supplemental mitigation measures recommended on DSEIR pp. 228-229 for noise impacts from traffic (Supplemental Impact N-1), aircraft overflights (Supplemental Impact N-2), and project construction activities (Supplemental Impact N-3) would reduce noise levels on the project site and adjacent residential areas to within the land use/noise compatibility standards established by the state and set forth in the city's Noise Element. 38.23 Please see response to comment 33.31. 38.24 Please see response to comment 8.02. 38.25 Comment noted. Please see response to comment 1.07. 38.26 Please see responses to comments 8.01 and 8.02. WP5115481 FSE/ R I F-!1.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR II. Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Page 334 WP5115481 FSE/R I F-11.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR III. Revisions to the Draft SEIR (Errata) Page 335 II1. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT SEIR (ERRATA) The following section includes all revisions to the Draft SEIR made in response to public and Lead Agency comments received during the Draft SEIR public review period. The section incorporates by reference the separate revised Transportation section that was recirculated, and is included in a separate document' with its own additional responses to public review comments.2 All text revisions in the following errata section are indicated by an "r" in the left margin next to the revised line. All of the revised pages supersede the corresponding pages in the Draft SEIR. None of these changes represent a significant increase in impact or a significant new impact or mitigation need not already discussed in the Draft SEIR (with the exception of revisions to the separate Transportation section). 'Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension--Revised Transportation Impact and Mitigation Findings' Responses to Comments on the Revised Findings; October 1996. 2A revised DSEIR transportation analysis was performed in response to comments received during the public review period on the DSEIR. The revised traffic analysis identified one unavoidable significant adverse impact--i.e., an impact for which no mitigation is available--and three new mitigable significant impacts, that were not identified in the DSEIR. Therefore, in conformance with Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, the revised Transportation section was recirculated fora 30-day public review and comment period on August 30, 1996. WP5115481 FSE/RI F-111.548 Terrabay~ Project City of South San Francisco October 23, 1996 Final SEIR III. Revisions to the Draft SEIR (Errata) Page 336 WP5115481FSEIRI F-111.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR Errata City of South San Francisco Table 1 October 25, 1996 Page ii Table 1 PROJECT SUMMARY DATA PROJECT NAME: .Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension SITE LOCATION: On the lower southeastern slopes of San Bruno Mountain west of Bayshore Boulevard and north of Hillside Boulevard and Sister Cities Boulevard in the city of South San Francisco. SITE AREA AND Assessor's Parcel Numbers Approximate Acreage r PARCELIZATION: Book 007; Blocks 590, 600, 611, 332 (total} 612, 620, 630, 641, 642, 650; all parcels inclusive CURRENT GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Planned Commercial, Low-Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Open Space CURRENT ZONING: Terrabay Specific Plan District EXISTING LAND USE: Primarily open space, partially graded with some improvements installed. PROPOSED LAND USE: The applicant is proposing phased residential and commercial development in accordance with the approved Terrabay Specific Plan and development agreement. Phase I, currently under construction, consists of 125 single family detached homes, 168 townhomes and related community facilities and infrastructure. The ultimate characteristics and timing of subsequent phases II and III are- more conceptual. The specific plan provides for Phase II development of up to an additional 428 residential units and Phase III development of up to 44 acres of commercial uses. CIRCULATION: Access to Phase I is provided via one connection to Hillside Boulevard opposite Jefferson Street. Phase I internal circulation is via one public street and several private roads. Phase II access would be at one connection to Sister Cities Boulevard; internal circulation would be via one public street and several private roads. Phase III access would be at Bayshore Boulevard; Phase III internal circulation would be expected to be served by a single private road. REQUESTED APPROVALS: The applicant is requesting extension of the termination dates of the Terrabay Specific Plan and development agreement to allow for completion of Phase I development of 125 single family detached homes, 168 townhomes and community facilities, and eventual development of specific plan Phases II and III. APPLICANT: SunChase G.A. California I, Inc. PROPERTY OWNER: SunChase G.A. California I, Inc. SOURCE: Wagstaff and Associates, November 1995. WP5115481FSE/RITRBLE 1-R.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Errata II. Summary Page 11 a> U _ C C t~ U O d ' ~ J ( C .C , ~• - J > ~~>~ ~ C _ ~ ~ V C ~ C f4 O Q (C U ~ Q >, Q ~~ U Q ~ ~ ~ rs c o ' o~ ' as ~ c -'' o Q >. ~ ~n N Q O ~ L p N N U C V O cn N Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~~ ' . ~ ~ o o ~ ~ ' a ~ '" o o c t cis ~ ~ cv ~ ~ c ~ ~; ~ ~ as a L >~ ~ i E ~ ~ ~~ N Z ~ o o v i i a ~_ p E ~ 3 0 er- o ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ i c~ m v> >. • ~ 3 ... > ... ~' L ~ o ~ ~ o o a ~ cc '~ ~ ~ '~ ~ y ~ ~ o ~ n o _ _ w ~ ~ cC ~ 'd ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ L ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ = Q V ~ +-r C N C . ~ w ~ _ F- C O ~ ~ j ~ ~ d ~ d A Q E cC ~ U~ .- ~~ C ~ ~ ~ O O N ~ U fA p N _ 'L. L C .C ~ a ._ ~ L Z L c0 O ~ Q O \~ O O i a Q U f~ (TS O C:= O ~ U a~ c ~ ~ cn cn a _ ~~'~ a ~ _ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ' J Q a~ ~ o ~ ~ o _ ° °' w 'a a> c c c~ ~ ~ > j c ~ cn~- ~ ~' o o~L - > Z - .,io~,cc~,3a~rnc~~>. c ~, c~N~~E W ~ v ~ m~~ as L m N Q ca ~ c a o m~ v ~ a ~ c •N ~ d ~ ° rn -p ~ ~ • ~ ~ N ~ v ~ ' ~o~~ ww~~~ ~~ ~~ ~sc ~~ p C`9 ~ O N U~ C O ~- F- ~.. ~ Q~ U r ~ ~" ~ N U ~ d ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ •C ~ C Q O p C !n ~ ~~ U O 'C a C 0 y ~ C a ~ o ~ ~ m ~-_•. o-~ a ~ ~ ` ~ a~ a~~ o_ ~ m w ~ c ~ c~ ~ W ~ ~ o ~ ~ ai ~ 'o L w c4 >` '- ca .C ~ ~ ~ ~ uoi ~ = c ~ c ca (~ ~ ~ ~? ~ •c ~ •c cu ~ ~ ~ .r ~ m v iv ~ 'v 'v ~ °' c Q' ~ '~ E m ~ ~ rn ~ rn o ~ v O ~ Ll.. ~ a c ~ of 'a c~ cis U ~ m is 'x ~ ~ rn 4 ~ c (n J in Z ~ ~ a 2 ~, m o a m v E ~E>~o~ ~cca w E a 3 3 0'~, u n u u V) E Q J ~ o E ca a~ ~ o a~ •o ,v_~ ~ U d Q t Q Q 0~ C cn co o c m o 'x U ~ Y cn ~ Q .. . L cC Q O i ~ J (/~ Z Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 a~ U _ C ~ U C :~ O C L O ~ `- tZ~~. c 'u. O ~ cts ~ ~ u. = a ~~ L c ° o o y 1= ~ ~ .n ~ a~ N C~ ~ ~ > ~ c ~ a a~i ~ ~ o °' 3 ~ o °~ c°~ j v~ fCC ~ 'C L ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ i fQ ~ ~ y ~ C ~ !A ~ .~ _ r +.. t L (C y 0 ~~ 0 0 a oi5 'c ~ ~° ~ o ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ •o ~, ~ mac-. v c `~ -p ~ ~ ~C ~ ~ (~} ~ ~~~ Q ~. o as a s is c 'c m o as c ~ v o c c cn ~ vi N ~ v> > O ~ •o ~ i~ = vi m ' ~ c c m N .a? `-'~ as ca - ~ N c~u O ~ a~i •~ sZ N p~ -U O ~ ~ ~ o Q E cn o c L v~ ~ c ~ c N. c c c c g~ °' is c cc a c i~ c m t~ m a c° o O N O C 'w O .N ~ ~ C ~ ~ O p> > Q L z ~ in ~ LL ~ ~ O ~ L O "' L. ~ ` w m Y is Q ~ ~ O -o ~ -~ a~ v$ m ~ Z, a~oi aLi > ~ w 3 ~ c ~ :o _~ cn 4. ~ c ~ w ~ v y ~ ai ~ v°i ~ ~ aci ~a a o ~ ~ cn Q. cv ~ a°i aUi ;~ cUC ~ ~ 'v o .p 3 0 ~ a~i ° n v ~ c w ~ ~ ~ _ U to to ... N oZS ~ ~ ~ •~ cCU a Q. `o ~ 3 ~ uQi axi ~ ~ c aUi ~ =' ° ~ c~a o U ~ v rn a~ U _ C C cC ~ ... O .~ w =O .~ a> c .c a o=~ ai'n~~ Final SEIR Errata II. Summary Page 12 ~ O O to ~ O O 'a O y O C C 3 ,~ ~ ~ U C ~ ~ N ~ ~ N ~• ~ C O ~ to y C ~ tC ~ O i ~ •i ~ cC ~ c0 ,tn ,RS u C L _ U O ~ U C C p) O U O- p~ ~ cc o _ ai o 3 cA o o E y` ~ U c a ~ ° c 3 a ... _ .. d~ O ~. Q ~ ~ ~ ~ cC ~ i O Y Q iC ~ ~. ~ cC ~ U Q ~ U ; ~ O O RS - U V it 7 .~. ~ O U 0 0 ~ >~ ~ O U . C C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~' W U '~ ~ O ~ _ to -Op O O cC C p 0 ~ N ~ p c n _ N a? 0 N ~` • d .Q ~ ~ = LL _O ~ U E r C fl. ~ Q 4? O 3 C cC o~ w c o 0 2~ a o N c c y o a~i ~ v ~ o w _ ~ O O C O L U ~ O ~ C N ~ C~ ~~ C C U~~ ~~ w O~ ~ N o f° ~ Y (C ~ w C N~ O h O O ,Q C Q ».. tp ~ cC cC ~ ~' t N cn N ~ U cis ~ -p cn U ~ N ,C w "' ~-- co c ~~ o~ o~ w +~ o N ,~ • ~ °' ~~ o m c ~~~ o C L O~ j U :~ w C '~ V O O E 'p W ~~ V !/) J fA Z II II 11 II C C Y~ y ;~ ~ •- ~ O~ L °~ c v v ~ ~ ~ W V U p_ y t 0 is • .os c a ~ ~ • 4. ai • 3 c = ~ ~ ? cn J c= Z Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 a~ U cC U O C ~ N C L_ a ~ •- ~°~n~~ c 0 c 0 U U _ C RS U ~'.~ ~ O N C L ~ Cn O O 4 Z .~ G rn f~ .~ !n ~ ~ ~ y c m -a c ~ c ~ o v~ '~ c ~ o ~ c '~ ~ o ~' ~' E ~ ~ O .~ U C ~ y ._ C ~ e U ~ ~ ~ U OO N p_ ~ ~ U fA U w C N O ~ ~ r N °' ~- ~ ~ U U O ~ ,~ r ~ i~ O ~ •~- w w - 3 ~ o ~ N O U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -a U ~ ~ ~ i ~ U o° ~ ~ N U i `' p ~ U U T ~ ~ .L-~ C ~ O O W U ~ y N w U ._ O r ~ ~ O C ~ o o ~ N ~ O ~ c •- '~ ~ V d a •E 'o c ~ 1- v ~ ~ ~ w H ~ 3 aVi ~O a` 'a y U H m a N c~ U d H CO J J J c c c U U U Q Q Q N O ~ d U N ~ ~ C O N C ~ y E v ~ ~ d ~ L ~ O ~ ~ O Q C ~ ~ ~ .~ 0 ~ C ~ ~ ~ .y C vUi Chi to L O f1Y p C +- c~ d c~ vUi ° a ~ m o 0 .a ~ ~ N L emu,'-~ Q- ~ Y ,+?L_- ~ E ~ ca ~ U ~~ fl. Q U ~ 0 ~ C O C m ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ O ~- '~ ~ rn~ '~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ 0 O a~ E ~ Q O Q j ~ s ~ ~ C N O ~ •~ ~ a~ ~ '~ c ~ ~ L L ~ L L F= ~ c ~ ~ o ~ f~ ~ Q } ~ i N N ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ .. ~ p ~ ~ C U > , •` .C i C U U O , ~ Q L L Q i ~ ' `~ ~ 3 ~ O ~ ~ C m 3 ~ U'~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ L j ~ ~ ~ U ~ t °o °' N m m o ~ ~ ~, a ~ d ° ~ } ^ N = (~ ~ } (4 Q, ~ to ~ ~ C ~ w j ~ C U ~ C (4 i ~ d ~ O Q ~ cC ~ Q O i ~-- Q N ~ ~ ~ c>s y ~ ~ U _ o= c ~, 3 .~ ~ ~ U U a1 d ~ ~ m U o - ~ r ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ c~ N L m ~ d ado= ;n N ~NN~.c L L L :a - II~C O (n T ~ N N L ~ ~ ~ E } ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ = in CJ ~ ~ C ~ ~ > f~4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m - > p> ~ - ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ 3 j L N c~ ~ ~ U w ~ N -. ~ 'v' U ~ ~ O N V 3 U N Q' ~ ~ O ~ ~ cts m m Final SEIR Errata II. Summary Page 13 !Z N c ~ U '~ O cc~ay .~ ~ ~ (C G C C U U L ~ Q- . a 'c N 'c `~ ~ ~ ~ O !n J (!~ Z II II Ii II (n ~ rA Z Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 m v . c co ~ ~, v c :- mc~ O ~'- ; ~ ~ ~ , C' O O1 ~~ O U _ C fC V "~ c O O C L d ~~ C 0 d i d c Final SEIR Errata II. Summary Page 14 v7 ~ J J ~cSf C C ctf cC U U O Q Q ~ O i T L •~ Q RS ~ •~ d ~ O 'p C O ~ O ~ t~ aci Q ~ ~ U E - ~ E ai Q ~ N ~ m cv ~ ~ ~ o tq U ~ O N ~ O i ~ L vi c~ C) O c O ~ 3 ~ ~ O Q O O 'O :-' w ~ (C C ~ C O E m ~ O E ~ O CO ~ U O CI) Q: U N ~ Q L i U7 ~ ~ i ~ L V w C C O U N -~ ~ 4 L O O ~ t ~~ ~~ C O C 3 ~ Q o~ a~~i ~ N aoi ~ 3 `~ U m`~ A?~ O j L ~' Q N O Q U ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ;oa~~~Yiam°°-U ~~~U ~?~o~a din Q. 3 ~ aoi c ~ ti ~ Q ~ v c°avi ~ ~ ~ ~ o c°c 4 0 0~~~ a ~' -~ L c ~ c 3 •~ o '- m ~, c c m 3 a> ~ o ca ~, o m .c .... o c ~ c o °, ~ tot ~ a~ ~ c~ ~ a ~ ~ y o ~ o ~ v°i 4 ° ° °N' 'N cu a _~ ~ ~~ ° ~ c o a E o ~ ~' m QU ~ ~ m m ~ ~? N~ O U~~ N U RS O> ;= y O c0 N ca C am. J .N O~ L O O -_ O D L C O~ L 3 ... Q m d ~ Q C N C C C ~? o.. a~ 3 .o ° ~ 3 ° ~ .r d cv ~ >. s ~ a ~ a~ cn cts ca cts a N ~~ 0 0 ;? N y a~ N O N N- h ca O y 0 0~ m fn J In Z ~ ;n ~' ~ a E in ~ m O C ~ VOi ~ -ty ~ `. m m >- er c ca a~ ~ > c a~ 3 U Q >- ~ ~ 3 0 ~ .~ cn Z L L L ~ L Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 a~ v c ~ U C :~_ d C L p'/~~2i VJ J O• .~ ~~ N U c ~ U `~ O C t ~U)~ ca Q. ~ ~ U J J ~ cSS L Q .`.. C p • ~ C . ~ ~ ~ Y p .i L m L C C U O U X 0 0 N ` ~ ~ Q ~ ~ O Q ~ a ~ p~ ~ ~~ o _ ~ "d ~ U C ~ ~ j C ~ U a ~ci F- ~ ~° ~ o ~ '.. w n y y ~ J U Q Q ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ r L O U C O _ > L ~ ~ N ~ CA E C d o ~ ~ ~ a~ i 3 ~ o a~ c p L L O 3 ~ G ~ p 3~ !Z N ~ L ~ ~ O ~ T co O Y O Q- ~ C O C O U ~ Y C C «C ~ ~ p~ p~ .~ C 1 L ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ E E U O L o ~ ~ Y L ~ ~ ~ ~ .L... ~ cC ~ cC ~ c ~ ~ ~ w > i i = O cC 3 ~' O ~ ~ O C L Q L ~ w ~ •v r ~' o ~ ~ Y o 3 O p ~ y C O C ~ O O ~ O ~ O O N ~ ~ m r ~ m o ~~ E~ o ~ - ~ cca E Q E ~ a °- Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ n- ~ is ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ L N °~ F~ O ~ ~ N m I- c o v (A N ~ _ ~ p ~ ~ 3 0 ~ ~ j ~ ~ r.. ¢ +.. ~ ~ p ~ ~ c o 0 >.C ~ •Q ~ QooN•~, m ~ Q... ~ r oc ~mcn O ~ ~ (~ ~ ~ cC t1_ ~ ~ G •N C ~ L N - ~ ~ Y G 3 ~ ep y Q U ~ ~~ C N V a rn L~ ~ ~ .., p~ y cC a> v~ Q ; O • C ~ ~ ~ Q C O ~ ~ ~ d U ~ a C ~ U m c ~ N ~ L m L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ > > ~ V ~ > C O C y p L d o ~ ' ~ N~~ •V a N ~ p, O a~ O~ U p 01 C ~ ~ .. 3 p p O~ ~ O ~ ~ O O O .U O _ ~ ... '3 ';= U y m m~ m ~ m ~ O Q c~ w w CV O 'a .` ~ O O~ N O Q 0 ^ ^ ~ ~ C 7 •.. L -_ L i i i L L. i ~ L i Final SEIR Errata II. Summary Page 15 Q O c ca U '~ _ O C RT y .~ ~ ~ p C C C ~? w r U !? SZ .~ ~ .~ r fA~(AZ II II II II fAJ(AZ Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Errata II. Summary Page 16 a~ c c c cLf U O co N C L ~ ~ = J _ O ~ D_Cn~S~ O Q C O ~ ~ 3 ~ _ ca O U c~ ~ o ~ o cB O , c ~ p L c V ~ L ~ Q .Q ~ mac °o ~ Q~ . c c T Q O T w N ~+ O fn 3 V j~ ,O N C . ~ O O C ~ O C ~ ~ O ~ O a? 'O O E U C E ~~ ~ ` O> ~ N N ~ > O :d O C 3 C~ U O cSS w O y ~ O . N> O ~ Q~ o a, ° ~ ~ >~ cv m~ a ~ ~, ~ N o ~ ~ o c ~;~ a~~ O ° a' cvU ~ j o - ~ •~. o c a ~ C ~ U 'p o c~ o ~ V U ~ O .n ~ O ~ a~ w N to ~ '~ = j Q N O ~ Q C L E O O to ~ ~O ~ O C y E~ C N ~~> L O ~~~ N~ O ca C ~ y Y m O O L w ~ ~ ~ ° ~ Q -- c~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ o E o 3 ~ ~ O y ~ • ~ ~ ~ U N > ~ 3 C ~ . ~ U N ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ y ~ U V ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ "' ~ O ~ Q~ O ° O C ~ g U O p ~ n- ~~ M ~~ Q W ~ Q ~ ~ r ° O~ m~ N ~( L ~ Q~ N Q)C E w .~ ~ ~ c •3 O Q- O ~, ~ ~ T o ~ a Q o ~ o ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~, O _ • ~ N C >~ C ~ U N U O O~ i CD U i ~ O ~ ~ N Y 0 O v d Q Q O N 1--- C 3 ~ O ~~ ~ ~ i L a L C C ~ Rs .~ 0 _„ . -.. . ~ 3 ai o a>i .. i. i ~ L i L i L L i L .~ .~ ~ .~ j .v N ~ _ ~, ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ U= O T Y O ~ .C ~ m ~ ~ G ~ O C ~ ~. cC . -p 'O D_ Q ~ O '_ '" ~ ;v E °-'" - E~ a L c p ~ ~ ~ ~` _ ~' ~ o ~ ~ o ° - ~ o m > o, a~~i o v c j > L ~ a~ ° b ~ Y O _ ~ _O X 0 0 ~ m Q G) fl' C c4 L~ L O O ~ ~ ll V O ~ ~ ~ c ~ 3 ~ w ~ Q ~ p ~ c °-' ~ o~ o ~' v, C O Q ~ J c a~ ~' ~ v c c c c' c L ~ c v ~ e~ i ~ N ~n ._ cC tC t0 Q Q N Q o ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ CJ U ` '^- cQa N ° c° 3 o o °~ ~ Z ~ ~ •- ~ a~ ~ N ~? -o a~ .. ... m o0 3 m t~ v~ ~ °°~ c a N~ u u u u - ~ O L L ~ L d RS L L L !n J (n Z Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 a~ U C ~ ~ ,.., U C :~ O C L_ o_U3. C •~ o~ '~ < ~{ . ~ d U C f ni ~.. ~ U O .~ .C L + «' ~=; dCn~: U) J .~ w ~ cca U U ~ Q ~ Q ~ O~ L O C fC t fC C l (SS C w fC ° a ~ a ~ ~ cNa p a ai ° ~ ~ ~ ° m ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ o _a>r_ ~ ~o ~ a_ i ° ° ° L O ' y = J ~ 3 C i . ,~ m _ '3 •~ ~ 0 0 'o m 3 O ~ ~ C •° ~' ~ ~ N C ° ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ w: L o a ° ~ ~ 3 `~ iii o ~ >. u,0~ o oo- ~_ Q c m °' a p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o > Q a~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. J N ~ m O > ~ ~ . ~ U O ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ 'C ~ _ ~~ ~ O U Z O L Y L U ~ p CV ~ 0 ~ O O "' ~ O L O C ~ O Q C C ~ ~ 6 ~ ~ N U m~ -p t~ ~ L U 'C ' O L ~ ~ U C ~ ~ CC N ~ ~ ~ ~ O N ~~ O Q c C 'L O O U ~ ~ O Q i p C ~ Q O U _ Q 0 N N m L !p Q 0 O O Q C N X 0 0 ~ N E E E . .. ~ C ` ° n, ~ [[ ca ca v CC Y ~ ~ ~ ° ' v O L v o ~ C 'O i i L L -_ L. L o o vv o d Q ~ Q. i L i L ^ ~ L L L i L N i L L Final SEIR Errata II. Summary Page 17 ... ~ O ~ O ~ ~ ~ 3 m a~ ~- ~ ~ y ~ ~•. ~ ~ ~ N ~ Q i~ c ~ v _ O .- V Q ~ ~ C ~ .~ . ~ j I; C ~C U Q' ~ O ~ p w > w'O C ~ O ~ O C1C~ ~ ~ O C ~ LL C c~ U C ~ ca cC ~ 4 ~ t ~ ~ •~~•~cC o ~ `' ~ ~ `. op c nU (n (AZ u u u n • ~ p Q L L ~ !n J rA Z Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 a~ c ~ U C ;~ O C L d ~~ c O', .~ ~', ~ L m U _ c ~ U " •C O N C L ~ ~ ~ O E ~ O ~ ~ L C~ ~ co N O Q -ty £ E Q w ~ ~ _rn ~ .c o, °o ccv ° H ~ ~ E g ~ 0 3 '3 0 ~ p Y c r >o ~ ~ a > ~ .E ~ ~ ~ ~ o v~ ~ L ~' E Y > ~ c L ~ o ~ a> ~ ~ E ca ° E ~ a~ c o ~ ~ iu > ~ ~ a> ~ ~ a~ ~ a ~•- vi >_ v y >• w ~ E-~g Q ~ U fC V fl- O O O C aT _ to c y~~ C O V O n- O CLf !? to O L O~ O~~ O~~~ O V ~O y= Q .. p~ 0 `~ w 0 L ,? v ~ E ~ a~ a~ m E co ~ Rs ~ aoi s a~ `-° ~ ~- .~ v=i ~ L .~ ~ ~ ~ .~ 3 0 ~ ~ -a ii c ~ o E Y r v ~ ~ ~ ~ w cYv v O =1- ~ yp J >?" !? O i ` ~ N f1C O ~ -p Q ~ ~ .C ~' ~ .d O ~ "d !Z ~ ~ it d ~~ J O O .~ C Q X 0 0 0 Q C~ ~ O i' ~~ O- ~' p~ x N ~ ~ ~ d y > ~ ~ ~ Q ~ C ~ ~ > O to O r C ~ ~ p ~ ~Econ.a •~oo;n-a~,~~a~ ~~L~ QEcol>nQ p Q ~ °' v_~ ~ ai ~ r w in ~ O ~ d~Q.~~ E~c'30~Qam L ~ ~ L ~ L ~ L ~ ~ ~ L ~~ ~ L L Final SEIR Errata II. Summary Page ~ 8 U co Q E _O L U O c fo N .~ ~ C c C U to (o (o Q U L U Q •C y •C ~ N fnJ(nZ II II II II (n~(AZ Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 a~ U _ C ~ U C :~ N C L a. c~ ~ J i c~ C O .~ O1 -. a~ U C ~ U .... C O O C L ~~> C U d Q t6 Q N O a ° m ~ ti c~ U c ~~ o p ~ o 3 ~ ~ o °o c L •cm~ °o w~- ~,~~ O U N 'C ~ 'C (UCI (6 ~ d ~ 'i3 t ~ ~ w tUC ~ J O '- 1 Q L f6 O C~ ~ C C~ .Y O d O O C C O ~ ~ O O- 'O O .0 ~ co J Q .. ~ Q 0 Q. -p O fC O .a C Q N C Q .C O C ~ 0 3 ~ c 3 -a c aci v ° •io ~ ~ C ° c • cC ~ c ~ `-° ~ a~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ° ~ N ~ c ~ Q ~ __ o - c o O L ~ CC _O ~ U O~ N Off ~ E O~~ _O ~ O ~ ~ N ~ O Q(n C U i Y O N r L N ~ (Lf L. Q (C Q ... ~ C O O ~ U O C C O C~ O p O~ Q U O O ti. J ~ ~ ~, ~ 0 0 ~ p~ L O Rf c ~, ~ ~ ~ a a~ c`c 3 'a ~ a? ~ a~ m cYU ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ C O O ~ O RS ~ ~ ~ ~ 'C C U ~ ~ Q co c~ ` U ~ Q ~ _ O (Sf 0 N `r Q C O 0 0~ C _ p O C ~ to C C C Q _ O . C O d V N ~ i Y~ ~ a E~ L i p C O Q i 'O j 3~ 7 L ° • m a ~ ~ ° ~ ~ Q c in o t a ~a o a i ~ c ° ~ o y 3 3 ~ L c ~ ~ ca > o[ 3 ~ Q~ ~ ° 2 3 0 ¢ ° a v L ~ ~ ~ c a L ~ ~ ~ L ~ c ~ L ~ L L Final SEIR Errata II. Summary Page 19 O y ~ O ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ CC p ~ -° n a i 3 -. o 0 c v ~ E 'Q RS t ~ ~ W Q ~ , ~ C G O~~ j w O o O G p O p, ~ p~ N O S C~ ~ ~ ~ (n ~ O C C C U (0 fC c6 fl m~~ O Q- c . Q ° w~ . O Q ~ ~ ~ U O , ~ C ~ •C tC ~ ~ O N ,~ y Q ~ U ~ ~ cnJCnZ n n u u ~ ~ L ~ ~ L ~ cn cAZ Terrabay Project Final SEIR Errata City of South San Francisco II. Summary October 25, 1996 Page 20 ° U C C (~ V O C w ~ ~ (n N C L_ ._ ---~ J ~ •- _' ~'v~~~ ~. • ._ ~ .~ oN ctS O U . U ' ~ Q ~ Q ~ RS ~~ a~ a~ ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ > ~ a `~ 3 ~ °~ ~ cYC ao .S cYc ~ a~ i a i E ~ ~ o ° o c °a ~ c ° ` ° E c ~ V7 ~ ~ v cn ~ - w -a O c a i ° m vi a> v° O a J `° O~ J O= 01 ~ RS ~ 'd O O V~ O N E .Q L ,p ~ ~ i ~ L ~ ~ i0 d ~ O C ~ O C p v°i O C O a~ ~ L m ~ Qfn ~ Q ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~ ~ QCA Q ~ ~ in ~ ~ ~ ~ C 'p O i N C i O a N O O O Q O O U~ '~ cC = O > a' >. t~ O j ~ p i ~ ~~ o n~ ~ s a~ ° ~, E ~ 3 c4 c m Y t N Y~ O O L 3 O C C C O~ O L i ~ Y O Y ~ i/i U ~ ~ U C m 0 0 ~ "d C ~ Q ~ ~ O' COi , O fn .~ C a~ ~ to w ~ 4> 'O N CO > L to t ~ i ~ ~ ~ C ~ ` C Q ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ 0 ~ O Q C E O O~ N U ~0,, •~ C E O > Q i O Q i d •- '> O~ ~ Q ^ Q RS CD >~ d« fC m ~ r L ~~ L E O O cn Q U L i L i i i L L~~ i i i L i i i L i C C f6 ~,.. O ~ •- ~•- ~ ~ ~ ~ y O O LL ~ O N ~ ~ O RS ~ O ~~ ago _ .0 ~ U mecca ~,,, ~ J C ~ ~ h +U.. m ~ 'd ' O = O ~ i d1 O O ~ y ~ ~ ~ > (n ~ O c~ ~ N j ~ w ~ ~ ~ .., iii N ~ _~ ~ Q I+ a ~ '~ t ° c o ~ O ~ o ~ al > > U ~ y ~„ V > ~ ~ v~ ~~ O~ _ _ "' C v V _~ ~ ~ ~ O O O ~ C c~ ~ ) O O a~ ~ •~ ~ m U ~ U o O p ~ ~ ~ •C C C ~ L t 01 -> ~. ,- U cts 0~ ~ C ~~ O L Q. C O ~ C RS O ~ ~ f _ U ~~~~ i U~ C ` Q O O d ~ Q C N f 4 C C C V a~~.o ~ ~?~ o~~i ~ ~ ~ ~ N 4~a~~ a~o~ Q~~°. ~v~~+- `~ to ~ ~ a a~i m ~ 3 .'? 3 0 0 ° ~ cn ~ to z ~ o> op op ~ ~ m~ ' n u n n ~ • ~ Q ~ ~ - L ~ Q ~ ~ ~ L~ L cn ~ cn Z Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 N U C ~ U C :-- N C L 0_ (A c 0 .~ O1 N U _ C tC O .-. ~ w O C ._ O N C L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J J (n ~ T ~ _ U c w c ~ c co U N co U_ co U_ a ~ !? a Q ~ Q Q w 1= C~ a r ti ~ C N i N •0 p N ~ p ~ 3 ~, ~ ~ Q `" -a ~ o c o ~ 3 c U > '~' H ~ ° ~ ~ . ~. ~ ~ o N ° L o ~ ~, ~ a~ E v ~ ~ ace o ~ c a ~ ~ m ` ~ ~ ~ a i ~ ~ a i co Q Oa0 ~ ~ U C ~ ~ U ~ ~ wL„ TC ~~ ~J O O ~ ,~ C N c ~ 'x 'c N c ~ ~ ~ o o E ~ c c e c N Y Q c0 c a ~ c a C _~ O U_ i SZ U N Q~ N~ 0 0 O N a w C O~ N ~ ~ CC ~. ~ ~ ~ ._ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ to 'O _ •E NQ ~ _ •E C ~ ~ >, ''EON- °' Q ` [[ ~ L _ > U~ C~ ~ cC ~ (~ Y y C L H~ p ° a~ N fA i i i i C~ f- ~ ~ ~ a ~ a c i i i i i i. i L V1 ~ Final SEIR Errata II. Summary Page 21 ~ = ~ o ~ ~ ~ `~ N ~ C ~° ~ ~ U ~ R +.. U (n ~ C O m - c o ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ _ N y 3 `~ 3 a c Y U U ~~ a~°i ~ E~ `° a> c ~ as o cq c m O ~ Y ~ C ~ o ~ N c a - = ~ a~ ~ a i ~ ;v ~ G V~ - r C c 0 ~ E ~ C N = f J ~ ~ aT ~ ` ~ ~ ~ to cY ~ Q ~ ~ ~ C c M *- o as ~ a o n y o O Q 3 C . 0 ° co ,c ~~ ~ E o O ~ ~ ~ .- ~ ~ ~ N ~ n U _ t ~ • ~ t ~ C ~ ~ O ~ ,~U N ~ 7 C d ~ ` T N N ~ ~ tl ~ ~ ~ N ~ N N a N 0 V ~ coo N 3 cn ~ V ~ co Q v ~ U ~ ~ `~ ~' U c N ~ ~ C co E ~ cn .- c ~ N J~ ~ co o Q . N p, ,.. ~, ~ o c - o Y cts :o ti V ~ C y O E ~ a O ~ ~ ~ ~ ' •C O N (n co to ~ ~ w N O d~ '~ ~ d V C U r fl- w N O H a w~ > O U C C C (? to O ~ . ~~ OO C ~ ~O ` O C O C ~ . ~ N~ O m N cv Rf cC Q d cu Q o d c o cn ~~ N a i ce= c N r ~ ..°- ~ ,°~ a O c «, ~ fSf ~ ~ N y ~ ' y ~ ~ '73 i ¢~ ~ ¢ p~ C ~ C Q ciS c ~ J U3 Z m U m 0 oo ~ a ~ O i ~ -O N N N t L II II II II m Q U ~ U ~~3 o z = L ~ L L L mQ~c n3 L L ~ ~ L v3~c n Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 a~ U _ C ~ U C :~ N C L lZ~~ L f~ C •~ O C ~ O ~ fl .~ O tLi O O U _ C ~ U `~ C O O C .C ~~~ _T O N ~ V U ~ ~ ~ d O ~ ~Q~ Q j( ~ N ,C_ ~ N O j C ~ +• ~ r ~ (A OO ~ =O lC ~ O O ~ ~ U >: cii Q aCi TT o 0 3 ~ H o ~ ~ ~ 3 a~ ~ aQi vii t ~ ~ `' ~ ro ~ .o <n N -~ > > c a °' ~ •~' ~ ca ca a~ Y ~ y >; O L N Q '"' O~ f6 O G> C C O E ~ L O ?, O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .U ~ ~ > L. O 1= O 'd O U C Q v Z m o o t>s v L L ~ ~ ~ L ~ L m L O ~_ •3 0 0 N c c 0 O Q 0 O N ctS U ~ N m •o LL p. L ~ a N a N U Final SEIR Errata II. Summary Page 22 J C c>s U O Q ~ Q N O C C ~ ~ .o i U C R f Q E ~ > c ~ Q C O N ~ O O .«_ ~ O U O L ~ ~ O C ~ ?. C X Q ~ ~ o o v> > a m O vi ~ ~ p ~ C ~ ~ - c °' o ~ o c c ~ ~ ~ ~ o O 'p CO •~ 0 3 p V 0 cu ~ ~ j CJ ~ C a~ ~ C (A .,'_ p C ~ j O C cC ~ ~ m O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CA Z O ~ U O N N cSS C m O O ~ .? a ~ ~ ~ in '~ ~ ~ c ;= ~ m 0 ~ ~ E a E c co`o3c°>8 ~ o ~' -- fQ N C ~ ct3 ~ ~ Q- s3. ~ 'O U ~ O •> ~ ~ L O p Q. ~ Q ~ 3 ~ ~ O n RS G ~ t d ~ ~ ~ a ~ U c`ts c d = ~ ~ a, ~ = U ~ ~ Q j Q~ O m O ~ - o o v ~ o ~~~ o y ~ _~ c ~ ~; N ;v ~ ~ V ~ O ~" w> m ~ o a _ o 'a o ~ ° ~ ~ c a a ~ rn o o ' 3 E a~ ~ E~ °'~ "' ~ •°'~~ _ ~ ~ 0 ~ N ' .C w y 0 3 ~ U . c " ~ m d o a ° ~~ c .... Q ~ Q c a c c w r U N O O t ~ +• L fn O a (/1 J f/1 Z ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ >; Q ~ 3 4~ ~ II II II II ~ ~ Q o~ ~ ~ O RS C O O ~ L L L L ~ Q !/1 J (/1 Z Terrabay Project Ciry of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 a~ U C ~ U C ~= C7 C .C 0.~-; d~~, C~ O .~ ~( O U C ~ U "~ •C O d C L d Cn > ~ ~ ~ J J J C CC ~ (C U Q C C O. RS RS Q U O U Q O Q U Q ai Q ~ m _ r a, ~' ~ ~ _ O -O U ~ fl. ~ C ~_ C U ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ D_ d ~ ~ Q ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ Q E ~ ~ L ~ ~ ` ~ N ~ ~ _ . ~ . p O ~ C`~ -a U p co Q U O O C C~ 4i ~ ~~ O Q- ~ U= O C «. fC 7~~~ C ~ i C C ~ ~ ~ rn °' c a ~ a ~ ~ c cov c N ~ ai O ~ U ~ O ti ~ '~ ~ = ~ c ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ 'p O ~ ? C N «S UO ~ E O U U ~ C > ~ r > ~ ~ Rf CC _ O U i N~ O O L ~ C~ N O d N O Q ~•- N Q L p> U ~' a> v~ ~~ ~ O ~ ~ d '-' N C O ~ O~ U C Q O C ~ C ~ ~ N to ~ C ~ ~ C E ~' 7 O N ~ O ~ ~ U ` > Q- ~ ' ~ U H O N O 7 O 7 C6 O O Q ~ • ~ O C fC U3 L O CC i ~ v L " p~ ~~ O N~ ~ ttS ~ N Q Q. Q~ U U~ "~ N Y C p c~ O Q ~ i i to C O Q ~ U N -O ~ ~ ~ ~ cC C > O ~ >+ ~. _ ~ V O >, ~ _ ~ . ~ ... .,, U.C O .j 0 Q O ~ 0 0 ' O D~ E o E U ~~ -. t o c > °._° a. 0 0 0 > ~, 0 0 > ._ tiEU-aa~ >. "aE +-~ ~ ~ N V '~ cts c~ O O ~ ,~ Q w ~ L U ~ ~ N ~ ~ O ~ O i ~ i w ~ ~ ~ O O = O C U N d .~ a 3 ~ O C'O ' E Y O ca O RS C U = O O O i p ~ a v Q= ~ ~; ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 3 o 00 3 ° c c L c 0 L '~ ~ o L_ ~ ~ 3 U ~ 3 ~ o ~ ~ Q o ~ ~ E o ~ m .a (C 3 . .~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ X ~ ~ ~' o ° 3 Q E a~ ~ c o c a ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ O GUi ct3 U C ~ ~ V Q _- C ~ C ~ C O ~ - ~ ~ h h . 'p R! d N ftf O ~ d __ O O E ~ = m 'D C U Q ~ ~ U rr In ~ C C n> v, a> o '0 3 ~ ; a ~ o D_~4.2 axi o.~ ~- O W Z Q O J O = N m U -d to N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~_ a~ N ~ E ~ O Q O ~ > .... E U ` ~ C O U ~ ~ w a~ 3 s o ~ c N ~ N ~ N U '~ > N ~ ~ ~ E c ~ ~ ~ > tNC O C O ~ 'D ~ Q «. C N ~ ~ U Q.. E 0 p to ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ Final SEIR Errata il. Summary Page 23 a E 0 .n C O U O ~ _ ~ U C C C , w « U Q •c ~ ~ cs (n J (n Z u u n u (/3 J !n Z Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 U C ~ U C ;~ N C L O ~= 0_~~ C O «S ~f a~ U _ C ~ V ~..~ - O C :'- O d C L ~~~ J C fC U .Q Q Q >. U O O C ; N ~~ ~ ~, O ~ ~w ~ C. ~ ~~ ~ m =p c ~ no°' u Q ~Q ~ ~~•°E ~ a~ ~ . . 3 ~ s o ~ ~ ~ c w m `a ~ ~ F- c ~, = a a i ` c ~ ' U ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ a ;? ~ o c v ~ ~ -~ ~ cv v c a~ •- c ~ c ~ ~ Ci fl ;n ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ n o'er ~ . >, ,,,, o O `D c O~ O 3 v ~ Q ~ c~ ~ ~ N O cn O ~ ~ ~ o . ~ .a , ~ . a> a ~ ~ c c c ~ 4 w a i w o ~ ~ ~ ;n . n a~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ o O ~ -a m ~ o ` n e o c • n a ~ c a a~ o •- v~ t ~ is ` o~ m Y v ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~` c~~ a> a~ S E ~° o N I; c m E U c~ . ~ L c w - ~ 4 ai 'a ai ~ w ~ ~ ~= ~ ° v ~ o .~ ~ 3 g o~ •a =~ .Q ,a> U o f a~ Q c E w L L y. v~ ~ c~c c°a ~3 ~ ~ vi Lo. ~ ~ ~ L~ L ¢ v"oi Q..~ v Final SEIR Errata II. Summary Page 24 C RS per, > N N N to - (C L (~ V C O .~ U~ y _ C -- _ w O C O O ;a O E~ w O V O~ O a to c4 N~ a> ~ O fC ,~., Q a «. ~~ L O Q N~ •~ E O U .~-. 3 y T L2 ~~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ to L ~ ~ O O ~ ~ O O O ~ ~ ~ Q N d ~ Q- ~ .~ iC C Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Cn U ~ w cts ~ ~ ~ ~ U +~• O= O C "= C .E Q. tq L r O N ~" Q- V .C d cC ~' O Q~ 0 0~~ H O C V N 0~~~~ C Y~ w O Q ~~ L C E O Q. ~~ p' y O~• •~ C w O ~ ~ = N ~ U O O 'p O ~ ~ ? 3 i L fl.. fC ,-. O E .~ RS C ~ O Q- N U O 'p co ctf > > > N O O _V ~ C 3 O~ ~~., S O N :a ~ U~ fA O~ C~ a~~i w~ C~ a~ O ~ ~ C O' V ~° o~°'- ' 'E ° a ~ N a aci ~ o ~ °~ ~ c ~, p ~ is ~ a 'v, :- .~ ~ ccc ccc = ~ 3 c ~_~ -° c L aXi c ~ a~ o ~ m~ ~ c E o ca ~ w a w a o v cu E ~, N ~ -a E U v a`, -a c ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ccc ~ ~ c c ~ c fl. 'n ° ~ rn ~ a~ p ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ C ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 y N ~ C CLO.. ~ (/~ J !n Z ~ Q" U O~ O N V~ p .~ •~ O C~ V N~ O N~ cC 0 0~ p' (n ~ Q ~ ~ O 'O ~ ~ Q ~ .N U Q W Z c~ cC ~ 'p Q U ~ Q 'd 'O U lC Rf (A J (n Z L L i L i i L i L L L Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 a~ U C .c ;~ U O C L D_ ~ c' O .~ ~I O U C f~ ~ .-. ~, U ~ c :~ O N C t D_ ~ > ~ ~ J J C f4 U U ~ Q Q >. . Q U Final SEIR Errata II. Summary Page 25 (LS U O 'C O ~ C~ C ~ CO (~ ca Qc c ~ 6 >' L C ~~_ O ~ 'p O O ~ co ~~U ~ c O~~ C V w O Q .~ O Q (~ ~ 0~ Y 'O U O E - ° m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ Q- _ .~ C Q ~O -a U L d U O N ..., to ~ O C 0 t3 r ~ N C~~ _ O N D_ ~~ U •~ ... Q- ~~a~o = C ~a~a o ca c -.3~~oa'>. ~ m c w ~ ~ ~ c Q- O ~ cv ~ ~ V p ~ Q U j~UOO~ c ~ ~ ~ u)N~~ N Rs ~ a o a> E ~ QE ~ J O Q Q a ~ . w c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i vii U o cv E L >, cc c ~ O w Ql O cC3 E U O 'O •~ O y v~ A U O t0 ?~ O N w O C 'O ~ cC ~ O G~ J O w O~ CC c CC O Q E U~ Q .C L ~ C U~~ c 'O O - ~ j . ~ C (~ U E O N C O ~ ~ O~ c O ~ Q i d Q~ f~ ~~ ~ O ~ Q •U :~ ~ ~ := ~ fSS U w N Q L ~ O 'O O N U~~ Q O~ N O 0 0 0 0 ~ L1 T O N O O ~ to cC to Q Q ~ a.. ~ N ~ fl. i i -. L in L i y ~ U ~ ~ Q Q.. L i i i i L L J (n cn L N cC ~ ~ C S C 1= N ~ . ,~ U to N N Q O N C B d N f6 O O U U 0 .L.., O (Q ~ O H N O~~~ j r x~ O N 0 0 t O 0~ to D O U ctS ~~ O N~ O ~ ~ r ~ _O C C ~ L~~ ~ w C O C O O j~ Q N~ O~~ Q p Q N Q = f to U N ~ ~ ~ f~ ~ - ~ N ~ O i U `- O - ~ ~ ~ Q C L~ _N ~ cti ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ j ~ O C in ~ ~ ~ O c N U C N cQ c0 O U - O- O O N E cC '-' O ~ w R~ O~ O O d U 3 o ~ U ~ = ~ 0 O J O to L ~ ~ ~ i O O ~ a • ~ O U d ~ O L -p . ~ ~ ;O O ~ O U ~ ~ O > ~ C ~ y N fC ~ ~ O O ~ •T O ~ ~ C w ~ O > O > O O ~ ~ p ~ .~ ~ O ~ c c > > : +~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ Q O ~ C C ;~ ~ C C f O ~ c U N •> ~ a~~ ~ ~o~~ .O N U = c C a N 0 0 fC -aa 4 C~ ~ U~ ~ o ma ~ S O U ~ ~ ~ Eo~, rn ~~ ~, • Q ~, ~ ccc._ c E~~ U ' ' O~ ~ C Q ~~ C O ;v C >. O d~~ ~ ~ = p O O Q >..N.. 'a ~ ;~ O- ca ' 1= a ' ~ 6 O c3 d U U O N cv ~ O ~ cn C O C ii ~ w ~ ~ `~ ~ s'3 0 ~~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a °' ~ ~ ~ a~i o to~toZ ~ iv o ~ ~~ ~ aUi ~ ~ c~c aUi Q- a g o a' ~~ a>i a i m v~ m~ ~ n u n n ~ vL~ =~u ° ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ E a Z = ~_c ..~s ~c ~ o~ v i .o' v c cac ca~~ L ~ ~ ~'~ cn~v i Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 m U _ C RS ~ .,_, U C :~_ O C L ~ Cn > c~ 0 .~ ~f O U C ~ U j C :«- O O C L d (n > J U c ca U .~ II. Q N ~ O i O 'C ~ ~ U . ~.~- 'V N O O N C ~ a C 0 0~ N. C ~ U ~ ~ O ~ O~~ O C ~ N ' ~ ~ _ V O ~ U 3 •C O ~~ C C ' N O w O~ ~_, _~ d .C ;~ ~ O O N V ~ ~ ~ L p N ~ ~ 'd L 'd Q ~ ~ ~ o a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o rn o. ~ o a ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N U ~ c ` N Q ~ ~ N CLS (~ ~ ~ O U ~ ~ C ~ ~ O ~ O ~ C ~ ~ N U~ U p~~ X~ .~_ N O O L~ a~ L N Q' O~ N O~~ ~ C O E~ Q~ Q O U cC6 L E O 'a ~ L O N O~ p to O U~~ ~ h !~ L 'D O ~ • y 0 0~ d ~ U N O ~ ; p~ ~ ~ ~ L ~ C -O N ~ ~ ~ ~ d i A Q E N L (0 Q ~ ? ~ L ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ C Q d ~ j r ~ N O ~ O y U N ~ w U U O 'O N ai ' ' E a~ ~ ' L y 0 U .C C L w O O -a O~ tC U O .d 3 c c a' ~ C~~ p Q- O H ~ ~ ~ ~ c p> o ~ ~ ~ c rn ~. __ 'a L _ L ~ C (C O c c E O O .C _ . y O~ C ~ L O C •c ~ ~ ~ p cC ~ ~ ~ 'O O ~ cn • U _~ ~ ~ o O ~ N - C ~ O ~ p. C L. ~ C ~ C (LS ~ ~ O 'd ~ N Q fC C 'd 'O ~ N fC G) 3 Q ~ o ~ .Q o ° ~ E 'o ~ ~ o °' ~ °' ~ ~ °c' ~ ~ ~ ~ c w ' ~ C ~ C ~ U fC Q O CC O • ~ ~ U ~ U= U N a Q N O L O ~ O w a E ~ U ~ C i ~ O L Q C L C Q= L C E ~ ~. C) C C Q i cd O «s Q i i i 0_ fC ~ U Q O) O L -~ ~ L~ L~ L L i i Q C N to L L L. L~ J Final SEIR Errata II. Summary Page 26 i ~ ~ 'O ~ `~ ~ ~ i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a - 'a ~' a ~ 3 ~ a ~ ~ ~ ce ~ `~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ' ' a~ ~ E o rn E vi vi ~ ~ c ~' ~ v ~ a cc L -o o ~ .v '~ E ° °' a E m ~ i u i a ~ m a ° - v i E a i E Q ~ ~ E o a i ~~ ~ o a N O ~ U > E O U ~ - ~ vj ~ fII 'p L O vin o a~ w E ~ ~ c o ~ caa E a' o c, -- ~ °' vi c Q- ~ vi a~ cv ~ ti Q O ~ o E c c > ~ ~ ~ a> > ~ c <a d ~ cC ~ O ' cn Rt O ~n ~ O p 0 O j 0 U ' c m c a> > -0 a> a~ _ cv o ~ 3 ~ O o ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 m c c ~ ` ~ ~ rn c ~`~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -p ~ cn i .o ~ ... ~ _ -a ~ - a ~ fl. ~ ~ ~ .~_ v~ o ~ o ~ - ~ o ~, c c c _~ c~~ L ~' ~ ~ o~ O ~ o ~° 'a ~~ a o 3 m~ ~ w ~ °- ~ L 7 Q Q? ~ RS ~ N T~ (C E C~ C~ C ;= •~_ ~ ~ O h w~ L +.. w~~~~ Q ~ _ ~ (~ fC C ~ ~~~~~ O~N~ C N C ~~~p ~ c~ .~ t V .~ ' ~ O ai Y ~ ~ ~ U N a~ _ '~ ~ vi fn J !/) Z _ p o t n ~ Y Q J J Q~~~ 0 ~ N L E~ O ~ ' C J L _ ~ CA d . Q i L ~. -~ ti.. L L L i a. -. (/~ (n Z Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 a~ U C ~ U C :~ N C .C D_ ~ C= O .~ rn ~( O U C ~ ~ .~ w,U ~ C O O C L d ~ > o N O ~ cn ~ a~ ~ 'p to d ~ ~ r = C~ C ~ C U U C U ~ ~~ C L ~ ca ~ °' ~ ~' ~ a> ~ ~ ' o ~' N ~ °' __ C m c 'C ~ •~ p Q O N O C N~ T Q~ O ~ O~ EO ~ f~ ~ ~ ~ O N O C ~ fl. ~ O tC 'O U ~ ~ ~ N 7 C i0 ~ ~ O fC C ~ 0 0 C O O v) Q _~ 7 L ~ Q O a" O Q cC ~ E 'a 0 ~. Q L U 0 0 .C O L ~ '~ ~ 0 > y ~ ~ ~ ~ O f 4 ~ O ~ E 'p ~ ~ C 'd C p ~ 1 U ~ d >, ~' ~ ~ C t4 ~ U C ~ ~ ' • " ~ Q C x oo ~nc aw~ ~ c~'ccE ~ ~ cn ~ ~ ca o °' ima>v3rn-aocn a c v w - °i > E ~ a c i = O 3 fn ~ 'N ~ C R5 .~N- _ i a m p Q ~ O ~ 8 ~ ~ voi L O o a .. a v, ~ ~~~ ~ ~ O 0 O ~ . a~ :.. od~ ~ o v,~ ~ ~ ~ o ~o o E s _ -a o ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ c '~ ~ v ~ ~a ~ -a aci U C U (a N O O .p RS 'p w S N « V~ O O~~~ X O .. N «r C~ p C L ~ Q a> ca ~ 'i-n cc ~ ~ ~ i ~ L L L i i L~ j~ .L.. O N N L~~~~~ ~ E O v ~ ~ ~ a c~ v> -o E ~ L L L L L L L L ~ i L Final SEIR Errata II. Summary Page 27 J >. C ... 7 C O c4 U ~ r a Q U Q m O Q '~ O .a w ~ ..-. C ~ ~ ~ C 3 ~ Y R ~ 3 >; ~ d 4 ~ Q ~ ~ ~ :p N w ~ a> y ~- I; ~ U _~ d ~ Q ~ 4C E 3 ~ y O _O ~ ~ . ~. ~ ~ 'd ti ~ c ~? o Q ~ ~ U •~ j ~ 0 ~ O U_ Q Q H U L U O' W ~ O ~ = O C U C ~ 3 4 «, ~~ ~o Z d° ~ ln~fnz Q .. ~o c a ° u u u u O - , ~ (n~f~z Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 a~ U _ C ~ U G :~ O C .~ O.. (A C O .~ N U C ~ U ". cs O O C L Q_ ~ J C ?. U ~ `y •~ fl. C Q ~ O C ~' Q ~ ~ U C a i N O ~~= 3 o ~ 0 C C U ~` Q . , 0 C ~O~-' c i O C O c ~ w N O~ 3 ~~ U O_ ~ O ~ D: U c J C L C .p O~~ L "a W Q ~~ U ~ ~ ~ X0'3 c aNO `~ ~~E L = m U .O ~ C ,1 _~ y N • m cC ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ .~ C U ~ (~ O) ~ O ~ Q ~ O U ~ ~ 3~ G C~~ ~~~ V O r ~„ ~ O V im= Q~ Q •- Q. O O f~ U N ~ ~ C p a~ ~ ~ Oi -d ,, ~' ° c~ m "~ c E E~ o ~ 3 o U vii c~ L F c~ E ~ L E U m o c ca cv a> a 3 ?~ In ~ c p T C E~~ I; ~~ O Q- N L O U O Q O w Q ~ O ,.~~ ~ d C O N •Q Q V .~ O Q N N 3~ •~ Q U U D O ~ n ~ m ~ ;v c°'c ~ E ~ a L L ~ ~• O O O ~ ~ ~ 'C N Q ~ C i ~ L ~ c ~ ~ n- cB ~ 4 ~ C ~ C L C C > >. N C ~ ~` - C a> .~. cue ~~ c m ~ c v~ O ~ ~ 'cC io ~ Q v ~ a~ c c ago ~ c~ o c y vOi ~ m O v> > .. m N ~ C ~ ~ ~ O U ~ .LO.. C .U.. C Y ~ ~ i ~ ,._ O U r0. C C 'p O E~ m O Q O •tn N a~ O C tC ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ E ~ m ~- w m >, ~ ~ y o ~ .c ~ ~ ~ o °' °' ma ~ s ° ~ ~ ~ 3 .o o N ~ v> ._ ~' a~ a a ~n `v ¢ o ~ +.. ~ C ~II i m c W m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G ~ fl-~ C ~` ~ -- - O ;v o ~ U C O ~- as 4 o aca ~ :4 a~ a' ° c j U ~? o c a i v ~. 4 o~~ i~ ~' o N c a E QLm3 C O U« O ~ p C O O w ,,, O ~. U ccc ° ' 4 ~ ~ ~ .1 T ` L ~ ~ o a`> c O D E •~ ~ C C~ 3 v 3 v ~ ~ N m °' ° ~ c i a ~ ~ U rn m n c, ~ .~ ~ ' o in ~ ~ cNa ~ ~ ~ ~ '_' ~, E - £ ~ m N ~ ~ C > > o :~ ~ c c c N w ~ ;v O 0 0 -a c ~, o ~ U ~ i ~ N N C Q U N OI ~ ~ o ~ O ~ C N Q O cts p~U Q ~ W ~ Cn N O ~ U ~ ~ Z o= ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z r O O ~ ~ L m N G1 'p '3 O ~ ~ •> ~ C ~T, ~ C o. cU ~~' c .- ai ~ ~ ~ O ;' ~ O ~ U O ~ ~+~ .O ~ O Q O Z D: v cE m Final SEIR Errata II. Summary Page 28 U cC Q N cco v o O ~ _ ~ U ULO.. U ~' C N ~N ~o (n .J(nZ u u u u fnJ(AZ Terrabay Project Final SEIR Errata City of South San Francisco II. Summary October 25, 1996 Page 29 a~ U C C c4 U O C ;.= RS O C L ,_ J ~•- .~ a°v~~~ c = .. c ~ c~ O U N 'Q ~ ~ Q C _T y U c V ~ Y o~ w o c c >. •- o a~ Y E w ~ ~ ° N S -v ~ ~ is o_ ~' ~ i' ° v~ ~~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~r E~~~ ~2 ni N .a 3 .°o, o z ~°° o rn ~ ~ a~ c a>i L o° c a~ cB _ ~ rn c . a is ~_ •°- ~ 3 `~ ° o ~ ~ c ~ c°'i a~ ~, v, E ~ ~ ~ 3 3 ~ ° ~ w. ~ a°i ~ ~ ro •~ c E ~ a> m ° ~ U c0 ce c .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ E ~ ~ a o o ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 $ ~ co ~ ~ vi ~ ... ~ ~s ~? E .. c ~ c ~ ~ ~~ C O v~ p to 4 ,-- a> E _ ~_ c c ~ o ~ c o. a m '~ g a' i ~, . L o c ccs ~ D. c~ o ~ v~ ~ E ~ :s «. ~ O ~ ~ ~, ~ b L m ~ ~ ~ ~ -° c°u ~ o ~ m o ~ ~ .c 3 Q o ~ ~ E ~ c .> ~' ~ a°i - ° ° cn a .~ ~ c ~ c E o in -a o ° io ° Q c •~ ~ ~E ~ ~' o ai ~ OC ~ a> ~ o ~ c ~ °> c ° ~ c ~ ~ ~ w U a v E ~ c o cw ~ E ~ ~ ~ o a ~ ~ ~ aEi °c i- E O U C C cC ~ ».. O C p (6 N C L (n O ~ =~ a.cn~~ c ~ ~ "O O ~ Y 41 ~~ O~~~ C O Q 3 'd ~ r = O ~ C ~ d y•~ ~L.S~~ v°i aI° a> 4 0 ~ O N 3 0 C 0 vOi ~ O t0/J fVC 3 3 cv 3~° o~~ ,° ~ N a E W ~ ~ m ~ o ~ Q ~ ~ ~ cn ~ a? . J vi N ~ v "~ -`o cv 3 is v~ c' % c ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ v ~ 0 3 ~ °~ ~ ~ cca v •~ c~~~~ ~~ 3 m i~ ~.c~n w o _ L _ Z o ~ E~ c~~ O E g o ,, v> >~ Q ~~ ~ cc a in ° ~ ~ ~ °' ~ ' ~ c c c ~? Z p~:~,rn y=6 is~v ~ c~.o ~~ ~~ v a Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i O >. Y O ~ ~ ~ ~ O U W ~ V y N tLS ~~ y O j L O~ (/~ J (/~ Z ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ a a~ ~ 2 v°i ~ a a ma cn~a3Z L L L L L B L Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 m U fB U O C ;~ is p C L a O ~=•'"' dcn~~ c 0 .~ m c c Ta ~ w. o .~ o w c . o ~ a> c ~ a ~.- w- a°.i'n~~ c ~ O ~ O 'x " 'a V O v O ~ ~ O E g ~' °' ~ ~' U U L C 'p ~ .Q Y ~ y ~ p ~ ~ 3 N in L ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ o aCi ~ .5 ~ o N ~ o a N U C ~ U ~ fL3 p' Q ~` N C ~~ ..~ y O C U j ~ ~ ~ X ~ ~ (a !A c p s o ~ '_ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ?~ W N ~ a ~, ~ ;? o j j ~ o o E c c~ a~ ~ a~ ~ a> a~ ~ ~ o o a i c Q o > ~ _ Y .0 .p p U ~ ~ Q ~tA ~ ~ ^ L L ~ N (n in ~ 0 E ~ -a `~ c o 0 ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ oo`~ vi C ~ h U c Rs °~ ~ N a ~ o = ~ ~ p N T = .~ ~ > Q 'C 3 ~ C > p L L ,Rf w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O (C m In ~ ~ ..; O O ~ p ~ ,~ U N ~ ~ r t0 N U (A ~ c ~ ~ ~ c~ `~ ~ ~ cC ;v O a y i~ ~ c o... ~ ~ ~ p cts . C i ~ U h ~ ~ „ H ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ U O V N N G~ N ~ C ~ E 'C +.. '~- i ~4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h ~ . ~ =a _ _ o , _ ~ o ~ 0 3 ~ c y ~ ~ ~ O w O ~ .. Q C ~ ~ y Q ~ ~ O RS W .. ~ ~ ~ ~ y ._~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ I; ~ ~ -. c a? t = c . Q ~ U +. o q ~ a Z o ~ L L L ~ L a W U_ w U m J c cts v .Q ~ n~ Q ~ >. ~ U Cn o ~ iii c6 O O ~ ~ ~ .~ C ~ ~ C .~ ~ c ~ t4 N ~> Q ~ Q ~ ~, o y Q ~~ >~~ c y d i +. '~ ~ ~ C V ~ U C 4 p p L :_ N Q = O w QLp. ~ U cB ~ °' E o ca a~ ~ Q C ~ ~ (n ~ Q > Q ~ ~ p O ~ ~ Q fl. ~cn a~ c~a v n~ ~ ~ ~ .Q .o ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ p U _ p O •~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ C O ~ O ~ ~ Q ~ (4 ~ ~ ~ a :o m m d ~ p ~ o ~ d ~ 3 N 4~ c c ~ ~ y 3 N ti 0 0 U N C L L L L Final SEIR Errata II. Summary Page 30 a E p (~ U O C ~ N .~ ~ U U r U Q . Q 'c N 'c `~ (n .°_i (A Z u u n u fnJ(nZ Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 m U C ~ U C :~ N C L ~ Cn > C O .~ a~ C m U C C <C ~ ... O C.=ORf N C L Q aoin~~ U U C ~ i ~~ ~ O Q.~ ,~ °O ~ is 3'~_ a°i 3 `o a~ U O ~~ ~ ~ c ~ o rn N w •~ tq ca ~ ~' V3o ~•w~ ~-vaccceaQi~UCa~ vo .~E•3'~cv~ L ~ D ~ L U U ~ ~ Ctl 1 L U C N O ... ~ ca -p ~ ~ c>Y U O U O to i~ ~ O G> O Q- O U N O >, .C y cUC N -p C O 'C p~ 0 0 U y y~ C ~ fC > C !Z +-- U O c ~ ~~ ~ ~ n. Ta ~ c v ~ °' y o c U ~" v ~ .a ~ is L cts vi c ca o o a~ m o c~ p ~' w~ >, ~' n~ ~ '~ c o~~ ~ c a> °~ v~ -a :a ~ c ~ s w vi o p c>s ~ as a~ ~ ;c L ~ E a? o cv ~ ca a~ U c •~ „` ~ E O E L y L O LO -d N O L~ O~ U~ ~- to ~ C ~ L N to N C Q. O O O L w O N c ~ ~ to w °O ~ ~ U a~ O 3 U ~ ~ ~ ~ m '~ O N ~ ~ N C •y C -d d ~ N O U V U O Q D ~ O N U C C O rn 'd O~ .~ ~ ~ C C ~ ~ .' ~ U _ ~ v o :~ ~ o `cp ~? ~ N U 'C a->i ~ a' Q- ai aoi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q. ~ o v ai a ~ aci vii tL- ~ ti m ~ aoi ~ o ~ L L L ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ L ~ L Final SEIR Errata II. Summary Page 31 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ C O ~ i ~ .d O O O 'a 3 O ~ fC i O Q. fL3 ~ ~ E c o (II U cu L c>s ~~ c~ Oom `Q ~ `~ ~~o a~ ~~ o ~ o = ca ~ E g Q o c ~ ~ ~ °o •~ ~ ~ cv ~ o ~ c - o a~ t~ c o ;v .r= ca o U E c o~ o 0 sin >. o c U cc U Q o •° Q~ c~ ~ o a~ ~ ~ .O o ~ cc wa~•E~`~ ~~'m O ~ a~ O N U ioa~c~.p ~'a U ~ ~ oou, ' Q- E ;a >. U CA p tLS .C to ' - ~- N N ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ c 0 U ~ w C i ~ O Ep y O N U ~ ~ T y h~ N ~ N N ~ U w O cV .Q ~ C > ~ O i? ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ lC (/~ ~ ~ «- O w. f0 O ~ L ,- O r «. O ~ ~ _ U y p ~ U U (C .., 4 +- U RS aj C cC fC ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rn U ~~ ~ ~ ~ U C U •O E O cL5 ~ O ~ Q crs ~ U RS U j ~ w O . ~ 'p ~ C ~~ c c °' w g '~ U i ° U O ~ 3 `~ C Q N U °' ~s O a° ~ ~~ o o C O ' ~ ~ °- • o n v E ~ ~ rn E c w o • i ~ ° L ~ . c , o ~ , ~ m o ° ~ ca vi ~ ~ ° *- o a i a c c c c3 - S to ~ . •- O C = = coca >,~ iA f 5 N E~E C E'~ .:C .p ~~ ~ O 'd O t4 ~ wcL~.o~~a~ O ~vo al .~ moo:.. C to C v~~~p - - cC C in ~ ~ O a`~ O C) (n t~ i~ O C iu ~ Q..,,, +.. Qyj (n J (A Z II II II II v I V i Cn Cn (n d O L L ~ L L i F- ~ ~ L i U O ~ i ~ ~ i~ f- ~ ~ E s? ~ L L L i i ~ ~ ~ L i i Z ~ ~ i L L (n J !n Z Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 a~ U C ~ U C O C ~ d (n > C O .~ ~ ~ ~: c ai ~ J ~ U C 'i U N Q, N D Q c3 O N L 'C U U m to N ~ m C U j _ ~ ~ C ~ fSi C Y Ctti O ~ ~ O O U ~ O O ~ "' '~ c o 0 U Q L ~ ~ _ f~ ~ C .O .~ ~ ~ Y C ~ t~ C w ~ U (~ ~ ca ... ~, N o ~ v~ c ~ O c0 C d ~ w d O ~ :_- ~ E w c O > ca ~ ~ vi C ~n as E ~ 0 ~ N i= 0 O Q j ~ ~ O O ~ C C ~ ~ O .C U O Q C R w 'p ~ ~ aUi cC ~ ~ ~ N ~ •~ ~ CO j- w N ~C !" ~G ~ ~ ~ ~ o.~ an.E N ~ L L ~ L ~ L L ~ ~ L _ C c cu c6 0 c= a~cis a> ct_•- a,._ -- dcA~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ C N .~ (/~ m ~ = O +~ O ~ E C ~ 'C W .p ~~ U O C N O f6 ~ C O to > - ~ y ~ C Zy N y O~~ C ~ ~ m f~ w ~ O ~ (n ~ y w 0 0 ~.~ LL L ~ 7 C U ~ V ~ (n C C 7 N - N p '~ = cC O ~ y~ !n O L~ ~ i? 'O L~ C O cLf ~ w~~~ N~ C~ ~ C O ~L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O C L ~~ p) C C ~ - U N m U O O O U~ O O C ~ U ~' ~ Q mw n.c~~iawU c~ ca ~ ~, c `" ~ N ~ o c o '~ ~ c~a w ~ CI U ~ Y (/) O __ N rte`. ~ O i cC C~ 'i ~ ~ ~ O 'a U 'C O O~~ y 3 N~~ N O m Q ~~ aUi ;fl U w U~ w N E O~ O p '~ U~ C~ 0 0 C cs -o ~ ~ ~ cv Y c ~ 3 I; ;v ~ ~ m C ~ (0 ~ (C O U C ~ O E U O ~ C .- ~, ~ y~= O -p y~~ 1= C Q C w O 4 Q '~ = L O U a co Q O = N ; ~ CO !A ~ O ~ -~ ~ ~ E 4 is U~ Q p U L N 0 0 `~ vi .7 ~ O~ N 3 O O '~ cC j°'E~~~ ~~~Eaai E ~ ai~COiacA vOiOC p 0 t ~ ~ U U U O ~ U~ C~ L (/) (A CUC 'D Q O .~ y_ ° .n ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ uQi' ~ N iv ~ 0 N i 'd O~~~ U j~~ a> N O O m O ro i y~ = C~ 0 a V N~~ Q m C C C Op ~ C ~ ~ ~ O O to cC ~ ~ ~ O >. ~ `. C O C ,a aci v °o c iv E ~ ~ Q ~_' Q V~~ 'a U 0 0> (q O C~~ y_ m p ~~ 3 N~ i !~ ~~ Vi 0 O C 3~ 0~~ co E E C .C O T,_ ~ ~ p O N °o N c o Q- ~~ ~~ t ~ ~ a~ U ~~ i J C ,_, O N tOi> O ~ N >, cC6 ~ O 'O O C ~- ~ ~ C +.. (C cC ~~ C ' 0 Q Q ~ ~ 'a ~ O ~ ~ Q ~ U '- O N m 4 C O U~ O~ 'N 'p O C U ~~~cn~3~~ma~Ern~ Final SEIR Errata II. Summary Page 32 Q _O C ~ v _ O C ~ O .~ ~ ~ C C C U v~vQ- ~ ~ ~_ ~ In J to Z u u u u !n~(AZ Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 a~ U C C cC U O C ;~ tC O C.C a ~•- • ~° in ~ ~ c 0 .~ rn O U _ C C f0 O .., O .C ~ O .~ O C L_ a ~°~n~~ _o a~ a ~ o a~ ~ c ~' m m ~ ,L... O U t? 'C ~ ~ ~ .~ cC 'O ~ C ~ .` N .,, c~ N Q O '>7 ~ O L ~„ U ,~ O ~ ~_ ~ in ~ ~ i~ O Q y N L C ~ ~ O Final SEIR Errata II. Summary Page 33 +~ C .C ~ °~ p ... vi ° ~ O 0 0 0 o a~ ~ c °o ~ '~ Cfl C r +- ~ r fB 'p ~ fC ~ C ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ cv ~ ~ ` O .y p O ~ Q ~ O '~ O ,~ EA ,~ O C p~ 4i .U _ ~ U U ~ vi O O cC o .O N~ m~~ c C U ~ C ~ +~.. O y C) a C O (n L~ i a> a~ ~ in C ~ ~' ~ O ` „" ' ,G O ~ ~ ~ C Rf O cB O w U ~ 'a ~ j O ~ ai vi ~ ~ ~ N t ~ 'd O Q O O GOi a`> m O E ~ 3 cu c ~ ~ °~ , ~ ~ ~ C C ~ ~ ~ ,o w ' ~' ~ ~ ° o -a E ~ Q m i O ~ O C ~ Q~ ~ C - C O p tq m ~~ U C ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ c E ~ ~ RS ~ Q U ~ ~ N ~ 'd ~ L m ~ U O co o O a O ~ ctl~~ ~ C i ~-- U>, E E ' ~ '~> •~ C 7 N N ~ C m O cv ~ O~ j U ~ C p O~ U ~ ~ 'O m ~ O a ~ O i~ ~ w ~ L ~ ~ O Q ~ U O U '~ h U ~ N ~ c0 ~ U ~ N L Y +~ O tC C C C U _ c Rs ~ c ~ m 3 L o°' o- ~ ~ca~ cu ~E E o 3 ~~ o~Y ~~~,~ca 3 O ~ ~ ~' ~ °' ~ E . ~ ° '- ~ ~ o o E E ~ ~ ~ ~ Y °~ m °~ c C O ~ cC C '~- > .a ~ 'd 0 O ~- ~ O ~ ~ O ~ ~ •X •X O U C ~ J (/~ Z ~ U p w O 0 N U D U D CJ 'i ~ a O h= N 3 O _~_ ~O Oi fl. to Q Q II II II II Cn O. Y L L. i C O~ f/1 d ._ (/~ O. ~ ._ L~ ti.. L~ ~~ Z ~ ~ ` ~ L~ L~ L L. a~ cn 7 ;0 N Q ~ RS cLS ~ "p in to 1] ti. i i L.. i L L L L !n ~ Q (/~ J (/~ Z - Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 a~ U C ~ CO ~., U C :~_ O C L ~ ~ C O .~ >~ ~f O U _ C ~ U ... _ O O•C L ~ Cn > rn O _d U O d O 0 U a O cQ C t~ O in m a~ N CO U N m in O ~ L Q U O ~ O ~ C ~ C o m a ~ a~ .. ~, ~ ~ ~ m •- m a~ a~ c c a ~ .` .. U O O ~ r L "" U Q ~ V 0 0 0~ 0 N to O h O V SZ U ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ O > > O ~ L C C !Z ~ .~ ~ O ~ E m ~ m C E cNC Q O V N T O O C~ p L E c°C ~ ~ ~ ~ O L L ~ L J .... C c~ U .Q Q Q t Y O O C "' ~ ~ O p C O ~' aci o ~ ° 0 3 .~ Q ,r Q C O O O C ~ Q ~- N co O ~ N 3 M Q ~ •U V to C (/) O d cts O O O a ~ ~ O ~ _ U L U C N p U ~_ ~ ,O) ~E cC C :.. O O C ~ O '~ fUII i Q. L ,> ~ Q O N O 0 0 0 _ ~ U ~ ~ y ~ U ti. O Y N G~ O O ` C N .V O ~ 3 ~ ~ c 3 Q U O~~ C w~ co 3 Q ~ E o (n rn '" E cVp a~ O a~ Q, ~ w L L C ~ •~ p> Q O +~ C fC r O O 3 ~ ~ chi °' ° •~ ~ c E ~ ~ ~ ~ p Q ° ° v ca 3 O O ~ ~ Q O U C O LL Rf O E ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ N O O H N i N C ~ L ~. ~ (n to O ~ O N cCC O L w >. ~ N 3 ~ = v~ c ~ a? M o ~ 3~ o .C ~ N O ~ ~ O OC i' c°~•c3'a' cC C N O w: aL~i 4 ~ .E E ~ O O Q ~ O ~ ~ _U .~ G .~ ~ ~ a~ ~ •~ ie O C ~ fl. O O ~ U ~ ~ a~~ o ~ ~ N ~ y N ~ a W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ :~` .O = O U `n I; U ~ ~ ~ Q ,O O Z Q Q L i i L Cn J C c~ U .Q Q Q C O L N Q O ~~ B- ~ ~. ~ U 'V O U ~ O O O O Q f6 ~ ,c~C ~ !?. N O ~ ~ ~ cC v a N ~ ~ ~ C ~ Q U O y ~~,UE ~ !~ ~ N G ~ U ;? d O ~ Q c Q4 v ai 3 Q ~ O 3 •C Cn Q. O O ~ C N O = y V c3 d ~ ~ °- ~•~~~ 4-a m m 3 ° ~ ~ C w E t°C - ~' w in C O (n td O ~ ~ ~ w O iiU~•~ .0.. 1 C w y N y O a ~' cn Final SEIR Errata II. Summary Page 34 a a~ Q C cC U w O C <C O ~ ~ .. fl ~ c>3 C C ~ _V U r U f1 . a a,~•~_:~ fn ~ !A Z II II II II (AJ(4Z Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 m U C C ~ o .C w its a~ c s .a ~- liin~~ c 0 .~ O U _ C cC U ,-.. . ~ C O O C ~ d ~~ c c~ U .Q fl. Q ~ O ... O C p O ... N L` ~ C ?~ 'p C O N ~ ~ O C ca Q ~ ~. +_. O f~ d N O U "" E 'O Q. > Q V 1? vi Y ~ ~ i? ~ IZ ~ o iZ O C C U ~ :•~ ~ . ~ C ~ O ~ ~ ~ iv ~ ~ >. ~ O ~ U ~ (C O ~ O (UII w Gai C ` O ~ ~ in ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ a~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L W U r.. > C O ca V~~ ' L ~ - to U .~ t O L ~ O~~ c~ a~ N o a ;v ~, a~ E ~ ~ 'vow- o cc 'a ~ c ~ c ~ ~ 0 ~. ~ t.o ° -.w a~~ ~, ~, o ~ Q. ~, v, ~ E c c N w o o c E o ~ ~ ~ o C «- fC 3 a ~ ~ C C 0 O ~' >. O O V . a3 o U ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ a_ i a i E E c v ~ ~ O ~ U O .C ~_ +0.. Q -O ~ O O '' Q. O C ~ N ~ ~ 3 cn C? O O C ~ > > ~n j C U ~ CB 'd ~ ~ E Z Q Q~ L L L i y N E~ Q~ d E 'Od 'fl w~ O U C ~ c (6 Q cC U7 Final SEIR Errata II. Summary Page 35 T v~ ~ E >, o -~ vi ~ ~ ~ w ~ co Q 3 ~ 3 ~ O to ` N ~ Q ~ ~ C to N - O `- ° U 3 Q~ v Q ~ , m E v o v co c ~ N ~ o o° ~ `~ ~ $ i c a E ° 3 ~ a 4 - A' ~ ~' ° c a ~ ~ . a . ~, ~ ~ t E o ~ >. ~ 'o ~ > ~ ~ ~ ~ a c ca Q~ . ~~ O nS a i O L O CIS C U Q .~ ~ a> ~~ U Q O C> > «.. E iC N U O O (Q ;~ ~~ C !Z v) Y w ~ B i O «. Q1 U Q~ fC U C C ~ C o ° .~ w ,N O O 'p O ~ o _ > E E ~ ~ ~ . cC cC cC v ~ ~ °a N CC c to a d ;? C .-. O N c0 . C y r '~ ~ ~ ~ p C U ~ ~ '~ Q O> (n J (n Z N y . .. .. U 4'~ ~= O ~ C ~ ~ II II II II Q ~ a ~i a ~C ~ a °i ~3 ~ ~' c m ~' cn ~ Q ` ` !nJ(AZ Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 a~ U C C c>s V O .G ~ .~ ~ O C t J O .~ ._ ~~~~ Final SEIR Errata Ii. Summary Page 36 o .~ c c ~ O U . ~ ~ Q o~ a a~ ~ ~ ~ c c E c c ~ O L ~ ~ RS ~ ~ d ~ C t0 - ~ i ~ ~ O •i C ~ a a~ ~ s~ E ~ N ~ ~ ~ w ~ j U C C O W 'U N ` ~ ~ _~ a~ ~ O ~ N ~ '~ C N ~ s? ~ u0i ca 'r7 E C ~ ' _ c C O ~ U y to 'd . vi a~ >3 ~ C ~ ~ y cn ~ p ~ iv •p c•Cn C c ~ c - ~ m C O ~ d itS ~ O ~ a' L C ~ N ~ a' ~ C O ~ ~ > > 'd ~. ~ '~ c'6 ~ ~ °' cOn tow `L° :c ~ +~ ~~ c U~ 1i U 0 C E m v ~ ~ c U N V y 'c'Y v.. SZ cC p c 'p a 'p N N !Z p ~ O O p U ~ U RS $ O~ Q- ~ fCC « 0 0 0 0 L (A v F- y i O ~ Q L Q. ~ -_ N y~ L ... L N N C U ~ N N ~ C~ N p L= ~ 3 0 C~ to O ~~> L N C ~ '~ ~' ~ .o ~ ~ ~ ~ ° rn ~3 Q ~ ° °' o ~ c~ ~ w ~ ~ ° cc c c ° ~ c~ °~ E fl. •N ~ a ~ ~ ~ ° E E a~ c ~ o c o ~ c a~ " ~ ~s 3 0 d cv a' ~ f c c E - E -o ~ o ~ ,~ o c ~ a> ~ •~ c •~ vi ~ o ~ w • N a0i ° ~ m -d O ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 0 ~, ca >~ E L U c U ~ iv 'in c c ~ ~ ~ ~ c a 'v c a uQi- ~ ~ cn ~ Q ~ ~ ~ `o Q c > cc o v sz v •3 U L L i~ L L c C c13 ci3 ... O N ~ C L 0~-= (n d ~ ~ ~ ~„ ~ -C N J W ~ - C 'O ~ V '~ ~ O ~ cn ~ '0 N ~ (A Z ~ L ti ~ C O _ vOi ~ Q J '0 O ~~ O tf> ~.. m O F w d ~ C ~ -d U O w ~ ~ ~ Q +~ C w O~ •~ ~ i to w ' ~ ; O U C O C c p ' E ~ a, ~ ~ cn m o ~ ~ ~ ~ o c c '' ~ v, ~ a .c m m ~ tC 7 C (Oj `y,. ~ Z ~ f0 C i t~ f4 O ~ O N ~ O Y ~ ~ ~ Q>, U in ~ w a~ >. ~' 3 ~' ~ ~ m ~ J~ a~ w x w o ~ a~ m~>~ C c= °~ a> y ~ w 3 v ~ ~ m ~ ~ c m ~ .o ~ ~ ? ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ a? ~ ~ > U ° ~ E ~ ~ ° ~ ° N ° ~ E c~ Y o m o -a a ~ m~~ >• a' Q~~ o~ 3 c o ~ c c c _~ O O ~ C m ~ ~ O E ~ a~ ... ° •~ 3 a> m C in cn - c c ~ ~ ~ -a U w U ~ °- N .~ o ~ cn ~ o ~ ~ 0 w • ° m n~ ~ w ~ ° o -a ° a •o O m a~ ~ a? m ~ ~ a~ a ~ ;~ c cn -~ ~ U W x x c° =' > E a> ° ~ c c~ m U w O~ U N O S ` c ~ E E c ~ m ~ m ~ a °~ m •°~ o (n J (n Z ~ ~ ? 0 0= c C C ~ U C N ~ ~ +~ o O ' .0 ~ O O ~ a~ O N ~ O y i s ~ II II II II E p ~ O ~ c O o c ~ X ~ ~c L ~ ° j ° O is X a>i a>i Q -c° ." > cca cn ~ Q - 2 i c a~ ~ 2 v ~' ~ 3 ~ Q a~ 3 ~ ~ w a~ -o -a E' ~ ~ ~ ° to J cn z Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 a~ U C ~ U C :~ N C L W ~~ C° O .~ ~I m v c ~ U .-.. C O O C L a. U3 ~ ~ ~ J J C C co cC U . U . Q Q Q Q ¢ ¢ w ~ ~.~~~ ~ ~ n ~~ c ~ •N ~ ~ ~ •~ o c ~ ~ ~ ' ~ f~ O (V OO = 0 0 Rf y ~ ~ ~ a m c ~ '~ c L ~ N ~ p -~ O ~ n -- O ~ ~ o~ p m o o O ° ~ F >. vi m e a~ °' ' ' V ~ ~ ~ -p c C O ~ c ~ ~ N is •o .a ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ •y ~ ? ~ 0 0 w ~ Q. ~ a~ c ~ c o a _ ~ ; ~ .L' U ~ U cV L ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O v N t E ~ N U3 ~ 3 i ' ~? O ~ Q E CL c o , ~_ v i p ~ . U ~ O W ?~ d._~ .~ ;~ Z~ O~ t ~ C ? p C O i N pQ t~ CD - l() ~ Q O d C L 1= ~ i m O fLS Q O I_ i 0 ~-' O C ~ ~ ` Q i ,~„ O tUn C O O ( C L!') O C w a o o :~ (A a ~ ~ d' a>i y O c ~ ~ w U ;v C c~ v to ~ _ _d E~ C N X > C ~ .- _ ~ ~ O V Q C C N 4 ~ ~ v o ~ = `~° ~ ~ ~ c ~ 4 7 ° ~ C a~i ,o y ;?' 2 ccv a Q ~3 a ~ °c 'co aci ~ ~ -a'a v v ~ vOi ~ ~ Final SEIR Errata II. Summary Page 37 p ~ O ~ N O L • ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ o o - ~ 3 a c 0 ~ = J 3 0 3 4 p C ~ N ;z' a~ > L O !n .-.. N ~ ~ m ~ p O Y C C ~ L N ~ C ~ C- ~ ~ y ~ ~ „ .~ ~ ~ d (B 3 ~ U C ~ ~ c ~ U ~ ~ ~ C ~ I; E ' ~ ~ N ~ O c O c C~ c3 O ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ E N a i ~ ~ 3 N ~ as 4 °-' ~ ~ co - Z t a~ U -a ~ °' = c0 ~ V > '> N L ~ N O ~ O C ~? O '~ > o ~ 0 4 3 3~ c~ C ~ v~~~ .°' c u' C g ( X W ~ ~ 'i' ~ v ~ L p ca '~ O N O _ ~ ~ c N co ~ •'~' ~ ca C C C ~? 3 • ~C v> > C O ~ m Z W C N a~ ~ cC cC cC o ~ ~ o ~ y ~ 't C ~ ~ ~ ~ v n > Z ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ O~ U~ N Q1 N C O C - O w O p O ~ C ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (3 O ~ (/1 J ~ Z W C ~ Q, ~ C 00 d ~ C W ~ cQ ~ '~ II II II II Z O i ~ i O~ O ~ ' N ~ Q O N O U O ¢ (~ C O t 4 L L L U M v i ~ C~ i. (/~ J rA Z Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 a~ v _ c ~ U C :~ O C L ~Cn> C O to CC O -~ m U C c c~ ~ ..., O .C ~ Op .~ a> cL a ~=~ liin~~ ~ ~ J (n Final SEIR Errata II. Summary Page 38 c C t~ O U U Q- •a. Q Q c o ~ Nco .°- m .E ~, ~ y o ~ m ~ o ° ai O 7 to L c O V '_ ~> N N c 'd ~ Q ~~ w~ cC ~ p ~ N +-~ (/~ "d N ~ O ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ 'd Fv C > ~ ~ cn w O ~ ~ U? C~ ~ C O N ~ to ~~ p C _ a~ ~ .~ _ iu '~ ~ ~ o o E ~ N ~ : Q ~ °i o .o ~ Q '~ ~ ° v ~ ~ ~ ca E o ~ co a ~ ° Q ° CC v ~ i' w Q ccv ~ ,c Q ~~ ~ ~ ~ cca ~ t~ N '~ C A N R E N O C~~ O ~ C ~~ >. ~~ ,~ O ~ O L N Q V C O~ ~ ~ f6 ~ ~ ~ _N O O i Q Y O C O Y +~„ U '~ .V O C ~ '- ~ C O c«C c} N = O y~ a_~ V ~ E G> O C RS U U- C y C D~ U C- ~ d V ~ N O C0 > V ~ ~ a> Q iZ t~ iZ t~ C w C O ~ C ~1 O E N O (n ~ cB ~ .U 4 ti '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m Q ~ '~ ~ ~ vi a ~ Q ~ a~ ~ c ° a c v 'o ~ c 6 ~ ~ a~ o ¢ co w L ~ ~ L -a N ~ ~: c ~ - O ~ fSf C O O T p C O O~ O p N-~ 0 d -p -p ~ U O ~ C ~ O ~ ~ ~ C N ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ fl- ~ O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ O -p L ~ tNC ~ ~ ~ .o~w~E~UEE~~.E Q~oo~--°~,a~mp ~ y ~- c a[ N °_' v w ~ aNi ~ ~ a~i ~ o U vi Q L o o Y~ a io O :_ `. m ~ ~ .~ a> a ~ a~ ~ ~ - ~ ~= E vi ~ m E L ~ ° ~ Q o ~ ~ a`~ ~ o t ~ Q- ~ `4 ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ i° c ~ m ~ '~ c ~ ~ ~ •~ a`> vi ~ .,•~°- ~ ~ c° ~ ~ as c4 ~ ~ 3 a°i 3 ~ aNO ~ c ~ ~ •N ° ~ Q E ~ ° «' ~ " ?, c ~ w c' ~ c Q Q o Z o ~ .- ~ c o Q. ccc '~ N ~~ ca ~ ° d c.~ ca • ~ o rn ~ Q ~ c o ' ~, ~ ~ ~, is o 4 ~ 4 i _~ .y as .~ ~ T ~ w •y c v> nci o ~ ~ ~ •v 3 c~ cn J to Z ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ C d _~ U U ~ 'C ~ ~ ~ U O .- .d •C ~ ~ N ~ II II II II ~ tq O tv m a~ ~ c o rn ~ m O' ~ ~ ° ~ E c c ° ° lA ~ Q Q (n ~•• U Q L ~ ~ E Q •<A >? .N .~.. ~ ~ ~ 'C ~ ~ •tn 'tA (CS (C O CJ !/~ J fn Z L L ` Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 a~ U C ~ U C N C L ~ ~ C O .~ ~I O U - C fC U ."' .C O O C L 0_~> ~ to N 'p CO ~ N ° ~' o a N ~ c ~ ~ o ~ ° .° ° O o ~ c~ ~ cn U U O c4 L O -a v c G) tC ~ v> O ~ ~ N ~ > ~ c O x m iv c~ O ~- c ' c a> Q O -a °' ~ ~ O ~ ~ cn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - c Q ' C ~ ~ a> ~ p .0 v~ p ~ N . p N L C O Q N T c C Q.. "- L~ Q~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 -n c N ~ a i ca ~ n ~ ~ ~ 'c w . o ~ ~~ O . y o C ~ ~ ~ O • E ~ >> N .o a a> a p " o cc ° o " Q" p C N ~ O V O ~ ~ ~ to ~ O p r d ~ ~ O U p p _ ~+ ~ ~ ~ ~ O to ~ y Q O U O O a i ~ cC O O y O ~ ~ «s N ~ ~ ~ ~ Vi vOi O ~ O V ~ ~ Q N ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ N C a ~ O U CO 0 cts ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~, ~; .a p ~ ° C m = co U ~ o o ° 3 p c ~, ~ ~ O ~ y ~' o ~o„ O ~ O cC ~ v~ ~~~~ Q v o ~ O o ~ N cC o 3 .E can ~ co E ~ ~ ~ Q. ~ ~ ~ o ~ O ;- ~ m Q ~ ^ ^ ^ O w, ~ Q Q fl ~ ~ C Q Rf Q 0= '~ ~ O ~ . i i . L i (~ T ~ fC O ~ N i ~ ~ ~fLS Q O q1 U C ° O ~ ~ Q ~ L C O ° 00 3 ° m a o ~, ~ o ~ ~ ~ .--~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ v ~ ... O v _~ ~ ~ 'c ° ~ L ~ c •~ ~ F- y Final SEIR Errata 11. Summary Page 39 II. _~^ Y C U 'a w o c ca m .~ ~ U_ U ~ U Q' Q .C N .~ ~ !n J cA Z u u n u (~~Q (n J to Z Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 a~ U c c ~ U O .~ ~ .~ ~ N C t_ ,- J ~ •- liin~~ c 0 .~ O1 c c~ U .Q Q Q O n L w N~ 'a V O T C ~ O Q m ~ ~ aci c a~i c O ccc c O. ~ ~ ~ 'moo r~ c ° ~ E m X •~ w _° m e o° Y~ ai O cSS ~ h U ~ ~ O (~ ~ ~ N ~ N ~ w to O >. L ~ -0 U p c6 O T C ~ ;' C f0 ~ C ~ > p O U ~ ~ ~ -Q O 'p Q U U O~ y p N O U~~~ N 0 ~ O~ ~ ~ 7 E to O ~ ~ ~ L •~ ~ (OC O- N !n ~ cSf N ~ ~ > > O i ` 2 O U ~ .~ O C O O O O~ 7 Q ,.. ~ ~ U _U ~ "' ~ ~ O ~ i ~ ~ ~ cB Q C N cUC ~ O r.. O ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ O ~ O~ O O C p •iT ~ ~ O C cv B E N ;_ a~~ i i c` 'a a N o. a a -°° w U Q' 0 0 0 0° E 4 O rn .~ ~ a> ~ cOa v m O ~ °' '~ ~ ° :a > ~ ° ~ ~ ~ y vOi a '> ns ~ v c`c ~ ~ Z ;v cD ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ U c~ ~ w. O U ] ;- COcC O C L_ a liv~~~ J c c~ U .Q Q Q N >= Q O Q N ~ U a> c CC a°i Q w a~ °_ w a c~ cc N v ~ N U T ~ ~ O r U O to V 0~ ~ c4 i U O O L Q N Q L V '~ ~ ~ O U U O O (C U~ Q~~ C C O L ~ +- ~ O Q, O C~ O Q •~ O E O O ~ C~ a. '' Q U ~ c~ cp ~ `~ ° Q- C E Q ~ ~ fNC t4 ~ cC ~ C d U - ~ 'p Q ~... O d o i° Q~ o o rn 4ia ° ° N•~`*•E 4~~ c=.~cv 3 :_~ cts ca ca w. N E ~ n~ E ~ Final SEIR Errata 11. Summary Page 40 o ~ _ ~ N C ~ U~ ~ U C O y - ~~ Q >. O ;~ V ~ i j 3 ~ ~ ~ C V Q ~ ~ O '~ tC i U v°i v c o Q vi ~ o ~' E o `~ ... v~ s avi ~ a> v a, Q o~ L ~, ~, 3~ ~ ° •~, •o 0 ~ ° o ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E ° o E ~ cQ v c ~ ca ~ ccu ~ U • n ~ ° ~ a~ ;a a w ~ r ~ ~ L c °~ a~ ~ • c . .... .. o ~ ~ . L ~ U (~ d H ~~ 'O (n ~ C 00 E L y~ U COj ~ U L ~ . ~ • ~ ' • ~ ... c 'a ~ ~ ~» ca c cq g> ~ 3 y ~ o ° - ~ ~ ~ co c c c ~ Qy'•~ ~~~ ~ 0 a> v i q ~ o • o ~ ~ a 4 c c ~ ,~ N.a o c ~, ~ ~ ~ « a Q ca o ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ m ~ a ~ ~ ~ cc J N U ~ ~ = N ~ - ~ ~ Q ~ ~ U •Q ~ Q w ~ II II II II ~ U p~ L (C y ~ o ~ Q d ~ F-- E w ~~ Q ;.. N Q. O E r U O (n ~ Q O U :.~ ~ U cn in L L i L O O Z ~ i ~ (n J fn Z Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 a~ U _ C ~ U C :~ O C L d ~ > C O .~ O G) ~ ~ :a --o o,c~c~E~ a~E C~~ C ~ '0 O C L w~ O N ~ .Q !7. to ~ L 'd Q~ E ~' c~ ~ "' E o tea ~ ~' o c c ca ca 'Q = o ~ Q- .a 3 ~ ~ ~ 3 ccc c,QV v ~ t~v aoi v) ~_ w ~ v o_C ~ ~ w ~ ~ -p v ~ .c O ~ ~ to N O c6 Z~ ~ ~ V O ~ N U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O Q C - (~ .C ~ .~.. Q O U~ to Q Q' i V Q~` C y L C i~ E to fC U ~~ C O~ r h O~~ O= ~+'C ~ U Q o c to o 0 o c a~i ;~. ~ o C y C~ 0~ ~' U N ~' ;v O L O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p Q Q ~ ~ ~ co in a, ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ sZ •~ ~ •E to i ton U E -p '~ a '~ ~ 3 m U C C tC c0 .... O .C w =O .~ O C ~ O O ~=•'" o_cn~~ J C t~ U .Q Q Q ~ O a~ •~, = to C ~ 0 3 o m t -a t~ O s3. ~ O0_ O •c ~ ~O sZ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ tS3 O Q •i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `. .~ o ." a~ ~ o ~. ~ ~ p N T +- ~ O O. i Q. !? ~ C CJ a~ ' ~ ;? ~ L V c ~ O- .~ ~ O C ~ .,,, ~ Q O ~ ~ ~ O ~ 3 E L N ~ ~ c Q a~i C Q O7 'C ~ to (~ C ~ ~ O C O j •~ Cn ~ ~ ~ O ~ f~ C R~ O L~~ w O O~ N C i C C ca 0 i ._ ~ C~ O r ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ w O ~ CJ '~ ~ ~ O~ ~~ > d C tts ~ ~ N 't ~ O C~ O ~ .Q p . ~ c 4E ~~ ~a~ 4 ~ ~ ~ t~ n~~ aQs to ~ tv to U 0 0 U fl. ~ E .Q Q o ~ `. ~ vOi U ~ c`a ~ ~, v °? c`a Q ~ O 'v~ Final SEIR Errata II. Summary Page 41 c tv o ~ ~ Y~ M o m ~ c `~ ~ ~ RS O '- ~ ~ ~ N in .~ c N cC " ~ Y O V~ «y C ~ ~ t n C~ ;v ~ C ~ O N ~ i U y O ~ U C E ~ ~ - N ~ ~ O ~ °' N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ a~ ~ N c a~ r= .a o v_ i '' a C a~ °~ > ~ tv ~' ' ~ ~ ~ 0 `~ ~ ~' > ~ ~ a~i ~ z m 0 C O Q ~ N N O L E 0~? O .r ~ ~~ .o ~ o ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ w ~ o t° 3 0 :~ ~ :~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . O ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~ iJ W ~ N J (A Z V O ~ ~ U ~ ~_ Q ~ !Z ~ ~ 'd 3 ~ ~ N ~ II II II II '- > > Q m to -a L ~ L ~ L Q ~ U~ O to n 3 v ccc ~ ~ ~ O S o. ~ ,- sz U J~ Z Terrabay Project Final SEIR Errata City of South San Francisco II. Summary October 25, 1996 Page 42 a~ U - C C CtS V O C ;~ (C U CL_,_ J ~•- .~ ~° in ~ ~ _~ ~ U o _ c . c ~ (Q ° U ~ Q 'O ~ ~ i O ~ O M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ d C c C o a :p ~ ui c~ ~ L in (A p U N ~ Q~ L O a ~ ~ U U ~ U ~ U i U C ~ ~ 'C V ~ (C N w O C ~; ?~ V o o~ N~ c ,~ R ~ Z~ U ~ Q C p ~ Q~ U Q C p v=i ~ ;v .a ~ ._ ~ p ~ *~~' RS ~ U C ~ U E O ~- o ~ E_,g aa~ (ts _ Q O N~~ U ~ ~_. 3>~~ C Q w U ~ y d d c>s U~ O~ V L - C C L i i~ L i L cC~..,O C w p RS N C L ~ • - ~_' (n > ~ ~ > ~ -a 3 i y U ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ V O ~ OC ~ ._ ~ Q aa~ m'c o ~' Q U~ U v? V O~ V a U ~ N Q ~ Q ~ o o` V ~ m cv .N N E ~ c ~` p ~cC > p p 'mod w - • ~ !Z E ~ ~ ~, ~~ c v~ N c ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ -° o uf°i o .~ a~ a~ v v~ U p 2~ w~ v ~~ ~ c ca O i l V (A ~ C~ C~ a ~ U p N N R3 ~ C i y ~ U ~ •C ~ tC " ~ ~ ~ Q- m E C E °' C C ~ ° tv L >. •~ ~ ~ ~ 4 f~ V Q~ ~ «. O t ;Q U U (n ~ w U p O C C C V t4 fLS (4 O _ p l y ~ ~ = p~ U~ ~ N !Z a w cv vi Y ~ a ~ . w o w !Z .C N .C cB _ ~ F-- ~ ~ - ~ ~ ° o ~ v, U c .~ ~~ C d ° - c ° ca 3 0 Q to G1 fSf ~ 'p C C U cn~cnZ ~ `~ C G) Q' C C U Y ~ ~ ~ cC ~ II II II II a- L i. L. L. L L i i Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Errata III. Project Description Page 52 Table 2 TERRABAY SPECIFIC PLAN LAYOUT CHARACTERISTICS Number of Dwelling Units Acreage' Dwelling Units per Acre Residential Terrabay Village Townhomes 27.8 1812 6.5 Terrabay Park Single Family Detached 38.8 1362 3.5 Terrabay Woods Townhomes (west) 11.1 57 5.1 Townhomes (east) 21.1 143 6.8 Terrabay Commons Terraced Units (west) 9.3 58 6.2 Terraced Units (east) 7.0 71 10.1 Terrabay Point Condominium Units 11.4 99 8.7 Subtotal 126.5 745 5.9 Community Facilities Areas Child Care Center & Tot Lot 0.5 Recreation Center Complex 3.2 r Public Street 20.13 Linear Park 1.3 Linear Greenbelt 5.0 Subtotal 29.6 Commercial Office Condos & Health Club 11.3 Hotel 17.3 Tech Trade Center 15.2 Subtotal 43.8 Subtotal Developed Acreage 199.9 Open Space to Be Dedicated to the Habitat Conservation Area 132.1 TOTAL PROJECT SITE 332.0 r SOURCE: Terrabay Specific Plan Working Document, January 1984. r 'Acreages presented are from the 1984 Terrabay Specific Plan Working Document. Some acreages r were corrected in the subsequent Phase I Precise Plan (1989). Similar additional corrections in acreage may occur with future approval of precise plans for subsequent project phases. 2 The specific plan (1982) and development agreement (1988) allow up to 181 townhomes in Terrabay Village and 136 single-family detached homes in Terrabay Park. The subsequent Phase I Precise Plan approval (1989) allows up to 168 townhomes and 125 single-family detached homes. r 3 Includes rights-of-way for Hillside Boulevard Extension and South San Francisco Drive. WP5115481 FSE/ Rllll-R. 548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR Errata City of South San Francisco III. Project Description October 25, 1996 Page 59 The master and/or neighborhood homeowners associations would be responsible for all landscape maintenance, except for landscaping within the linear park, at Fire Station 5 and the Hillside Recreation Center, and within public roadway rights-of-way, which would be maintained by the city. i. Overall Grading Approach. The project grading concept would include stepped building pads up the swales, leaving the knolls intact or preserving their distinct land form as much as possible. Earth slopes would generally be graded at two horizontal to one vertical (2:1). Exceptions include the Sister Cities Boulevard cut near Terrabay Point and several other small areas where steeper slopes are proposed to preserve existing land forms. The plan states that these graded areas are located adjacent to private roads, driveways, and buffer areas where structures are not proposed. Slopes would be terraced and drainage ditches provided to control debris fall and surface drainage. Approximately 1,870,000 cubic yards of cut and 1,900,000 cubic yards of fill are proposed, requiring approximately 50,000 cubic yards of imported fill. Rough grading operations for Phase I and a portion of Phase II have been completed, including grading of Terrabay Village, Terrabay Park, and a portion of Terrabay Woods on the r west end of the project. The grading for Sister Cities Boulevard and rough grading of South San Francisco Drive were included in this completed grading phase. It is anticipated that the second phase of the rough grading operations would encompass the remainder of the residential and commercial development areas. Winterization and erosion control provisions are proposed to protect graded areas during the phased grading period. j. Drainage. Runoff from slopes above the project site, as well as from the project's on-site drainage system, is to be intercepted and transported in three separate storm drain trunk lines (one collecting runoff from residential portions of the project which has already been constructed; one from the offices and health club complex; and one from the hotel and trade center complex) and directed under US 101 to the existing drainage ditch which parallels the freeway, and on to the bay. k. Water. Water service is to be provided by California Water Service from the San Francisco Water District water main in Bayshore Boulevard at a point near the Sister Cities Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard intersection. Booster pumps will lift water fo the higher elevations of the project and to a new 1.5-million-gallon storage tank, which has been constructed at the 400-foot elevation near Terrabay Park. California Water Service will assume maintenance of the water tank and service mains. I. Sewer. Anew off-site parallel sewer interceptor has been constructed along a segment of Airport Boulevard between Sister Cities Boulevard and North Canal Street to carry project wastewater flows. On-site gravity sewer mains and interceptors have been constructed for WP5115481FSE/R1111-R.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR Errata City of South San Francisco III. Project Description October 25, 1996 Page 60 Phase I, and will be constructed for Phases II and III, connecting to the city sewer system in Airport Boulevard. 2. Phase I Development The currently proposed completion of Terrabay Phase I will consist of continued development to completion of the Terrabay Village and Terrabay Park neighborhoods at the western end of the site. a. Phase I Components Already Completed. Grading has been completed and most sewer, water, underground utilities, street lighting and storm drainage improvements have been installed for Phase I. Sister Cities Boulevard has been constructed and the segment of Hillside Boulevard fronting the site has been widened. South San Francisco Drive has been constructed to full city standards through Terrabay Park, and as an interim paved construction vehicle roadway for the remainder of its length. Fire station 5 has been constructed and is in operation. Playfield improvements have been installed at Hillside Elementary School. b. Proposed Lot Layouts and Home Design Characteristics. The precise plans approved for the Terrabay Village and Terrabay Park neighborhoods specify the following: (1) Terrabay Village. The approved Terrabay Village precise plan consists of 168 townhouse lots developed at densities of approximately 6.5 units per acre at the westernmost end of the project site adjacent to Hillside Elementary School. The lots would be laid out in hillside tiers along five branching cul-de-sacs. There are to be five townhouse building types with two, three or four units each ranging in individual floor area from 1,520 square feet to 1,964 square feet, in a mix of five floor plan types with two or three bedrooms. Downslope units would vary from upslope units. All units would feature small private yards or decks. (2) Terrabay Park. The. approved Terrabay Park precise plan consists of 125 single-family detached residences arranged in clusters of three and four at densities of approximately 3.5 units per acre. The lots are laid out in hillside tiers along five branching cul-de-sacs. Four floor plans are proposed ranging in size from 2,292 to 2,677 square feet, with three or four bedrooms. D. PHASING AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 1. Phase I Phase I construction began in 1989. Between 1989 and 1995, most Phase I rough grading and infrastructure improvements were completed. The project sponsor has stated that construction of the Phase I residential units is expected to commence in 1995 and to be completed in 2000. WP5115481 FSE/Rllll-R.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 2. City of Brisbane Final SEIR Errata III. Project Description Page 62 r City of Brisbane approval would be required for implementation of any elements of the project r including any mitigations for traffic impacts involving Bayshore Boulevard, which are within the Brisbane city limits. 3. San Mateo County Because the project site was located within unincorporated San Mateo County prior to city annexation in 1983, the county acting as "Lead Agency" certified the 1982 EIR and jointly adopted the Terrabay specific plan with the city. The county also issued the grading permits and encroachment permits for Phase I grading operations and geotechnical repairs in 1988. Grading and encroachment permits would be required from San Mateo County for any grading activities for subsequent phases which may occur within county jurisdiction. As the HCP operator, the county will also make compliance determinations for each subsequent phase precise plan. 4. South San Francisco Unified School District In 1988, the South San Francisco Unified School District approved play field improvements at the Hillside Elementary School site. No additional school district approvals would be required for implementation of Phase I or subsequent phases. 5. Joint Powers Authority In 1988, the city and county also adopted an agreement establishing a joint powers authority (JPA) to oversee construction and maintenance of catchment basins on the project site and access roads (see section IV.E of this SEIR, Drainage and Water Quality). The JPA has approved the design of the catchment basins for Phase I and has overseen their construction, but has yet to accept them and assume ongoing maintenance. The JPA (or the county, if the JPA is disbanded and its responsibilities turned over to the county) must also approve design and construction, and accept responsibility for, catchment basins proposed as part of subsequent project phases. 6. Local Agency Formation Commission The San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) approved city annexation of the project site in 1983. No additional LAFCo approvals would be required for implementation of Phase I or subsequent phases. 7. Regional Water Quality Control Board The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) has been established to control the discharge of pollutants into water bodies. The WP5115481FSE/RI l!!-R.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR Errata City of South San Francisco IV.A. Land Use October 25, 1996 Page 67 A. LAND USE This section of the SEIR addresses the various land use compatibility issues raised by the proposed project. Existing on-site and surrounding land use and open space patterns are first described and updated, followed by a summary of the land use impact and mitigation findings of the 1982 EIR. To the extent necessary, the section then reevaluates (1) on-site land use impacts; and (2) project compatibility with the adjacent single family residential neighborhoods to the south, major arterials and the freeway, and with nearby commercial and school uses. 1. SETTING a. Onsite Land Uses (1) Existing Uses and Easements. Existing on-site and surrounding land use characteristics are presented in Figure 5. The 332-acre project site consists of gently rolling to steeply sloping grassy terrain. Most of the site remains undeveloped, although substantial site modifications, including substantial grading have been completed since 1982 in preparation for Phase I. Three billboards and two San Francisco Water department easements containing Crystal Springs Water Mains No. 1 and No. 2 are located on the site along Bayshore Boulevard. A Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) easement traverses the site in a southeast to northeast direction near the South San Francisco Drive/Sister Cities Boulevard intersection (see Figure 2). The easement contains three electrical transmission lines--the Standard 60kV, the Sierra 115kV and the San Francisco 115kV lines--which serve San Francisco and deliver power from the city and. county of San Francisco's Hetch Hetchy system. The easement also contains a natural gas transmission line (Line 101). (2) Phase I Grading and Habitat Restoration. Between 1989 and 1995, approximately 80 acres of the site were graded and site improvements constructed to prepare the site for Phase I development. Modifications completed since 1982 consist of all grading needed for Terrabay Village and Terrabay Park, including all building pads and roadways, except for finish grading of individual home sites. Limited grading has also occurred in the Phase II areas of the r project site in conjunction with construction of Sister Cities Boulevard and South San Francisco Drive, grading of the promontory knoll near the Sister Cities Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard intersection. Substantial slope stabilization and geotechnical repair work has also been completed (see section IV.E, Soils and Geology, for a more complete description of Phase I geotechnical WP5115481FSE/RIl V-A-R.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR Errata City of South San Francisco IV.A. Land Use October 25, 1996 Page 68 repairs). Of the 80 acres of the site that have been graded, approximately 30 acres have also undergone habitat restoration activities in accordance with the Terrabay Phase I reclamation plan approved in 1988 (see section IV.G, Vegetation and Wildlife, for a more complete description of those habitat restoration activities). (3) Boundary Adjustment. During grading for Phase I, a minor boundary adjustment was made in the area of the site to be dedicated to San Mateo County as permanent open space. The area of the project site proposed to be permanently disturbed was increased by 0.38-acre to accommodate needed geotechnical repairs encountered during Phase I grading. (4) Phase I Roadway Improvements. Site roadway improvements constructed since 1982 include construction of Sister Cities Boulevard between its intersections with Hillside Boulevard and Bayshore Boulevard, and widening of Hillside Boulevard and creation of a local traffic frontage road between Sister Cities Boulevard and Lincoln Street (the segment fronting the project site). South San Francisco Drive has been constructed to full city standards within the Phase I portion of the project, and as a paved construction vehicle roadway for the remainder of its length. (5) Other Infrastructure Improvements. Drainage improvements installed since 1982 include four large catchment basins needed to intercept drainage from the slopes of San Bruno Mountain above the project, the on-site drainage system serving Phase I, and the trunk line which will intercept drainage from Phases I and II and from the catchment basins. Onsite r water improvements completed to date include the connection by the California Water Service r Company to the San Francisco Water Department pipeline, construction of the main water transmission line and water distribution lines for Phase I, and construction of the 1.5-million- gallon water storage tank above Terrabay Park. Sewer improvements installed since 1982 include all wastewater collection and interceptor lines needed to serve Phase I. Fire station 5 has also been constructed on South San Francisco Drive near the project entrance at Jefferson Street, and is now operational. b. Surrounding Land Uses The relationship of the project site to surrounding land uses is illustrated on Figure 5, and described below. (1) North. San Bruno Mountain State and County Park, a 2,064-acre regional park, is located immediately north of the project site. Although under both state and county ownership, the park is operated by San Mateo County as one facility. The county owns 1,766 acres, including the southeast ridge above the project. Improvement plans for the southeast ridge area are limited to trails. The park, like the site and all of San Bruno Mountain, is also part of the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) area. The city of Brisbane is located on the north side of the southeast ridge. WP5115481FSE/RI1 V-A-R.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Errata IV.C. Transportation C. TRANSPORTATION Because of the substantial nature of the revisions, the revised Transportation chapter was recirculated for additional public review and comment on August 30, 1996. The revised transportation chapter plus associated responses to all comments received on the revisions during the additional 45-day review period, is included in a separate document, entitled Fina! Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension, Revised Transportation Impact and Mitigation Findings/Responses to Comments on Revised Findings, which is available for public review at the offices of the City of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA (phone: 415-877- 8535). WP5115481 FSE/RII V-C-COV.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR Errata City of South San Francisco IV.D. Soils and Geology October 25, 1996 Page 169 (b) Aspects of the existing project site identified since release of the 1982 EIR, such as additional underlying geologic soils conditions, or regional seismic conditions, that may expose people and improved property to significant hazards or would present significant engineering or construction limitations. r (2) Phase I Supplemental Impacts r (a) Small, Localized, Post-Grading Landslides. In the period since grading for Phase I was completed, some small, localized landslides up to 40 feet wide and 100 feet long have occurred on cut and fill slopes throughout the graded area. Some of these landslides blocked or damaged downslope improvements, including v-ditches and catchment basins. These slides and affected downslope areas have been recently repaired. However, similar, small, r localized landslides can be expected to occur in the future on the perimeter slopes of the r project. Such small, localized slides are not considered to be a significant hazard to proposed downslope residential development; rather, their cleanup is expected to be part of the overall r project maintenance program.' Two localized slides have also occurred on the split level lot r portion of the development. These slides have been repaired and care must be taken to r control surface drainage to help minimize the potential for similar future slope failures.2 r (b) Erosional Gullies. Numerous erosional gullies, some up to four feet wide and three feet deep, have formed on cut and fill slopes throughout the Phase I grading area, resulting in downslope sedimentation of v-ditches and the storm drainage system. Repairs to date, as prescribed by the applicant's geotechnical consultant, have consisted of over-excavation of slope materials below the depth of the gullies, and rebuilding the slopes to original grade using engineered fill. The repaired slopes have then been hydroseeded and surface water has been directed away from the slope. However, based on EIR geotechnical consultant observations and discussions with the city's geotechnical consultant, it is evident that this problem persists on the cut slopes. Seepage was not apparent at the time of our field investigation. Observations of the city's geotechnical consultant suggest that the problem is related to perched groundwater daylighting in the cut slopes, causing piping and erosional gullies. Gullying persists on some fill slopes due to surface water flow over the slope. The threat to downslope improvements presented by the continued erosion of the cut and fill slope faces and the formation of gullies is considered to be a potentially significant adverse impact (Supplemental Impact G-1). r (c) "Goat Farm" Cut Slopes. Standard geotechnical practice recommends cut slope inclinations no steeper than 2H:1 V within alluvial or colluvial materials, and shallower slopes are commonly recommended. Phase I grading cut slope inclinations in alluvial and colluvial materials at the "Goat Farm" cut slopes are as steep as 1.5H:1 V (horizontal to vertical). 'Eric McHuron, McHuron Geosciences (city's geotechnical consultant), personal communication; November 6, 1995. r 2PSC, 1995. WP5115481 FSEIRII V-D-R. 548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR Errata City of South San Francisco IV.D. Soils and Geology October 25, 1996 Page 169-A Relatively shallow, localized "earthflow-type" failures have occurred on the "Goat Farm" area cut slopes and will likely continue to occur. There is also a 10- to 15-foot-thick wedge of granular material near the catchment basin which has been installed at the base of the "Goat Farm" cut slopes, which could slump if it were to become saturated or were subjected to WP5115481 FSEIRII V-D-R.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Errata IV.D. Soils and Geology Page 170 strong seismic groundshaking.' However, a geotechnical evaluation by the applicant's geotechnical consultant to address the consequences of the Phase I "Goat Farm" cut slopes within alluvial and colluvial materials concluded that the completed cut slopes are acceptable r from a geotechnical point of view.2 Debris could reach the street and catchment basin at the base of the cut slopes. The applicant's geotechnical consultant concluded that if such minor slumping and erosion occurs in the future, the existing street will provide an adequate "buffer" area for collection and clean-up of debris, and such collection and clean-up should be r considered as part of an overall project maintenance program.3 The city's geotechnical r consultant concurs that minor slumping on the cut slope may continue to occur, but poses no r significant hazard to downslope residential development and is appropriately considered a r maintenance problem. However, temporary blockage of the adjacent street due to potential r slumping or erosion may impair or block emergency access to several single family homes. r (d) Landslide D. As previously explained, lower and weaker shear surfaces discovered at Landslide D during the Phase I grading suggests a larger and deeper landslide. Recent evaluation of Landslide D suggests that the landslide is only marginally stable in its present configuration. A remedial repair plan for Landslide D was approved by the city on October 6, 1995.° The plan consists of removing the upper 10 to 20 feet of the landslide mass, constructing a shear key at the base of the landslide mass, and providing subdrainage improvements including two additional midslope keyways with subdrainage.s Repair of Landslide D has not yet been completed. If Landslide D is not successfully repaired, continued downslope movement could expose project residents and improvements to geologic hazards and would be considered a significant adverse impact (Supplemental Impact G-2). r (3) Phases II and III Supplemental Impacts. In some areas of phase I, geologic conditions r were substantially different from those anticipated and have required subsequent additional r geotechnical reevaluation, mitigations and repairs. Similar "buried valleys," deep landslide r deposits, and other unconsolidated materials may be encountered during grading for Phases r and III and will need to be addressed as part of detailed design-level geotechnical r investigations for these subsequent project phases. ' PSC, 1991. 21bid. 3PSC, 1991. 4City of South San Francisco, 1995. SGeo/Resource Consultants, Inc., 1995(b). WP5115481 FSE/RII V-D-R.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR Errata City of South San Francisco IV.D. Soils and Geology October 25, 1996 Page 170-A 4. SUPPLEMENTAL MITIGATION NEEDS r a. Phase I Supplemental Mitigation Needs r (1) Small, Localized Landslides. The small, localized landslides occurring in the Phase I graded (cut and fill) areas have been recently repaired. Similar small, localized landslides r along the perimeter of the development can be expected to occur in the future. These landslides are not considered to be a significant hazard to proposed downslope residential r development and can be appropriately addressed as a maintenance problem.' Include the clean-up and repair of small, localized landslides occurring in the Phase I and future project phase graded areas as a specific part of the overall project maintenance program. 'Eric McHuron, McHuron Geosciences (city geotechnical consultant), personal communication; November 6, 1995. WP5115481 FSE/R I I V-D-R. 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Errata IV.D. Soils and Geology Page 171 r (2) Erosional Gullies. (Supplemental Impact G-1) Repair erosional gullies on cut and fill r slopes. Such repairs should be completed pursuant to City approval after submission of r studies and plans by the applicant. The applicant is currently working with the City to repair r certain erosional gullies under plans approved by the City. The applicant should complete all r repairs to erosional gullies in accordance with the plans approved by the City. r Also, remove silt and debris from v-ditches and storm drains. Assign responsibility to the city r or the project homeowners association to periodically inspect and maintain erosion and sedimentation control facilities. r (3) "Goat Farm" Cut Slopes. A geotechnical reevaluation of the Phase I "Goat Farm" cut slopes which has been conducted by the applicant's geotechnical consultant to address the consequences of steep cut slopes within alluvial and colluvial materials concluded that the completed cut slopes are acceptable from a geotechnical point of view.' However, some minor slumping and erosion has occurred, and can be expected to occur in the future. The applicant's geotechnical consultant has concluded that if minor slumping and erosion occurs in the future, the existing street will provide an adequate "buffer" area for collection and clean-up of debris, and that such collection and clean-up should be considered as part of an overall project maintenance program.2 The city's geotechnical consultant concurs that minor stumping on the cut slope will continue to occur, but that it poses no significant hazard to proposed downslope residential development and is appropriately considered a maintenance problem.3 Include the clean-up and repair of such minor slumping on the "Goat Farm" cut slopes as a specific part of the overall project maintenance program. r In addition, require the applicant to prepare an emergency response plan that identifies r measures and procedures to ensure adequate emergency access in the event of temporary r blockage due to surficial slope instability at the "Goat Farm" cut slopes. Emergency access r shall be maintained at all times to all homes located downslope of the "Goat Farm" cut slopes r by providing physical barriers at the base of the slopes or in some other manner acceptable to r the city. r (4) Repair of Landslide D. (Supplemental Impact G-2) Remediation and repair plans for r Landslide D were reviewed by City and County officials, determined to be adequate, and r approved. The City and County issued grading permits authorizing work to proceed on r Landslide D. The approved repair plan shall be implemented by the applicant. (The work is r expected to be completed by October 31, 1996.) PSC, 1991. 2PSC, 1991. 3Eric McHuron, McHuron Geosciences (City geotechnical consultant), personal communication, November 6, 1995. W P5115481 FSE/ R I 1 V- D- R. 54 8 Terrabay Project Final SEIR Errata City of South San Francisco IV.D. Soils and Geology October 25, 1996 Page 172 A summary report of the observation and testing services provided during the landslide repair should be prepared and submitted to the city. The report should include an as-built geologic map. Along-term monitoring plan of selected existing piezometers and slope inclinometers should also be proposed, reviewed by the city, and implemented by the applicant's geotechnical consultant. r b. Phases II and III Supplemental Mitigation Needs r (1) Detailed, Design-Level Geotechnical Investigations. As provided for in the 1982 EIR r mitigations (see Table 21 ), require applicants for subsequent project Phases I I and III to r submit for city review and approval detailed, design-level geotechnical investigations for each r subsequent project Phases II and III. These design-level investigations shall include r characterization of specific hazards, warranted detailed site-specific mitigations, design criteria r for project grading, grading limitations to minimize grading in unstable areas, and provisions r for grading progress and completion reporting. The necessary detailed investigations shall r also include evaluation of the geologic conditions encountered during grading for Phase I, the r specific areas of concern identified in previous geotechnical investigations performed for the r applicant to date, and those considerations identified in this SEIR--adequate design and siting r of erosion/sedimentation control facilities and debris flow basins, the potential presence of r "buried valleys" and deep landslide deposits, potential fill placement over compressible r landslide debris of colluvium, and the potential for differential fill settlement. r Future cut slopes excavated in unconsolidated materials should be no steeper than 1.5:1, r unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant of record and approved by the r city geotechnical consultant. The subsequent detailed geologic/geotechnical investigations r shall be completed prior to approval of precise plans for Phase II or Phase III, and shall r address all Phases II and III areas proposed for grading and development, including areas to r be dedicated to the county into which some grading may extend. WP5115481 FSE/RI I V-D-R. 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Errata IV.E. Drainage and Water Quality Page 174 (3) Groundwater. Several springs and ponded drainage areas above landslides were identified in the 1982 EIR at the western end of the site. Standing groundwater levels reported in various onsite bore holes varied considerably, and were considered to represent shallow seepage of infiltrated surface water rather than a true water table. (4) Local Flooding. In 1982, no part of the project site was within a designated 100-year flood zone, although much of the nearby area east of US 101 and north of Oyster Point r Boulevard was in a 100-year flood zone. However, debris flows did traverse the site during r the January 4-5, 1982 storm. b. Changes in Setting -- 1982 to 1995 {1) Overview. Since the 1982 EIR was prepared, the following changes have occurred that have affected hydrologic conditions on the project site and in the vicinity: • on- and off-site project-related municipal storm drainage system improvements have been constructed; • the city of South San Francisco and county of San Mateo have adopted a joint powers agreement for maintenance of catchment basins on San Bruno Mountain; - • the county of San Mateo has indicated that a portion of the San Bruno Mountain storm drainage system (i.e., the catchment basins and ditches on the southern slope of San Bruno Mountain) is not functioning adequately; and • federal and local regulations have been adopted to more stringently control water quality in local storm drainage systems. These changes are discussed below. (2) Flooding and Groundwater Conditions. No recorded changes in flooding conditions have occurred since 1982,' and no changes have occurred in the project that would affect its relationship to the 100-year flood zone as described in the 1982 EIR. Similarly, no changes have occurred in the project or in existing groundwater conditions that would affect the 1982 EIR's conclusion that the project would not have a significant impact on groundwater quantity or flows.2 Flooding and groundwater conditions described in the 1982 EIR are therefore assumed to be unchanged for purposes of this SEIR analysis. (3) Post-1982 Storm Drainage Improvements. Since 1982, all storm drainage improvements associated with Phase I, and the Phase II storm drain trunk line, have been installed. These 'Telephone conversation with Ray Towne, Interim Public Works Director, city of South San Francisco, September 1, 1995. The most recent Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the project site and vicinity were prepared in 1981. 2City of South San Francisco, Initial Studv for the Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension, prepared by Wagstaff and Associates, August 1995, items 3(f) and (g), page 15. WP5115481 FSE/R I I V-E- R. 548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR Errata City of South San Francisco IV.E. Drainage and Water Quality October 25, 1996 Page 179 existing city storm drains; rather, the project drainage system would instead transport runoff directly to San Francisco Bay, thus helping to alleviate existing capacity problems along Hillside Boulevard and Randolph Avenue. The project applicant was to be responsible for constructing the system to meet city of South San Francisco standards. Upon acceptance of the system, it was intended that the city would assume maintenance responsibilities for the portions of the system dedicated to the city as municipal facilities. The remainder of the onsite system was intended to be maintained by a private homeowners association or group of homeowners associations. The drainage and water quality impact and mitigation findings of the 1982 EIR are summarized in Table 22. 3. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT FINDINGS a. Storm Drainage Improvements The post-1982 installation of storm drainage improvements in accordance with approved plans for the project does not, in itself, present any new significant adverse environmental impacts that were not evaluated in the 1982 EIR; with the exception of identified new system maintenance needs which are described under sections b and c below. b. Joint Powers Agreement As discussed under the Setting subsection above, the county of San Mateo has recently raised questions regarding the effectiveness of the 1983 city-county joint powers agreement in adequately maintaining of project-related catchment basins on the south slope of San Bruno Mountain, and has proposed disbandment of the Joint Powers Authority. This uncertainty regarding ongoing maintenance responsibilities for the catchment basins represents a new potentially significant adverse impact of the project storm drainage system (Supplemental Impact D-1). c. Catchment Basin and Ditch Malfunctioning r As discussed under the Setting subsection above, the county of San Mateo has identified past malfunctioning in the project-related catchment basins and constructed ditches on the south r slope of San Bruno Mountain. These catchment basins have been in place for approximately r six years and function well, with ordinary maintenance and repair. In response to concerns r regarding the adequacy of the catchment basins in Phase I, the City conducted an extensive r review of the studies and records pertaining to the sizing and capacity of the catchment r basins. On the basis of that review, the City determined that the catchment basins for phase I r are adequately sized and properly designed. WP5115481 FSE/RII V-E-R.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 d. Stormwater Regulations Final SEIR Errata IV.E. Drainage and Water Quality Page 179-A Amendments to the federal Clean Water Act and the city of South San Francisco's adoption of a "Storm Water Management and Discharge Control" program as Chapter 14.04 of the WP5115481 FSEIRII V-E-R.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Errata IV.E. Drainage and Water Quality Page 181 Municipal Code do not present any new significant project-related water quality impacts that r were not addressed in the 1982 EIR (see SEIR Table 22). The new stormwater regulations do suggest a revision to the water quality-related mitigation measures recommended in the 1982 EIR, however (see section 4, Supplemental Mitigation Needs, below). If these new mitigation standards are not met, the project could result in a potentially significant adverse r water quality impact (Supplemental Impact D-2). 4. SUPPLEMENTAL MITIGATION NEEDS a. Storm Drainage Improvements No new mitigation required. b. Joint Powers Agreement (Supplemental Impact D-1). Consider disbandment of the Joint Powers Authority for catchment basin maintenance, as proposed by the county of San Mateo. If the Joint Powers Authority is to be disbanded, work with the county and the project applicant to ensure that the catchment basins are in proper condition to allow their dedication directly to the county as the county suggests (see item c, "Catchment Basin and Ditch Malfunctioning," below). If the Joint Powers Authority is to be maintained, continue to fulfill city responsibilities in accordance with the joint powers agreement of June 21, 1983. c. Catchment Basin and Ditch Malfunctioning r No new mitigation required. d. stormwater Regulations r (Supplemental Impact D-2). In addition to-the measures recommended in the 1982 EIR for r water quality impacts (see Table 22), require the project applicant/property owner to: (1) Comply with all applicable provisions of the City of South San Francisco "Storm Water Management and Discharge Control" program (Chapter 14.04 of the Municipal Code) and five year management plan; WP5115481 FSEIRII V-E-8.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR Errata City of South San Francisco IV.E. Drainage and Water Quality October 25, 1996 Page 182 (2) As required for projects involving construction on sites of more than five acres, file a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board, in order to be covered by the city's general NPDES permit; or apply to the State Water Resources Control Board for an individual NPDES permit; r (3) Prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for city approval (by the r City Engineer and/or Stormwater Program Coordinator) and filing with the NPDES permit, detailing construction activities that could cause pollutants and describing r measures/practices that will be undertaken to control the pollutants. City approval is r necessary prior to issuance of grading or other permits. The SWPPP should, at a minimum, include activities that will: • stabilize areas denuded due to construction with temporary or permanent seeding, mulching, vegetative buffer strips, plastic covering, and/or other measures; • address the use of sediment controls and filtration measures; • protect adjacent properties and storm drains by use of vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, mulching, and other appropriate measures; • address the use of proper construction material and construction waste storage, handling, and disposal practices; and ^ include detailed Post Construction Treatment Controls Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect the storm drains and water quality after construction is completed. WP5115481FSE/RIl V-E-R.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Errata IV.F. Vegetation and Wildlife Page 184 (b) Native Mixed Grasslands. The upper slopes and ridges of the project site provide a variety of different grassland habitats with substantial native plant components. The dominant vegetation here is valley needle grassland, which typically occurs on dry, south slopes. Purple needlegrass (stipa pulchra) predominates; other species include California melic grass (Melica Californica), blue wild rice (Elymus glaucus), June grass (Koeleria macrantha), big squirrel-tail grass (Sitamion jubatum), foothill needlegrass (Stipa /epida), San Francisco blue grass (Poa unilaferalis), coast iris (Iris longipetala), mule ears (Wyethia angustifolia), soap plant (Chlorogalum pomeridianium), Ithuriel's spear (Triteleia laxa), blue dicks (Sisyrinchium bellum), and Helianthella castanea. (c) Soft Chaparral. On some onsite slopes, a variety of shrubby plants typical of soft- chaparral, mostly Coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), are mixed with the grassland at low densities. This shrubby element is best developed on the steep slopes above the northeastern and western portions of the site. (d) Riparian-Like Areas. The ravines traversing the site's upper slopes create a variety of microclimates favorable for the growth of plants requiring greater moisture. (2) Sensitive Plants. There are several rare plant species found on San Bruno Mountain, r including three California state-listed endangered plants, Arctostaphylos pacifica, A. imbricata, r and Lessingia germanorum germanorum. A. Imbricata is also federally proposed as r threatened and Lessingia germanorum germanorum is federally proposed as endangered. These rare plants, their current status (which for some species has changed since 1982), and their occurrence on San Bruno Mountain are presented in Table 23 and described below, based largely on information from the California Native Plant Society (GNPs). Botanical surveys have been conducted throughout San Bruno Mountain to document the occurrences of these plants. No occurrences of any of these plants have been documented on the project site. ^ Arabis blepharophylla (Coast Rock cress} is endemic to the San Francisco Bay Area from Sonoma County south to Santa Cruz County. It is rare, but not endangered. On San Bruno Mountain, A. blepharophylla is mostly found on rock outcroppings and occasionally on the surrounding grassy slopes and areas of thin soil. • Collinsia franciscana (San Francisco collinsia) is endemic from San Francisco to the Monterey Peninsula. It is an occasional annual found in level grassland and on shaded slopes. On San Bruno Mountain, it has been located from Colma Canyon to the west and on the north-facing slopes above Brisbane. • Arctostaphylos imbricata imbricata (San Bruno Mountain manzanita) is endemic to San Bruno Mountain. It is common in grassy ridges and slopes with shallow rocky soils from Kamchatka Point to Powerline Ridge. The population appears to be slowly increasing with two new plants now growing with a colony of A. uva-ursi forma coactilis along the San Bruno Mountain ridge trail just east of the summit parking lot. WP5115481 FSEIRII V-F-R.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR Errata City of South San Francisco IV.F. Vegetation and Wildlife October 25, 1996 Page 184-A • Arctostaphylos imbricata montaraensis (Montara Mountain manzanita) is endemic to Montara Mountain and San Bruno Mountain. On San Bruno Mountain, it occurs on rocky WP5115481 FSEIRI l V-F-R.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR Errata City of South San Francisco IV.F. Vegetation and Wildlife October 25, 1996 Page 186 or shallow soil in coastal scrub near Pacific Rock. This area continues to be the only remaining population. The San Bruno Mountain population is stable and is composed of an even-aged stand with all individuals being approximately 26 years old. • Arctostaphylos Pacifica (Pacific manzanita) is endemic to San Bruno Mountain. It is found only on a sandstone outcrop near Pacific Rock close to the mountain's summit. • Erysimum franciscanum spp. franciscanum (Franciscan wallflower) is endemic to the San Francisco Bay Area from Sonoma County to Santa Cruz County. It is a biennial to short-lived perennial which is occasional on grassy, rocky slopes and in open coastal scrub communities. • Grindelia maritima (San Francisco gumplant) is endemic to San Francisco and San Mateo Counties. It is occasionally found on open hillsides and in open coastal scrub communities. The taxonomy of this plant is currently being examined by botanists to determine if it should be lumped with other species of Grindelia. • Helianthella castanea (Diablo helianthella) is endemic to the San Francisco Bay Area with occurrence limited to a few restricted populations. On San Bruno Mountain, populations of this plant are only found in the hills above Brisbane. . r Lessingia germanorum germanorum (San Francisco lessingia) is listed as a proposed endangered species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It is endemic to San Francisco and northern San Mateo County. It is associated with sandy soils and is found only in the San Francisco Presidio and on the west side of Reservoir Hill on San Bruno Mountain. • Silene verecunda verecunda (San Francisco Campion) is found on San Bruno Mountain on the south side of .the southeast ridge at the telecommunications property site. It is associated with rocky outcrops just below the radio towers. b. Wildlife (1) Habitat Quality and Wildlife Use. Wildlife use of the project site is typical of annual grassland and brushland areas throughout the San Francisco Bay region, except for the presence of certain rare and endangered species, most notably grassland butterflies. Although the home range and habitat requirements of certain small mammals and birds may be contained entirely within the project boundaries, many local animals would be expected to range more widely, taking advantage of the open space and additional resources available offsite. Since completion of the 1982 EIR, habitat quality and wildlife use of the project site have been . diminished by grading of approximately 80 acres between 1989 and 1995 to prepare the site for Terrabay Phase I. The expansive grasslands of the site afford prime foraging habitat for raptorial birds which may hunt but probably do not nest within the project boundaries. A variety of resident WP5115481 FSE/RI I V-F-R. 548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR Errata City of South San Francisco IV.F. Vegetation and Wildlife October 25, 1996 Page 198 agreement and permit would fulfill the city's obligation under CEQA to assess project impacts and mitigation needs regarding species of concern. No new significant impacts or changes in the severity of previously identified significant impacts have been identified; no new or additional mitigations are necessary. However, the following minor changes in mitigation are needed to correct the failure of habitat restoration work performed to date: a. Required Remedies for Habitat Restoration Failures (Supplemental Impact VW-1) The 1995 evaluation report completed in compliance with the HCP mitigation monitoring program identified several recommendations for remedying the failure of the Terrabay Phase I Reclamation Plan habitat restoration work, including certain regrading measures which would correct erosion and restoration problems without significantly affecting the Mission blue or callippe populations. The 1995 evaluation report is included in Appendix C and the report recommendations are summarized below: • Prior to retreatment of the failed slopes, conduct soil tests to determine the need to use soil amendments. • Use a combination of emergent and pre-emergence herbicides to eliminate "weedy" non- native plants in the restoration areas. • Use more native grasses, which have proven to be very successful in restoration sites around the mountain, in the seed mixes; and • Make erosion control a high priority. Use Soil Guard hydromulch or tackified straw in the hydroseed mixes to ensure better cover of hydro seeded material. Use erosion blankets in especially erosion prone areas. r Note: As this SEIR was in the process of preparation, City staff reports that the applicant r implemented the proposed mitigation measures to correct habitat restoration deficiencies. r This mitigation implementation will be reflected in the project conditions of approval, Statement r of Findings, and Mitigation Monitoring checklist. WP5115481 FSE/R11 V-F-R.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Errata IV.G. Public Services Page 202 facilities such as tennis courts, community centers and baseball fields, and improvements in the location of facilities.' (3) Park and Recreation Changes Since 1982. Park and recreation facilities have been added throughout the city since 1982. In addition, the City of South San Francisco adopted a Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan in 1990. The plan identifies the project site as "Planning Area #4," and notes that:2 This area is a planned neighborhood development and will include one baseball and one soccer practice field at Hillside School, an indoor swimming pool, community center, four- acre neighborhood park, and linear park along Hillside Boulevard. These facilities will serve the new neighborhood, the adjacent Sign Hill neighborhood, and will also serve the entire community. As part of project Phase I improvements, one baseball and one soccer practice field have been installed at Hillside Elementary School in accordance with the Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. d. Schools (1) Attendance Areas. The project site is located within three school districts: The South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD), Brisbane School District, and Jefferson Union High School District. The SSFUSD boundaries include Terrabay Village, Terrabay Park and Terrabay Woods, which together would include a total of 125 single family houses and 368 townhomes. The Brisbane School District and Jefferson Union High School District boundaries include Terrabay Commons and Terrabay Point, which include 493 multi-family units. r r (2) South San Francisco Unified School District. Students in the South San Francisco Unified School District would attend Hillside Elementary School, Parkway Heights Middle School, and EI Camino High School. All district schools operate on a ten-month basis. Current Enrollment. During the 1994-1995 school year, Hillside Elementary School had an enrollment of 343 students, Parkway Heights Middle School had 867 students, and EI Camino High School had 1,351 students. Hillside Elementary School and Parkway Heights Middle School are currently operating at capacity. Future Enrollment. The enrollment in the 1999-2000 school year is projected to be 392 students at Hillside Elementary School, 906 at Parkway Heights Middle School, and 1,187 at 'Ibid. 2City of South San Francisco, page 21. WP5115481FSEIRII V-G-8.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Errata IV.G. Public Services Page 203 EI Camino High School. There are no imminent plans for new schools or school closures in the district. (2) Brisbane School District. Students in Brisbane School District would attend Brisbane Elementary School and Lipman Intermediate School. Both schools currently operate on a ten- month basis. Current Enrollment. During the 1994-95 school year, Brisbane Elementary School had an enrollment of 209 students, with three available classrooms and a capacity to serve 285 students, including one special education classroom. Lipman Intermediate School had an enrollment of 150 students, with capacity to serve 300 students.' Future Enrollment. The Brisbane School District does not currently plan to increase the capacity of its schools (e.g., by adding portables), and does not anticipate any school closures. It is expected that when the Northeast Ridge project is fully developed, enrollment will increase by 120 students at Brisbane Elementary School and by 60 students at Lipman Intermediate School. A change in grade configuration may be required to accommodate this enrollment increase. As enrollment at Brisbane School grows, its lunch and physical education facilities will become increasingly inadequate.2 r Transportation. Brisbane School District does not provide transportation for its students. The r district considers Brisbane Elementary School and Lipman Intermediate School to be within walking distance of the project site.3 (3) Jefferson Union High School District. Students in the Jefferson Union High School District would attend Jefferson High School and Westmore High School in Daly City, with most students expected to attend Jefferson High School. Both schools operate on a ten-month basis. Current Enrollment During the 1994-1995 school year, Jefferson High School had an enrollment of 1,615 students and a capacity to serve 1,655 students. There are currently "portable" classrooms in use at Jefferson High School, although these have been in use at the school for some time and are considered permanent classrooms by the District. Westmore High School had an enrollment of 1,571 students, with capacity to serve 1,625 students4 'Letter from Stephen J. Waterman, Esq., Superintendent, Brisbane School District, to Ricardo Bressanutti, Wagstaff and Associates, re. "Terrabay," September 13, 1995. 21bid. 31bid. °Telephone conversation with AI Pucci, Associate Superintendent, Jefferson Union High School District, September 21, 1995. WP51 15481 FSE/RII V-G-R. 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Errata IV.G. Public Services Page 204 Future Enrollment. The Jefferson Union High School District does not currently plan to increase the capacity of its schools and does not anticipate any school closures. Enrollment at Jefferson High School in the 1999-2000 school year is projected to be 1,720, and 1,890 at Westmore High School.' e. Water Service The California Water Service Company (CWSC), a privately owned utility, provides water r service to South San Francisco. The project is located within the CWSC South San Francisco r service area. Approximately 90 percent of the water supply for CWSC's South San Francisco service area comes from the City of San Francisco Water Department; approximately 10 percent is from CWSC wells. The current CWSC contract with the San Francisco Water Department, which is in effect through the year 2009, entitles the CWSC to 47,400 acre-feet of water per year, or 42.3 million gallons per day (mgd). Up to an additional 1,530 acre-feet per year can be pumped from groundwater. Thus, the total supply of water currently available to the city is 48,500 acre-feet per year, or 43.3 mgd. The CWSC projects a demand of 37,300 to 41,800 acre-feet in the year 2010. Assuming no modification of the San Francisco Water Department contract, current supply would exceed projected high demand for the year 2010 by more than 10 percent.2 Water mains in the vicinity of the project site are located along Bayshore Boulevard, Hillside Boulevard, Randolph Avenue and Airport Boulevard. f. Sewer Service Wastewater services for the project site would be provided by the City of South San Francisco. The project site is located within Basin 6 of the city's wastewater collection system. The main interceptor for Basin 6, located on Airport Boulevard, joins a main interceptor that follows Colma Creek and terminates at the San Mateo Pump Station, from which wastewater is pumped to the South San Francisco-San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant. The city has recently completed a study of wastewater treatment capacity of the South San Francisco-San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant. The study found that the plant may be operated with a reasonable factor of safety at 9.0 mgd with the completion of the interim improvements which are currently under design. It is now treating an average of approximately 8.0 mgd. A subsequent study, to be completed in 1996, will determine the treatment plant expansions necessary to accommodate development over the next 20 years. ' Pucci. 2Telephone conversation with Eugene Gravelle, California Water Service Company, September 12, 1995. WP5115481 FSE/RI IV-G-R. 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Errata IV.G. Public Services Page 208 officers, based on the Department's current goal of providing 1.35 officers per 1,000 population.' One new police vehicle would be needed to accommodate three new officers.2 r In addition, the Police Department has identified a potential impact on police services if it r becomes necessary to provide adult crossing guards to ensure the safety of crossings and r pedestrian routes to school for school age children. The Police Department is currently r required to provide adult crossing guards at four other school crossings. Although the South r San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD) has indicated that all elementary school r students within the district would attend Hillside Elementary School, in the event that some r project elementary school students attend SSFUSD schools other than Hillside Elementary r School, an adult crossing guard would be needed at the signalized Hillside Boulevard r Extension/South San Francisco Drive and Sister Cities Boulevard/South San Francisco Drive r intersections if 40 or more elementary school children cross within any two hour period. The r possible need to fund, recruit, train and equip crossing guards represents a potential impact r on police services. b. Fire Protection As stated in the 1982 EIR, the substantial new project population would increase calls for Fire Department service and would increase fire hazards associated with the site's proximity to San Bruno Mountain. These anticipated impacts of the project remain generally unchanged. The possible fire fighter shortage at Station 1 discussed in the 1982 EIR has been resolved, however, and is no longer a potential impact of the project.3 c. Parks and Recreation The park and recreation aspects of the project have also not changed substantially since 1982. As noted in the "Setting" subsection above, one baseball and one soccer practice field have been installed at Hillside Elementary School as part of project Phase I improvements, in accordance with the city's .Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan adopted in 1990. Additional improvements to be installed as part of Phase I would include: (1) the Hillside Recreation Center, which would serve community-wide as well as project needs (to be dedicated to and maintained by the city); '2,156 people (project population) divided by 1,000 = 2.156 x 1.35 officers = 2.91 officers needed to serve project. 2The Police Department's current ratio of officers per marked unit is 2.7 officers per unit (cited in "Estimated Police Department Expense Impacts Per Officer," attachment to letter from Sgt. Ron Petrocchi, Planning Liaison/Traffic, city of South San Francisco Police Department, July 31, 1995). 3Telephone conversation with Fred Lagomarsino, Fire Marshal/Chief Building Official, City of South San Francisco, September 14, 1995. WP5115481 FSE/ Rll V-G-R. 548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR Errata City of South San Francisco IV.G. Public Services October 25, 1996 Page 208-A (2) a child care center with tot lot (to be operated and maintained by the project homeowners associations); and (3) a linear park along Hillside Boulevard connecting the playing fields at the Hillside Elementary School with Hillside Recreation Center (to be maintained by the project homeowners association). A series of "in-tract parks" (i.e., small undeveloped areas covered with grass turf) would be included in Phases I and II and trailhead improvements (providing trail access to San Bruno Mountain State and County Park) would be added in Phases II and III. These in-tract parks and trailhead improvements would be maintained by the project homeowners' associations. WP51 t5481FSE/RIIV-G-R.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 d. Schools Final SEIR Errata IV.G. Public Services Page 209 Changes in impacts identified in the 1982 EIR would consist of the following: According to the 1982 EIR, the 745-unit project approved in the specific plan would generate an estimated 286 additional K-12 public school students; 224 would attend South San Francisco Unified School District schools, 45 would attend Brisbane School District schools, and 17 would attend Jefferson Union High School District schools. Based on more current enrollment multipliers provided by the districts, and the revised number of total project units (721), the 721-unit project would now be expected to generate an estimated 370 additional K- 12students; 260 would attend SSFUSD schools, 90 would attend Brisbane Elementary School District schools, and 20 would attend Jefferson Union High School District schools. It should be noted that these total enrollment increases would be expected to occur incrementally over the proposed six-year project buildout period. (1) South San Francisco Unified School District. The project would be expected to generate approximately 260 new students attending South San Francisco Unified School District schools; 120 attending Hillside Elementary School, 60 attending Parkway Heights Middle School, and 80 attending EI Camino High School. Hillside Elementary School and Parkway Heights Middle School are already operating at capacity. Based on an estimated cost of $140,000 per relocatable classroom, the total estimated cost to the district to provide classrooms would be $1.4 million. Costs to add permanent classrooms, a more desirable option, are undetermined but would be greater. Additional restroom facilities and core classrooms may be needed for child care and special education classes at Hillside Elementary School and Parkway Heights Middle School. r According to the South San Francisco Unified School District, school impact fees accruing r from the project to the district may not be sufficient to cover the cost of providing additional classroom capacity and associated facilities to serve the additional students generated by the r project. The school impact fees accruing to the district from the project have been estimated r by the district at $1.372 million in today's dollars. This amount appears to have been r underestimated because the estimated size of the residential units used is smaller than the r units actually being built. Nevertheless, the project can be expected to have a significant adverse impact on SSFUSD capacity (Supplemental Impact PS-1). (2) Brisbane School District. Another major development in the project vicinity, the Northeast Ridge project, would contribute 120 students to Brisbane School and 60 students to Lipman School, causing Brisbane School to exceed its capacity. It is likely that students would be transferred to Lipman School to accommodate this enrollment increase. In addition, a local ballot measure (Measure E, on the November 1995 ballot) would, if passed, require the School District to reduce classroom sizes. Based on these factors, the School District WP5115481 FSE/RII V-G-R.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Errata IV.G. Public Services Page 210 anticipates that enrollment of students from the Terrabay project would cause both schools to exceed capacity.' The project-related enrollment increase is expected to generate a need for two new portables, which would most likely be located on the Brisbane School site. In addition, physical education, school assembly, and lunch space at Brisbane Elementary School would be inadequate to serve the expected number of additional students from the project, and a multi- purpose room and playground upgrade would be needed. The facility would also require upgrading to meet fire code and disabled access requirements. Lipman Intermediate School would require upgrading restrooms, one portable, a remodeled school yard, and a functioning kitchen for food preparation in order to accommodate the additional enrollment.2 r According to the district, school impact fees accruing to the Brisbane School District from the r project (estimated by the district to be $246,000 in today's dollars)3 would cover the cost of providing two additional portables, but would not be sufficient to fund other necessary r improvements at Brisbane and Lipman Schools.° (The school impact fees accruing to the r district from the project may have been underestimated because the estimated size of the r residential units used is smaller than the units actually being built.) r Also, the district does not provide transportation for its students. Brisbane School is located r approximately 1.9 miles and Lipman School is located approximately 2.6 miles from the r furthest part of the project within district boundaries. This distance may be too great for young r students to walk to school. There are no sidewalks along Bayshore Boulevard between the r project and Brisbane. Also, Bayshore Boulevard is a busy arterial roadway and vehicles travel r at high speeds, making it potentially unsafe for young school children. r Because the state-mandated school impact fees may not be sufficient to cover the total cost r of accommodating the project-generated enrollment increase, and because the needed r transportation to school has not been adequately provided for, the project could be expected r to have a significant adverse impact on the Brisbane School District (Supplemental Impact PS-2). 'Letter from Stephen J. Waterman, Esq., Superintendent, Brisbane School District, to Ricardo Bressanutti, Wagstaff and Associates, re. "Terrabay," September 13, 1995, pages 1-2; telephone conversation with Stephen J. Waterman, Esq., Superintendent, Brisbane School District, September 14, 1995. 2Letter from Stephen J. Waterman, Esq., Superintendent, Brisbane School District, to Ricardo Bressanutti, Wagstaff and Associates, re. "Terrabay," September 13, 1995, pages 1-2. 3Current school impact fees are set at $1.50 per square foot of habitable residential area. Of this amount, the Brisbane School District receives $0.90, and the Jefferson Union High School District receives $0.60. `Letter from Stephen J. Waterman, Esq., Superintendent, Brisbane School District, to Ricardo Bressanutti, Wagstaff and Associates, re. "Terrabay," September 13, 1995, page 2. WP5115481FSEIRII V-G-R.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Errata IV.G. Public Services Page 21 Q-A (3) Jefferson High School District. Applying estimated project student generation rates provided by Jefferson Union High School District, the project would be expected to generate approximately 20 additional students at Jefferson High School and Westmore High School, at which future enrollments are already anticipated to exceed capacity.' This enrollment increase would contribute to a need for new portables, and would place additional demands on other school facilities. School impact fees accruing from the project to the Jefferson Union High School District are estimated at $164,000 in today's dollars. This amount would be expected to be sufficient to cover the cost of providing additional portable classroom activity. '0.08 students per unit for Terrabay Commons and 0.1 students per unit for Terrabay Point. WP5115481 FSE/Rll V-G-R. 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Errata IV.G. Public Services Page 212 Avenue, west to Linden Avenue, and south to the Colma Creek trunk line, where flows are diverted to the San Mateo Pump Station. However, as with the onsite wastewater improvements, the City of South San Francisco has not accepted maintenance responsibility for this offsite system due to apparent infiltration problems.' Until mitigated, these problems represent a potentially significant adverse impact of the project (Supplemental Impact PS-4). q. Recyclinq Program Collection Services Under the city's new recycling program, project single family residences and townhomes in project Phase I would receive recycling containers and be provided with individual curbside collection service. Similarly, depending on their physical characteristics, residences and commercial uses in project Phases II and III could either receive individual {curbside) or centralized (dumpster) recycling containers and collection services. Because recycling services are provided on an "enterprise" fee-for-service basis, it is expected that the project will generate adequate additional revenues to meet the increased demand for recycling services. State law requires provision of adequate space for recycling in multiple family residential projects with five or more units and all new commercial developments.2 Future project phase multi-family residential and commercial development may not include adequate provision for collection of recyclable materials. This situation would represent a significant adverse project impact (Supplemental Impact PS-5). 4. SUPPLEMENTAL MITIGATION NEEDS a. Police Protection r In order to provide the new fully staffed beat recommended in the 1982 EIR, (1) require the project applicant to fund acquisition of one new Police Department vehicle,3 and (2) monitor project build-out over time to assess when the new beat should be established and new officers hired. 'Telephone conversation with Mike Rozzi, Senior Construction Inspector, city of South San Francisco, September 15, 1995. 2California Public Resources Code Division 30 Part 3 Chapter 18 section 42905. 3The cost of a new police vehicle is estimated at $21,320 (cited in "Estimated Police Department Expense Impacts Per Officer," attachment to letter from Sgt. Ron Petrocchi, Planning Liaison/Traffic, city of South San Francisco Police Department, July 31, 1995). WP5115481 FSEIRII V-G-R. 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Errata IV.G. Public Services Page 212-A r The City shall conduct periodic monitoring of the crossings at the Hillside Boulevard/South r San Francisco Drive and Sister Cities Boulevard/South San Francisco Drive intersections to r determine if 40 or more elementary school children cross within any two hour period. If the r threshold is reached at either of these intersections, then the Phase II project homeowners r association shall be required to: r (1) fund the provision of an adult crossing guard at that intersection (including all salary, r background check, equipment, and training costs), and r (2) actively recruit candidates for the position and for an alternative part-time, back-up fill-in r position from among project residents. (Project residents are preferred because of r opportunities for more familiarity with students.) WP5115481 FSEI R11 V-G-R. 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 b. Fire Protection Final SEIR Errata IV.G. Public Services Page 213 Construction of a new fire station has been completed, as recommended by the 1982 EIR. The potential fire fighter shortage at Station 1 has also been resolved, and no mitigation is required. Remaining 1982 EIR recommended mitigations, which require installation of a fire buffer and compliance with additional development design measures recommended by the City of South San Francisco Fire Department, are unchanged. c. Parks and Recreation The mitigation need identified in the 1982 EIR remains unchanged; no new mitigation required. d. Schools (Supplemental Impacts PS-1 and PS-2). As mitigation for SSFUSD and Brisbane School r District impacts, the city shall require the applicant, as a provision of the project development r agreement, to prepare and submit for city review and approval, a school financing plan that r includes: r (1) Payment of State-Mandated School Impacf Fees. Require the applicant to comply with r applicable SSFUSD school impact fee requirements. If it is determined by the city that the r project fees would not be sufficient to reduce project school impacts to aless-than-significant r level, the city may also: r (2) Additional Impact Fees. Require that the project applicant/developer pay additional r impact fees or some other additional in-kind contribution, or establish other financing r mechanisms in consulation with the city and acceptable to the SSFUSD and the Brisbane r School District sufficient to cover the cost of providing classroom space and ancillary school r facilities needed to serve the increased enrollment generated by the project, to the city's r satisfaction. r Also require the applicant to provide for safe transportation to Brisbane School District schools r for students from the project. This may be accomplished by installing a sidewalk along r Bayshore Boulevard and/or other streets to allow students to walk to Brisbane Elementary r School and Lipman Intermediate School, or in some other manner acceptable to the district. r Require the applicant to submit to the city an official statement in writing from the Brisbane r School District declaring that the needed transportation has been adequately provided for to r the satisfaction of the district. r Finalization of school access sidewalk needs and associated design details are properly r deferred to the Phase II and III environmental documentation sequences since the City r currently does not know what the actual configuration of these phases will be. WP5115481 FSElRII V-G-R.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 e. Water Service Final SEIR Errata IV.G. Public Services Page 213-A As called for in the 1982 EIR, ensure that a water pump station for the project is under construction prior to construction of Phase Isingle-family detached units. No other changes to the mitigation suggested in the 1982 EIR are required. WP5115481 FSE/RI I V-G-R. 548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR Errata City of South San Francisco IV.H. Noise October 25, 1996 Page 228 4. SUPPLEMENTAL MITIGATION NEEDS a. Compatibility of the Proposed Residential Development With the Future Onsite Noise Environment (1) Traffic Noise Impacts. (Supplemental Impact N-1) Retain a qualified acoustical engineer to prepare and submit for city review and approval a detailed acoustical analysis of noise reduction requirements and specifications for all project phases, in accordance with the land use/noise level compatibility standards established by the state and set forth in the city's Noise Element (see Tables 28 and 29 herein). The identified noise reduction requirements and specifications shall then be included in the project site or individual home designs or hotel designs. Various combinations of methods could be used to mitigate onsite noise levels. These could include the construction of berms or soundwalls and/or provision of fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, and use of sound-rated glazing in windows. (2) Aircraft Noise Exposure Impacts. (Supplemental Impact N-2) The noise analysis r requirement described for Supplemental Impact N-1 shall also recommend methods of design r and construction to comply with the applicable portions of Uniform Building Code Title 24, r Appendix 35, Sound Transmission Controls, and with the FAA Part 150 Noise Compatibility r Program, which requires that all single-family dwelling unit construction achieve an indoor r noise level of 45 dBA, as measured from an aircraft noise event. The qualified acoustical r engineer retained to prepare the analysis shall be familiar with aviation noise impacts. b. Construction Noise (Supplemental Impact N-3) Reduce construction period noise impacts associated with Terrabay project residential and commercial development to acceptable temporary levels by implementation of the following measures. These mitigations should be required as a condition of any development approval within the project area, and should be included in the work agreement with the construction contractor(s). (1) Construction Scheduling. Limit noise generating construction activities including truck traffic going to and from a site for any purpose, and maintenance and servicing activities for construction equipment, to the hours stipulated in the City's Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, Noise Regulations, Section 8.32.050 dated 2-91). (2) Construction Equipment Mufflers and Maintenance. Properly muffle and maintain all construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines. (3) Idling Prohibitions. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. W P5115481 FS EI R i l V- H- R. 54 B Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Errata IV.I. Air Quality Page 235 nonattainment areas develop plans and strategies that will reduce pollutants by certain increments or face imposition of sanctions (e.g. withholding of highway project funding). Concentrations of federal nonattainment pollutants have been gradually declining in the Bay Area over the past decade. The Bay Area was recently redesignated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a "maintenance area" for ozone, and a request for redesignation to "maintenance area" for carbon monoxide has been submitted to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. With the enactment of the California Clean Air Act of 1988 regional air quality planning has shifted emphasis from the federal ambient standards to meeting the state ambient air quality standards. This legislation empowers regional air quality management districts with new authority to design, adopt, implement, and enforce comprehensive plans for attaining and maintaining both the federal and the more stringent state air quality standards by the earliest practical date. Among its provisions, the California Clean Air Act provides districts with the authority to establish new controls on mobile sources of pollution. The area-wide plan required by the California Clean Air Act was adopted by the BAAOMD in r October 1991 and updated in 1994.' The 1994 Clean Air Plan imposes controls on stationary sources (factories, power plants, industrial sources, etc.) and Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) designed to reduce emissions from automobiles, including indirect sources. Since the Plan does not provide for a five percent annual reduction in emissions, it proposes the adoption of "all feasible measures on an expeditious schedule." r The Bay Area '94 Clean Air Plan forecasts continued improvement in regional air quality. An analysis of carbon monoxide trends shows attainment of the standards throughout the Bay Area by the mid-1990s. However, implementation of the Plan would not provide for attainment of the State ozone standard even by the year 2000. 2. 1982 EIR IMPACT AND MITIGATION FINDINGS Air quality impacts and mitigation measures identified in the 1982 EIR are summarized in Table 33. The 1982 EIR identified air quality impacts of three types: short-term construction-related dust impacts, increases in carbon monoxide concentrations along streets providing access to the site, and increases in regional pollutant emissions. An updated reevaluation of project short- term construction impacts, long-term local and regional air quality effects is provided below. r 'Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bay Area '91 Clean Air Plan (CAP), 1991, and r Area '94 Clean Air Plan (CAP), 1994. WP5115481 FSE/Rt 1V-1-R.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR Errata City of South San Francisco IV.I. Air Quality October 25, 1996 Page 237 3. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT FINDINGS Methods used for predicting and analyzing air pollutant emissions are constantly being revised and updated to account for changing technology and emissions control programs. Since 1982, new analytical tools have been developed that enable a more precise prediction of project air quality impacts. The following updated discussion of local and regional air quality impacts also describes the criteria and methodologies used in this SEIR that differ from those used in the 1982 EIR. a. Chanqes in Siqnificance Criteria. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines establishes that a project will normally have a significant impact on air quality if it will: violate any air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. ' Since certification of the 1982 EIR, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has established revised thresholds of significance for use in local and regional air quality impact assessments of projects. A significant impact on local air quality is defined in this SEIR as a predicted violation of these revised carbon monoxide ambient air quality standards due to project-related traffic increases on the local street network. For regional air quality, a significant impact is defined as an increase in emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG}, r oxides of nitrogen, (NOx) or fine particulate matter (PM-10) of 80 pounds per day or greater. b. Short-Term Construction Impacts Project construction activities such as clearing, excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle traffic on unpaved ground, and wind blowing over exposed earth would generate dust and particulate matter.. Construction dust would affect local and regional air quality at various times during the build-out period of the project. The dry, windy climate of the area creates a high potential for dust generation. Construction dust impacts are extremely variable, being dependent on wind speed, soil type, soil moisture, the type of construction activity, and the number of acres affected by construction activity. A rough estimate of uncontrolled construction PM-10 (Particulate Matter, 10 microns) emissions is 0.6 tons per month per acre of active construction. The effects of construction activities would be increased dusffall and locally elevated levels of PM-10 near the area of construction activity. Depending on the weather, soil conditions, the amount of activity taking place, and the nature of dust control efforts, these impacts could 'CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, item x. WP5115481 FSE/Rtl V-I-R.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR Errata City of South San Francisco IV.I. Air Quality October 25, 1996 Page 240 II and III) would increase concentrations by up to 0.3 PPM for the 1-hour averaging time and 0.2 PPM for the 8-hour averaging time. These concentrations would remain below the state and federal standards. The project impact on local air quality is therefore still considered less- than-significant. (2) Regional Air Quality Impacts. Trips to and from the project would result in air pollutant emissions affecting the entire San Francisco Bay air basin. Regional emissions associated with project vehicle use have been calculated using EMFAC7F emission factors. The EMFAC7F emissions program is now typically used instead of the EMFAC7C emissions program used in the 1982 EIR. The EMFAC program has been updated every few years to reflect current control programs and emissions control technology. In general, the EMFAC7F program yields lower emission estimates because it reflects the most current emission standards for vehicles and considers the effects of a variety of emission programs (reformulated fuels, for example) not considered in the EMFAC7C program. The methodology used in estimating vehicular emissions is described in Appendix D. The estimated incremental daily emissions associated with project-related traffic are shown in Table 35 for reactive organic gases and oxides of nitrogen (two precursors of ozone), and PM- 10. Daily ROG and PM-10 emissions associated with proposed residential uses are also shown in Table 35. Residential uses contain a number of dispersed and intermittent sources of pollutants such as space and water heaters, household paints and solvents, fireplaces and woodstoves, lawn mowers. and other equipment. Project emissions shown in Table 35 for Phase I of the proposed development would not r exceed 80 pounds per day, and would therefore have ales-than-significant regional air quality impact. However, similar to the 1982 EIR findings, the updated analysis indicates that buildout of Phases I, II and III would generate new regional emissions of ozone precursors r exceeding 80 pounds per day. Unless the most current mitigation methodologies r recommended by the BAAQMD are incorporated in the project, this would be considered a significant adverse impact on regional air quality. (Supplemental Impact AQ-2) 4. SUPPLEMENTAL MITIGATION NEEDS a. Construction Impacts (Supplemental Impact AQ-1) The 1982 EIR recommended twice-daily watering for dust control. However, under current practice, this recommendation may not be sufficient to r reduce construction dust impacts to a less than significant level. The applicant shall comply r with current city standards pertaining to construction dust mitigation practices in place of the r construction period air quality mitigation identified in the 1982 EIR. The required measures r may include the following: WP5115481 FSElR I1 V-1- R. 548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR Errata City of South San Francisco IV.I. Air Quality October 25, 1996 Page 242 r • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. • Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas {previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). • Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible • Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site. • Install wind breaks, or plant trees/vegetative wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction areas. • Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. • Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction activity at any one time. r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r b. Long Term Air Quality Impacts (1) Regional Air Quality Impacts. (SupplementallmpactAQ-2) In addition to the transportation system management (TSM) requirements identified as mitigation in the 1982 EIR, the following measures should be implemented: • The project should incorporate avehicle-trip reduction requirement applicable to all land uses. Specific trip reduction goals should be adopted and enforcement procedures developed by the applicant in consultation with the BAAQMD. WP5115481 FSEJRII V-1-R.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Errata IV.I. Air Quality Page 242-A In addition, require the project sponsor to submit to the city a mitigation plan that includes these types of measures to reduce residential emissions: • Restrict the number of fireplaces in residences, or require residential use of EPA-certified woodstoves, pellet stoves or fireplace inserts. The use of natural gas fired fireplaces should be encouraged. Require outdoor outlets at residences to allow use of electrical lawn and landscape maintenance equipment. • Make natural gas available in residential backyards to allow use of natural gas-fired barbecues. Adoption of these measures would have the potential to reduce regional impacts of the project r by from five to 15 percent. This reduction would reduce project regional emissions of PM-10 r to below 80 pounds per day, but would not be sufficient to reduce emissions of NOx or ROG r to below the 80 pounds per day BAAQMD significance threshold. Even after mitigation, the impact of buildout of project Phase I, II and III on regional air quality would remain an unavoidable significant adverse impact. WP5115481 FSE/Rll V-1-R.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR Errata City of South San Francisco IV.J. Cultural Resources October 25, 1996 Page 244 d. 1982 Evaluations of Significance Although the 1982 EIR indicated that a determination of the significance of the prehistoric sites was not possible due to the limited available knowledge and understanding of the sites, the EIR did state that CA-SMa-40 could possibly be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Site CA-SMa-40 is a large shell mound measuring approximately 80 to 90 meters in diameter. The site is reportedly very significant and one of the few remaining examples of such shell mounds in the Bay Area. Based on information from similar Bay Area mounds, the site may have been used by local native peoples as a burial ground, ceremonial place, and living site for hundreds or thousands of years and is thought to possibly contain Native American human remains. With respect to the fourth identified onsite cultural resource, the historic mine shaft and water distribution system, the remnants were determined to have minimal local significance, not sufficient for National Register listing. r r r No significant new information or substantive changes in the circumstances under which the project is undertaken from those described in the 1982 EIR have been identified with respect to cultural resources. 2. 1982 IMPACT AND MITIGATION FINDINGS Cultural resources impacts and mitigation measures identified in the 1982 EIR are summarized in Table 36. 3. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT FINDINGS a. Potential for Additional Cultural Resource Discoveries Records indicate that 100 percent of the project site has been studied for cultural resources. The 1982 EIR impact evaluation was limited to evaluation of project impacts on four specific cultural resource sites identified in these studies. However, the staff at the State Historical Resources System, Northwest Information Center indicate that the project site as a whole, which is located on the bay margins and at the base of hills near sources of fresh water, has a high potential for previously undiscovered Native American sites, which could be encountered during project construction (i.e., grading).' Such disturbance would represent a potentially significant adverse impact. (Supplemental Impact CR-1) 'August 18, 1995 letter from Lynn Compas, Researcher II, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, to Ricardo Bressanutti, Wagstaff and Associates, re: Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Supplemental EIR. WP5115481 FSE1 R I I V-J- R. 548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR Errata City of South San Francisco IV.J. Cultural Resources October 25, 1996 Page 244-A b. Adequacy of 1982 EIR Site-Specific Mitigations (1) CA-SMa-40. To mitigate identified potential project impacts to site CA-SMa-40, the 1982 EIR recommended capping the site with a minimum of one foot of sterile fill and sealing the site under landscaping or parking areas. However, in its recent review of this mitigation recommendation, staff at the Northwest Information Center or the California Archaeological WP5115481 FSE/RI I V-J-R. 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Errata IV.J. Cultural Resources Page 245 Table 36 1982 EIR CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACT AND MITIGATION FINDINGS Impact Summary r The historic mine shaft and water distribution system, and prehistoric site CA-SMa-234, are located outside areas of proposed development. Mitigation A minimal research program shall determine the historical background of the mine shaft (age, builder, period of use). r CA-SMa-40 is rich and relatively intact and could possibly be eligible for National Register listing. Disturbance of CA-SMa-40 during project construction would be a significant r adverse impact. r CA-SMa-92 is in the direct location of development but has been so disturbed that its integrity is substantially minimized. r r A minimum of one foot of sterile fill shall be placed over CA-SMa-40 and the area sealed under landscaping and/or parking areas. A small-scale program of surface collection and minor sampling shall be conducted prior to placement of fill. Scarification, earth moving and compaction for site burial shall be monitored by a qualified archaeologist. Trenching activities for underground utilities and subsurface drainage shall be avoided. Subsurface utilities and drainage plans shall be inspected by a qualified archaeologist to verify site avoidance. Should construction earthwork disturbance of native soils at CA-SMa-40 be unavoidable, a r five percent sample of the affected area shall be hand-excavated, and construction activities monitored and specific mitigation recommended by a qualified archaeologist. If human remains are encountered, a Native American r representative shall be consulted. SOURCE: EIP Corporation, 1982. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabay Development Project. San Mateo County, California. WPSf 15481FSE/RIIV-J-R.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR Errata City of South San Francisco IV.J. Cultural Resources October 25, 1996 Page 246 Inventory' determined that the recommended one foot of fill soil may not be sufficient to avoid damage to this resource during construction. As a result, potential damage to CA-SMa-40 _ during project construction under the 1982 EIR mitigation program may still result in a significant adverse impact. (Supplemental Impact CR-2) (2) CA-SMa-92. The 1982 EIR indicated that site CA-SMa-92 was revealed to have been seriously compromised by prior underground construction, although a determination of its significance was not possible due to the limited available knowledge and understanding of the site. While site CA-SMa-92 is also within the area of proposed Terrabay development activities, the 1982 EIR recommended no mitigation. However, because the project site does have a high potential for containing Native American resources, and because subsurface testing for the 1982 EIR was limited, there is a substantial probability of encountering and disturbing additional cultural resources at site CA-SMa-92 during Terrabay construction, representing a potentially significant adverse impact. (Supplemental Impact CR-3) r ~3) CA-SMa-234. There have been no changes to the area of proposed development r contained in the 1982 specific plan. Site CA-SMa-234 is still located outside the area of r proposed development. Any future development of Phase III would generally occur within this r area. However, the specific plan and the San Bruno Mountain HCP do allow for minor r adjustments in the development area boundaries. If any grading or geotechnical repair work r becomes necessary outside of the current development area boundaries, such work could r potentially disturb site CA-SMa-234. Potential disturbance of site CA-SMa-234 by any Phase r III grading or repair work that may be needed outside the current development area r boundaries represents a significant adverse impact. (Supplemental Impact CR-4) 4. SUPPLEMENTAL MITIGATION FINDINGS a. Potential for Additional Cultural Resource Discoveries (Supplemental Impact CR-i) In the event that subsurface cultural resources2 are encountered during project construction, work in the immediate vicinity should be immediately stopped and alteration of the materials or their context should be avoided until the resources and their significance can be properly evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. The discovery or disturbance of any cultural resources should also be reported to the California Archaeological Inventory and the Native American Heritage Commission, and recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation archaeological site records forms (DPR 422). 'Ibid. 2Such "subsurface cultural resources" could include prehistoric resources such as chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars or pestles, and dark friable soil containing shell and bore dietary debris, heat affected rock, or human burials; or could include historic resources such as stone foundations or walls, structural remains with square nails, old wells, etc. WP5115481FSE/Ril V-J-R.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR Errata City of South San Francisco IV.J. Cultural Resources October 25, 1996 Page 246-A Mitigation measures prescribed by these groups and required by the city should be undertaken prior to resumption of construction activities. b. Adequacy of 1982 EIR Mitigation Recommendations (1) CA-SMa-40. (Supplemental Impact CR-2) In addition to mitigations recommended in r the 1982 EIR (Table 36), as a condition of Phase III precise plan approval, require that the r project applicant finalize and implement, as necessary, a mitigation plan for potential impacts r to site CA-SMa-40. The mitigation plan should adhere to the mitigation approaches, r procedures, limitations and criteria specified in Appendix K of the state CEQA Guidelines. If r warranted, the mitigation plan may recommend a mitigation approach other than the site r capping recommended in the 1982 EIR. If capping is selected as the preferred mitigation r approach, CA-SMa-40 should be capped with fill soil at a minimum of one foot deeper than the maximum depth of construction activities above or near the site. An engineering fabric, such as polypropylene matting, should be placed over the site before fill is placed. The capping WP5115481 FSE/Rll V-J-R. 548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR Errata City of South San Francisco IV.J. Cultural Resources October 25, 1996 Page 247 should be supervised by a qualified archaeologist familiar with prehistoric archaeology in San Mateo County so that the boundaries of the site will be properly defined. The site should be recorded on form DPR 422. Additional or different measures for site capping, a sampling program/test excavations prior to capping, and other recording and/or protection measures, may be recommended by the monitoring archaeologist. (2) CA-SMa-92. (Supplemental Impact CR-3) Prior to commencement of grading for project Phase III, the subsurface boundaries and the significance of site CA-SMa-92 should be properly determined through further subsurface testing by a qualified archaeologist familiar with prehistoric archaeology in San Mateo County. Mitigations, possibly including a sampling program followed by capping in a manner similar to that proposed for CA-SMa-40, may be recommended. The site should be recorded on form DPR 422. r (3) CA-SMa-234. (Supplemental Impact CR-4) Future detailed environmental review for r subsequent project Phase III should include further consideration by a qualified archaeologist r of site CA-SMa-234 to confirm that no impacts, including potential impacts from grading and r geotechnical repairs or from project occupancy, would occur and to recommend mitigation, if r warranted. WP5115481 FSEI R I I V-J-R. 548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR City of South San Francisco IV. Appendices September 18, 1996 IV. APPENDICES APPENDIX A: PROGRAM EIR AUTHORITY (CEQA SECTION 15168) As indicated on DSEIR page 3, the DSEIR includes "program EIR" level assessment for subsequent project phases (Phase II on), under authority of section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15168 explains that a program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either: (1) geographically; (2) as logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions; (3) in connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or (4) as individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways. The proposed subsequent project phases, and the series of actions that will be required for their implementation, are characterized by all four of these relationships. One, they are geographically related because the project, including all of its implementing actions, would occur in the same specific plan area. Two, the various local, state, and federal governmental approvals, entitlements, and permits that may be required for development of the project are all logical parts in the chain of actions contemplated by the specific plan program. Three, development of the project area would be undertaken in connection with the issuance of rules, regulations, plans, and other general criteria set forth in the specific plan. Four, the future development activities would be comprised of various individual activities carried out under the statutory authority of the city and the Terrabay Specific Plan and development agreement that would generally have similar environmental effects that could be mitigated in similar ways. Use of a program EIR for the still conceptual subsequent phases of the specific plan provides the following advantages. The program EIR: (1) ensures consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a future case-by-case project analysis process; (2) avoids duplicative reconsideration of basic policy considerations; (3) allows the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts; and (4) allows reduction in paperwork. Subsequent project development phases must be examined in the light of this program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in this program EIR, a new Initial Study would need to be prepared leading to either aproject-specific EIR or a Negative Declaration. If the Agency finds that pursuant to section 15162, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the Agency can approve the activity as being WP5115481 FSEIRI F-I V.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco September 18, 1996 Final SEIR IV. Appendices within the scope of the project covered by this program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. Under CEQA section 15168, an Agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into subsequent actions in the program. Where the subsequent activities involve site-specific operations, the Agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were covered in the program EIR. A program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with subsequent activities if it deals with the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible. With a good and detailed analysis of the program, many subsequent activities can be found to be within the scope of the project described in the program EIR, and no further environmental documents would be required. A program EIR can be used to simplify the task of preparing environmental documents on later parts of the program. The program EIR can: (1) provide the basis in an Initial Study for determining whether the later activity may have any significant effects; (2) be incorporated by reference to deal with regional influences, secondary effects, cumulative impacts, broad alternatives, and other factors that apply to the program as a whole; and (3) focus an EIR on a subsequent project to permit discussion solely of new effects which had not been considered before. WP5115481FSEIRI F-1V.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco September 18, 1996 APPENDIX B SEIR CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS Final SEIR IV. Appendices East of 101 Area Plan and Brisbane General Plan land use projections referred to in response to comment 33.12. WP51 15481 FSE/RI F-1V.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR City of South San Francisco IV. Appendices September 18, 1996 WP5115481 FSEI R I F-l V. 548 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN JANUARY 19~ DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IIrtPACT REPORT PROJECT DESCRIPTION Table 5 DIRECTED GROWTH ALTERNATIVE LAND USE BREAKDOWN ategory Allowed FAR' Area (Acres) )boating Building Area (S9-Ft-) Potential Ne+- Buitdiag (S4Ft-) Total Building Area at Sailboat ~S4FL)b Planned Commercial .60 92 1,685,760 887,131 2,572,891 Light Industrial SO 213 4,634,457 912,824 5,547,281 Planned Industrial .45 520 8,801,189 3,231,665 12,032,854 Coastal Commercial .60 61 714,060 1,190,073 1,904,133 Crateway Specific Plan 1.25 96 1,211,570 4,003,700 5,215,270 Airport Related N/A 116 N/A N/A N/A Mixed Planned CommerciaU Planned Industrial .60 120 649,623 2,584,038 3,233,661 Mixed Coastal CotttmetriaU Planned Industrial .60 25 378,710 114,204 492,914 Mated Coastal CommerciaU Light Industrial .60 21 0 54979 549,379 Open Space .00 66 22,100 0 22,100 Totat 1,330 18,097,469 13,473,014 31,510,483 a These maximum Floor Area Ratios can be exceeded with provision of a master plan, or the addition of retail services and child rare centers, as provided in Area Plan Policies LU-16, LU-23, and LU-25. However, for em+ironmentat review purposes it is assumed that these maximum densities will generally appty. b Because buildings in the area with FARs above those allowed under the Plan are grandfathered, the Total Building Area at Sailboat is greater than the FAR times the acreage in mast toad use categories. majority of open space is along the bayshore. In addition, the Gateway Specific Plan, as descnbed in Chapter 4.1, will continue to apply to the Gateway properties. The land use designations on identified key sites are as follows: • Koll Site (Sierra Point). Planned Industrial. • Shearwater. Mixed Planned Commercial/Planned Industrial. • Gateway. Gateway Specific Plan. • Oyster Point Marina Southern Area. Coastal Commercial. • Haskins/Fuller-O'Brien. Mixed Coastal Commercial/Light Industrial. • Gateway/Harbor Transitional Area. Planned Commercial/Planned Industrial. 44 ax W d ~ E-~ a Q O z r~ V ~z ~~ ~a ~o C w ~ Z zQ .. G W z< ~~ U r. V M V1 ~.~. ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ _~ ~ M Q ~ ~ O ~ + c C c.~ H O C O ~ ~ Gc W a C O O O c o~ Z O `~ r ~ ~ ~ n E ._ ~ ~ L' r+ N M .+ O G M N ~U O F- m ~ C r ~ C ~~ O O ^ ~ N at O ~ O ~ O J r ¢ C N ~, ~ p 8 v1 C o~ O ~ ~ c~ H ~ y$ O '' N O O O O Y O O o ~ ~ ~ iii en ~ .. O O ~ ~ + _ 9 ~ ~ O TQ ~ ~ n] y r ~ 0 O O O ~ tiA r D O O Y O O O * ~ ~ . ~ ~ $ o S c~ H ~ ' o ~ o 0 o a o 0 0 _ O~ z ~ Cflg O N N Oa ~ MO M ~ ~ ~ i0 _ r ~ ~ ~n o 0 0 0 ~ ~ o 0 0 ~ o m M z N N ~ ~ Q Cp a c4 ~ a' ~ M ri O N di X ~ W ~ ~ a O ~ ~ ~ N O O O O O ~ r ~ Vl ~ C ~ ~ i Q~ ~ ~ oo r ~ " m >_ r ~ y~? Q ~ m '~ Y ~ ~ ~ H a+ ~ H y -~ ~ cn c ~ e 3 0 `~ ~ `o ~ c c c~0p ~ ~ ~ c T ~ r o c'9 rsc ,~ ~y ~y r_„ _ ~_ Y ° ` ~ ° ~ oma ` ~ ~ o ~ ~ z z c' v, c n a c n a c m c a 0 r N M 'C Ln CO f~ GO ~ r o o ~' `~ m 3 ca 3 cp 3 ~ ~ -~` ~ o w ~O G ~' ~ O N ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ '~ 0 M C Y 0 M C ~ M C ~ ^ ~ o0 ~ G ~ C 7 E Z y '-' Lff N r G' ~ ~ ' Y Y CC ~ O ~ ~ ~ O " ~ ~ N ~ ty ~ j ~ O G 01 O C! O ~ ~ ~ + ~ V CQ W C 00 G ~, (~ + O ~ ~ m _ C c G ;yo ° ° ~ c c o © o ~ Qg ~ ~ , N N ~ + ~, g ~ ~ G ~, M~~ ~' ~ 6C7 ~ b~ Z. ~ O ~ O Q C C ~ G O ~ Q p C M N +~ d >cC C y ~ O ~ ~ G C ... C ' 3 t~fJ ~ ~ a b ~ . ~ t 0~ C D O m ~ ~p O 00 ~a ° ~ © ~ 0 0 a 0 o q + o ~o o ~ M ° O c O oo Q ° N o o ~ a y G~ C C? Q g ~ H Z Y ~ ~ O Q V O O r r ~~ O 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (Q ~ r .~ M ~ N a H p O N + ,L^ ... N O O O O O y M ~ ~ ~ ~ O! ~ GQ O trJ 4^J V g d " C ~ p; ~ ~ Cp CD Q7 pMp ^ tr .,. ~ z _ GO LCl L[? ~ CD ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ O M t~ N N N ~X ~ W 1 0 .~ ~„~ w M ~a c c o o ° o o g r y O r y ~ _ _ ~ _ ~ N ~ T - - _ ~ O V R ~ n w' m y m > 30~ r O ~ m ? 300 r 61 ~ m > 0 m y ~ y ? ~ y > ~ y ~ Y cv c ~~ tG 3 ~ ~ c ~ ~ a z~a z~a z° ~ ° me ma ka v p a a z a N ~ ~j r Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco September 20, 1996 APPENDIX D SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION July 19, 1996 Memorandum from Eric McHuron, McHuron Geosciences to Arthur Wong, City Engineer, re: Summary of Re-evaluation of Goat Farm Cut Slopes, Terra Bay South San Francisco, CA. July 20, 1996 Memorandum from Eric McHuron, McHuron Geosciences to Arthur Wong, City Engineer, re: Summary of Debris Basin Design, Terra Bay South San Francisco, CA. Final SEIR IV. Appendices WP5115481FSE/Rl F-I V.548 McHURON GEOSCIENCES 1670 8th Avenue San Francisco, Ca 94122 41 S 564-1364 July 19, 1996 City of South San Francisco, P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Attention: Mr. Arthur Wong, City Engineer RE: Summary of Re-evaluation of Goat Farm Cut Slopes, Terra Bay South San Francisco, CA., Dear Arthur. n - - s~~.-2~~sss ~~aNNI{VG Per our discussion during the conference call on July 17, I am inclosing the 'paper trail' and what I recall of the discussions regarding the 1991-92 Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation of the completed Goat Farm cut slopes. The original evaluation was prompted by the City's reviewer, Roger Foott Associates (RFA), when it became clear during grading that the exposed material included cover materials (Pliestocene and Recent) overlying the weathered bedrock that was originally anticipated. These slopes had various degrees of steepness from 2:1 to 1.5:1. The grading plans called for 2:1 cuts in cover materials and 1.5:1 in bedrock. The Geotechnical Consultant for the Developer, PSC, presented their supplemental evaluation dated November 29, 1991. This evaluation included the geologic model of the cut slopes, anticipated ground water conditions, results of inclinometers (four) at the top of the slopes and disucsses the deep- seated faulure analyses. The report also indicated that portions of the western slope had failed by small earth flows, and made recomendations for repairing the failures. RFA reviewed this report and met with PSC and the City to discuss their comments. I was present at that meeting and I summarized RFA's comments in a letter dated February 28, 1992 (attached). As stated in the February 28, letter, RFA generally agreed with the geologic model of the slopes, (RFA had provided PSC with geologic maps they prepared and photos they took during grading). As stated in the model, some of the slopes met the original design criterion and the slope that deviated most from the criterion was the westernmost portion of the Goat Farm cuts (see Plates lA & 2C of PSC report, attached). This slope contained a wedge of cover material that overlay a diping bedrock . PSC said that they had analyzed this slope for potential deep- seated failures. The important factors in the slope stability model include: orientation and location of the bedrock surface, presence or absence of landslide shear surfaces, strenght of materials, orientation of rock defects, and water level fluctuations. As stated in RFA's responce letter, they did have some questions regarding the geotechnical parameters used to analyze the slope stability of the "Goat Farm" cuts. They expressed concern about a potential wedge- or block failure. RFA presented their concerns to PSC in a meeting at City on February 24, 1992. The results of this meeting and PSC's responce to our review comments were included in a PSC letter dated February 26, 1992 (attached). I~ir. Arthur Wong Goat Farm Cut Slopes July 19, 1996 Page 2 It is clear from the meeting and their response letter that PSC "had not performed new analyses (sliding block wedge) on the slopes in the western portion of the area, taking into account post-1983 findings regarding buried valley geometries, bedrock shears, and shear strengths of clay-rich soil mantles." Instead they directed their attention to evaluating what would happen in the event of a wedge failure of this slope. As PSC stated in their original report and in their response, the wedge failure would tend to "flow into the existing basin or collect onto the level area adjacent to the cul de sac." "Based on this assumption our November report recommended construction of a berm or wall to deflect any soil debris away from the street and toward the basin." They go on to indicate that their "recommendation was intended to mitigate only relatively small, periodic slumps and on-going erosion so that maintenance would not involve clean-up of the street except for the exceptionally large events." RFA requested and was an active reviewer of the supplementary evaluation of the Goat Farm cut slopes. As the record shows, both slope stability analyses and engineering judgement was used to evaluate these slopes. An important factor in RFA's accepting the recommendations and conclusions of the PSC evaluation was the performace of similar slopes in the immediate vicinity and at Terra Bay. Steeper (near 1:1) cut slopes in these Pleistocene cover sediments are present in the road cuts along Hillside Blvd, near Chestnut. These slopes have e~sted for over 30 years, with no major wedge, nor deep-seated failures. In addition, natural slopes of similar steepness (1.5:1) e.~dsted along the drainage immediately adjacent the westerm portion of the Goat Farm Cut slopes (see Plate lA). A portion of this slope still remains after the Goat Farm slope grading. Both of these slopes have ekperinced rainfall periods far in excess (including the January 45, 1982) of what the Goat Farm cut slopes have experienced. The presence and history of these slopes was and is very compelling evidence to the long-term performance of these Pleistocene cover sediments. It was RFA's opinion at the time and continues to be my opinion that this information should carry significant weight in applying engineering judgement to the future performance of these slopes. It also carries significant weight compared to a range of input parameters for quantative slope stability analyses. Even given the past performance of these cover sediments in the area, PSC and 1tFA felt that it was purdent to evaluate the consequences of a failure of the wedge of Pleistocene cover materials. RFA concured with PSC that a large wedge failure could enter the Debris Basin and spill onto the cul de sac. Neither PSC nor 1tFA felt that such a failure would block access to homes along Parkridge Circle. RFA also agreed that the possibility of such a failure did not constitute a "project threatening" potential. (PSC, Feburuary 26,1992). At the time of the 1992 discussions, the cut slopes had undergone some lower than normal winter rainfall, the "March Mirale", some normal and a fairly wet winter. None of these wet periods triggered alarge-scale slope failure on any of the Pleistocene cover sediments at the site or immediate vicinity. Small earth flow failures in the eastern portion of the westermost "Goat Farm" cuts were triggered during the first winter after the slopes were cuts. These earth flows were triggered in Holocene colluvial ravine fill above McHuron Geosciences Mr. Arthur Wong Goat Farm Cut Slopes July 19, 1996 Page 3 the weathered bedrock. In the fall of 1995, these flows were excavated, benched, filter fabric and filled with riprap, per the recommendations of PSC and observed by McHuron Geosciences. No further movement was observed during the last winter rains. As I stated during the conference call, I would be happy to lead a site visit to the site to examine these cover materials and discuss this history. I hope that this summary helps clarify the record. Please call if you have any questions regarding this recap or need further clarification of this matter. Sincerely. McHuron Geoscie es r. J. McHuron, CEG# 1023 President -- cc Mr. Reid Fisher, Harlan Tait Attachements Plates lA and 2C of PSC's Supplemental Evaluation of "Goat Farm" Cut Slopes, dated November 29, 1992. RFA's Review of Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation of Completed "Goat Farm" Cut Slopes, dated February 28, 1992. PSC's Responses to City Reviewer's Questions, dated February 26, 1992. McHuron Geosciences .-~ . p~~~e ~~ v~ ~ ,,,~ 5,9, ~~ ,- ~ _ ~ .a ~ _ a Jj _ ~ . ~~ ~i .. `o e y ~~ _ - _ ~ C / t ~ ~ ~ 9 \ 1 m ~~ _ ,8 ~ ~~ .... N~ •, .,, . ~~ ~~ . ~y .~ ~ ~ s- ~~. t \ )ebris ~ .. ; ,., ~e ~ ~ 3 ,~~ nstone, etc.) o.. ; ~ ~ ' ?` ;~ o 1 ~ o ~! ~ M paled) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~\ ~, ~ ~ ~~~ j, , 1 . ~ ~~ ~ ~ !~ ~ ~:~ /~ ~: 1~ ' KJfs ~~ ~. -~ ~~ , ... . _~ .:. ~~ ~. ~ °° ~~~ ~ .. ,~ .~ - 6 ; r~...~ .~. _. _..._., . a. -' ...----~ .9p2 _ ' %~/ :. ~ r N c~ '~6~ ~.oo -1 `~- ~ ~~ /YI 7 ~ .1s ' ~~. ~ 6 ~ ~~ ,. .~`,g ~ t,~ ~~ ~~~ o ~ ~` ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ,~ ~~ ~ 3 ~; --- i~ _ 1- / 1 ~~ f - . ~~` ~ o 0 t7 (7 17 N ~ N i ~f ~ ~ ~ ~ V $ I ~ J o, / a N y m y ' ~ ~~ r. o ~__ b ~~ ~ y g / /.. Y _~ / ~ .~ / ~ ~~~ ~,~ - ~;k;-~: .~ :.. :~ ,_ .~ ~ I / _.. ~ ~ . U U c O ~ a~i ~~ ~ ~ H tll O m U ~o U N H Q J a z~ '. 1 O v 0 z 0 ~- ii 0 <o U °u = U O Z 4 u ,~ U ~" ~ ` v~ ROGER FVV I 1 ASSVt:1A 1 t,, iivtr. 530 Howard Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel: (415) 777-1262 Fax: (415) 777-9427 February 28, 1992 City of South San Francisco Office of the City Engineer 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Attention: Mr. John Gibbs RE: Review of Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation of Completed "Goat farm" Cut slopes, Terrabay Development Phase I, "South San Francisco, California. November 29, 1991, for Terrabay Development. Dear John: Per your request we have reviewed the referenced report and our comments are included in this letter. Our comments were presented to you and PSC in a meeting on February 24, 1992. In general, the report provides a geologic model of the site, presents the results of the inclinometer readings and water level readings, references a 1983 report for the slope stability analysis and makes recommendations for helping to prevent debris slides from reaching Parkridge Circle. Our general comments are presented below. Geologic Model We are in general agreement with the overall geologic model of the site. We have some differences of opinion regarding the width, location and age of movement of the major tectonic shear zone (fault). Our field observations indicate that it is a wide band and includes the location mapped by Bonilla (1971). This fault has moved a considerable distance in the geologic past as evidenced by the blue-schist and green-schist facies on either side of the fault in the vicinity of the PG&E cuts. Slickensides on the shear surfaces and orientation of sheared tectonic inclusions within shear zones indicate a Mr. John Gibbs February 28, 1991 Page 2 strike-slip motion. Detailed examination of microstructures adjacent several of the shears within the fault zone indicate that the last movement was right-lateral. These observations and the fact that the major deformation in t!~e Coast Ranges was Plio- Pleistocene, suggests that the last movement on the fault is considerably younger than the 70 million years ago stated by PSC. Our observations during grading did not reveal any evidence to suggest that fault movement displaced sediments that are believed to be Late Pleistocene in age. Thus, because there is no evidence of fault movement in the last 10,000 years, fault movement does not need to be considered under the Alquist-Priolo Act. We agree that the important factor regarding the fault is that it acts as a groundwater barrier because it juxtaposes relatively permeable fractured sandstone (graywacke) on the uphill side against relatively impermeable sheared shale melange on the downhill side. As noted by PSC, no landslide shear zones were observed within the cuts during excavation. However, shear zones were observed within the bedrock, and we concur with PSC's conclusion that these shears could contribute to local slipouts. Another important factor in the geologic model is the slope and thickness of the highly weathered bedrock at the base of the buried valley fill. This layer tends to impede groundwater flow and trap water with the cover sediments. The significance of this is discussed later. Inclinometer Measurements The inclinometer monitoring results indicate that the deflections are very small "noise" level and PSC feels that they are not considered significant other than normal downhill creep. As presented, the data suggests that the "creep" movement is in the uphill direction except for the upper 4-6 ft of SI-5. Ground Water Monitoring The groundwater monitoring is presented as 'Depth to Water in Inclinometer Casings'. We agree that the inclinometer casings were not intended to be used to motitor groundwater fluctuations, but they may provide information on general trends. The inclinometer casings all extend into bedrock and the water level readings and any ROGER FOOTT ASSOCIATES, INC. Mr. John Gibbs February 28, 1991 Page 3 fluctuations in the bedrock may be significantly different from those in the overlying cover materials, especially where there is a thick weathered mantle on the bedrock surface. The water level in the cover sediments significantly effects the slope stability analysis. The PSC report notes that the overlying cover materials are granular and apparently assumes that groundwater will not build up in the exposed slopes. However, observations during and after significant periods of rains indicate that substantial portions of the cut slopes form seeps and bleed water. The jute netting is also stained by water running down the cutslopes. These observations suggest that the areas above the weathered bedrock contain a lot of water after periods of significant rainfall (such as March, 1991 and mid-February, 1992), especially on the westernmost 1.5:1 cut (between debris basins 2A & 2C.) Stope Stability Analysis To evaluate the slope stability of the "Goat Farm" cuts, PSC refers to their 11/ 15/83 report that addresses the overall stability of the slopes, and reproduces the results of those slope stability analyses in Appendix D (November 29, 1991 report) . These analyses were completed over eight years ago and state very clearly on the title "FOR GENERAL REFERENCE PURPOSES" , "FOR EVALUATION PURPOSES ONLY, NOT A RECOMMENDATION", etc. We do not understand the logic for directly applying these analyses to the Goat Farm slopes, without considering the additional information gained during Phase 1 construction. We have the following specific questions on the geotechnical parameters used to analyze the slope stability of the "Goat Farm" cuts: 1) What shear strength was used for the weathered melange? 2) What shear strength was used for the cover materials? 3) Where was the water level assumed to be? It is also unclear whether all failure modes suggested by the geologic model shown in Sections C-C' and B-B' been evaluated. Specifically, these sections suggest the ROGER FOOTT ASSOCIATES, INC. Mr. John Gibbs February 28, 1991 Page 4 potential of a block glide slippage . Such a failure would be more significant than the shallow slump failures that have already occurred. These concerns were raised in the February 24 meeting and PSC indicated that on page 10 of their report they indicate "..the wedge of granular material is 10 to 15 feet thick and may slump in the event that it becomes saturated. and/or is subjected to strong earthquake loading." We agree that this slippage could occur and the City of South San Francisco and the owners of the development need to be aware of this possibility and have funds in place and a plan of action to cleanup the debris and repair the improvements when a failure occurs. Recommendations PSC has analyzed the potential for deep seated landslides. However, shallow slipouts have occurred last winter and this winter on the 1.5:1 slope between debris basins 2A & 2C, indicating that water is saturating portions of the cover sediments and that the slope is too steep to prevent failure. The most recent slippage caused a debris flow that crossed Parkridge Circle. If the slumping continues, and we have no indication to think that it will not, it will progress up the slope and jeopardize the "V"-ditch and eventually the HCP property line. In their November 1991 report, PSC recommends that the steep headwalls of these slipouts be graded back and a 2-3 foot high wall be constructed along the north side of Parkridge Circle to help deflect any soil debris away from the street and direct the material into Debris Basin 2A. (Note that the footing for such a wall would have to be engineered to avoid the drains that were installed at the base of the cut slopes.) Such a wall would catch some of the debris, just as the chain-link fence has caught some of the past debris slides. However, much of the debris slide that presently crosses Parkridge Circle flowed down the access ramp to Debris Basin 2C. These recommended measures do not provide any proactive mitigation to the conditions that have caused the slipouts (i.e. saturated cover soils or an oversteepened slope) or to protect the 'V'-ditch and HCP property line. Based on our discussions in the meeting, PSC will prepare a letter that will recommend a more proactive approach. We will be happy to review the letter when it is finalized. ROGER FOOTT ASSOCIATES, INC. Mr. John Gibbs February 28, 1991 Page 5 At present, the status is that questions remain regarding the geologic model but these differences do not affect the suitability of the goat farm cuts. We concur with PSC that the wedge of granular cover sediments that overlie bedrock (especially in the westernmost cut) could fail in mass if it becomes saturated and or due to seismic loading. During the meeting we also formally requested that PSC return the photos and negatives that we provided them on the history of the Goat Farm cuts. Should you have any questions regarding these comments please contact us. Sincerely, ROGER FOOTT ASSOCIATES, INC. Eric cHuron Principal, Chief Geologist EJM4:13-4RLA ROGER FOOTT ASSOCIATES, INC. ~~ Geotethnlwl Consultants Materials Engineering P.0. Box 695 Pearl City, Honolulu Hawaa 96782-9998 PN: (808) 576-3828 (Odice) (808) 677-0616 (field) FAX: (808) 671-2341 W. W. DEAN AND ASSOCIATES Terrabay Development Corporation 901 Mariners Island Boulevard San Mate, CA 94401 Attention: John Ochsner February 26, 1992 Job No: 89140.25 Addendum 1 Subject: RESPONSES TO CITY REVIEWER'S QUESTIONS Goat Farm Cut Slopes EN!'t, •-•.,t• ~.~ ~~... Terrabay Development r,~,,, ~ ~ ,., South San Francisco, California . Reference: Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation ~ RELl:lirtU of Completed "Goat Farm" Cut Slop~:s, Terrabay Development -Phase 1, South San Francisco, California (dated November 29, t 991) Dear Mr. Ochsner: At the City's request, we met with the City's Geotechnical Reviewer (Eric McHuron of Roger Foott Associates) and the City's Reside,it Cnginu;r (John Gibbs) at City Hall on February 24, 1992 regarding our referenced report. The comments from RFA were discussed and verbal responses were provided by PSC. These responses were satisfactory to the City and RFA. In general, the discussions concluded with the acceptance of the "Goat-Farm Cut-Slopes" report by RFA. This was based on the understanding that the comments by RFA and responses by PSC would be documented in an addendum letter. The purpose of this letter is to satisfy this requirement. No new issues are discussed in this letter. In order to simplify the final review paraphrased RFA's comments in the comments in the following paragraphs. and acceptance of this letter, we have first paragraph and have provided the REVIEWER'S OUESTIONS AND OUR RESSPONSFS Age of FaultinE - There was no major disagreement regarding our explanation of the geologic model. However, a question was asked regarding the 70 million year old "age of faulting" which seems to be implied in our report. Branch Offices: Pacheco, CA San Francisco. CA Honolulu. Hawaii W.W. Dean - Terrabay Review of Goat Farm Cut Slopes Job No.: 89140.25 February 26, 1992 Page 2 Although it was not our intent, the text of our report might be misconstrued to mean that there has not been any movement on this fault since 70 million years ago. We recognize that additional movements may have occurred along this fault since it originated. Striated, slicken sides have been observed which suggest that there has been right lateral strike slip movement along the fault since the time it was originally created by subduction ?0 million years ago. The age of last movement has not been determined. However, the key is recognition that the fault has an absence of evidence of any Holocene age movement. Therefore, it poses no primary surface rupture hazard and is not subject to the provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Act. Creep indicated in Inclinometer Plots - Regarding the inclinometer measurements, we were asked for clari fication of our comment regarding downhill "creep". We explained that only very small adjustments ("instrumental noise") were observed in the inclinometer data and these were taken into consideration when we wrote our report. Our reference to the exception that downhill "creep" was indicated applies to the upper 4 to 6 feet of SI-5 only. impair of Slumps and Role of Seevage - Regarding the clean-up of the existing slumps above Basin 2B, we were asked if our recommended "trimming back" the edges of the existing scars would address seepage through the soil mantle above the bedrock interface. We noted that the clean-up work we had recommended in our November report has not been done and that the latest rainfall "aggravated" the existing scars and caused additional slumping. The soil debris pushed over a portion of the chain link fence and deposited on the driveway into the basin and on the street below it. Therefore, we are now modifying our recommendation for cleaning-up and repair work in this area. Clean-up and repair work should include i,~stallatiou of subdraii>s and/or placement of filter fabric and rock fill to support the remaining soil and provide a "relief mechanis~u" for the seepage. Should the client choose to do so, the debris material can be removed, a drain can be installed, and slope can be laid back at a flatter inclination in the affected area. This will require realignment and reconstruction of the existing V-ditch and permission from the HCP for such modification. This can be left as an option to the client since either option should provide the positive drainage system necessary to relieve the seepage. It is hoped that such work will help prevent, or at least limit the extent of, such failures. i ~~ W, W. Dean - Terrabay Review of Goat Farm Cut Slopes Job No.: 89140.25 February 26, 1992 Page 3 Post-1983 Analyses of Slope Stability - We were asked why we had not performed new analyses (sliding block/wedge) on the slopes in the western portion of the area, taking into account post-1983 findings regarding buric:ti valley geometries, bedrock shears, and shear strengths of clay-rich soil mantles. We explained that the approach we took for this study was to assume that such unknown factors make it likely that "the wedge of granular material (above Debris t3asin 2A) ... may slump in the event it becomes saturated and/or is subjected to strong earthquake loading." and that the debris would tend to flow into the existing basin or collect onto the level area adjacent to the cul de sac.' Based on this assumption our November report recommended construction of a berm or wall to deflect any soil debris away from the street and toward the basin. We pointed out that the intent of our recommendation was not to prevent deposition of soil debris on the street in the event of a single, large failure. Rather, our original recommendation was intended to mitigate only relatively small, periodic slumps and on-going erosion so that maintenance would not involve clean-up of the street except for the exceptionally large events. In those cases, we would anticipate the need to remove a substantial amount of soil deposited in the street. However, we did not consider the possibility of such effects to constitute a "project threatening' potential. It was on that basis that we did not recommend, and continue to not recommend, compleie removal of the soil which remains in the cut slope at the western end of the Goat Farm cut slope area. istinE Subdrain near Debris Basin 2A - We were asked if any new construction activities would be planned and performed in the area of a shallow subdrain which was previously installed along the toe of the cut slope above Basin 2A. The concern is that the drain not be damaged accidently during new work. In response, we recommend that all of the existing improvements, irrcludirrg the existing subdrain, be included in the plans for any changes irr that area. All buried drains, utilities, etc. should be located, flagged, and avoided during construction. I ~4 W. W. Dean - Terrabay Rcvicw of Goat Farm Cut Slopes Job No.: 89140.25 February 26, 1992 Page 4 CONCLUSIONS Our meeting concluded with the understanding that we would document our responses to the reviewer's comments and questions, in this letter, prior to the formal acceptance of the report. We trust that this addendum letter provides the required response. Please contact us immediately if you have any questions regarding the information presented in this letter. By this writing, the modified recommendations for slope repairs contained in this letter are made a part of our November report. Sincerely, PSC Associates, Inc. ~~ _~. ary Parikh, GE Principal Geotechnical Engineer GE 666 `, r ~~ amen B. Baker, CEG Chief Engineering Geologist CEG 1021 cc: 1 copy to John Ochsncr 1 copy to John Gibbs (City) 1 copy to Eric McHuron (RFA) 1 copy to Ed Stcincr (I.BcA) i~~ McHURON GEOSCIENCES 1670 8th Avenue ~` ` ~` San Francisco, Ca 94122 ~ ~l ~ 2 ~ ~~QS 415 564-1364 ~~~~~~~~ July 20, 1996 City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Attention: Mr. Arthur Wong, City Engineer RE: Summary of Debris Basin Design, Terra Bay South San Francisco, CA., Dear Arthur: Per our discussion during the conference call on July 17, I am enclosing the 'paper trail' and what I recall of the design of the Debris Basins. Questions have been raised about the difference in the estimated volume of the debris material presented in PSC's 1983 report and the capacity of the as-built Debris Basins. The work on estimating the capacity of the basins was completed by the developers Geotechnical (PSC) and Civil (C/REM) consultants. The first geotechnical reviewer for South San Francisco was Harding Iawson followed in May of 1984 by Dames & 1`loore (D&M), Roger Foott Associates (RFA) in May of 1988 and 1vlcHuron Geosciences in November of 1995. Wilsey & Ham (W&H) has been the Civil reviewer since 1984. D&M, RFA and W&H were also the reviewers for the County of San 1`~Iateo. Documents related to the design of the debris basins are contained in a file entitled "Updated Compilation of Documents Pertaining to Terrabay Development Catchment Basins, dated January 9, 1989. A copy of the Table of Contents is attached to this letter. I have reviewed this compilation and other documents that were in the City files pertaining to the Debris basins. The remainder of this letter presents these documents and attempt to summarizes the rationale behind the design of the basins. The first document related to estimation of the volumes of Debris Flow material was by PSC (dated February 15, 1983). The volume estimate relied heavily on the debris flows that occurred during the January 4-S, 1982 intense rainstorm. PSC used air photos (taken after the storm) and field mapping to estimate the volume of material that has entered the various drainages at Terra Bay. PSC's estimates are included in a Table. They indicated in their report (page 9) that these volumes are estimates, and "more quantitative data probably can be provided by engineers qualified in erosion and sedimentation practices, by adding appropriate fluid factors in their design". The report concludes on page 12, that "in our opinion, only a small fraction of the total debris volume reported for a particular stream would enter a catchment basin during any one runoff season." The neat document is entitled "Report on Debris Flow Control Facilities for Terrabay Residential Development (C/RII~i, February, 1984, revised). This report is further referenced in a C/REI`1 letter to W&H (dated December 27, 1988; REVISED, January 9, 1989). As stated in the letter, C/REI`I based their volume estimates for the Debris Basins requiring capacity for 125~Yo of the Existing Debris Flow estimates provided in the first section of the PSC 1983 Mr. Arthur Wong Debris Basin Volumes July 20, 1996 Page 2 report, plus 50% of the Extreme Event Erosion(40% of Normal year from USGS), plus 100 cubic yards. C/REM assumes those 125% of the 1982 debris flow volume enters the debris basin. Over and above this amount they have an Excess capacity in excess of 75 yards for all basins but 3C. It is important to note that both PSC estimated that 109'0 of the existing 1982 debris flow material will be released into the debris basins each year. In D&M's Geotechnical Review: W.W. Dean and Associates, Terrabay Development, (June 10, 1984) it is stated that the "sizing details have not been reviewed." W&H (November 8, 1988, see attached) indicated that they were authorized to review the submittals by C/REM for the debris basins under contract (dated 10/19/88) with the Director of Public Works, San Mateo County. W&H state that the "data furnished meets the criteria established by the JPA with the exception of the items commented on in the attached memorandum." They "recommend that the JPA approve the design of the debris basins subjected to the accommodation of these comments being included in the final working drawings." The final document that I found regarding this matter was in RFA's letter report, entitled Geotechnical Review of Proposed Terrabay Development Stage I Grading, (February 1989). In this document, they state that "The holding capacities of these debris basins have been based on estimates made by PSC Associates, Inc. of the volume of debris which might be generated during particularly heavy rainfall. We have not evaluated these estimates which we understand had been agreed io prior to our involvement." It seems that the overall confusion regarding the capacity of the Debris Basins is related to people comparing the ma.~dmum estimated volumes in the final column of the PSC table (which includes all potential sources in each drainage basin), with the design capacity estimated by C/REM. As indicated in the PSC tent, it is not expected that this volume would enter the basins at once and that the estimate be reviewed by an engineer. C/REM did formulate the final estimate using the sources indicated above (including 125% of the 1982 debris flow material measured by PSC). As I stated during the conference call, it is interesting that over the past six winter seasons that the amount of material retained in the basins has been far below the annual estimate calculated by C/REM. The amount entering this last winter season is estimated to be less than 1-2 cubic yards per debris basin. I hope that this summary helps clarify the record. Please call if you have any questions regarding this recap or need further clarification of this matter. Sincerely. McHuron Geosciences Dr. c J. I~IcHuron, CEGm 1023 President McHuron Geosciences January 9, 1989 TERRABAY DEVELOPMENT CATCHMENT BASINS UPDATED COMPILATION OF DOCUMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I J.P.A. Agreement for Maintenance of Catchment Basins on San Bruno Mountain II Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance III Terrabay Specific Plan Amendments IY Basin Hydrology, Weir Length and Headwater Calculations - 1 /7/89 (C/REM) Y Correspondence C/REM to Wilsey and Ham -Revised 1/9/89 - Summary Discussion of Catchment Basins - YI Correspondence C/REM to Wilsey and Ham - 11/1/88 - Supplement to Original "Compilation of Documents" - YII Report on Debris Flow Control Facilities for Terrabay Residential Development, February, 1984 (Revised) VIII Terrabay Development Projection of Annual Maintenance Costs for Sedimentation and Debris, Catchment Basins, February 1983 IX Debris Flows, Potential Debris Flow Areas, Debris Flow Paths, Potential Debris Flow Paths, and Estimated Volume of Debris Materials in Stream Drainage Basins, South Slope San Bruno Mountain, San Mateo County, California, January 31, 1983 Rcviscd February 1 S, 1983 X Debris Basin Drawings DB-1 through DB -4 REFERENCES Section Y - Rcviscd Surface Erosion Calculations - C/REM - Votumc Distribution Chart - Basin Cross-Sections - Basin Stage/Volume Curves Section VI - PSC Associates Letter Re: Gcotechnical Issues - 10/31/88 - United States Geological Survey Letter Report, (/17/83, to San Mateo County, Department oC Public Works - "Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook", S/81 - Statc of California r` _ ._..r... `., ~ f 1~ ~~. ~~ E:VC',~~'FFRI:~TG A~1D PI.AN:~IING ~ Po6iic lmpeo~mmts l~sd DeNloQmee~t 1lasporseo,~ 1035 East Hillsdale Boulevard 622-1503-12 Foster City, California 94404 (415) 349-2151 November 8, 1988 Mr. Robert Sans Director of Public Works San Mateo County 805 Veterans Blvd. Redwood City, CA 94063 Dear Mr. Sara: As authorized by our contract wish you dated 10/19/88 we have reviewed the submittals made by C/REM for the debris basins at Terrabay. We find that the data furnished meets the criteria established by the JPA with the exception of the items commented on in the attached memorandum. We recommend that the JPA approve the design of the debris basins subjected to the accommodation of these comments being included in the final working drawings. Very truly yours, WIL,~Y ~i HAM /~ /~ ~~~~7 LEE E. HA M President Attachments LE H/ km g-S : 2 cc: Richard Harmon Robert Eppler Peter Rathati Ron Cat houn /t 1-622-1503-12 November 3, 1988 COMMENTS ON TERRABAY DEVELOPMENT DEBRIS BASIN FACILITIES Our comments are based on the revised "Criteria for Review of Debris Basins for Terrabay Residential Development", Job No. 622-1303-12, prepared by Wilsey do Ham. The revision was made per Robert Sans' (Director of Public Works, San Mateo County) request, on October 20, 1988. According to Robert Sans' direction, the debris basins shall not be designed as sediment basins. Dependent on the accumulated sediment (debris) volume in the basins, a significant part of the sediment eroded from areas above the basins will not be trapped by the basins. A. Comments of PSCs Letter (October 31 1988) 1. Before the final submittal, PSC Assodates, Inc. shall certify that applicable portions of the plans have been prepared in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Reports, Debris Flow Report and the "Criteria for Review of Debris Basins for Terrabay Residential Development", prepared by Wilsey do Ham. 1 2. PSC ".....would like to consent on several items Which may not be available for review at this time" (see PSC's letter). Before the final submittal one copy of the catchment basis documentation shall be given to PSC for consents. 3. PSC's letter (dated October 31. 1988) shall be attached to the final submittal. B. Gegerel Consents (Based on the Latest Submittal of the applicant, Dated October 12, 1988) 1. The current design does not provide debris rack/security fencing at the islet channels. "Fence to span channel allow 1'-6" clear between fence and channel bottom" note is shown oa the plans. JPA should give recommendations for the fencing issue. 2. The road grade between the street and debris basins shall not exceed 155. Provide 2-inch A.C. Paving for access roads. Where grades are steeper than 10~, 3-inch A.C. Paving shall be provided. 3. The slopes of the basins shall be paved with minimum 6-inch reinforced concrete slab. 2 ~' F 4. The hydraulic calculation of the outflow weirs shall be submitted. In the calculation the trashrack losses and end effects shall be taken into account. 5. Hydrology calculation for Basin No. 2C and 3A shall be submitted to verify ruaoff. 6. Hydraulic calculation shall be •ub~itted for the required headwater in the outlet boxes of Basin 2C and 3A. 7. Give note for the construction joints. 8. Floor slabs shall have a sinisus thickness of 9 inches. Steel clearances shall sot be less than 2 1/2 iaches at the bottos of the bottos slabs. 9. The freeboard for overflow outlets shall be 12 inches ainisum. 3 . ` I ~. Comments 1. Drawing DB_1 a. Provide uniform slope between the inlet channel and the outlet structure. b. Provide adequate space for the debris flow between the outlet structure and the side inlet channel. c. ?he exterior wall top elevation of Basin No. 2A shall not be less than 326.00. d. The 6" x 6" - W2.9 x WZ.9 WWF should not go through the construction joints. (see Slope Protection Detail 3/BD-1). e. The available headwater in the outlet box of Basin No. 1 is not acceptable. She distance between the weir elevation and water surface in the outlet box shall not be less than 12 inches. 2. Drawing DB_2 a. Show the pipe data for all storm b. Check the slope above cul-de-sac The soils engineer shall approve the slope. c. For the better drainage provide for the bottom slab of Basin No. drains. for stabilit3~. the height of adequate slope 2A. 4 3. Drawing DB_3 a. Show the slab elevation of Basin No. 3C. b. .Provide uniform slope from the inlet channel to to the outlet box. c. The 12' slope width, Which is shown on the plan of Basin No. 3A, is not correct. d. Is the available area adequate for the •aintenance equipment? e. The proposed grade between the access road of Basin No. 3A and bench is too steep. f. Submit storage volume calculation for Basin No. 3A. If the proposed volume is less than the required volume modify the plans of-the basin. 4. Drawing DB_4 a. The "proposed grade behind wall" shall be modified oa the elevations of the walls, because the freeboards are not shown. b. Fetsiniag walls will be checked separately. 3 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco September 18, 1996 Final SEIR IV. Appendices WP5115481 FSEI R I F-I V. 548