HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 150-1999RESOLUTION NO. 150-99
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ADOPT FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,
AND A MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN FOR PHASE II WOODS OF THE
TERRABAY DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, as further described and defined herein: Certain approvals have already
been granted for the Terrabay project (the "Existing Project"). SunChase G.A. California I, Inc.
(the "Applicant") applied to the City to modify the Existing Project (the "Proposed Project").
The Applicant then modified the Proposed Project by asking the City to process Phase II before
Phase III, and by dropping its request for approval of a residential subdivision in the Phase II
Commons area. The City Council considered the Proposed Project as modified and decided to
approve only the proposed actions relating to the Woods area, (the "Approved Project")but to
reject the proposed actions relating to the Point and Commons areas; and
WHEREAS, the Existing Project is divided into three separate phases, the first of which,
Phase I, is currently under construction and nearing completion; and
WHEREAS, the Existing Project provides for development of 745 units of single family
dwelling and condominiums, an 18,000 sq fi health club, a 400 room hotel, 268,800 technology
center, three restaurants and a 57,500 square foot condominium office building; and
WHEREAS, in July 1997 the Applicant applied to the City to modify its approved
entitlements and proceed with development of a residential project area ( Phase II) and a
commercial project area (Phase III) including: amendment of the Terrabay Specific Plan of 1996;
approval of a Precise Plan for the Phase II Terrabay site; approval of vesting tentative and final
subdivision maps for the Phase II and III sites; amendment of the Terrabay Specific Plan District
in the Zoning Ordinance; amendment of the Development Agreement originally approved in
1988 and extended in 1996; approval of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for
Phase II and III site components; design review for Phase II; and grading permits for the Phase II
and III sites (together the "Proposed Project" referred to above"); and
WHEREAS, by letter, the Applicant asked the City to process Phase II prior to Phase III;
and
WHEREAS, the Applicant modified the proposed entitlements by withdrawing its
application for development of the Commons area; and
WHEREAS, the proposed entitlements for Phase II would provide for development of a
total of 135 single family detached units in the Woods area; and
WHEREAS, following the April 14, 1999 public hearing on the proposed entitlements
and the 1998-99 SEIR, the City Council deliberated and desires to approve the proposed
development of the 135 single family detached dwelling units in the Woods. The City Council,
however, desires to reject the Applicant's current proposal to develop the Point and Commons
neighborhoods (together the "Approved Project" referred to above).
WHEREAS, at this time, the City Council does not recommend approving the
entitlements relating to the Point and Commons neighborhoods of Phase II of the Terrabay
Project, therefore these findings on environmental impacts and mitigations only relate to the
Woods development of 135 single family homes. Environmental findings on Phase III impacts
and mitigations will be considered at the time the entitlements for Phase III are considered.
WHEREAS, the City Council determined that a Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report (SEIR) was required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate
the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the Proposed Project was reviewed in accordance with CEQA by the
preparation and review of the SEIR, which report (the "1998-99 SEIR") was certified by the City
Council on February 17, 1999 (Resolution No. 19-99); and
WHEREAS, based on the 1998-99 SEIR and other information in the record, there are
certain significant and potentially significant environmental impacts of the Approved Project
which could be mitigated to a level of insignificance, therefore mitigation findings are required
pursuant to CEQA §21081 and CEQA Guidelines §15091 upon Project approval (Exhibit A);
and
WHEREAS, based on the 1998-99 SEIR and other information in the record, there are
impacts of the Approved Project which are not environmentally significant and which require no
findings or mitigation upon Project approval (Exhibit A - Less Than Significant Impacts); and
WHEREAS, the 1998-99 SEIR, as a supplement to the 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR, did not
reanalyze impacts of the Proposed Project which were not significantly different from Project
impacts analyzed in the 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR. No further analysis of these impacts was
required because the Proposed Project did not present any new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects in these areas
(Public Resources Code §21166; CEQA Guidelines § 15163). Therefore, mitigation findings
pursuant to CEQA §21081 and CEQA Guidelines §15091 are made for each of these impacts
previously analyzed in the 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR, and not reanalyzed in the SEIR (Exhibit C);
and
WHEREAS, based on the 1998-99 SEIR and other information in the record, there are
significant and potentially significant environmental impacts of the Approved Project which
2
could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance, therefore the alternatives to the Proposed
Project were examined to determine if they would avoid any of the unmitigated significant
impacts (Exhibit B); and
WHEREAS, based on the 1998-99 SEIR and other information in the record, there are
significant and potentially significant environmental impacts of the Approved Project which
could not be reduced to a level of insignificance, therefore a Statement of Overriding
Considerations is required upon Project approval (Exhibit B); and
WHEREAS, CEQA §21081.6 requires that where mitigation findings are made for
significant and potentially significant environmental impacts, a mitigation monitoring and
reporting program shall be adopted upon Project approval to ensure compliance with the
mitigations during Project implementation (Exhibit D); and
WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents which constitute the record of
proceedings upon which the City's decision on Phase II entitlements relating to the 1998-99
SEIR is the City of South San Francisco Planning Division, 315 Maple Avenue, South San
Francisco; and
WHEREAS, the mitigation measures identified in the 1998-99 SEIR will be applied as
conditions of Project approval; and
WHEREAS, on March 18, 1999, following a properly noticed public hearing, the
Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco recommended that the City Council
adopt findings regarding the Significant and Potentially Significant Impacts, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for Phase II of the Terrabay
development; and
WHEREAS, on April 14, 1999 the City Council held a properly noticed hearing to
consider the Planning Commission recommendation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco hereby adopts the following relating to the Woods area of Phase II of the Terrabay
project only:
The impact and mitigation findings, and mitigation measures identified in
Exhibits A and C. Adopt the mitigation measures identified in Exhibits A and C
as conditions of Project approval.
The Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings Regarding Alternatives
in Exhibit B.
3. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan in Exhibit D.
The following Exhibits, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated by reference.
Exhibit A: Findings Concerning Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
and Less Than Significant Environmental Impacts
Exhibit B: Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings Regarding
Alternatives
Exhibit C: Findings on Impacts and Mitigation Measures From 1982 EIR and
1996 SEIR Not Further Analyzed in 1998-99 SEIR
Exhibit D: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by
the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held'on the 8 day of December ·
1999 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers John R. Penna,
Mayor Pro Tem doseph A.
NOES: Mayor Karyl Matsumoto
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Euoene R. Mullin and James L. Datzman
Fernekes
ATTEST:
\\FS 1 \SYS\WPD\MNRSW\405\035\RESO\ 1999\findings_D03_fnl.doc
e~uty City Cler~
EXHIBIT A
Terrabay Phase II Woods Project Approvals
Findings Concerning Significant Impacts,
Mitigation Measures, and Less Than Significant Impacts
Pursuant to Public Resources Code §21081 and CEQA Guidelines § 15091, the
following findings address the Terrabay Phase II project's ("Approved Project")
significant and potentially significant impacts and means for mitigating those impacts.
The Approved Project allows for development of 135 single family detached dwelling
units in the Woods neighborhood as proposed by SunChase G.A. Califomia I, Inc. The
Approved Project, however, does not approve the Applicant's current proposal for
development of the Point and Commons areas. In each case, the appropriate statutory
finding is followed by a rationale statement explaining how identified mitigations lessen
or avoid the related impact.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. Reliance on Record. The findings and determinations contained herein are based on
the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire
record relating to the Approved Project and the 1998-99 SEIR. The findings and
determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of this City
Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in
the record as a whole.
2. Nature of Findings. Any findings made herein by this City Council shall be deemed
made, regardless of where it appears in this document. All of the language included in
this document constitutes findings by this City Council, whether or not any particular
sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect. This City Council intends that if
these findings fail to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other part of these
findings, that any finding required or permitted to be made by this City Council with
respect to any particular subject matter of the Approved Project, shall be deemed made if
it appears in any portion of these findings, or findings elsewhere in the record.
3. Limitations. The City Council's analysis and evaluation of the Approved Project is
based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a
project of the scope and size of the Approved Project that absolute and perfect knowledge
of all possible aspects of the Approved Project is impossible. This practical limitation is
acknowledged in CEQA Guidelines Section 15151, which states that "the sufficiency of
an 1998-99 SEIR is to be reviewed in light of what is feasible." One of the major
limitations on analysis of the Approved Project is the City Council's lack of knowledge
of future events, particularly those occurring outside the City. In some instances, the City
Council's analysis has had to rely on assumptions about such factors as growth and traffic
generation in areas outside of the political boundaries of the City. In all instances, best
efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the
Page 1 of 41
limitations on the City's ability to solve what are in effect regional, state and national
problems and issues. The City must work within the political framework in which it
exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework.
4. Summaries of Facts, Impacts, Mitigation Measures, Alternatives and Other Matters.
All summaries of information in the findings to follow are based on the 1998-99 SEIR,
the Approved Project and/or other evidence in the record as a whole. Such summaries
are not intended to be exhaustive recitations of all the facts in the record upon which they
are based. Moreover, the summaries of impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives are
only summaries. This document includes only as much detail as may be necessary to
show the basis for the findings set forth below. Cross references to the 1998-99 SEIR
and other evidence such as City Council resolutions or actions have been made where
helpful, and reference should be made directly to the 1998-99 SEIR and other evidence in
the record for more precise information regarding the facts on which any summary is
based. Conflicting interpretations of the language of the 1998-99 SEIR and the language
of mitigation conditions adopted by the City Council shall be resolved in favor of the
latter as the most appropriate way to mitigate the impact in question.
5. Adoption of Mitigation Measures. These findings address the mitigation measures
recommended in the 1998-99 SEIR for impacts identified as significant or potentially
significant. Some of the mitigation measures are implemented by changes incorporated
into the Approved Project and others by adoption of standards in the Specific Plan
Amendment and/or as approval conditions required in the Amended and Restated
Development Agreement for Phase II. In its actions approving the Approved Project, the
City Council adopts those mitigation measures recommended in the 1998-99 SEIR, as
revised by the City Council, that have not already been incorporated into the Approved
Project, except with respect to those that are rejected by the City Council in the specific
findings as being infeasible or unnecessary. Where multiple mitigation measures are
adopted for a single impact, all of the identified measures are required to support the
related mitigation finding, unless otherwise specified (ex., if mitigation measures are
identified as options or alternatives). This City Council finds that all the Mitigation
Measures now or previously incorporated into the Approved Project are desirable and
feasible and shall be implemented in connection with the implementation of the
Approved Project in accordance with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
6. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures. The 1998-99 SEIR for the Approved Project
recommended mitigation measures to reduce most of the significant and potentially
significant environmental effects to insignificant levels. The City Council reviewed the
1998-99 SEIR, revised some of the proposed mitigations, and agrees with the 1998-99
SEIR conclusions, as revised. The City Council finds that to the extent any residual
impact remains that has not been fully mitigated in those instances where the City
Council finds that mitigation has occurred, the residual impact is overridden by the
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
7. Findings Relate to Phase II and Cumulative Impacts of Phase II Only. The City
Council is considering at this time the Approved Project entitlements only. Therefore,
Page 2 of 41
these findings relate to Phase II Woodsimpacts and cumulative impacts. In assessing the
cumulative impacts of the Approved Project, the projects considered include Phase I and
Phase III of the Terrabay Project and those projects identified in the cumulative analysis
in the 1998-99 SEIR. Phase III was analyzed in the 1998-99 SEIR on a project EIR level
as a component of Phases II and III of the Terrabay Project. The level of analysis of
Phase III in the 1998-99 SEIR goes beyond the requirements of cumulative impacts under
CEQA. For the purposes of these findings, the impacts of Phase III for the cumulative
analysis will be evaluated based on the January, 1998 Phase III plan analyzed in the Draft
1998-99 SEIR. However, the 1998-99 SEIR includes information to analyze the potential
project and cumulative impacts of any of Phase III alternatives in the document. Based
on this information and analysis, the City Council may approve any of the alternatives for
Phase III in the 1998-99 SEIR, or any Phase III Project as long as the impacts of the
project, as mitigated, do not exceed the impacts analyzed in the 1998-99 SEIR, at the
time it considers the Phase III project. Impacts identified in the 1998-99 SEIR as only
relating to Phase III are not addressed in these findings because the City Council is not
considering recommending approval of Phase III at this time. Findings on the
environmental impacts of Phase III will be addressed at the time of the Phase III Project
approval.
8. Incorporation and Use of Prior EIRs for Project. The 1998-99 SEIR is a Supplemental
EIR to the two prior environmental impact reports prepared for the Terrabay Project: the
1982 Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabay Development Project ("1982 EIR")
and the 1996 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabay Specific Plan
and Development Agreement Extension ("1996 SEIR"). The 1998-99 SEIR is a project
EIR for both Phases II and III of the Terrabay Project. The 1998-99 SEIR analyzes all
potentially significant environmental effects resulting from proposed changes to the
development for Phases II and III of the Terrabay Project from the project approved
under the 1982 Specific Plan (as amended in 1996) and changes in environmental
conditions under which the Approved Project would be undertaken from those analyzed
in the 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR. The 1998-99 SEIR does not re-analyze those impacts of
the Approved Project that are not significantly different from the impacts previously
analyzed in the 1982 EIR or 1996 SEIR. The 1998-99 SEIR also incorporates by
reference the 1982 EIR, 1996 SEIR, and other prior environmental assessments and
environmental impacts reports certified for the Approved Project and related activities,
such as approval of the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and
issuance of the Section 10 A Permit, as set forth in the Draft 1998-99 SEIR (p. 7).
Based on the foregoing, the impacts of the Approved Project listed below are not
significantly different from the Existing Project impacts previously analyzed in the 1982
EIR or 1996 SEIR. No further analysis of these impacts was required in the 1998-99
SEIR because the Approved Project did not present any new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects
in these areas (Public Resources Code § 21166; CEQA Guidelines § 15091). The
following impact analyses, determinations of significance, and mitigations are
incorporated by reference from the 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR, to the extent they do not
conflict with the analysis and mitigation measures in the 1998-99 SEIR: visual quality
Page 3 of 41
(1982 EIR); land use (1982 EIR); community services: water (1982 EIR), wastewater
(1982 EIR), solid waste (1982 EIR), gas and electricity (1982 EIR), telephone services
(1982 EIR), fire services (1982 EIR); parks and recreation (1982 EIR); recycling program
collection services (1996 SEIR); energy (1982 EIR); wind and climate (1982 EIR); and
drainage and water quality (1996 SEIR). Attached hereto as Exhibit C are findings
relating to these incorporated impacts analysis and mitigation measures in the 1982 EIR
and 1996 SEIR.
9. Description of the Record. For purposes of CEQA and these findings, the record
before this City Council includes, without limitation, the following:
A. All applications for approvals and development entitlements related to the
Approved Project, including without limitation, applications for the Specific Plan
Amendment, Precise Plan, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Final Map, Terrabay
Specific Plan District Ordinance Amendment, CC&Rs, and Amended and Restated
Development Agreement submitted to the City;
B. The Terrabay Specific Plan (1982), Development Agreement (1988) as amended,
and Phase I Precise Plan (1989);
C. The 1982 EIR, 1996 SEIR and other environmental reports referred to in the Draft
1998-99 SEIR (p. 7);
D. The 1998-99 SEIR as certified by the City Council, consisting of the Draft 1998-
99 SEIR and Final 1998-99 SEIR (the Responses to Comments on the Draft 1998-99
SEIR);
E. All staff reports on the Project and the 1998-99 SEIR;
F. All studies conducted for the Project and 1998-99 SEIR including, but not limited
to, those contained or referenced in the staff reports or 1998-99 SEIR;
G. All public reports and documents related to the Project prepared by City staff for
the City Council and the Planning Commission;
H. All documentary and oral evidence received and reviewed at public hearings and
study sessions related to the Project and the 1998-99 SEIR before the Planning
Commission and the City Council;
I. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the 1998-99 SEIR; and
J. All matters of common knowledge to the City Council, including but not limited
to:
1. The City's general plan and zoning and other ordinances;
Page 4 of 41
2. The City's fiscal status;
3. City policies and regulations;
4. Reports, projections and correspondence related to development within and
surrounding the City; and
5. State laws and regulations and publications, including all reports and
guidelines published by the California Office of Planning and Research.
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
Impact 4.1-2 Slope Stability/Erosion Cuts greater than ten feet high, cuts in soil for
proposed slopes with grades steeper than 2:1 (horizontal: vertical), or cuts with bedrock
grades steeper than 1.5:1 could erode until vegetation is re-established. These engineered
slopes can erode locally, as experienced in Phase I where substantial grading was
completed during a drought and then abandoned during a period of above average
rainfall. Proposed cut slopes, especially in soil, need to be protected from erosion before
the rainy season. Unless a comprehensive winterization plan is implemented before the
onset of winter rains, the erosion from the unvegetated slopes would be significant.
Page 5 of 41
Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 (a) In order to reduce slope stability impacts to less-
than-significant levels, the Approved Project's proposed grading plans shall be revised to
incorporate the following:
Slopes shall be laid back to provide grades no steeper than 2:1 in soil and
1.5:1 in rock except in areas where rock is highly fractured and acts like soils
in which case slopes shall be laid back farther, rock bolts shall be installed, or
retaining walls shall be constructed. In addition, subsurface drainage shall be
installed.
Intermediate benches and accompanying drainage shall be designed at vertical
intervals of about 30 feet or as recommended by City Engineer.
· Perimeter type A-ditches shall be provided above cut slopes.
Slope and groundwater monitoring instruments (inclinometers, piezometers)
shall be installed at the tops of cuts to monitor slope stability.
If slopes cannot be laid back without encroaching beyond the 50-foot buffer (and
in excess of 10 acres) in the HCP area, alternative mitigation to the above criteria
includes revising proposed grading plans to modify site design. Such modifications shall
incorporate one or all of the following measures:
The location and/or height of retaining walls shall be shifted or raised.
Retaining walls higher than ten feet shall not be designed as poured in place
structures but shall provide step backs or cribs planted with vegetation and
built with rough stone or earth colored materials. The project sponsor shall
submit plans for retaining wall design for walls higher than ten feet for City
review.
Grades of the site streets shall be increased wherever possible to reduce
grading into the hill but in no case exceed 15 percent. Grades between 12 and
15 percent shall require approval by the City Engineer, as provided by the
Terrabay Specific Plan District.
Development shall be limited, to the extent feasible, to lower site elevations to
contain grading within development areas, thus reducing the total
development area (and amount of development which could be
accommodated). This measure may eliminate individual lots at street ends of
any of the hammerheads proposed in Woods East.
(b) As previously stipulated for Phase I, the City shall withhold building permits for
development of lots located downhill of cut slopes until the slopes have experienced at
least one average winter season (about 20 inches of rain).
Page 6 of 41
(c) As automatically required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
and City of South San Francisco, all exposed slopes and surfaces (graded pads) shall be
winterized before October 15 of the year. The Phase II winterization program shall
include such measures as:
· Waddles, hydroseeding, silt fences, straw bales, and berms shall be placed
around pads with contained (pipe) discharges.
· Streets shall be swept before (and track access should be limited during)
major storms.
· Sandbag check dams shall be placed along gutters, and straw mats should be
placed over storm inlets.
· The grading site(s) shall be inspected prior to and during major storms.
Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the Approved Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the
1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact
of the Approved Project is less than significant.
Rationale. The Phase II Approved Project impacts from slope stability and
erosion have been analyzed by two geotechnical experts: the project sponsor's geologist,
Gary Parikh, Parikh & Associates, and Eric McHuron, Ph.D., Geologist, McHuron
Geosciences. The project sponsor's geologist prepared a geological report which was
reviewed and approved by the City geotechnical consultant. Both of these geologists
have extensive experience analyzing and mitigating geologic impacts on San Bruno
Mountain and both worked on the geologic plans for Phase I, which have been
successfully implemented and performed well during the E1 Nifio storms of the winter of
1997-98. After review of the project consultant's plan and other information on the site's
geologic conditions, the City geotechnical consultant identified revisions which would
reduce the slope stability and erosion impacts of the grading plans of the Approved
Project to less than significant levels. The required revisions are specified in the
mitigation measure.
Impact 4.1-3 Landsliding and Debris Slides Landslides and debris slides are present
within and above site development areas of the Phase II site. Without mitigation,
continued movement would have significant impacts on proposed development. Large-
scale grading operations likely would be necessary to repair unstable areas. In addition to
deep-seated landslides, the site has experienced impacts from shallow debris slides.
Landslide repair techniques, similar to those used during Phase I grading, would be
necessary during grading proposed for the Phase II site. If mitigation measures,
including drainage, removal, deflection and/or retention structures, setbacks, debris
basins, etc., are not taken, future debris slides would have a significant impact on
Page 7 of 41
proposed development.
Mitigation Measure 4.1-3 (a) The Precise Plan and Vesting Tentative Map
grading plans shall be revised to incorporate the following:
Measures to mitigate active slide areas and to mitigate cuts into active slides
shall be incorporated into the project and include removing material,
buttressing, and building retaining walls.
Locations shall be shown of all deflection and retaining walls as determined
necessary by the City's Consulting Geologist.
· Implementation shall include installation of monitoring instruments
(inclinometers, piezometers).
Measures shall adhere to the City's grading requirements listed in Impact 4.1-2
and can be achieved by using techniques listed in Mitigation Measure 4.1-2(a), including
installation of slope stability monitoring instruments.
(b) The Approved Project's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
shall establish and provide for implementation of a Slope Maintenance Plan by the
Approved Project's Property Owners Associations (Owners Associations). The project
sponsor shall provide initial funding for the Slope Management Plan, and the Property
Owners Associations shall fund long-term implementation after receiving title to their
respective private open space lands. At a minimum, the Slope Maintenance Plan shall
provide for monitoring and maintenance of engineered slopes, perimeter drainage, debris
slide retention, and deflection structures.
Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the Approved Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the
1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact
of the Approved Project is less than significant.
Rationale. The Approved Project impacts from landsliding and debris slides have
been analyzed by two geotechnical experts: the project sponsor's geologist, Gary Parikh,
Parikh & Associates, and Eric McHuron, Ph.D., Geologist, McHuron Geosciences. The
project sponsor's geologist prepared a geological report which was reviewed and
approved by the City geotechnical consultant. Both of these geologists have extensive
experience analyzing and mitigating geologic impacts on San Bruno Mountain and both
worked on the geologic plans for Phase I, which have been successfully implemented and
performed well during the E1 Nifio storms of the winter of 1997-98. After review of the
project consultant's plan and other information on the site's geologic conditions, the City
geotechnical consultant identified revisions which would reduce the landslide and debris
slide impacts of the grading plans to less than significant levels. The required revisions
are specified in the mitigation measure.
Page 8 of 41
Impact 4.1-4 Rockslides and Rockfalls Past cuts into the sandstone bedrock along the
southern end of San Bruno Mountain often initiated major rockslides, such as large
historic rockslides present north and northeast of the Phase III development area. In
addition, rock outcrops on and above the site pose potential hazards from rockfalls,
especially if triggered by groundshaking in an earthquake.
Mitigation Measure 4.1-4 (a) Project plans shall be revised to incorporate the
specific measures identified by the detailed rock slope stability analysis of the orientation
and spacing of rock defects and inspection of individual rock outcrops conducted by the
project sponsor's geotechnical consultant. The revised plans shall identify individual
measures or combinations of measures proposed for each rock slope, outcrop, and source
area to mitigate rockslide and rockfall impacts. Among measures for consideration are
one or more of the following:
Rockslide measures:
Flatter slopes shall be graded with benches, drainage ditches, and access for maintenance.
Rock anchors shall be installed.
Subdrains shall be constructed.
Geotechnical mitigation and revegetation shall be coordinated, possibly through design of
benched terracettes.
Slope monitoring instrumentation shall be installed (inclinometers, piezometers etc.).
Rockfall measures:
Loose rocks shall be scaled off. Netting shall be placed around features to encapsulate and
prevent material from moving.
Simple retention structures (fences) shall be built below outcrops and above cut slopes.
(b) The project sponsor shall include annual inspection of outcrops before each
rainy season and after significant seismic shaking in the Slope Maintenance Plans (i.e.,
CC&Rs) identified in Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(b) for implementation by the respective
Property Owners Associations. The City shall review, modify as necessary, and approve
the CC&Rs.
Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the Approved Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the
1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact
of the Approved Project is less than significant.
Page 9 of 41
Rationale. The Phase II Project impacts from rockslides and rockfalls have been
analyzed by two geotechnical experts: the project sponsor's geologist, Gary Parikh,
Parikh & Associates, and Eric McHuron, Ph.D., Geologist, McHuron Geosciences. The
project sponsor's geologist prepared a geological report which was reviewed and
approved by the City geotechnical consultant. Both of these geologists have extensive
experience analyzing and mitigating geologic impacts on San Bruno Mountain and both
worked on the geologic plans for Phase I, which have been successfully implemented and
performed well during the E1 Nifio storms of the winter of 1997-98. After review of the
project consultant's plan and other information on the site's geologic conditions, the City
geotechnical consultant identified revisions which would reduce the rockslides and
rockfalls impacts of the grading plans to less than significant levels and required a
detailed rock slope stability analysis to determine where these measures should be
implemented. The required revisions are specified in the mitigation measure.
Impact 4.1-5 Artificial Fill Differential settlement from placement of deep fill,
unconsolidated fill, or artificial fill at variable thicknesses can damage structures,
roadways, and utilities developed on or in the fill material.
Mitigation Measure 4.1-5 (a) The Precise Plan shall be revised to indicate the
measures proposed to mitigate differential settlement impacts expected from
development in Terrabay Woods on areas of deep or varied fills. These techniques shall
be evaluated and used on a case-by-case basis and, when selected and implemented, shall
be monitored to determine their effectiveness. One or a combination of the following
approaches shall be incorporated into Approved Project plans:
· Cuts shall be over-excavated to provide benches in the fill.
· Rock fill shall be used in the deepest parts ofthefill areas.
· Fill shall be surcharged with excess material to accelerate settlement or by an
alternative method approved by the City's Geotechnical Consultant.
· Development of areas most sensitive to settlement shall be postponed for a
construction season.
The rate of settlement shall be monitored and development (including utilities,
curbs, gutters, etc.) delayed until the rate of movement is within acceptable
limits of the engineered structures.
· Structures shall be placed on deep pier foundations.
Measures selected shall be evaluated through monitoring of reference points, and
development of the site, including roadways and utilities, shall be delayed until the
amount of future settlement reaches an acceptable level, approximately one-half inch
across a triplex lot.
Page 10 of 41
Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the Approved Project which avoid or
substantially ~lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the
1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact
of the Approved Project is less than significant.
Rationale. The Phase II Project impacts from settlement of artificial fill have
been analyzed by two geotechnical experts: the project sponsor's geologist, Gary Parikh,
Parikh & Associates, and Eric McHuron, Ph.D., Geologist, McHuron Geosciences. The
project sponsor's geologist prepared a geological report which was reviewed and
approved by the City geotechnical consultant. Both of these geologists have extensive
experience analyzing and mitigating geologic impacts on San Bruno Mountain and both
worked on the geologic plans for Phase I, which have been successfully implemented and
performed well during the E1Nifio storms of the winter of 1997-98. After review of the
project consultant's plan and other information on the site's geologic conditions, the City
geotechnical consultant identified revisions which would reduce the impacts of artificial
fill proposed under the project sponsor's grading plans to less than significant levels. The
required revisions are specified in the mitigation measure.
Impact 4.1-6 Secondary Effects of Seismic Shaking Given site geologic conditions,
hazards to people or property from groundshaking (including liquefaction, lurching, and
lateral spreading) could be mitigated to levels deemed acceptable in a seismically active
region through compliance with Uniform Building Code standards and measures required
to address other potential impacts on development.
Mitigation Measure 4.1-6 Stability analyses shall be conducted on representative
slopes based on seismic loading and anticipated groundwater conditions to evaluate the
need (if any) for special mitigation measures over and above standard engineering of the
slopes in order to mitigate potential impacts on development from seismically induced
landsliding and rocksliding. If the stability analysis identifies the need for special
mitigation, Mitigation Measures 4.1-3 and 4.1-4 shall be revised to incorporate the
additional seismic measures required. These could include one or more of the following:
· Keyways for fills shall be placed through soft soils.
· Flatter slopes shall be graded with benches.
· Rock anchors shall be installed.
· Subdrains shall be constructed.
· Retaining walls shall be built to minimize fill over sensitive areas.
· Buildings shall be designed in conformance with Uniform Building Code
(UBC) Zone 4 and City standards.
Page 11 of 41
Rockfalls shall be mitigated by removal, encapsulation, or fences (Mitigation
Measure 4.1-4(a)).
Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the Approved Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the
1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact
of the Approved Project is less than significant.
Rationale. The Phase II Project geologic and soils conditions have been analyzed
by two geotechnical experts: the project sponsor's geologist, Gary Parikh, Parikh &
Associates, and Eric McHuron, Ph.D., Geologist, McHuron Geosciences. The project
sponsor's geologist prepared a geological report which was reviewed and approved by
the City geotechnical consultant. Both of these geologists have extensive experience
analyzing and mitigating geologic impacts on San Bruno Mountain and both worked on
the geologic plans for Phase I, which have been successfully implemented and performed
well during the E1 Nifio storms of the winter of 1997-98. Based on review of the project
consultant's plan and other information on the site's geologic conditions, the City
geotechnical consultant determined that the investigations did not reveal any evidence of
soils conditions that may be susceptible to the secondary effect of seismic shaking.
However, further stability analysis of proposed slopes is required to determine if any
special mitigation measures are needed. The mitigation measure identifies measures
which would reduce any impact to less than significant levels.
Geological Impacts and Mitigation Measures from 1982 EIR
The 1982 EIR studied the geologic conditions of the Phase II development area
and the impacts and required mitigations for the Phase II plan under the 1982 Specific
Plan. Similar to the 1998-99 SEIR, the 1982 EIR identified the following impacts:
erosion due to removal of vegetation and soils condition; rock cuts; cut slopes; landslides;
and settlement of fill. The 1982 EIR identified mitigation measures to address each of
these impacts. To the extent these mitigation measures do not conflict with the measures
under the 1998-99 SEIR, they are incorporated herein.
1982 Mitigation Measures
The project sponsor has included the following mitigation measures in the Terrabay
Development Specific Plan which directly or indirectly relate to geographic and
hydrologic impacts.
· The development plan would implement, where feasible, the recommendations of the
Phase II Geotechnical Study already completed (Appendix D of this EIR) and of
those proposed to be completed prior to the Approved Project design plan.
· An erosion control plan would be incorporated in the Approved Project design which
would include on-site siltation basins to prevent downstream sedimentation and
construction techniques to prevent soil loss.
Page 12 of 41
· The construction period would be kept as brief as possible and phased to reduce the
duration of unprotected soil exposure and to minimize vegetation removal.
· The graded areas which would not be permanently disturbed would be hydromulched
prior to the rainy season to further reduce soil exposure.
· Sharp changes in slope would be reduced to eliminate areas where erosion could
begin.
· Limits of temporary and permanent grading would be clearly delineated during
construction to prevent encroachment into areas to be left undisturbed.
· Pedestrian and bicycle paths would be constructed to reduce the effects of
indiscriminate travel across the Approved Project site and adjacent upslope areas.
b. Mitigation Measures Recommended by EIR Consultant. The following mitigation
measures are specifically directed toward the development of the steeply sloping
Approved Project area at Terrabay. Many of them reiterate sound practices which would
be required by City regulations or followed by responsible engineers and builders. They
are recommended by the EIR consultant to assist the City and the project sponsor in
creating a development which would be sensitive to the special conditions posed by the
Terrabay site.
The preliminary design criteria for each proposed development area provided in the
geotechnical feasibility study and general geotechnical summary should be used as a
guideline for planning. Detailed geotechnical investigation for each specific
Approved Project site should be conducted to provide design recommendations for
each area.
· The grading plans should be evaluated after detailed geotechnical information is
obtained from the investigation of each project development area.
All grading and site preparation should be done under the direct supervision of the
soil engineer in accordance with the guide specifications for engineered fill supplied
by the geotechnical consultant.
· Weak or unstable soils should be over-excavated and replaced with sound material
properly keyed and compacted.
Fill slopes and cut slopes should be inclined no greater than 2:1 unless specifically
reviewed and approved by a qualified soils engineer. Subdrainage and surface
drainage should be installed to prevent sloughing or raveling of slopes. Cut slopes
should be designed on an individual basis and approved by the City/County.
Page 13 of 41
High fill slopes should be overfilled and graded back to obtain stable surfaces. All
fill slopes must be compacted to City/County specifications with no loose outer
slopes.
· Cut and fill slopes should be planted to reduce erosion. Cut slopes should be terraces
between benches for silt retention where appropriate.
Storm drainage and subdrainage should be installed and maintained to prevent
erosion of fill.
· Retaining walls should be subdrained. All retaining walls should be designed to resist
pressures appropriate to the size of the backslope.
After building sites are graded they should be inspected by a qualified engineer and
treated where necessary by over-excavation and backfilling. Moisture prevention
treatment should be used beneath building slabs where necessary.
Landslides should be repaired by over-excavation, installation of subdrains and
engineered backfilling or by the installation of retaining walls or by some other
appropriate method.
· Disturbed areas should be stabilized as quickly as possible either by vegetation or
mechanical methods.
· During construction, limits of grading should be defined by fencing.
· Both temporary and permanent erosion control measure should be employed.
· Slope lengths and gradients should be kept to a minimum.
· Runoff should be kept away from disturbed areas using water bars during
construction.
· Construction sediment should be trapped before it leaves the site.
Adherence to grading principles and recommendations to reduce geologic and
hydrologic impacts should be made a condition of approval of the Approved Project.
It should be the responsibility of the City/County to see that the recommendations are
carded out. Grading, drainage and erosion control plans should be submitted to, and
reviewed by the City/County for each final subdivision during the phased
development of the site. Site-specific soils and foundation studies for each
neighborhood would be necessary to complete these plans.
· All landslides and areas of weak soil in or near proposed development should be
repaired.
Page 14 of 41
Although all faults on the site are considered inactive, the maps for each final
subdivision located along a suspected fault trace should include verification of
inactivity. Setbacks should be provided as necessary.
The project sponsor should investigate the availability of landslide insurance
programs. Liability for the cost of damage from future landslides on the site to on-
site property or adjacent property, should be clarified.
· Construction on hillsides should be designed to avoid areas of potential landslide or
erosion problems.
· Cut and fill should be balanced within each Approved Project site, to the extent
feasible.
· Whenever possible, grading activities during the rainy season should be avoided.
Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the Approved Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1982
EIR and 1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the
impact of the Approved Project is less than significant.
Rationale. The Phase II Project geologic and soils conditions were analyzed in
the 1982 EIR. Part of this analysis was relied on by the City geotechnical consultant,
Eric McHuron, in analyzing geological conditions and proposing mitigation measures for
addressing geologic impacts. To the extent the mitigation measures in the 1982 EIR do
not conflict with those in the 1998-99 SEIR, they are incorporated herein and will further
address and mitigate the geologic impacts of the Approved Project to a less than
significant level.
HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE
Impact 4.2-7 Erosion and Sedimentation Unnecessary grading for culvert installation in
the Woods East neighborhood would constitute a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 4.2-7 Vesting Tentative Map and Preliminary Grading Plan
Sheets 8 and 9 shall be revised to eliminate the storm drain segment in Woods East
proposed on the contour bench of Lots G and J from the drainage and grading plan
design.
Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the Approved Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the
1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact
of the Approved Project is less than significant.
Page 15 of 41
Rationale. Based on review by City Staff experts, the proposed storm drain
segment on the contour bench of Lots G and J in Woods East is not necessary to address
drainage impacts. In order to reduce grading related to the installation of this storm drain
segment, it shall be removed.
1996 SEIR Supplemental Impact D-2 Stormwater Regulations. City adoption of a
"Stormwater Management and Discharge Control" program as Chapter 14.04 of the
Municipal Code suggests a revision to water quality related mitigation measures
recommended in the 1982 EIR. If these mitigation standards are not met, the Approved
Project could result in a potentially significant water quality impact.
Mitigation Measure D-2 Stormwater Regulations. In addition to the measures
recommended in the 1982 EIR for water quality impacts (see Table 21), require the
Approved Project applicant to:
(1) Comply with all applicable provisions of the City of South San Francisco
"Storm Water Management and Discharge Control" program (Chapter 14.04 of
the Municipal Code) and five year management plan:
(2) As required for projects involving construction on sites of more than five
acres, file a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board, in
order to be covered by the city's general NPDES permit; or apply to the State
Water Resources Control Board for an individual NPDES permit;
(3) Prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for city approval
and filing with the NPDES permit, detailing construction activities that could
cause pollutants and describing measures/practices that will be undertaken to
control the pollutants. The SWPPP should, at a minimum, include activities that
will:
stabilize areas denuded due to constructions with temporary or permanent
seeding, mulching, vegetative buffer strips, plastic covering, and/or other
measures;
· address the use of sediment controls and filtration measures;
protect adjacent properties and storm drains by use of vegetative buffer
strips, sediment 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.
Page 16 of 41
Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the Approved Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1996
SEIR and 1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures,
the impact of the Approved Project is less than significant.
Rationale. Both the City and State regulate stormwater management and
discharge to ensure no adverse effect on water quality. The Approved Project will result
in no significant adverse impact with the implementation of the water quality control
measures in the 1982 EIR and the following measures: compliance with local and state
regulations including Chapter 14.04 of the City Municipal Code; compliance with the
NPDES permit requirements; and the preparation and city approval of a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan with the controls and measures specified in the above
mitigation measure.
BIOLOGY
Impact 4.3-1 Vegetation Removal, }Vildlife Habitat Loss, and Landscape Compatibilitv
Grading associated with Approved Project implementation would require removal of
existing vegetation and associated wildlife habitat in areas proposed for development.
Loss of non-native grassland would not be considered significant, but impacts on native
freshwater marsh and riparian habitat (see Impact and Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 below)
and remnant stands of native grasslands would be significant. Proposed landscaping and
restoration of graded slopes appear to be compatible with open space designations on
parts of the site, but without a salvage component to the proposed restoration plan
anticipated impacts would continue to be significant.
Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 (a) The project sponsor shall be required to fulfill the
landowner developer obligations identified by the San Bruno Mountain Habitat
Conservation Plan with respect to the site. The proposed Restoration Plan for the
Approved Project shall be revised to include an additional component which provides for
the selective use of native plant material that otherwise would be eliminated as a result of
grading and development. The scope of the salvage effort shall be determined by the
project sponsor's vegetation specialist responsible for implementing the Restoration Plan
and shall consider proven success rates and availability from other sources in targeting
specific species. Methods of plant material salvage may include transplanting, seed
collection and propagation, and use of cutting from on-site vegetation. Transplanting
shall be performed during the optimum period necessary to ensure plant survival,
generally in the fall and early spring months, with salvage material stored in a temporary
growing area if necessary and eventually transplanted onto slopes where restoration is to
occur following final grading and soil preparation. Any plant salvage operation and seed
collection shall be restricted to the limits of final grading to prevent the further loss of
native species in permanent open space areas.
Page 17 of 41
(b) Any pedestrian trails linking the site with the open space lands of San Bruno
Mountain preferably shall follow the alignment of existing fire trails to minimize
disturbance to vegetative cover and shall avoid areas of native grasslands, freshwater
seeps, and larval host plants for callippe silverspot butterfly. Final pedestrian trail
alignments shall be approved by the Habitat Conservation Plan coordinator.
Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the Approved Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the
1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact
of the Approved Project is less than significant.
Rationale. This impact only addresses the removal of existing vegetation and
native grasslands and plants that are not special status species. The impacts on special
status species (which include only the callippe silverspot butterfly and Mission Blue
butterfly), and the impact on jurisdictional wetland habitats are addressed below in
Impact and Mitigation Measures 4.3-2 and 4.3-3, respectively. The loss of native, non-
special status species plant and grasslands is only a potentially significant impact due to
the preservation, dedication and restoration requirements of the HCP, which will
mitigate the impacts of grading on the Approved Project site. Although the
implementation of the HCP would likely mitigate this impact to less than significant, the
1998-99 SEIR also recommends a revision to the Approved Project Restoration Plan to
add an additional component for selective use of native plant material that otherwise
would be eliminated as a result of grading and development. The protection and
restoration of native grassland and plants under the HCP and this additional mitigation
measure will mitigate the impact of grading and development on these biological
resources to less than significant.
Impact 4.3-2 Impacts on Special-Status Species Except for callippe silverspot butterfly
and mission blue butterfly, no impacts on populations of other special-status plant and
animal species will occur based on extensive surveys of the Approved Project area.
While the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) fully addresses
potential impacts of anticipated development on mission blue and callippe silverspot,
further loss of suitable habitat for callippe silverspot on the site is not authorized under
the existing incidental take permit for the Approved Project. Therefore, take of the
callippe silverspot or its habitat would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 The project sponsor shall be required to fulfill the
landowner developer obligations identified by the San Bruno Mountain Habitat
Conservation Plan with respect to the site. If San Mateo County and the cities of South
San Francisco, Brisbane and Daly City (co-applicants) do not obtain an amended
incidental take permit which includes callippe silverspot butterfly, the Approved Project
must be redesigned to avoid any take, as defined in the federal Endangered Species Act,
of the callippe silverspot or its habitat, including avoiding all larval host plants. If the
permit is amended to include the callippe silverspot, the landowner shall incorporate any
new permit conditions into the Approved Project. The following measures also shall be
Page 18 of 41
implemented to further minimize potential impacts of the Approved Project on the
callippe silverspot:
· If an amendment to the incidental take permit to include the callippe silverspot
butterfly is not obtained:
1. Approved Project development shall not result in the "take" (as
defined in the federal Endangered Species Act) of the callippe silverspot
butterfly or its habitat, including redesign of the Approved Project plans to
avoid disturbance to and development of areas supporting populations of
the larval host plant (Viola pedunculata).
2. A supplemental survey shall be conducted in spring 1999 to verify the
presence or absence of any larval host plants (viola pedunculata) on the
Approved Project site.
3. If permitted under the federal Endangered Species Act, the proposed
Restoration Plan shall be revised to include a component to salvage and
transplant existing adult nectar plants (especially natives such as
Monardella) which otherwise would be lost due to grading and
development in accordance with Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 (b). Salvage
material shall be used as part of a propagation program to reestablish adult
nectar plants on restored slopes and in additional grassland habitat where
they currently are absent.
4. All stands of larval host plant which are to be preserved on the
Approved Project site should be adequately protected from construction-
related disturbance. These locations should be identified as a "no
disturbance zone" on all grading plans. The perimeter of stands of larval
host plants within 100 feet of proposed grading and construction should be
fenced prior to initiating of grading to prevent possible damage and loss.
5. Signs shall be prepared, in cooperation with the San Mateo County
Parks Development and HCP coordinator, and installed along trails and
other appropriate locations warning park users against illegal activities
(such as poaching).
6. Appropriate dust control measures shall be implemented as a
component of the Approved Project's sedimentation and erosion control
plans in order to minimize construction-generated dust (as required by
Mitigation Measures 4.1-2(c) and 4.5-1). Measures shall include frequent
watering of graded area, equipment, and haul roads to minimize dust and
control its dispersal.
· If an amendment to the incidental take permit to include the callippe silverspot
butterfly is obtained, the landowner/developer shall comply with all the
Page 19 of 41
conditions of the incidental take permit amendment, and mitigation measures
3, 5 and 6 above to the extent they do not conflict with conditions to the
amended incidental take permit.
Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the Approved Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the
1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact
of the Approved Project is less than significant.
Rationale. As set forth in the County of San Mateo application for an amendment
to the incidental take permit issued under the HCP, the callippe silverspot butterfly was a
species of concern under the HCP which included extensive mitigations to limit impacts
on this butterfly and its habitat. Since the callippe silverspot butterfly was designated a
species of concern under the HCP, it receives protections equal to those provided for the
Mission Blue butterfly under the HCP. Since the callippe butterfly was not listed as a
federally threatened or endangered species at the time of the adoption of the HCP and
issuance of the incidental take permit, it was not included in the incidental take permit. If
the incidental take permit is amended to include the callippe silverspot butterfly, taking of
the butterfly or its habitat would be authorized under the law, subject to the permit
conditions, including compliance with the protection policies of the HCP. Therefore,
impacts of the Approved Project on the callippe silverspot or its habitat would be less
than significant. If the incidental take permit is not amended, the Approved Project
grading and development may not result in the "take" of callippe silverspot or its habitat.
Therefore, the mitigation measure mandates no "take" (as defined in the federal
Endangered Species Act) including avoidance of all larval host plants. Mitigation
Measure 4.3-2 has been revised from that contained in the 1998-99 SEIR to include
enhanced protection for the callippe silverspot and its habitat. The 1998-99 SEIR
biologist has reviewed the modifications and stated that the modified mitigation measure
will result in a less than significant impact.
Impact 4.3-3 Loss of Jurisdictional Wetland Habitat Implementation of the Approved
Project and Phase III as proposed would eliminate approximately two acres of
jurisdictional habitat, including areas of sensitive freshwater seeps, riparian habitat, and
the perennial spring on the site. This loss of jurisdictional wetland habitat would be a
significant impact on the Proposed Project. Only 0.088 acres of streams are located on
the Approved Project site.
Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 (a) The Proposed Project was redesigned to avoid
jurisdictional wetland habitat.
(b) If complete avoidance of jurisdictional wetlands is not feasible , a wetland
mitigation plan shall be prepared by the project sponsor's wetland consultant to provide
for their replacement. The plan shall include the following details:
Page 20 of 41
All plantings to be used as part of any replacement mitigation shall be
restricted to native wetland, riparian, and adjacent upland species.
Site preparation and revegetation procedures, planting design, implementation
schedule, and funding sources shall be defined to ensure long-term
management of the overall wetland mitigation plan.
Performance criteria, maintenance and long-term management
responsibilities, monitoring requirements, and contingency measures, if
performance standards and mitigation goals are not met, shall be specified.
Replacement habitat shall be monitored for a minimum of five years until all
success criteria are met.
Before issuance of any grading or building permit for the Approved Project,
the mitigation plan shall be reviewed and approved by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game, and Regional Water
Quality Control Board subject to their authority under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act, Section 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code, and
Section 401 Certification, respectively.
c) A detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be prepared and
implemented during construction of the site. The plan shall contain detailed measures to
control erosion of stockpiled earth and exposed soil, minimize construction-generated
dust, provide for revegetation of graded slopes before the first rainy season following
construction, and specify procedures for monitoring of the plan's effectiveness. The
revegetation component of the plan shall be consistent with the revised Restoration Plan.
Finding. As described above changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Approved Project which avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1998-99 SEIR. With the
incorporation of the specified modifications to the Proposed Project and mitigation
measures, the impact of the Approved Project is less than significant.
Rationale. For wetlands, the 1998-99 SEIR identified the Phase II and III impact
as a potentially significant for the Proposed Project and cumulative impact. Under the
significance criteria for wetlands impacts under the Draft EIR "cumulative adverse effect
of seemingly minor changes to wetlands ... are a potentially significant effect ...
[because] wetlands are recognized as important features on a regional and national level".
Since the impact on wetlands is identified as a potentially significant cumulative impact
and a significant Proposed Project impact, the mitigation and project modifications would
result in no net loss of wetlands due to the Approved Project. Under the mitigation
measure and project modifications, the requirement of avoidance and/or replacement will
result in no net loss of wetlands due to the Approved Project and no Approved Project
cumulative impact. The mitigation measure sets forth the required elements of the
wetland mitigation plan which is subject to review and approval by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, California Department of Fish & Game, and Regional Water Quality
Page 21 of 41
Control Board. With the project modifications avoidance and/or replacement as part of a
wetland mitigation plan, the loss of wetlands is mitigated and the impact of the Approved
Project is less than significant.
1982 EIR Biological Impacts. Development of the Terrabay Project would have a
number of biological impacts varying in significance. The most noteworthy of these
impacts is the elimination of the habitat currently used by a federally-listed endangered
species (Mission Blue Butterfly) as well as another rare, but not listed butterfly (Callippe
Silverspot). Elimination of 126 acres of annual grassland will also have an impact on
those other wildlife species that occasionally use or are dependent upon that habitat. In
particular, the amount ofraptor foraging habitat would be reduced. Other carnivores
such as grey fox would experience a similar modification in available hunting territory,
especially due to increased human and potential domestic animal activity.
1982 EIR Mitigation Measures. The Approved Project shall comply with the
Habitat Conservation Plan which provides explicit guidelines for mitigating the adverse
biological impacts of the Approved Project, particularly those on species of concern. In
addition, the Approved Project must comply with the conditions of the Section 10A
Permit which authorizes the taking of certain endangered species. Impacts on vegetation
and wildlife are also mitigated by clearly delineating the limits of temporary and
permanent grading during construction to prevent encroachment into areas that are
required to remain undisturbed under the Habitat Conservation Plan.
Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the Approved Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1982
EIR and 1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the
impact of the Approved Project is less than significant.
Rationale. The 1982 EIR and 1998-99 SEIR analyzed the general impacts of
development of the Approved Project area on biology. In addition to those mitigation
measures required under the 1998-99 SEIR, the primary mitigation in the 1982 EIR is
compliance with the Habitat Conservation Plan which includes a series of measures to
reduce biological impacts to less than significant, including, but not limited to, the
dedication of over 132 acres of permanent open space for habitat protection and
conservation.
TRAFFIC
Impact 4.4-1 Year 2000 Base Case plus Phases H + III Freeway Impacts Phase II and
III traffic combined would increase volumes by more than one percent on segments of
U.S. 101 freeway already operating unacceptably at LOS F.
Southbound: north of the off-ramp to Bayshore Boulevard (AM = 1.25 percent/PM
2.43 percent increases) from the new Bayshore Boulevard on-ramp to the Dubuque
on-ramp (PM = 2.45 percent increase) and south of the Dubuque on-ramp (AM =
Page 22 of 41
1.66 percent increase) (Segments 1, 3 and 4 in Exhibit 4.4-2).
Northbound: from the Grand Avenue on-ramp to the Dubuque off-ramp (AM = 1.71
percent/PM -- 2.76 percent increases), from the Oyster Point on-ramp to the Bayshore
Boulevard off-ramp (PM = 1.60 percent increase) and north of the Bayshore
Boulevard off-ramp (AM = 1.65 percent/PM = 1.75 percent increases) (Segments 5, 7
and 8 in Exhibit 4.4-2).
Phase II and III traffic would change operation from LOS E to an unacceptable LOS F:
· Northbound: from the Oyster Point northbound on-ramp to the Bayshore Boulevard
northbound off-ramp during the AM peak period (Segment 7 in Exhibit 4.4-2).
· Southbound: from the Oyster Point southbound on-ramp to the Grand Avenue
interchange during the PM peak period (Segment 4 in Exhibit 4.4-2).
Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 The 1998-99 SEIR proposes the following mitigation
measures: the project sponsor shall reduce the amounts of development proposed within
the Phase II and Phase III sites and/or shall assist with funding for regional circulation
system improvements. The 1998-99 SEIR states that, based upon the freeway segments
receiving the biggest significant impact due to the Proposed Project, Phase II + III trip
generation would need to be reduced at least 64 percent. For the reasons set forth in
Exhibit B, Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council finds that the 1998-
99 SEIR mitigation measures are infeasible. However, the Proposed Project includes the
following mitigation measures to reduce these freeway impacts: a bus stop and shelter to
encourage transit use and bicycle lanes.
Finding. Even with the above described mitigation measures, the significant
impact of Phase II and cumulative development, including Phase III, on the US 101
freeway segments identified above likely will not be reduced to a less than significant
level. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, as set forth in Exhibit B,
must be adopted upon approval of the Approved Project.
Rationale. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the 1998-
99 SEIR mitigation measures are infeasible. Caltrans has no plans to widen this segment
of the freeway and widening is infeasible. A 64% or greater reduction in units for the
Approved Project is also infeasible. The Approved Project's bus stop and shelter and
bicycle lanes will have the potential to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips.
Nevertheless, even with this reduction in peak hour period automobile use (as explained
above), it is unlikely that this measure would improve operations along these freeway
segments to acceptable levels.
Impact 4. 4-2 Year 2010 Base Case plus Phases H +III Intersection Impact AM peak
hour Base Case operation plus Proposed Project traffic would change operation from an
unacceptable LOS E to an acceptable LOS D at the Sister Cities Boulevard/Bayshore
Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Oyster Point Boulevard Intersection (a beneficial impact),
Page 23 of 41
but acceptable LOS D PM peak hour operation would change to an unacceptable LOS F.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 The project sponsor shall provide a fair share
contribution towards restripping the Westbound (Oyster Point Blvd.) intersection
approach (to provide a single left-turn lane, two exclusive through-lanes, and a shared
through/right-turn lane). A contribution also would be needed towards a third westbound
departure lane (on Sister Cities Blvd.) which then would merge into the two existing
departure lanes just west of the intersection. In addition, although not strictly needed as a
mitigation measure for capacity reasons, restripping is also recommended for the
southbound (Bayshore Boulevard) intersection approach (to provide an exclusive right, a
shared through/right, a through, and two left-turn lanes). Based upon total traffic growth
to 2010, the Proposed Project's fair share contribution would be 21 percent of the
improvement costs.
Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the Approved Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the
1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact
of the Approved Project is less than significant.
Rationale. Based on the traffic analysis in the 1998-99 SEIR, full implementation
of Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 would result in PM peak hour LOS D operation, which is
acceptable level of service under City standards, and would reduce the impact to a less
than significant level.
Impact 4.4-3 Year 2010 Base Case plus Phases H + III Intersection Impact Proposed
Project Phase II + III traffic would change 2010 AM peak hour operation at the Oyster
Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp Intersection from an
unacceptable LOS E to an acceptable LOS D (a beneficial impact) but would change
acceptable PM peak hour LOS D operation to an unacceptable LOS F.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-3 The project sponsor shall provide a fair share
contribution towards construction of a second exclusive right-turn lane on the westbound
(Oyster Point Boulevard) approach and a second exclusive left-turn lane on the
northbound (Dubuque Avenue) intersection approach. Both measures would require
widening existing structures. Based upon total traffic growth to 2010, the Proposed
Project's fair share contribution would be five percent of the improvement costs.
Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the Approved Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the
1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact
of the Approved Project is less than significant.
Page 24 of 41
Rationale. Based on the traffic analysis in the 1998-99 SEIR, full implementation
of Mitigation Measure 4.4-3 would result in PM Peak Hour LOS D operation and would
reduce the impact of the Approved Project to a less than significant level.
Impact 4.4-4 Year 2010 Base Case plus Phases H and III Freewa), Impact Phase II and
III Proposed Project traffic combined would increase Base Case volumes by more than
one percent on U.S. 101 freeway segments already operating unacceptably at LOS F.
Southbound: north of the off-ramp to Bayshore Boulevard (AM = 1.10
percent/PM = 2.09 percent increases), from the new Bayshore Boulevard hook
on-ramp to the Dubuque on-ramp (PM = 2.19 percent increase) and south of
the Dubuque on-ramp (AM = 1.48 percent/PM = 2.00 percent increases)
(Segments 1, 3 and 4 in Exhibit 4.4-2)
Northbound: from the Grand Avenue on-ramp to the Dubuque off-ramp (AM
= 1.50 percent/PM = 2.41 percent increases) from the Oyster Point on-ramp to
the Bayshore Boulevard off-ramp (AM = 1.34 percent/PM =1.39 percent
increases) and north of the Bayshore Boulevard off-ramp (AM =1.46
percent/PM = 1.51 percent increases) (Segments 5.7 and 8 in Exhibit 4.4-2).
Mitigation Measure 4.4-4 The project sponsors shall reduce, the amounts of
development proposed within the Phase II and Phase III sites and/or shall assist with
funding for regional circulation system improvements. The 1998-99 SEIR states that,
based upon the freeway segment receiving the biggest significant impact due to the
Proposed project, Phase II + III trip generation would need to be reduced at least 59
percent. For the reasons set forth in Exhibit B, Statement of Overriding Considerations,
the City Council finds that these mitigation measures are infeasible. However, the
Approved Project includes the following mitigation measures to reduce these freeway
impacts: the project sponsor has included as part of the Approved Project, measures to
reduce the number of single-occupancy vehicle trips by promoting and facilitating the use
of alternative modes of transportation. For the Approved Project measures include a bus
stop and shelter to encourage transit use and bicycle lanes.
Finding. Even with the implementation of a bus stop and shelter and bicycle
lane, the significant impact of the Approved Project and cumulative development,
including Phase III, on the US 101 freeway segments identified above likely will not be
reduced to a less than significant level. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, as set forth in Exhibit B, must be adopted upon approval of the Approved
Project.
Rationale. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the 1998-
99 SEIR mitigation measures are infeasible. Caltrans has no plans to widen this segment
of the freeway and widening is infeasible. A 59% or greater reduction in units from the
Proposed Project is also infeasible. However, the bus stop and shelter, and bicycle lanes
incorporated into the Approved Project will reduce impacts. The Approved Project's bus
stop and shelter and bicycle lanes will have the potential to reduce single occupancy
Page 25 of 41
vehicle trips. Nevertheless, even with this reduction in peak hour period automobile use
(as explained above), it is unlikely that this measure would improve operations along
these freeway segments to acceptable levels.
Impact 4.4-5 Year 2010 Base Case plus Phase H + III Ramp Impacts Proposed Project
combined traffic would increase PM peak hour Base Case over-capacity operation by 6.8
percent on the Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-5 The project sponsor shall reduce Phase II and III
development trip generation. Approximately an 85 percent reduction in Terrabay trip
generation would be required to reduce the project traffic impact to less than a 1 percent
increase. Alternatively, the sponsor shall provide a fair share contribution towards
construction of a second on-ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 freeway. Based upon
total traffic growth to 2010, the Proposed Project's fair share contribution would be 12
percent of the improvement costs. For the reasons set forth in Exhibit B, Statement of
Overriding Considerations, the City Council finds that these mitigation measures are
infeasible. However, the Approved Project includes the following mitigation measures to
reduce these impacts: the project sponsor has included as part of the Approved Project,
measures to reduce the number of single-occupancy vehicle trips by promoting and
facilitating the use of alternative modes of transportation. Forthe Approved Project,
measures include a bus stop and shelter to encourage transit use and bicycle lanes.
Finding. Even with the inclusion of a bus stop and shelter and bicycle lanes, the
significant impact of Approved Project and cumulative development, including Phase
III, on the freeway on-ramp identified above likely will not be reduced to a less than
significant level. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, as set forth in
Exhibit B, must be adopted upon approval of the Approved Project.
Rationale. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the 1998-
99 SEIR mitigation measures are infeasible. Caltrans has no plans to widen the freeway
on-ramp and widening is infeasible. A 85% or greater reduction in units for the
Approved Project is also infeasible. However, the bus stop and shelter and bicycle lanes
incorporated into the Approved Project will reduce impacts. The Approved Project's bus
stop and shelter and bicycle lanes will have the potential to reduce single occupancy
vehicle trips. Nevertheless, even with this reduction in peak hour period automobile use
(as explained above), it is unlikely that this measure would improve operations on the on-
ramp to acceptable levels.
Impact 4.4-8 Residential Parking Dimensions Although the Precise Plan would
conform to minimum parking supply requirements, dimensions of some spaces would be
substandard.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-8 The parking dimensions for parallel parking, garage,
and driveway aprons shown on the Precise Plan shall be revised to comply with Specific
Plan and other applicable City standards. As shown on Exhibit 4.4-18, this would
include revisions to Woods Plan 1, Plan 3 and Plan 4 garage floor space dimensions (35
Page 26 of 41
units, 35 units and 34 units respectively) and the dimensions of the garage parking spaces
in Woods Plan 3 (35 units).
Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the Approved Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the
1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact
of the Approved Project is less than significant.
Rationale. The driveway aprons, garage parking spaces and on-street parallel
parking spaces have been revised or conditioned to meet or exceed the 1999 Specific Plan
and Specific Plan Zoning District requirements thereby conforming with the identified
mitigation measure. Additionally, the 1999 Specific Plan requirements exceed those
identified in the existing approved 1996 Specific Plan.
The driveway aprons have been designed to comply with the 1999 Specific Plan
and Specific Plan Zoning District which is 18 feet from the face of the garage to the back
of sidewalk or face of curb in absence of a sidewalk. Each unit is required to have a
driveway that serves only that residential unit and garage. As a point of comparison, the
1996 Specific Plan provides for five foot driveway aprons and/or shared driveways,
reducing parking opportunities over those required for Phase II.
The Woods Floor Plan #1 garage has been redesigned to exceed the 20 by 20
interior dimension for a garage as defined in both the 1999 Specific Plan and Zoning
District regulations. Woods Floor Plan #4 is conditioned to provide 30 feet in width and
20 feet in depth thus complying with the 1999 Specific Plan and Specific Plan Zoning
District for a three car garage. Woods Floor Plan #3 conforms with the 1999 Specific
Plan and Specific Plan Zoning District. On-street parallel parking meets the requirements
of the 1999 Specific Plan and Specific Plan Zoning District at eight feet in width.
Impact 4.4-9 Overflow Parking Although the Precise Plan would conform to minimum
parking supply requirements, it does not provide for overflow parking for use by visitors
attending parties or special events.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-9 The Precise Plan shall be revised to provide overflow
parking, consisting of six to eight spaces, within the Woods residential neighborhood.
These spaces can be provided by enlarging cul-de-sac bulbs, paving areas at the ends of
hammerhead tumarounds, or eliminating one to two housing units adjacent to the street
end (hammerhead or cul-de-sac). If housing units are eliminated, on-site parking should
be monitored at regular intervals. If it is found that the amount of overflow parking
provided is not required, then one or both of the remaining units could be constructed.
Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the Approved Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the
Page 27 of 41
1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact
of the Approved Project is less than significant.
Rationale. Based upon the conservative methodology used for analyzing
potential overflow parking impacts the 1998-99 SEIR concludes that there could be a
potentially significant impact resulting from visitors attending special events or parties in
the neighborhoods. On-site parking in Woods neighborhood has been revised or
conditioned to meet or exceed the dimensional requirements of the 1999 Specific Plan
and Specific Plan Zoning District which would result in additional parking on individual
lots available for special event parking. For example, Woods Floor Plan #1 provides four
off-street parking spaces that meet the code (two in the garage and two in the driveway).
The garage is of sufficient length (38 feet) to provide up to two or more additional
tandem parking spaces. While tandem parking is not recognized by the code as a "legal
parking space", it can provide additional parking for a special event. This availability of
parking increases the parking ratio from 5.56/unit analyzed in the 1998-99 SEIR to
approximately 6.00/unit.
Impact 4.4-12 Potential Storage Distance Deficiencies Between Intersections Queues
may potentially exceed available storage capacity at three to six intersections at buildout
of the Proposed Project, depending on analysis methodology.
Mitigation 4.4-12 Interconnected and coordinated signal operation and flow
between these four closely spaced intersections along Bayshore Boulevard shall be
provided in order to preclude storage deficiencies. Due to right-of-way limitations along
Bayshore Boulevard, provision of dual lefi-tum lanes is not considered feasible on the
northbound approaches to the Terrabay Phase III site driveways or on the southbound
approach to the U.S. 101 southbound hook on-ramp. Also the northbound left-turn lane
on the approach to the Terrabay North Access could not be lengthened without
shortening the southbound left-turn lane on the approach to the U.S. 101 southbound on-
ramp. Traffic volumes and queues shall be monitored at these intersections as
development occurs on the Terrabay site to determine if the turn lane lengths and signal
timing should be adjusted.
Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the Approved Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the
1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact
of the Approved Project is less than significant.
Rationale. Based on the most conservative methodology for analyzing potential
storage deficiency impacts, the 1998-99 SEIR concludes that there is a potential for
storage deficiency impacts at certain intersections. However, the significance of that
impact will not be able to be determined until full implementation of the project.
Therefore, the Mitigation Measure requires monitoring of those identified intersections
upon build-out of the Approved Project and proposes specific types of mitigation
measures that can be implemented to address this potentially significant impact. The
Page 28 of 41
requirements for monitoring of these intersections upon full Project implementation and
the identification of specific mitigation measures to address the impact if found
significant, is sufficient to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 4.4-13 Year 2020 Impacts of Construction of Hook Ramps to ~tddress
Cumulative Impacts of Phase II on Freeway Mainline To the extent the hook ramps
construction is, in part, necessary to address impacts of Approved Project and
cumulative development, including Phase III, the impacts of the construction of the hook
ramps are addressed below. Traffic from the new on-ramp would increase AM and PM
peak hour volumes by more than one percent on the U.S. 101 Freeway Southbound
Mainline from the new southbound buttonhook on-ramp to the southbound on-ramp from
Dubuque Avenue, a segment about 3,500 feet long that would already be experiencing
unacceptable LOS F operation. This is a significant unavoidable impact.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-13 No mitigation is feasible other than not constructing
the hook ramps.
Finding. There is no feasible mitigation measure to reduce the impacts of the
traffic from the hook ramps to less than significant. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, as set forth in Exhibit B, must be adopted upon approval of the Approved
Project.
Rationale. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the only
measure to reduce this impact to less than significant would be not build the hook ramps
or to widen the freeway. Caltrans has no plans to widen this segment of the freeway and
widening is infeasible.
Impact 4.4-14 Year 2020 Impacts of Construction of Hook Ramps to Address
Cumulative Impacts of Phase H on Freeway Ramps To the extent the hook ramps
construction is, in part, necessary to address impacts of Approved Project and
cumulative development, including Phase III, the impacts of the construction of the hook
ramps are addressed below. Increased traffic due to the hook ramp project would
increase AM peak hour off-ramp volumes by more than one percent at the diverge of the
Southbound U.S. 101 Freeway Off-Ramp to Bayshore Boulevard where diverge traffic
flow operation would already be an unacceptable LOS F. This is a significant
unavoidable impact.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-14. No mitigation is feasible other than not to construct
the hook ramps.
Finding. There is no feasible mitigation measure to reduce the impacts of the
traffic from the hook ramps to less than significant. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, as set forth in Exhibit B, must be adopted upon approval of the Approved
Project.
Page 29 of 41
Rationale. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the only
measure to reduce this impact to less than significant would be to not build the hook
ramps, to widen the freeway or off-ramp, or to lengthen the exit lane on the freeway.
Caltrans has no plans for any of these improvements and the improvements are infeasible.
1996 SEIR Supplementallmpact T-17. In the year 2010 with build-out of the Existing
Project, the Serramonte Boulevard/Hillside Boulevard intersection would be expected to
experience an approximately 3-4% increase in traffic volume which could be considered
a potentially significant adverse impact, if the intersection already is operating at or on
the borderline unacceptable operation.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure T-17. Year 2010 - Phases II and Ill: Hillside
Boulevard/Serramonte Boulevard. Require that Project Phases II and/or III provide a
reasonable fair share contribution towards improvements needed at this intersection by
2010 if it is operating unacceptably during the peak hour. The contribution should be in
proportion to the volume of project traffic passing through the intersection in relation to
the total traffic volume. In addition, any major new development projects in the town of
Colma located along or in close proximity to Hillside Boulevard should be required to
provide their fair share contribution towards needed improvements along Hillside
Boulevard in South San Francisco.
Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the Approved Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1996
SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the
Approved Project is less than significant.
Rationale. Although the Existing Project will contribute a 3-4% increase in
traffic volumes at the identified intersection, the impact is only potentially significant due
to the current acceptable level of service at the intersection. The mitigation measure
requires monitoring of the intersection to see if it is operating at unacceptable levels in
the year 2010. If it is, the Approved Project shall pay its fair share of the cost of
improvements of the intersection to make the level of service acceptable.
AIR OUALITY
Impact 4.5-1 Short-Term Construction Impacts Dust generated during construction
periods could result in both health and nuisance effects. Although temporary, this would
be a significant impact.
Mitieation Measure 4.5-1 The Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) recommends the following measures for large construction areas located
near sensitive receptors. The BAAQMD typically determines the level of significance
based on the control measures implemented. These measures constitute all feasible
control measures, with the addition of a disturbance coordinator to monitor compliance
with the control measures and respond to neighborhood complaints. The disturbance
Page 30 of 41
coordinator shall be retained by the City and paid for by the project sponsor. The
following controls shall be implemented throughout the construction area:
All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily and more
often when conditions warrant. This measure would reduce emissions by at
least 50 percent.
All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials shall be covered, or
all trucks shall be required to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
All unpaved access roads and parking areas at construction sites shall be
paved, watered three times daily, or treated with (non-toxic) soil stabilizers.
All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites
shall be swept daily (with water sweepers).
Streets shall be swept daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is
carried onto adjacent public streets.
Inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or
more) shall be hydroseeded or treated with (non-toxic) soil stabilizers.
Exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) shall be enclosed, covered, watered
twice daily, or treated with (non-toxic) soil binders.
· Traffic speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).
Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt
runoff to public roadways.
Disturbed areas shall be replanted with vegetation as quickly as possible
(within one month of the disturbance).
Wheel washers shall be installed for all exiting trucks, or the tires or tracks
shall be washed off all trucks and equipment leaving the site.
Excavation and grading activity shall be suspended when winds
(instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph and cause visible clouds to extend
beyond the construction site. Activities shall be suspended until the
disturbance coordinator decides that the emissions from construction
activities would be controlled (such as through additional watering or
installation of wind fences). This measure could reduce dust emissions by
up to 80 percent.
Wind breaks shall be installed, or trees / vegetative wind breaks shall be
plant on windward sides(s) of construction areas, if conditions warrant, to
prevent visible dust clouds from extending beyond the site.
Page 31 of 41
The area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity shall
be limited at any one time.
A disturbance coordinator, retained by the City and paid for by the project
sponsor, shall be designated to be responsible for monitoring compliance
with dust control measures and to respond to neighborhood concerns
regarding air pollutant emissions (primarily dust) during construction. The
project sponsor and coordinator shall be responsible for operating a
neighborhood "hotline" for neighbors to voice complaints regarding air
quality during construction.
Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the Approved Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the
1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact
of the Approved Project is less than significant.
Rationale. The BAAQMD established standard dust control measures to mitigate
the effects of dust generated from large construction projects, which is only a temporary
project impact limited to certain types of construction activities. The BAAQMD has
determined that the implementation of these mitigation measures will result in a reduction
in impacts to a level of less than significant. The Mitigation Measure requires the
implementation of all feasible control measures, plus the addition of a disturbance
coordinator to monitor compliance with the control measures and respond to
neighborhood complaints. Pursuant to BAAQMD standards, the implementation of the
Mitigation Measure will result in a less than significant impact.
Impact 4.5-3 Changes in Regional Long-Term Air Oualitv Direct and indirect
emissions of air pollutants associated with full buildout of the Terrabay Project could
interfere with the efforts within the region to attain ozone and PM10 air quality standards.
Thus, while the incremental change between the currently and previously proposed Phase
II and III projects would be less-than-significant, the cumulative impact of full Terrabay
Project development (Phases I, II, and III) would exceed standards tightened since
examination in the 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR.
Mitigation Measure 4.5-3. Air pollutant emissions which would be regionally
significant could be reduced from motor vehicles through a reduction in vehicle trips,
vehicle miles traveled, and reduced traffic congestion. The following measures either are
included in the Terrabay Project design or shall be implemented by the project sponsor to
reduce regionally significant air pollutant emissions.
Coordinated traffic signals shall be installed to provide more efficient levels-of-
service at intersections significantly impacted by Approved Project traffic. The
project includes roadway improvements to Sister Cities Boulevard which have
already been constructed. Additional intersection improvements are proposed
along Bayshore Boulevard. This measure could reduce total year 2000 project
Page 32 of 41
emissions by ten (10) pounds per day of ROG, seven (7) pounds per day of NOx,
and one (1) pound per day of PM10.
The project sponsor shall pay a fee established in the Amended and Restated
Development Agreement for Phase II Woods to be used for the construction by
the City of the U.S. 101 southbound freeway off ramp and a new U.S. 101 on
ramp (the "hook ramps"). This measure would allow direct access on to the
freeway, eliminating emissions associated with congestion at local intersections
which provide access to southbound U.S. 101. This measure could reduce total
year 2000 project emissions by five (5) pounds per day of ROG, six (6) pounds
per day of NOx, and seven (7) pounds per day of PM10.
Bus shelters, easy pedestrian access, and bicycle lanes shall be provided in the
Approved Project design to facilitate alternative modes of transportation. This
measure would reduce year 2000 Project emissions by ten (10) pounds per day of
ROG, by 12 pounds per day of NOx, and by 11 pounds per day of PM10.
Fireplaces shall be equipped with certified wood burning fireplace inserts which
meet Federal emission standards. It is difficult to assess the overall effectiveness
of this measure due to the infrequent use of fireplaces. However, the measure
would reduce PM10 emissions from fireplaces by up to 90 percent. Installation of
natural gas fireplaces is encouraged to further reduce particulate emissions.
The applicant proposes to include outdoor electrical outlets and natural gas stubs
to avoid the use of gasoline-powered landscape equipment. This would provide a
minor reduction in overall emissions of ozone precursor air pollutants.
Finding. The mitigation measures present the available feasible measures to
reduce Approved Project impacts on long-term regional air quality. However, even with
these mitigations, the long-term regional air quality impacts of the Approved Project and
cummulative development of the Terrabay Project on ROG, NOx and PM10 likely will
not be reduced to a less than significant level. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, as set forth in Exhibit B, must be adopted upon approval of the Approved
Project.
Rationale. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce emissions of
regional air pollutants by 5-15 percent. This reduction will not be sufficient to reduce
emissions of these pollutants to below the BAAQMD significance threshold of 80 pounds
per day.
NOISE
Impact 4. 6-1 Construction Noise Impacts During construction periods, noise levels
would be elevated outside existing homes located across Hillside Boulevard and Sister
Cities Boulevard from the Phase II residential development. This would constitute a
Page 33 of 41
significant short-term impact.
Mitigation Measure 4. 6-1 The following measures shall be required to reduce
the Approved Project's short-term construction noise impacts to a less-than-significant
level:
Construction Scheduling. Noise-generating construction activities, including
truck traffic going to and from the site for any purpose, and maintenance and
servicing activities for construction equipment, shall be limited to the hours
stipulated by the City's Noise Ordinance which are 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM on
weekdays, 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Saturdays, and 10:00 AM to 8:00 PM on
Sundays.
Mufflers and Maintenance. All equipment used on the Approved Project site
shall be adequately muffled and maintained. All internal combustion engine-
driven equipment shall be fitted with intake and exhaust mufflers which are in
good condition. Use of good mufflers with quieted compressors on all non-
impact tools should result in a maximum noise level of 85 dBA when measured at
a distance of 50 feet.
Idling Prohibitions. Powered construction equipment shall be turned off when
not in use.
Equipment Location and Shielding. Stationary noise-generating construction
equipment shall be located as far as possible from nearby residences.
Noise Disturbance Coordinator. A project construction supervisor shall be
designated as a "noise disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for
responding to any local complaints about construction noise (as was done for
Phase I site development). The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause
of the noise complaints (such as starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall
require implementation of reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem.
The telephone number of the disturbance coordinator also shall be posted
conspicuously at the construction site.
Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the Approved Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the
1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact
of the Approved Project is less than significant.
Rationale. Mitigation measures are identified to address different sources and
types of noise from temporary construction activities on the site. The noise impacts from
any construction activities are temporary. Implementation of the mitigation measures and
compliance with the standards under the City Noise Ordinance would result in a less than
significant impact. Since the nearest non-Terrabay residences to Phase II and Phase III
Page 34 of 41
construction activities would be at least 300 feet away, the noise level would be reduced
at least 15 decimals below the on-site noise levels shown in the 1998-99 SEIR based on
distance alone.
Impact 4.6-2 Land Use Compatibility Impact Proposed uses in the Approved Project
would be exposed to noise levels which would exceed those considered satisfactory for
the intended uses.
Mitigation Measure 4. 6-2 In order to reduce potential noise and land use
compatibility impacts to a less than-significant-level, the project sponsor shall retain a
qualified Acoustical Engineer to prepare a detailed acoustical analysis and mitigation
plan pursuant to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. The report shall be
submitted to the City for review and approval before issuance of building permits. The
report shall include a detailed acoustical analysis of noise reduction requirements and
specifications for the Approved Project, in accordance with land use / noise level
compatibility standards established by the State and set forth in the City's Noise Element.
The identified noise reduction requirements and specifications then shall be included in
the siting or design of individual housing units:
Noise levels in backyards of homes proposed adjacent to and overlooking the
Sister Cities Boulevard-Hillside Boulevard corridor intersection shall be mitigated
with a noise barrier. The proposed upsloping geometry to a graded building pad
would provide an excellent opportunity to mitigate with a property line barrier.
Calculations based on the Precise Plan grading plans indicate that a six-foot high
barrier measured above the rear property line elevation would be appropriate at
locations shown on Exhibit 4.6-7. To be effective, the barrier must be
constructed airtight over its face and at the base and have a minimum surface
weight of three pounds per square foot. Suitable materials include wood, masonry
block, precast masonry, or precast concrete panels. If the barrier is constructed of
wood, a post and panel or board and batten construction method should be used to
eliminate sound leaks.
Forced air mechanical ventilation shall be provided pursuant to residential
building sound insulation requirements so windows may be kept closed at the
discretion of building occupants to control noise.
The interior CNEL shall be reduced to a level of 45 dB or less to conform with
City General Plan and State Building Code requirements. The noise analysis also
shall include adequate consideration of aircraft noise to achieve the FAA's
recommended maximum single-event noise level of 55 dBA in bedrooms of
housing units.
Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the Approved Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the
1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact
Page 35 of 41
.... of the Approved Project is less than significant.
Rationale. The mitigation measures will insure that specific noise reduction
requirements and specifications are identified and implemented as needed to insure
compliance with City and state noise level standards. The mitigation measure requires
incorporation of the identified noise reduction requirements into the Approved Project
building site design. Furthermore, since standard California construction standards with
the windows closed would be expected to provide at least 20 dBA of noise reduction,
additional noise reduction measures would only be required for those homes where the
exterior noise is greater than 65 dB CNEL.
1982 EIR Noise Impact- Extension of Hillside Boulevard. Along the extension of
Hillside Boulevard, traffic noise levels would increase. Due to the continuous nature of
traffic noise as opposed to the sporadic nature of aircraft noise, the extension of Hillside
Boulevard might still annoy some of the homeowners in this area even though
contribution of aircraft noise results in existing noise levels of 60-65 dBa. The resulting
noise levels due to traffic on the extension of Hillside Boulevard will be high enough to
occasionally interfere with speech outdoors.
Mitigation Measure. Increased traffic noises along Hillside extension could be
mitigated by the erection of a sound barrier on the south side of the extension. Detailed
studies during the engineering of the road would determine the required height and
location of this barrier. The purpose of this barrier would be to maintain traffic noise
levels at their existing levels in the absence of aircraft noise.
Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the Approved Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the
1998-99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact
of the Approved Project is less than significant.
Rationale. The construction of a sound barrier on the south side of the Hillside
Boulevard extension would mitigate any significant noise impacts resulting from traffic
along Hillside extension. Although the noise environment of the areas along the Hillside
extension are currently impacted by noise from aircraft and the addition of this traffic
noise would not significantly change the overall noise environment, this mitigation
measure is required to reduce noise added by traffic from the Hillside extension. With
the implementation of the mitigation measure, the noise impacts would be less than
significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The City Council finds that all other impacts of the Approved Project are not
environmentally significant as documented in the 1998-99 SEIR and/or supported by
evidence elsewhere in the record as a whole. In some cases, the 1998-99 SEIR has
suggested mitigations for impacts that are less than significant even without mitigation.
Page 36 of 41
CEQA does not require mitigation for less than significant impacts, nor does it require
findings for mitigation measures proposed for less than significant impacts. Therefore,
no findings are made with respect to such mitigation measures.
Some of the less than significant impacts identified below are impacts that the
1998-99 SEIR identified as potentially significant or significant and recommended
mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. However,
subsequent to preparation of the Draft 1998-99 SEIR, based on further review by City
staff and experts and further review of plans and evidence, the impacts were determined
to be less than significant, for the reasons discussed below and those described in the
Final 1998-99 SEIR.
Impact 4.1-1 Grading Construction of the Approved Project would require excavation of
30 additional acres of natural lands. This grading would expose areas to erosion, decrease
the stability of the bedrock and sediment cover, and cause differential settlement in fills
over drainages, which are addressed in Impacts and Mitigation Measures 4.1-2, 4.1-3,
4.1-4, 4.1-5, and 4.1-6. The impact of grading of new areas could not be avoided without
redesigning the Approved Project and reducing the size of development areas. Grading as
proposed without Mitigation Measures 4.1-2, 4.1-3, 4.1-4, 4.1-5 and 4.1-6 would result in
significant erosion, slope instability, differential settlement, and secondary impacts. The
general impact on land due to grading is less than significant.
No mitigation measures would be required for overall grading per se within previously
graded parts of Approved Project development areas, except for compliance with the San
Bruno Mountain Area Habitat Conservation Plan, Agreement with Respect to the San
Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan, and Terrabay Specific Plan District
Ordinance. Moreover, grading which would not extend beyond the 50-foot minor
boundary adjustment limit and the total adjustment increase of 10 acres would comply
with the Agreement with Respect to the San Bruno Mountain Area Habitat Conservation
Plan, as required by the Terrabay Specific Plan District, and, therefore, would not
necessitate additional mitigation. In order for the Approved Project to be deemed in
compliance and to constitute a less-than-significant impact:
All grading plans and operations in the Terrabay Specific Plan District shall
be in compliance with the provisions of the San Bruno Mountain Area Habitat
Conservation Plan (Title 20 of the South San Francisco Zoning Code
Section 20.63.020). In order to meet this requirement, disturbed land within
any minor boundary adjustment limit shall be replaced through in-kind
restoration.
No development proposal which requires a permit or an approval of any sort
to be issued by any local, State, or Federal agency may be approved by the
City until proof of such other permit, license, or approval is on file in the
Department of Community Development (Title 20 of the South San Francisco
Zoning Code Section 20.63.250).
Page 37 of 41
Reducing the extent of grading involved in Approved Project implementation, although
not required, would help balance cut and fill operations and the need to export excess fill
material for disposal (or reuse) at another location.
Measures to mitigate direct erosion, slope stability, and differential settlement impacts
are presented below (see Mitigation Measures 4.1-2 through 4.1-6), and measures to
mitigate indirect traffic, air quality, and noise impacts are presented in their respective
analyses below.
The effects of grading for Phase II has been analyzed in the 1982 EIR, 1996 SEIR and
1982 EA/EIS. The amount of grading required for the development of Phase II is
reduced from that approved under the 1982 Specific Plan. Impacts of grading are
mitigated by the requirements under the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) to dedicate and
preserve over 140 acres of the Terrabay Project site for habitat conservation, including
the requirements to restore any disturbed land which will be dedicated to the County
under the HCP. Further, impacts of grading are mitigated by the regulations under the
City Code and the Terrabay Specific Plan District Ordinance (Chapter 20.63 of the City
Code).
Impact 4.2-1 Stormwater Drainage Patterns and Flooding Some of the streets proposed
for construction on the Approved Project site would be drained by concrete V-channels
aligned between street travel lanes and parking bays. The 1998-99 DSEIR consultant
stated that this design may promote the occasional clogging of the channel with debris
and potentially create minor flooding conditions where the tires of parked cars obstruct
the gutter flow section. Discussions between and analysis by the City Engineer, Public
Works Department staff, and the project sponsor's engineers resulted in a determination
that the proposed valley gutter would not create minor flooding as long as the gutters are
located along the edge of the normally traveled roadway. Thus, where the valley gutters
would be installed along the inside edge of parking bays, yet outside the roadway width,
the City finds that the proposed gutter configuration impacts on flooding are less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Impact 4.2-2 Stormwater Drainage and Flooding The 1998-99 DSEIR stated that
nuisance flooding could occur in backyards if sufficient grades are not provided in the
vicinity of residential building pads. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) specifies a
minimum slope of 2% for surface grades in such areas to promote efficient stormwater
drainage and to deter structural damage due to excessive groundwater seepage.
Approved Project grading and drainage plans show yard grades leading away from the
building pads towards the swales would be a minimum of 2%. In addition, grades for
drainage swales which would be constructed to drain residential lots are 1%. Since the
drainage swales would be excavated into the adjacent terrain, efficient drainage would be
achieved. Based on review by the City Engineer of the proposed backyard drainage
system and the fact that the yard grades leading away from the building pads would be a
minimum of 2% in compliance with the UBC, backyard nuisance flooding would be a
less than significant impact and no mitigation is required.
Page 38 of 41
Impact 4.4-6 Roadwav Width The 1998-99 SEIR traffic consultant stated in the Draft
1998-99 SEIR that, while roadways would conform to adopted standards for the Terrabay
Project to limit grading impacts, 22-foot wide travelways within the roadways raise
safety concerns, not for through movements, but for turning movements, interference
with occupants exiting vehicles, passing vehicles, and other curbside activities. The
Approved Project plans show a 22 feet total width oftravelway as a minimum on all
residential streets. The City Engineer has determined that a 22 foot travelway is
sufficient for both through traffic and parking maneuvers. All streets either have no
parking and are 22 feet wide, or 8-foot parking on only one side of the street and are 30-
feet wide. In both instances, the travelway width is 22 feet. The City standard for public
residential minor streets only requires a 20-foot wide travelway (36-foot wide roadway
with 8-foot wide parking spaces on each side of the street). Therefore, the travelway
actually exceeds City width standards. Based on the foregoing and the opinion of the
City Engineer, the 22 foot travelway does not present a significant adverse environmental
effect on traffic and parking maneuvers.
Impact 4.4-7 Turnarounds Angled, hammerhead, and cul-de-sac tumarounds proposed
for the Approved Project would accommodate fire trucks and other emergency vehicles.
The impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Impact 4.4-11 Pedestrian and Bicycle Access and Trailhead Access and Parking
Sidewalks, bike lanes, and a new trail would be provided with Approved Project
implementation. Although the Approved Project currently does not specify trailhead
parking, this is a less than significant impact. Street parking in Phase II and parking in
the Phase III commercial area should be sufficient to accommodate trailhead parking.
Impact 4.5-2 Changes in Local Long-Term Air Oualitv Carbon monoxide levels
attributable to traffic substantially affected by the Approved Project would be below State
and Federal ambient air quality standards. This would be a less-than-significant impact
and no mitigation is required.
Impact 4. 6-3 Traffic Noise Impacts Traffic-generated noise would not increase ambient
noise levels measurably on existing neighborhood streets or roadways which would
provide access to the Approved Project site. This impact would be less-than-significant,
and no mitigation is required.
Impact 4. 7-1 Impact of Residential Development on Police Services The Approved
Project has 65 fewer housing units than the 1996 Specific Plan. However, larger three-,
four-, and five-bedroom units currently are proposed compared with smaller two-, three-,
and four-bedroom units previously proposed. The South San Francisco Police
Department is concerned that this difference would result in a larger residential
population on the Phase II site with a proportionate increase in demands for police
services. The future Phase II site population would not be expected to change staffing
requirements by one full officer position. The 0.2- to 0.3-officer difference is a less-than-
significant impact and no mitigation is required.
Page 39 of 41
Impact 4. 7-3 Combined Project Impact on Police Services The combined effect of the
Proposed Project according to the 1998 Precise Plan could be interpreted to require one
additional police position (0.91 position) which would represent a less-than-significant
impact due to the requirements of funding a fully-staffed beat under the 1982 EIR (see
discussion under Impact 4.7-6 below). Therefore, no further mitigation is required.
Impact 4. 7-5 Traffic Impact on Police Response Times Congestion causing delays in
future traffic conditions with the Approved Project would be expected at two
intersections at the Oyster Point interchange but not before the year 2010. Unconstrained
conditions elsewhere would off-set potential future delays, thus not affecting police
response times significantly. This is a less than significant impact and no mitigation is
required.
Impact 4. 7-6 Police Impact from Cumulative Development Substantial cumulative
development by the year 2010 would greatly increase the number of calls for service to
the South San Francisco Police Department and could require an estimated 5.4 to 6.2
additional police positions plus two additional police vehicles. While these cumulative
impacts would be significant, the incremental contribution of the Approved Project and
cummulative development of the Terrabay Project would not be "considerable", thus less
than significant for the purposes of CEQA.
No additional mitigation would be required of the Approved Project than identified in the
1982 EIR / 1996 SEIR. The prior EIRs required funding provision of a separate new
fully-staffed beat (1982 EIR) to consist of three officer positions and one new patrol
vehicle (1996 SEIR).
Impact 4. 7-7 Impact on Brisbane School District Development analyzed in the 1998-
99 SEIR of 213 duplex and triplex units in the Terrabay Phase II Point and Commons
neighborhoods and creation of an estimated 720-780 jobs on the Phase III site would add
less than 85-88 new students to Brisbane School District (BSD) schools. Since the
development of the Point and Commons under the Proposed Project was not approved,
there is no significant impact.
Impact 4. 7-8 Impact on Jefferson Union High School District Fewer but larger Point
units proposed by the Precise Plan analyzed in the 1998-99 SEIR would generate
virtually the same number of students to Jefferson Union High School District schools
(less than 21 students) as estimated from more but smaller units previously proposed by
the Specific Plan (22 students). Since the development of the Point under the Proposed
Project was not approved, there is no significant impact.
Impact 4. 7-9 Impact on South San Francisco Unified School District Development
analyzed in the 1998-99 SEIR of 135 housing units in the Terrabay Phase II Woods
neighborhood would add about 45-61 students to South San Francisco Unified School
District (SSFUSD) schools, including about 11-27 students in Grades K-5, 15 students in
Grades 6-8, and 19 students in Grades 9-12. This number would be fewer than the 103
students previously estimated from the former 204-unit Terrabay Woods part of the Phase
Page 40 of 41
II project. This also is approximately the same elementary school enrollment increase as
estimated by the SSFUSD (11 students). This is a less than significant environmental
impact because the students from the Terrabay project would not require a significant
expansion of school facilities beyond what is already expected in current District plans
and no further mitigation is required from that contained in the 1996 SEIR, including
payment of school fees under state law, in conjunction with the development of a school
financing plan (if necessary), and the monitoring of street crossing by school children
(see 1996 SEIR, Supplemental Impact PS-l).
Impact 4. 7-10 Cumulative Impacts Schools Planned development within the South San
Francisco Unified School District has been taken into account by district plans for
elementary school enrollments. This is a less than significant environmental impact
because the students from the Approved Project and cummulative development of the
Terrabay Project would not require a significant expansion of school facilities beyond
what is already expected in current District plans and no further mitigation is required
from that contained in the 1996 SEIR, including payment of school fees under state law.
Impact 4.8-2 Effect of EMF on Future Residents Residential development of the
Commons West site would not expose residents to unusual magnetic field levels or, in the
absence of California State or Federal standards, levels which government entitles outside
California regulate. Therefore, the proximity of electric power lines to proposed housing
units would not result in significant impacts requiring mitigation. In any event, no
development of the Commons under the Proposed Project was approved.
Archaeological Impacts Based on surveys, studies and analyses referred to in the 1982
EIR, 1996 SEIR, and 1998-99 SEIR, there are no archeological resources located on the
Phase II site. Therefore, development of Phase II will have a less than significant impact
on archeological resources and no mitigation is required.
\\FSl\SYS\WPDWINRSW\405\035\RESO\1999\CEQAEXA D03 fnl.doc
Page 41 of 41
EXHIBIT B
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
AND FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
1. General
Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21081 and CEQA Guidelines § 15093, the
City Council of the City of South San Francisco makes the following Statement of
Overriding Considerations relating to its recommendation of approval of the entitlements
for the Phase II (Woods Area) of the Terrabay Project (hereinafter, "Approved Project or
"Project"). There is no significant unavoidable impact from the Approved Project alone.
Significant unavoidable cumulative impacts arise only from development of the
Approved Project in conjunction with other cumulative development projects, including
Phase II Point, Phase II Commons and Phase III, identified in the Draft SEIR. The 1998-
1999 SEIR analyzed Phase III impacts on a project EIR level which is a much greater
level than require for cumulative impacts under CEQA. The cumulative impacts which
arise from the buildout of the Approved Project in conjunction with other cumulative
development projects, including Phase II Point, Phase II Commons and Phase III,
identified in the Draft SEIR, hereinafter, are referred to as, "Approved Project
Cumulative Impacts".
The City Council has balanced the benefits of the Approved Project to the City
against the six adverse impacts identified in the SEIR as significant which have not been
eliminated or mitigated to a level of insignificance: (1) Impact 4.4-1 Year 2000 Base
Case plus Phases II + III Freeway Impacts; (2) Impact 4.4-4 Year 2010 Base Case plus
Phases II and III Freeway Impact; (3) Impact 4.4-5 Year 2010 Base Case plus Phase II +
III Ramp Impacts; (4) Impact 4.5-3 Changes in Regional Long-Term Air Quality;
(5) Impact 4.4-13 Year 2020 Impacts of Construction of Hook Ramps to Address
Cumulative Impacts of the Approved Project on Freeway Main Line; and (6) Impact 4.4-
14 Year 2020 Impacts of Construction of Hook Ramps to Address Cumulative Impacts of
the Approved Project on Freeway Ramps.
The City Council has carefully considered each environmental impact identified
in the SEIR in reaching its decision to approve of the Approved Project. The Project
sponsor has made reasonable and good faith efforts to mitigate all potential impacts
resulting from the Approved Project. The City Council has imposed mitigation measures
identified in the SEIR as conditions of approval to eliminate or mitigate to a level of
insignificance potential impacts. Although the City Council believes that the six
unavoidable environmental impacts identified in the SEIR will be substantially lessened
by the mitigation measures identified in the SEIR and incorporated into the Approved
Project as conditions of approval, it recognizes that the implementation of the Approved
Project carries with it these six potentially unavoidable adverse environmental impacts.
With regard to each of the six significant unavoidable impacts, the City Council
specifically makes the following findings to the extent that the identified adverse impacts
Page 1 of 10
have not been mitigated to a level of insignificance: (1) specific economic, social or
other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the
SEIR which may reduce the significant unavoidable impacts to less than significant; and
(2) there are specific economic, social, environmental, legal, land use and other benefits
of the Project which outweigh the six significant unavoidable effects on the environment.
The City Council further finds that any one of the overriding considerations identified
hereinafter in subsection 4 is a sufficient basis to approve the Approved Project.
2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts and Required Mitigation Measures
The following are unavoidable significant Approved Project Cumulative Impacts.
These impacts cannot be fully mitigated by changes or alterations to the Project or the
imposition of further mitigation measures.
IMPACT 4.4-1 YEAR 2000 BASE CASE PLUS PHASES II + III FREEWAY
IMPACTS
As described above in Exhibit A and in the SEIR, development of the Phase II
and III Proposed Project in the Year 2000 would cause a significant cumulative adverse
impact on certain segments of the US 101 freeway by either increasing traffic volumes by
more than 1% or changing the level of service from LOS E to LOS F. Six of the
identified eight impacted freeway segments are already operating at LOS F in the year
2000 without the Proposed Project. However, Phase II and III Cumulative Impacts will
result in an increase of vehicle trips along those segments of U.S. 101 of approximately
1.25% to 2.76%. For roadways operating at a level of service F, the SEIR established a
standard that an increase in peak direction traffic on the roadway of one percent (1%) or
more due to the Project would be considered a significant impact. Although the impact
of the Approved Project will almost certainly be less than that of the Proposed Project
since the Proposed Project potentially will contribute over a 1% increase in peak
direction traffic on these segments of U.S. 101, the Approved Project Cumulative Impact
in 2000 is considered significant.
The primary changes incorporated into the Approved Project to reduce these
freeway impacts are the inclusion of a bus stop and shelter, and bicycle lanes. As
described below in Section 3, the SEIR proposed mitigations of funding regional
improvements (i.e., widening of the freeway) and reducing the Approved Project trip
generation by 64 % are infeasible. The Approved Project has already been reduced 33%
from the Woods Project approved under the 1982 Specific Plan. The Approved Project
incorporated changes described above which will reduce the Approved Project impacts
on the U.S. 101 Freeway. However, even with these incorporated changes, the Approved
Project Cumulative Impacts in 2000 may still increase peak direction traffic by more than
one percent (1%) on the identified U.S. 101 freeway segments.
Page 2 of 10
IMPACT 4.4-4 YEAR 2010 BASE CASE PLUS PHASES II AND III FREEWAY
IMPACT
As described above in Exhibit A and in the SEIR, development of Phase II and III
in the Year 2010 would cause a significant adverse cumulative impact on certain
segments of the US 101 freeway by increasing traffic volumes by more than 1% on
segments already operating at unacceptable LOS F without the Proposed Project.
Phase II and III Cumulative Impacts will result in an increase of vehicle trips along those
segments of U.S. 101 of approximately 1.10% to 2.41%. For roadways operating at a
level of service F, the SEIR established a standard that an increase in peak direction
traffic on the roadway of one percent (1%) or more due to the Project would be
considered a significant impact. Although the impact of the Approved Project will
almost certainly be less than that of the Proposed Project, since the Approved Project
cumulative impacts will potentially contribute over a 1% increase in peak direction traffic
on these segments of U.S. 101, buildout of the Approved Project Cumulative Impact in
2010 is considered a significant impact.
The primary changes incorporated into the Approved Project to reduce these
freeway impacts are the inclusion of a bus stop and shelter and bicycle lanes as part of the
Approved Project. As described below in Section 3, the SEIR proposed mitigations of
funding regional improvements (i.e., widening of the freeway) and reducing the
Approved trip generation by 59 % are infeasible. The Approved Project has already been
reduced 33% from the Woods Project approved under the 1982 Specific Plan. The
mitigation measures incorporated into the Approved Project will reduce the impacts on
the U.S. 101 Freeway. However, even with these measures, buildout of the Approved
Project Cumulative Impact in 2000 may still increase peak direction traffic by more than
one percent (1%) on the identified U.S. 101 Freeway segments.
IMPACT 4.4-5 YEAR 2010 BASE CASE PLUS PHASE II + III RAMP IMPACTS
As described above in Exhibit A and in the SEIR, development of Phase II and III in the
Year 2010 would cause a significant adverse cumulative impact on the PM peak hour
operation on the Northbound US 101 On-ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard. This on-
ramp would already be operating at over-capacity and unacceptable levels in 2010
without the Proposed Project. Phase II and III Cumulative Impacts will result in an
increase of vehicle trips by approximately 6.8% on this On-ramp. For freeway ramps
operating at over-capacity conditions, the SEIR established a standard that an increase in
peak direction traffic on the on-ramp of one percent (1%) or more due to the Project
would be considered a significant impact. Although the impact of the Approved Project
will almost certainly be less then that of the Proposed Project, since the buildout of the
Approved Project Cumulative Impacts will potentially contribute over a 1% increase in
peak direction traffic on the northbound On-ramp, the impact of buildout of the Approved
Project in 2010 is considered significant.
The primary changes incorporated into the Approved Project to reduce the on-
ramp impact are the inclusion of a bus stop and shelter, and bicycle lanes. As described
Page 3 of 10
below in Section 3, the SEIR proposed mitigations of reducing the Approved Project trip
generation by 85% or providing a fair share contribution towards the costs of a second
on-ramp are infeasible. The Approved Project has already been reduced 33% from the
Woos Project approved under the 1982 Specific Plan. The mitigation measures
incorporated into the Approved Project will reduce the Approved Project impacts on the
U.S. 101 on-ramp. However, even with these measures, the Approved Project
Cumulative Impacts in 2010 may still increase peak direction traffic by more than one
percent (1%) on the identified U.S. 101 Northbound On-ramp.
IMPACT 4.5-3 CHANGES IN REGIONAL LONG-TERM AIR QUALITY.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has established a
significance threshold for analyzing the impact of a project on regional air quality. The
BAAQMD defines a significant impact as an increase in emissions of reactive organic
gasses (ROG), oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and particulate matters (PM10) from the Project
of 80 pounds per day or greater. Phase I, II and III Cumulative Impacts would generate
new regional emissions of ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and PM10 exceeding 80
pounds per day. Therefore, the impact of the Approved Project Cumulative Impacts on
regional emissions of ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and PM10 would be significant
under the BAAQMD standard. The 80 pounds per day standard is the most stringent
standard under Federal law which only applies to areas in non-attainment for ozone. The
BAAQMD adopted this new more stringent standard because of the history of non-
attainment for ozone in the Bay Area. Although the impact of the Approved Project
Cumulative Impacts would be significant, the Approved Project will reduce emissions of
ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and PM10 from the levels identified from buildout of
the Woods Project approved under the 1982 Specific Plan (SEIR, Exhibit 4.5-4).
The SEIR proposes extensive mitigation measures that will reduce vehicle trips,
vehicle miles traveled and traffic congestion (see Mitigation Measure 4.5-3 in Exhibit A
above). These represent the maximum feasible mitigation measures to address this
regional air quality impact. These measures would reduce the Approved Project
emissions by approximately 5 to 15 percent. However, the reduced emissions would still
exceed the BAAQMD standard of eighty pounds. The mitigation measures under the
SEIR are the maximum feasible mitigation measures that may be imposed on the
Approved Project.
IMPACT 4.4-13 YEAR 2020 IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOOK RAMPS
TO ADDRESS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF PHASE II AND III ON FREEWAY
MAIN LINE
As described above in Exhibit A and in the SEIR, construction of the hook ramps
would cause a significant adverse cumulative impact on certain segments of the U.S. 101
Freeway by increasing traffic volumes by more than 1% on segments already operating at
unacceptable LOS F without the hook ramps. To the extent the hook ramps construction
is, in part, necessary to address Approved Project Cumulative Impacts, the City Council
Page 4 of 10
makes findings on the significant unavoidable impact of the hook ramps on certain
segments of U.S. 101.
The SEIR states that there is no feasible mitigation other than not constructing the
hook ramps. The only other possible mitigation measure would be widening the freeway,
which is infeasible for the reasons described in Section 3 below. The hook ramps will
have a beneficial impact on the operation of intersections in the Oyster Point Interchange.
Since the hook ramps will contribute over a 1% increase in peak direction traffic on the
identified U.S. 101 segment, construction of the hook ramps is considered a significant
impact.
IMPACT 4.4-14 YEAR 2020 IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOOK RAMPS
TO ADDRESS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF PHASE II AND III ON FREEWAY
RAMPS
As described above in Exhibit A and in the SEIR, construction of the hook ramps
would cause a significant adverse cumulative impact on certain segments of the U.S. 101
Freeway by increasing the off-ramp volumes by more than 1% at the diverge of the
southbound off-ramp already operating at unacceptable LOS F without the hook ramps.
To the extent the hook ramps construction is, in part, necessary to address Approved
Cumulative Impacts, the City Council makes findings on this significant unavoidable
impact of the hook ramps.
The SEIR states that there is no feasible mitigation other than not constructing the
hook ramps. The only other possible mitigation measure would be widening the freeway,
which is infeasible for the reasons described in Section 3 below. The hook ramps will
have a beneficial impact on the operation of intersections in the Oyster Point Interchange.
Since the hook ramps will contribute over a 1% increase at the diverge of the southbound
off-ramp already operating at unacceptable LOS F, construction of the hook ramps is
considered a significant impact.
3. Findings of Infeasibility of Mitigation Measures and Alternatives For Unavoidable
Impacts
a. Infeasibility of Mitigation Measures
(1) Project trip generation reduction of 59%, 64% or 85%. The SEIR proposes
drastic reductions in Proposed Phase II and III Project trip generation of 64%,
59% and 85% for Impact 4.4-1 (2000 freeway impact), Impact 4.4-4 (2010
freeway impact), and Impact 4.4-5 (Northbound On-ramp), respectively.
A reduction in Proposed Project trip generation by 59%, 64% or 85% is
infeasible. The Approved Project is already a 33% reduction from the Woods Project
approved under the 1982 Specific Plan. The City Council denied the Proposed Project
for the Commons and Point area. A 59%, 64% of 85% reduction in the Approved Project
Page 5 of 10
itself is infeasible. Any further reductions in Approved Project residential density to
reduce the impact to less than significant is infeasible because of the extensive and costly
public amenities and improvements required for the Approved Project and already built
for Phase I, and the fixed cost of constructing infrastructure necessary to serve the
Approved Project. The development of the Terrabay Project, including the Approved
Project is subject to extensive conditions of approval under the HCP, Development
Agreement and Specific Plan. These documents require the dedication of property to the
County as open space, the funding of HCP maintenance and monitoring, the construction
of a fire station (built as part of Phase I), recreation center (built as part of Phase I), and
Hillside Boulevard extension (built as part of Phase I), a significant financial contribution
to the construction of the hook ramps, and other improvements and fees. The costs of
these improvements are spread throughout the entire project, including the Approved
Project. The construction.of required infrastructure and geologic remediation the
Approved Project are fixed costs that must be spread over the number of units developed.
An over 59% reduction in units would result in a density that could not support the costs
of the development of the Approved Project would be economically infeasible.
Furthermore, this drastic reduction in Approved Project housing units will impede the
City's ability to provide its fair share of housing to address regional needs required under
the City housing element and state law. The reduction in housing units will also
adversely affect the City's jobs/housing balance. Based on the foregoing and other
information in the record, a 59%, 64% or 85% reduction in Approved Project trip
generation is not feasible.
(2) Funding of Regional Circulation System Improvements and Widening of
U.S. 101 Freeway. The SEIR proposes Project funding of"regional circulation system
improvements" to mitigate Impact 4.4-1 (2000 freeway impact) and Impact 4.4-4 (2010
freeway impact). The impacts of the hook ramps on the U.S. 101 Freeway (Impacts 4.4-
13 and 4.4-14) could also be mitigated by widening the freeway. These mitigation
measures are infeasible.
The SEIR does not specify the regional circulation system improvements that
would address this freeway impact. However, the only circulation system improvement
that will alleviate the freeway impact is the widening of the affected segments of U.S.
101 (See, Traffic Section of 1996 SEIR). The widening of the freeway is infeasible for
two reasons. First, the City may not legally impose this requirement on the Approved
Project because its traffic impacts do not solely contribute to the need for widening of the
freeway. The widening of the freeway is necessitated by regional traffic impacts.
Second, the widening of the freeway is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Cal
Trans and other state agencies and cannot be adopted or imposed by the City of South
San Francisco. Cal Trans currently has no plans to widen this segment of the freeway in
the future. There are significant constraints on the widening of U.S. 101 due to existing
structures along that segment and the high cost of acquiring land to complete the
expansion. Furthermore, the traffic congestion problems on U.S. 101 are a regional issue
that must be addressed by all jurisdictions that contribute traffic to the freeway. The City
of South San Francisco is only one of these jurisdictions and has no power to impose
mitigation measures relating to the expansion or alteration of U.S. 101 which is under the
Page 6 of 10
jurisdiction of Cal Trans. Based on the foregoing and other information in the record, the
requirement of widening the freeway necessary to address the impacts is not feasible.
(3) Construction of second on-ramp lane to Northbound 101. The SEIR proposes
that the project sponsor provide a fair share contribution towards the construction of a
second on-ramp lane connection to Northbound US 101 to mitigate Impact 4.4-5
(northbound on-ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard). This mitigation measure is
infeasible.
Construction of a second lane on the On-ramp would require Cal Trans' approval.
Therefore, the implementation of this mitigation measure requires approval of another
agency and the City does not have the authority to impose it. Furthermore, Cal Trans'
approval of a second lane is highly unlikely. A two lane on-ramp was not approved as
part of the overall Oyster Point Interchange Project approved by Cal Trans. Cal Trans
standards also strongly disfavor adding additional access capacity to a freeway that is
already operating at unacceptable levels of service like US 101. The on-ramp expansion
would also require several exceptions to Cal Trans standards which are unlikely to be
approved. Construction of the second lane is also infeasible because of physical
constraints and costs. There is limited land on which to build the lane and the costs of
acquisition would be high. Based on the foregoing, the proposed mitigation measure is
infeasible.
(4) No construction of hook ramps. The SEIR states that the only mitigation to
address the impacts of the hook ramps on the freeway (Impacts 4.4-13 and 4.4-14) is to
not build the hook ramps. Not building the hook ramps is infeasible. The hook ramps
are needed to address the unacceptable conditions in the operation of the Oyster Point
Interchange due to the necessity of traffic on southbound Bayshore Boulevard to go
through the entire interchange in order to access southbound U.S. 101 Freeway. In
particular, the cumulative traffic from buildout of Brisbane would largely benefit from
this on-ramp. Furthermore, the existing four-way stop sign for the off-ramp needs to be
signalized to create acceptable operation under cumulative traffic conditions in the
Years 2000 and 2010. Based on the foregoing, the nonconstruction of the hook ramps is
infeasible.
b. Infeasibility of Alternatives Which Would Reduce Impacts
A significant reduction in Approved Project vehicle trips is needed to address all
of the significant and unavoidable traffic and regional air quality impacts identified in
Section 2 above. For example, the minimum traffic reduction necessary to address one of
the traffic impacts is 59%. Certain alternatives propose greater density and intensity of
use for the Woods Area than the Approved Project, and would not reduce the trip
generation below that of the proposed Project. The City is not required to make findings
on the infeasibility of more intense development alternatives because they would not
decrease the significant unavoidable impacts of the Approved Project to less-than-
significant; rather they would only increase the impact as compared to the Project.
Therefore, the City is not required to make findings that the following alternatives are
Page 7 of 10
infeasible since they will only result in an increase in the level of the significant and
unavoidable impacts of the Project: Existing Specific Plan Alternative (1982 Specific
Plan which contains 33% more residential units for the Woods area than the Approved
Project); Phase II Reduced Residential Development Alternative (which proposes 316
residential units (elimination of 32 Commons units only) which included the same
number of units for the Woods area (135) as the Approved Project. In any event, the City
Council denied a proposed project for Commons and Point which was similar to this
alternative); the Concept Plan Alternative (745 housing units for Phases I and II (same as
1982 Specific Plan) which is more than 575 housing units for Phases I and II under the
Project ); Alternative Designed to Conform with Sphere of Influence Study (39% more
housing (1,036 units) for Phases I and II than t982 Specific Plan which is more than the
Project); and Alternative Designed to Conform with General Plan Amendment (More
residential development (985 units) for Phases II and II than 1982 Specific Plan which is
more than the Project). To the extent the City Council is required to make findings that
each of these alternatives is infeasible, the City Council finds that these alternatives are
infeasible and rejected because they will result in greater impacts than the Approved
Project in the following areas: traffic, air quality, geology, drainage, biology, noise and
public services.
Since the significant unavoidable impacts will be caused by buildout of the
Approved Project, the only alternative identified in the 1982 EIR, 1996 SEIR and SEIR
that would reduce this impact to less than significant is the No Development Alternative
(no development of Phase II and III). The Phase III Permanent Open Space Alternative
and the Reduced Phase III Commercial Development may reduce impacts of Phase III
but do not address alternative development of Phase II. The SEIR specifically state that
these alternatives make no assumptions for Phase II development. Since the City Council
is only considering Phase II at this time and does not have before it the impacts of
Phase III (except in the cumulative impacts analysis), it cannot make determinations on
these Phase III only alternatives. The feasibility of the Phase III Open Space Alternative
and Reduced Phase III Commercial Development Alternative will be considered when
the City Council considers Phase III approvals.
In light of the foregoing, the only alternative that would reduce the significant
unavoidable impacts of Phase II would be the Modified No Project Altemative as it
relates to no development of Phase II only, including Woods.
The Modified No Project Altemative designates the areas for Phase II as open
space and not developed. This alternative is infeasible. The benefits of the Project to the
City are derived from the Project as a whole. The goals and objectives of the Project may
only be met if each phase is built. If Phase II (which includes Woods) is not built, the
City objective of residential development on the site with its enhancement of City
property tax revenue would not be achieved. Furthermore, the benefits under the HCP
are based on the development of each phase. If Phase II is kept as open space, the
developer's funding of enhancement and restoration measures (including the eradication
of invasive species) and dedication requirements under the HCP associated with the
development of Phase II would be eliminated. In addition, public improvements which
Page 8 of 10
will be funded, in part, or required to be built as part of Phase II (ex. the hook ramps) also
would not be constructed if Phase II is not built. These improvements are needed to
serve the needs of the City generally as well as the Project. Therefore, since the Modified
No Project Alternative as it relates to Phase II does not accomplish most of the objectives
of the Project, the City Council finds that this alternative is infeasible and, therefore,
rejects this alternative as it relates to Phase II and the Woods area.
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
The City Council has considered the public record of proceedings on the
Approved Project and finds and determines that the approval and implementation of the
Approved Project entitlements would result in the following substantial public benefits
that outweigh the six significant, unavoidable cumulative impacts of the Terrabay
Project:
1. Provide economic growth and employment opportunities in the City and
surrounding region, by creation of new jobs, especially in construction-related industries.
2. Development of housing units needed in the City and regional area to meet
housing demands and needs.
3. Increase tax base and revenues to City through increased property tax
from development.
4. Construction or participation in costs of construction of certain
improvements to serve both the residents of the City and the Project.
5. Offset Project sponsor's burden and costs created by development of
residential units in Phases I and public amenities already constructed by the Project
including Sister Cities Blvd., fire station, recreation center, Hillside school recreation
facilities and child care/library service fee ($700,000) by allowing the Approved Project
to be completed.
6. Preservation and protection of a large portion of San Bruno Mountain as
open space through the dedication of portion of Phase II property owned by the Project
sponsor to the County.
7. Furtherance of the goals and programs of the Habitat Conservation Plan
by allowing the Project to be built which will result in the corresponding dedication of
land to the County and funding of restoration as required under the HCP.
8. Creation of a transition area between the urbanized portion of the City and
San Bruno Mountain Park. The Approved Project will also protect the HCP area and
County Park habitat by minimizing water usage to a carefully planned landscape plan
utilizing non-invasive and drought resistant species to San Mateo County.
Page 9 of 10
10.
Reduce environmental impacts and preserve open space through use of a
compact development design and dedication and restoration requirements
under HCP.
Increase the City residents' access to recreational opportunities in San
Bruno Mountain Park through the provision of a trailhead and trail as part
of Project to the Park properties.
F:\WPDhMNRSWX405\035\RESO\1999\CEQAEXB D03 fnl.doc
Page 10 of 10
EXHIBIT C
FINDINGS ON IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FROM 1982 EIR AND 1996 SEIR NOT
FURTHER ANALYZED IN 1998 SEIR
This section contains findings on the environmental impacts of the Woods Area of the
Approved Project that were not further analyzed in the 1998 SEIR because the impacts of
the Approved Project for Woods Project on Phase II were not significantly different from
the impacts of the Phase II Woods Project under the 1982 Specific Plan. No further
analysis of these impacts was required because the Approved Project did not present any
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects in these areas for the entire Terrabay Project
(Public Resources Code § 21166; CEQA Guidelines § 15091). The prior City Council
findings on the environmental impacts of Phase II under the 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR are
incorporated herein by reference. The 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR evaluated the impacts of
Phase II Woods project based on the 1982 Specific Plan. The Approved Project has
eliminated 65 units from the Woods project analyzed under the 1982 Specific Plan, a
33% reduction. Mitigation measures already completed or incorporated into the
Approved Project design are only addressed as necessary for the finding.
Visual Quality Impact (1982 EIR). The Approved Project would consist of two
residential clusters: Woods West and Woods East. The Woods neighborhoods would be
located in swales similar to the 1982 Specific Plan. The Project would alter the site's
visual character from an open space setting to housing development. However, since the
completion of the 1982 EIR, part of the Phase II site has already been graded, so it is no
longer in its natural condition. Phase I, the Recreation Center and Fire Station have
already been built adjacent to Phase II, so the area west of Phase II is now urban
development, not open space. The entire Phase II site is not visible at one time and none
of the development would break the ridge line. However, the components of the
development of the Approved Project (grading, residential structures, streets and trails)
would have a potentially significant impact on views.
Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures have been incorporated
into the Approved Project to mitigate visual impacts:
Development would be generally restricted swales. The knolls would remain open.
The development would appear as a series of clusters, not as a mass. The entire
Approved Project would not be visible at one time nor would it break the ridgeline.
· Building design features have been incorporated to reduce visual impacts.
Residential structures would be oriented for solar absorption and for views but would not
incorporate solar panels for hot water heating.
Page 1 of 10
· To save open space, the road system has been efficiently designed to reduce grading.
To unify the Approved Project, lower building costs and create homogeneously
designed neighborhoods, restrained natural colors, unifying building materials and
landscaping are used throughout the development.
· To save open space and reduce visual impacts, units are attached or grouped more
closely together than in standard subdivisions.
Stepped buildings break up the visual mass and reduce the amount of required
grading and retaining walls. The visual mass is integrated into the hillside by
stepping, offsetting, and rotating buildings where feasible and by providing tree grove
clustering in a naturalistic setting.
Articulated facades, recessed entries, roof overhangs and courtyards create varying
patterns of light and shadow to soften the residential buildings' appearance and to
create visual interest.
Pedestrian access provided at the intersections of Hillside Boulevard and Jefferson
Street, at Hillside Boulevard and Hillside Extension, and near the intersection of
Randolph Avenue/Hillside Extension and North Spruce Avenue.
· Landscaping is used to reduce visual impacts.
· Open spaces are added to reduce visual impacts.
· Street lighting would be kept low to reduce glare.
Landscaping, including trees, are used to break up mass of roofs and building
structures when viewed from above. The trees also break up the mass of'south facing
facades when the Project is viewed from the south.
Under the HCP, areas at higher elevation above the Project development area are
dedicated to the County as permanent open space to maintain the natural setting and
appearance of these areas.
Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the Approved Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1982
EIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the
Approved Project is less than significant.
Rationale. Although the Approved Project would alter the undeveloped
appearance of parts of the lower slopes of San Bruno Mountain, the visual impacts are
mitigated by the measures identified above. The mitigation measures reduce impacts by
clustering development, limiting areas of disturbance and grading, and incorporating
Page 2 of 10
landscaping and open space into the design. The upper elevations of the Approved
Project site will be dedicated as permanent open space under the HCP. There is no single
viewpoint from which the entire Approved Project area is visible, and the Approved
Project does not break the San Bruno Mountain ridge line. With the implementation of
the mitigation measures described above, the visual impacts are less than significant.
Land Use Impact (1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR). The Approved Project site is on open
hillside adjacent to areas that previously has been disturbed by grading. To the west of
the site, Phase I is almost built out, including the Fire Station and Recreation Center.
Further to the west is Hillside Elementary School and its outdoor recreation facilities.
San Bruno Mountain State and County Park adjoins the Approved Project site to the
north. Most land to the south and east of the Approved Project has been committed to
urban uses including residences and the U.S. 101 Freeway. The Approved Project would
replace existing, undeveloped open space with residential and open space uses.
Mitigation Measure. The Approved Project incorporates a number of features
which would soften the transition between urban and open space uses along the
Approved Project. The linear park, which is already built as part of Phase I, would be
extended adjacent to the Approved Project. The land outside the developable parcels for
the Approved Project would be dedicated to the County and remain permanent open
space. The Approved Project would also provide various community recreation facilities.
Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the Approved Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1982
EIR and 1996 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the
impact of the Approved Project is less than significant.
Rationale. The Approved Project has been designed to provide a transition
between urban uses and the open space uses of the San Bruno Mountain Park. Based on
the mitigations described above, including, the Project design and amenities, the
incorporation of open space, and the required dedication of open space, the Approved
Project creates a transition area between the urbanized portion of the City and San Bruno
Mountain Park.
}Vater Services Impacts (1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR). The entire Terrabay Project under
the 1982 Specific Plan would consume an average of about 320,370 gallons of water per
day. This would represent about 0.8% of the total system capacity for the California
Water Service Company in 1982. The Company has indicated their ability to
comfortably accommodate the increase to the system. According to the Company,
current supply would exceed projected high demand for the year 2010 by more than 10%
(1996 SEIR). However, the Approved Project would need to construct infrastructure to
provide water service to the Approved Project. The entire Terrabay project area,
including Phase II, is within the present service area boundary of the California Water
Service Company.
Page 3 of 10
Mitigation Measure. The project sponsor is responsible for the construction and
cost of the new on-site water system infrastructure and improvements to the off-site
system which occurred as a result of the on-site system to serve the Approved Project. A
series of booster pumps shall be constructed to lift water to the upper portions of the
Terrabay Project site where a 1,000,000 gallon storage tank will be constructed to
maintain adequate water supplies for fire protection and domestic use. California Water
Service Company has indicated that an above-ground tank would provide maximum
resistance to possible seismic forces. Screening provided by such methods as painting
the tank with earthtone colors and landscaping and mounding would be utilized to reduce
visual impacts, although an underground tank could be more easily designed to minimize
visual impacts and should be given serious consideration. The water system mains,
storage tank and booster pump system have been constructed by the project sponsor.
Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the Approved Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1982
EIR and 1996 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the
impact of the Approved Project is less than significant.
Rationale The impacts of the Approved Project on water service are less than
significant because the California Water Company has sufficient capacity to serve the
Approved Project, the Approved Project is within the boundaries of the California Water
Company service area, the main infrastructure needed to provide water to the Approved
Project Site (system mains, storage tank and booster pump system) have been built, and
the Approved Project plans adequately provide for infrastructure to provide water to the
individual residences. Based on the foregoing, the Approved Project impact is less than
significant.
Waste Water Impact (1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR). The addition of the residential units
from the Approved Project would increase average flows to the Colma Creek trunk
sewer. The capacity of the Colma Creek trunk sewer interceptor would need to be
increased. There is adequate capacity at the South San Francisco treatment plant to treat
wastewater from the Approved Project. Sewage service for the Approved Project would
be provided through a system of on-site gravity sewer mains and interceptors which
would connect to the existing sewer system. Costs of the on-site sewer system and any
corrections or modifications to the existing off-site system that are required as a direct
result of the Approved Project would be the responsibility of the project sponsor.
Mitigation Measure. The project sponsor would participate with the South San
Francisco Public Services Department and the Town of Colma City Engineer to ensure
that enlargement of the Colma Creek interceptor would accommodate wastewater flows
generated by the Approved Project. The project sponsor shall fund or build all on-site
and off-site sewer system (required as a direct result of the project) infrastructure needed
to serve the Approved Project. The 1996 SEIR required correction of infiltration
problems in the already-built sewer infrastructure.
Page 4 of 10
Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the Approved Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1982
EIR and 1996 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the
impact of the Approved Project is less than significant.
Rationale. The South San Francisco treatment plant has adequate capacity to
treat the wastewater from the Approved Project. The design and capacity of the on-site
sewer system for the Approved Project will be subject to review and approval by the
City. The main line for Phase II on-site wastewater system has been built. The off-site
sewer infrastructure improvements required for the Approved Project have already been
constructed as part of Phase I. The off-site collection system improvements, including
the interceptor sewer between the Terrabay Project residential subdivisions and the City's
Colma Creek trunk sewer are complete and have been accepted by the City. The off-site
sewer collection system is now adequate to accommodate the sewage flows from the
Approved Project. The infiltration problems identified in the 1996 SEIR have been
corrected.
Solid Waste Impacts (1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR). The residential portion of the
Terrabay Project under the 1982 Specific Plan was expected to generate approximately
4,470 pounds of solid waste per day. The commercial portion under the 1982 Specific
Plan is expected to generate approximately 6,831 pounds per day. The total solid waste
generated from the commercial and residential sources annually would represent only
1.4% of the total amount collected within the service area of the South San Francisco
Scavenger Company which provides solid waste and collection disposal services for the
City. The Company has adequate capacity to dispose of the waste generated by the
Approved Project and does not anticipate any adverse impacts on service. Therefore, the
impact of the Approved Project is less than significant. Furthermore, since the number of
residential units for the Approved Project is 33 % less than the units included under
the 1982 Specific Plan, the impact of the Approved Project is even less than was analyzed
in the 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR.
Gas and Electricity Impacts (1982 EIR). It is estimated that the entire Terrabay Project
under the 1982 Specific Plan would generate energy demands of 12.2 million kwh of
electricity and 979,000 therms of natural gas per year. The annual residential demands
would be about 3.7 million kwh for electricity and about 750,000 therms for natural gas.
PG&E has indicated that present facilities would be adequate to provide service to the
project. However, the Approved Project shall incorporate energy conservation measures
as required by law (Title 24).
Mitigation Measure. The Approved Project would be designed in accordance
with the energy conservation standards of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.
The Code requires that structures comply with the specific prescriptive measures for
energy conservation, such as wall and ceiling insulations, climate control systems, water
heating systems, and infiltrations. (See discussion of energy impacts below.)
Page 5 of 10
Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the Approved Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1982
EIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the
Approved Project is less than significant.
Rationale. Since PG&E had adequate capacitY to serve the Existing Project
under the 1982 Specific Plan and the Approved Project represents a 33% decrease in
units from that proposed under the 1982 Specific Plan, the impacts of the Approved
Project are less than significant. Furthermore, the energy conservation and efficiency
standards under Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations would be incorporated
into the Approved Project.
Telephone Services Impacts (1982 EIR). Pacific Telephone indicated that the South San
Francisco Central Office facilities are adequate to accommodate 1,500 additional
telephone numbers, an estimate exceeding that expected from the proposed development
under the 1982 Specific Plan. Therefore, the impact of the Approved Project would be
less than significant. Furthermore, the Approved Project has reduced residential units by
33% from those under the 1982 Specific Plan, and, therefore, the impacts of the
Approved Project would be even less than those analyzed under the 1982 EIR and
determined to be insignificant.
Fire Services Impact (1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR). Development of residences as part of
the Approved Project would result in an increase to the City Fire Department's service
area and an increase in calls for services. The Fire Chief anticipates a possible manpower
shortage at Station 1 with the relocation of one engine company plus its staff to the new
station.
Mitigation Measure. The project sponsor shall erect a firehouse and donate the
land on which the firehouse is built as part of the first phase of the Terrabay Project.
Final approval of the Approved Project design will require conformance to South San
Francisco and California Fire Code standards, including those for on-site fire hydrant
systems, satisfactory access to structures, and adequate water supply and pressure system.
To increase efficiency and improve the station's ability to cope with more serious fires,
the Chief recommends the addition of one firefighter position.
Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the Approved Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1982
EIR and 1996 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the
impact of the Approved Project is less than significant.
Rationale. The fire station on the existing Terrabay Project site has been
constructed and equipped pursuant to the terms of the Terrabay Development Agreement.
The design of the Approved Project shall conform with all fire code requirements, as
specified above. With the construction and equipping of the fire station to provide
Page 6 of 10
services to the Approved Project area and the compliance of the Approved Project design
with applicable provisions of the fire code, the impacts of the Approved Project on fire
services is less than significant.
Parks and Recreation Impacts (1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR). The development of the
Approved Project would impact parks and recreation services by increasing the number
of residents in the City and removing some private open space. However, the Terrabay
Project as a whole, including the Approved Project includes the designation of a
significant area as permanent public open space and the construction of several park and
recreation facilities.
Mitigation Measure. The impacts on parks and recreation services by the Terrabay
Project as a whole (which includes the Approved Project), would be mitigated by the
development of a community recreation center, a linear park along Hillside Boulevard,
improvements to play fields at nearby Hillside Elementary School, a trail to San Bruno
Mountain Park, construction of a child care center, and the dedication of over a
significant area to the San Bruno Mountain Park as permanent open space. The County
Department of Parks and Recreation has recommended that the open space areas of the
Project be deeded in fee to the County and fenced. Upon Terrabay Project approval, the
Project Sponsor has agreed to dedicated Juncus Ravine to the County as permanent open
space.
Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the Approved Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1982
EIR and 1996 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the
impact of the Approved Project is less than significant.
Rationale. The provision of a community recreation center, improvements of
play fields at Hillside Elementary School, the dedication of open space and provision of a
trail head from the Terrabay Project site to access San Bruno Mountain would mitigate
this impact to less than significant. The improvements to the Hillside Elementary School
playfields and the construction and dedication to the City of the community recreation
center also have been completed. The City Council has approved and accepted payment
of a $700,000 in lieu fee for the construction of the child care center. The fee is to be
used for child care and/or library services.
Recycling Program Collection Services Impacts (1996 SEIR). The 1996 SEIR analyzed
the impact of the Approved Project in light of the passage of the California Integrated
Waste Management Act in 1989 which requires a 50% diversion of solid waste from land
fill or transformation facilities by January 1, 2000. The Approved Project would have
significant impact on the City's ability to attain this goal unless recycling programs are
incorporated into the Approved Project.
Mitigation Measure. In order to ensure that project waste is recycled in a manner
consistent with the state-mandated requirement that the City divert at least 50% of
Page 7 of 10
potential waste from land fill disposal by 2000, the design of a future development
projects shall include recyclable material storage areas in multi-family developments that
would include dumpsters, rather than relying on individual curbside pick-up for trash
collection. Such areas should be conveniently located and accessible to residents and
collection vehicles and personnel, properly protected from the elements, screens, and
architecturally integrated into the development. These services are provided under the
City's recycling program operated by the City's waste disposal server, the South San
Francisco Scavenger Company.
Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the Approved Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1996
SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the
Approved Project is less than significant.
Rationale. The Approved Project will comply with the City recycling program
which is designed to reduce the disposal of waste in land fills. The services required for
the Approved Project will be provided by the South San Francisco Scavenger Company.
Based on the incorporation of the City program into the Approved Project, the impacts of
the Approved Project are less than significant.
Energy Impacts (1982 EIR). Approved Project implementation would require energy for
construction and operation of buildings, structures and associated site improvements, and
for the fueling of project-generated traffic.
Mitigation Measure. The Approved Project construction shall comply with the
energy conservation requirements of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. The
Approved Project sponsor is encouraged, but is not required to, incorporate other design
features which go beyond the requirements of Title 24:
Favorable solar orientation.
Night set-back thermostats.
· Energy efficient lighting.
Solar heat for swimming pools, if any.
· Additional insulation.
· Additional infiltration control measures.
· Energy efficient space and water heating equipment.
· Energy efficient glazing.
Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the Approved Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1982
EIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the
Approved Project is less than significant.
Page 8 of 10
Rationale. The Approved Project would reduce energy consumption by
following the conservation measures of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.
These measures would reduce energy consumption and result in a less than significant
impact. In addition to the Title 24 measures, the Approved Project has incorporated the
following energy conservation measures into its design: favorable solar orientation, night
setback thermostats, and energy-efficient lighting.
Wind and Climate Impacts (1982 EIR). The Approved Project would not have a
significant impact on the micro-climate of the area but the micro-climate could impact
proposed uses. Wind would have the most direct impact on outdoor activities. The
condominiums near the intersection of Sister Cities and Bayshore Boulevard are located
on a ridge and would probably be exposed to strong westerly winds.
Mitigation Measures. The Approved Project design locates most of the
residences in areas at least partially sheltered from the wind. The clustered development
in the swales would provide partial shelter from west winds. To the extent feasible, the
layout of buildings and planting of vegetation should be done so that they provide some
form of shelter for outdoor activities to the east. Outdoor recreation spaces should be laid
out so that buildings, landscapes and fences are used to reduce wind impacts. Vegetation,
such as trees and hedges, are most effective wind shelter. Pathways, entrances, and
outdoor recreation spaces should be laid out so that buildings, landscapes, and fences are
used to advantage in reducing winds.
Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the Approved Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1982
EIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the
Approved Project is less than significant.
winds.
wind.
Rationale. The Approved Project is located in an area that is subject to westerly
The development of the Woods area in swales uses intervening ridges to block
Drainage and Water Quality Impacts (1996 SEIR). Supplemental Impact D-1
Maintenance of Debris Basins. In 1996, the County of San Mateo raised questions
regarding the effectiveness of the 1983 City-County Joint Powers Agreement in
adequately maintaining proj ect-related catchment basins and proposed disbandment of
the Joint Powers Authority. This creates an uncertainty regarding ongoing maintenance
responsibilities for the catchment basins, which represents a potentially significant
adverse impact of the Approved Project storm drainage system.
Mitigation Measure. Consider disbandment of the Joint Powers Authority for
catchment basin maintenance, as proposed by the County of San Mateo. If the Joint
Powers Authority is to be disbanded, work with the County and Project Applicant to
ensure that the catchment basins are in proper condition to allow their dedication directly
to the County, as the County suggests. If the Joint Powers Authority is to be maintained,
Page 9 of 10
continue to fulfill City responsibilities in accordance with Joint Powers Agreement of
June 21, 1983.
Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the Approved Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1996
SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the
Approved Project is less than significant.
Rationale. This mitigation requires that the maintenance of the debris basins will
either be provided by the Joint Powers Authority or the County in the event the Joint
Powers Authority is disbanded. Since the mitigation measure provides an alternative if
the Joint Powers Authority is disbanded, the impacts are mitigated to a level of less than
significant.
F:\WPDWINRSW\405\035LRESO\I999\CEQAEXC_d03_fnl.doc
Page 10 of 10
IMPACT
GEOLOGY MITIGATION -- PHASE II SITE
1998-1998 SEIR
4.1-1 Grading Construction of the Phasc ".
Woods project would require excavation of
-29 3ff additional acres of natural lands. This
grading would expose areas to erosion,
decrease the stability of the bedrock and
sediment cover, and cause differential
settlement in fills over drainages. The impact
of grading of new areas could not be avoided
without redesigning the project and reducing
the size of development areas. Grading as
proposed without mitigation would result in
significant erosion, slope instability,
differential settlement, and secondary impacts.
MITIGATION
No measures would be required for grading per se
within previously graded parts of Phase Il site
development areas. Moreover, grading which
would not extend beyond the SO-foot minor
boundary adjustment limit and 9.31-acre uphill of
the HCP fence would comply with the Agreement
with Respect to the San Bruno Mountain Area
Habitat Conservation Plan, as required by the
Terrabay Specific Plan District, and, therefore,
would not necessitate additional mitigation. In
order for the project to be deemed in compliance
and to constitute a less-than-significant impact:
· All grading plans and operations in the Terra-
bay Specific Plan District shall be in
compliance with the provisions of the San
Bruno Mountain Area Habitat Conservation
Plan (Title 20 of the South San Francisco
Zoning Code Section 20.63.020). In order to
meet this requirement, disturbed land within
this minor boundary adjustment limit area shall
be replaced through in-kind restoration.
· No development proposal which requires a
permit or an approval of any sort to be issued
by any local, State, or Federal agency may be
approved by the City until proof of such other
permit, license, or approval is on file in the
department of community Development (Title
20 of the South San Francisco Zoning Code
Section 20.63.250).
Reducing the extent of grading involved in project
implementation would help balance cut and fill
operations and the need to export excess fill
material for disposal (or reuse) at another location.
Measures to mitigate direct erosion, slope stability,
and differential settlement impacts are presented
below (see Mitigation Measures 4.1-2 through 4.1-
5), and measures to mitigate indirect traffic, air
quality, and noise impacts are presented in the
respective ~ analyses.
iMPLEMENTED BY
Project sponsor's
geotechnical consultant
+Phase II Site Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
I WHEN IMPLEMENTED I MONITORED BY I VERIFIED/DA TE
In Precise Plan (before
City issues grading permit).
In addition, the project
sponsor's geotechnical
consultant shall be present
on-site full-time during
grading to verify and, if
necessary, modify the final
grading plans.
City's Geology
Consultant
IMPACT J MITIGATION
GEOLOGY MITIGATION -- CONTINUED -- 1998-1999 SEIR
4.1-2 Slope Stability/Erosion Cuts greater
than ten feet high, cuts in soil for proposed slopes
with grades steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical), or
cuts with bedrock grades steeper than 1.5:1 could
erode until vegetation is re-established. These
engineered slopes can erode locally, as experienced
in Phase I where substantial grading was completed
during a drought and then abandoned during a
period of above average rainfall. Proposed cut
slopes, especially in soil, need to be protected from
erosion before the rainy season. Unless a
comprehensive winterization plan is implemented
before the onset of winter rains, the erosion from
the unvegetated slopes would be significant. ~
(a) In order to reduce slope stability impacts to
less-than-significant levels, the project's proposed
grading plans shall be revised to incorporate the
following:
· Slopes shall be laid back to provide grades no
steeper than 2:1 in soil and 1.5:1 in rock except
in areas where rock is highly fractured and acts
like soils in which case slopes shall be laid back
farther, rock bolts shall be installed, or retaining
walls shall be constructed. In addition,
subsurface drainage shall be installed.
· Intermediate benches and accompanying drain-
age shall be designed with vertical intervals of
about 30 feet or as recommended by the City
Engineer.
· Perimeter type A-ditches shall be provided
above cut slopes.
· Slope and groundwater monitoring instruments
(inclinometers, piezometers) shall be installed at
the tops of cuts to monitor slope stability.
If slopes cannot be laid back without encroaching
beyond the 50-foot minor boundary adjustment
limit (and in excess of 9-_3q- 10 acres) in the HCP
area, alter-native mitigation to the above criteria
include revising proposed grading plans to modify
site design. Such modifications shall incorporate
one or all of the following measures:
® The location and / or height of retaining walls
shall be shifted or raised. Retaining walls
higher than ten feet shall not be designed as
poured in place structures but shall provide step
backs or cribs planted with vegetation and built
with rough stone or earth colored materials.
The project sponsor shall submit plans for
retaining wall design for walls higher than ten
feet for City review.
· Grades of the site streets shall be increased
wherever possible to reduce grading into the hill
but in no case exceed 15 percent. Grades
between 12 and 15 percent shall require
approval by the City Engineer, as provided by
the Terrabay Specific Plan District.
IMPLEMENTED BY
Project sponsor's
geotechnical consultant
I WHEN IMPLEMENTED
In Precise Platt (before
City issues grading
permit).
In addition, the sponsor's
geotechnical consultant
shall be present on-site
full-time during grading to
verify and, if necessary,
modify the final grading
plans.
[ MONITOREDBY V~RVERIFIEDBY/DATE
City geologic consult-
ant to monitor mass
grading. After
grading, sponsor's and
City's geologic
consultant to monitor
slopes including
monitoring
instruments until
slopes are turned over
to Homeowners
Association.
_1
IMPACT
GEOL 0{3 Y MITIGATION -- CONTINUED -o 1998-1999 SEIR
MITIGATION
Development shall be limited to lower site
elevations to contain grading within
development areas, thus reducing the total
development area (and amount of development
which could be accommodated). This measure
,,,ay cli.dnat~ thc uppc.nost four triplex tots
(12 units) cu.,.ntly proposed in thc Co,mnons
n6ghbo~-hood %r individual lots at street ends
of any of the hammerheads proposed in Woods
East.
] IMPLEMENTED BY
] WHEN IMPLEMENTED
] MONITORED BY
] VERIFIED BY/DATE
(b) As previously stipulated for Phase I, the City
shall withhold building permits for development of
lots located downhill of cut slopes until the slopes
have experienced at least one average winter season
(about 20 inches of rainfall).
City's Engineering and
Building Divisions
After at least one average
winter season (before City
issues the .... ~- -
building Vpermit).
City's consulting
geologist
(c) As automatically required by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWCQB) and the City of
South San Francisco, all exposed slopes and
surfaces (graded pads) shall be winterized before
October 15 of each year. The Phase II winterization
program shall include such measures as;
· Waddles, hydroseeding, silt fences, straw bales,
and berms shall be placed around pads with
contained (pipe) discharges.
· Streets shall be swept before (and truck access
should be limited during) major storms.
· Sandbag check dams shall be placed along
gutters, and straw mats should be placed over
storm inlets.
· The grading site(s) shall be inspected prior to
and during major storms.
Project sponsor's
geotechnical consultant
Before October 15.
City's Geology
Consultant and City's
Water Quality
Control Division
IMPACT I MITIGATION
GEOLOGY MITIGATION -- CONTINUED -- 1998-1999 SEIR
4.1-3 Landsliding and Debris Slides
Landslides and debris slides are present within and
above site development areas of the Phase Il site.
Without mitigation, continued movement would have
significant impacts on proposed development.
Large-scale grading operations likely would be
necessary to repair unstable areas. In addition to
deep-seated landslides, the site has experienced
impacts from shallow debris slides. Landslide repair
techniques, similar to those used during Phase I
grading, would be necessary during grading proposed
for the Phase 11 site. ffmifigation measures,
including drainage, removal, deflection and / or
retention structures, setbacks, debris basins, etc., are
not taken, future debris slides would have a
significant impact on proposed development.
(a) The Precise Plan and Vesting Tentative Map
grading plans shall be revised to incorporate the
following:
· Measures to mitigate active slide areas
located in thc Co,mnons nclghbod~ood and to
mitigate cuts into active slides shall be
incorporated into the project and include
removing material, buttressing, and building
retaining walls.
· Locations shall be shown of all deflection
and retaining walls as determined necessary
by the City's Consulting Geologist.
· Implementation shall include installation of
monitoring instruments (inclinometers,
piezometers).
Measures shall adhere to the City's grading
requirements listed in Impact 4.1-2 and can be
achieved by using techniques listed in Mitigation
Measure, including installation of slope stability
monitoring instruments.
(b) The project's Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall establish and provide
for implementation of a Slope Maintenance Plan by
the project's Property Owners Associations (Owners
Associations). The project sponsor shall provide
initial funding for the Slope Management Plan, and
the Property Owners Associations shall fund long-
term implementation after receiving title to their
respective private open space lands. At a minimum,
the Slope Maintenance Plan shall provide for moni-
toring and maintenance of engineered slopes,
perimeter drainage, debris slide retention, and
deflection structures.
IMPLEMENTED BY
Project sponsor's
geotechnical consultant
Project Sponsor initially
in the project's CC&Rs
and Property Owners
Associations thereafter
WHEN IMPLEMENTED
In Precise Plan Grading
Plan.
In Precise Plan
MONITORED BY
The sponsor's
geotechnical consultant
and City's inspector
shall monitor mass
grading on the Phase II
site. The project
sponsor's geotechnical
consultant also shall
monitor the
instrumentation. Any
conditions not identified
before grading, shall be
mitigated during mass
grading. If monitoring
determines that
mitigation is not
working as designed,
additional mitigation
will be necessary, using
the measures listed
above, as approved by
the City. As required by
Mitigation Measure 4.1-
2(b), slopes shall be
monitored for at least
one average winter
season before releasing
lots immediately below
the slopes for
development. After
development, the site
shall be monitored as
part of the Slope
Maintenance Plan
similar to procedures
used in Phase I.
City's Geology
Consultant and City
Attorney
] VERtFtEO BY/DA TE
IMPACT I MITIGATION
GEOL OG Y MITIGA TION -- CONTINUED -- 1998-1999 SE I R
(a) Project plans shall be revised to incorporate the
specific measures identified by the detailed rock
slope stability analysis of the orientation and
spacing of rock defects and inspection of
individual rock outcrops conducted by the project
sponsor's geotechnical consultant. The revised
plans shall identify individual measures or
combinations of measures proposed for each rock
slope, outcrop, and source area to mitigate
rockslide and rockfall impacts. Among measures
for consideration are one or more of the following:
Rockslide measures:
· Flatter slopes shall be graded with benches,
drainage ditches, and access for
maintenance.
· Rock anchors shall be installed.
· Subdrains shall be cons~ucted.
· Geotechnical mitigation and revegetation
shall be coordinated, possibly through design
of benched terracettes.
· Slope monitoring instrumentation shall be
installed (inclinometers, piezometers etc.).
Rockfall measures:
· Loose rocks shall be scaled off.
· Engineered rock fall fences shall placed below
rock outcrops and above cut slopes.
· Netting shall be placed around features to
encapsulate and prevent material from
moving.
(b) The project sponsor shall include annual
inspection of outcrops before each rainy season and
after significant seismic shaking in the Slope
Maintenance Plans (that is CC&Rs) identified in
Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(b) for implementation by
the respective Property Owners Associations. The
City shall review, modify as necessary, and approve
the CC&Rs.
4.1-4 Rocks#des and Rockfalls Past cuts into
the sandstone bedrock along the southern end of San
Bruno Mountain often initiated major rockslides,
such as large historic rockslides present north and
northeast of the Phase iii development area. G,,ding
plans fo~ thc Phase II (Point) site p~,opose sig,fificant
cutting into thc sanctstonc b~xtrock along thc southc,.
end of San Bruno Mountain. As of Fx;bi uary and
March 1998, specific lock slope stability analyses
had not b,~,.u p,.rfo,,,,cd for the high lock slopes
proposed on thc Tc. abay Point, and applicaficm
materials had not identified pioposcd .~tigaton. '~ In
addition, rock outcrops on and above the site pose
potential hazards from rockfalls, especially if
triggered by groundshaking in an earthquake.
I IMPLEMENTED BY
Project sponsor's geo-
technical consultant --
including both visual
in-spection and
continuing to collect
monitoring
instrumentation data --
before turning repaired
slopes over to the
respective Property
Owners Associations for
long-term maintenance
and monitoring.
Project Sponsor initially
in CC&Rs and Property
Owners Associations
thereafter.
I WHEN IMPLEMENTED
In Precise Plan
In Precise Plan (before
City approves grading
permit)
MONITORED BY
Property Owners
Associations for
implementing Slope
Maintenance Plans
including monitoring
of the outcrops to be
inspected annually
before each rainy
season and after
significant seismic
shaking.
City's Geology
Consultant and City
Attorney
I VERIFIED BY / DA TE
IMPACT I MITIGATION
GEOLOGY MITIGATION -- CONTINUED -- 1998-1999 SEIR
4.1-5 Artificial Fill Differential settlement from (a) The Precise Plan shall be revised to indicate the
placement of deep fill, unconsolidated fill, or measures proposed to mitigate differential
artificial fill at variable thickness can damage settlement impacts expected from development in
structures, roadways, and utilities developed on or in Terrabay I'o[nl Woods East '~on areas of deep or
the fill material, varied fills. These techniques shall be evaluated
and used on a case-by-case basis and, when selected
and implemented, shall be monitored to determine
their effectiveness. One or a combination of the
following approaches shall be incorporated into
project plans:
Cuts shall be over-excavated to provide benches
in the fill
· Rock fill shall be used in the deepest parts of
canyon3 the fill areas.
· Fill shall be surcharged with excess material to
accelerate settlement or by an alternate method
approved by the City's Geology Consultant.
· Development of areas most sensitive to
settlement shall be postponed for a construction
season.
· The rate of settlement shall be monitored and
development (including utilities, curbs, gutters,
etc.) delayed until the rate of movement is with-
in acceptable limits of the engineered
structures.
· Structures shall be placed on deep pier
foundations.
Measures selected shall be evaluated through moni-
toring of reference points, and development of the
site, including roadways and utilities, shall be
delayed until the amount of future settlement
reaches an acceptable level, approximately one-half
inch across the triplex lot across approxi,,at~ly sixty
[ IMPLEMENTED BY
Project sponsor's
geotechnical consultant
to identify and
incorporate measure(s)
into Precise Plan
WHEN IMPLEMENTED
In Precise Plan
I MONITORED BY
Project sponsor's geo-
technical consultant
and City's Geology
Consultant
I VERtFIED BY/DA TE
IMPACT
GEOLOGY MITIGATION -- CONTINUED -- 1998 EIR
4.1-6 Secondary Effects of Seismic
Shaking Given site geologic conditions, hazards
to people or property from groundshaking
(including liquefaction, lurching, and lateral
spreading) could be mitigated to levels deemed
acceptable in a seismically active region through
compliance with Uniform Building Code standards
and measures required to address other potential
impacts on development.
MITIGATION
Stability analyses shall be conducted on
representative slopes based on seismic loading and
anticipated groundwater conditions to evaluate the
need (if any) for special mitigation measures over
and above standard engineering of the slopes in
order to mitigate potential impacts on development
from seismically induced landsliding and
rocksliding. If the stability analysis identifies the
need for special mitigation, Mitigation Measures
4.1-3 and 4.1-4 shall be revised to incorporate the
additional seismic measures required. These could
include one or more of the following:
· Keyways for fills shall be placed through soft
soils.
· Hatter slopes shall be graded with benches.
· Rock anchors shall be installed
· Subdrains shall be constructed.
· Retaining walls shall be built to minimize fill
over sensitive areas.
· Buildings shall be designed in conformance
with Uniform Building Code (UBC) Zone 4 and
City standards.
· Rockfalls shall be mitigated by removal,
encapsulation, or fences (Mitigation Measure
4.1-4(a)).
IMPLEMENTED BY
Project sponsor's geo-
technical consultant
shall be responsible for
analyzing the
engineering analysis of
proposed slopes, also to
be reviewed and
approved by the City
before granting grading
permits.
] WHEN IMPLEMENTED
Before City issues grading
permits.
I MONITORED BY
City building
inspectors shall be
responsible for
reviewing and
approving the seismic
design of proposed
structures as a routine
response to building
permit applications
VERtFtED BY/DA TE
IMPACT
1982 GEOLOGY MITIGATION - 1982 EIRx
Thc re,.oval of wgctation dining g, ading would
expose thc land sulfate to ibc, cased oil-site erosion
potential aud, consequently, increased off-site
sedimentation of d~ainagc sy$tcms.
St~'~p slopes of mediu., to fine g~aincd soils on San
Bruno Mountain would have high erosion potential
If distmbcd during thc ,ainy season (No~cmbcr to
Exeavatiou of b~<h'ock could p~,odu¢¢
fiagments ovc~ six inches ia size. Since a needy
balanced cut-and-fill concept is proposed, these
~si~d fragmcnB ~uld bc u~ on
fill. If left un-e~ushcd, they e~ld c~ntually cause
differential scttlc,:,cnt of sill sudaccs that suppo~
buildings.
Slopes ~ld gene, ally bc g,a~ to 2:1 (hofimn~l
to ~fical) su,%ccs usiug cub or fills. Stecpc/
slopes o~ i,,pi~pcdy designed sl~cs at ~s ~atio
could be subject ~ landsliding dining ~isufic
sha~ng, heavy ~ainfall, o~ from ~e ~ight
s~uetures above
Tca~abay W~s has numerous sballow landslides
and t~'ce dccp sli~s within i~ b~ndmies. Sfides
~Bide thc boundaries affuet the ~st pa~t ~ the
W~s. Soil c, ccp is ,,~c,a~, but downlfill
in ~athe~d be~k is sc~. Some b~k in the
W~s West my uot be ripablc and n~y ~Lqui~
blasting. Residcuees on both thc cast and west
~uld be built on fill and ~uld bc subject
m~cla~ settlement. Access l~ads around thc
edges would ~ncially bc on cut slopes. Road
~, ades ~uld bc generally bel~ six peru<ut but
~an~ up to 14 pc~<ent. Sfidc mpai~, sl~e
s~bili~tion and sub~ainagc mid bc neeessmy.
The 1982 ElR studied the geologic conditions of the
Phase I1 development area and the impacts and
required mitigations for the Phase Il plan under the
1982 Specific Plan. Similar to the 1998-99 SEIR,
the 1982 EIR identified the following impacts:
erosion due to removal of vegetation and soils
condition; rock cuts; cut slopes; landslides; and
settlement of fill. The 1982 EIR identified
mitigation measures to address each of these
impacts. To the extent these mitigation measures do
not conflict with the measures under the 1998-99
SEIR, they are incorporated herein.
] MITIGATION
The project sponsor has incorporated the following
mitigation measures in the Terrabay Development
Specific Plan which directly or indirectly relate to
geologic and hydrologic impacts:
· The development plan would implement, where
feasible, the recommendations of the Phase 11
Geotechnical Study already completed and those
proposed to be completed prior to the project
design.
· An erosion control plan would be incorporated in
the project design which would include on-site
siltation basins to prevent downstream
sedimentation and construction techniques to
prevent soil loss.
· The construction period would be kept as brief as
possible and phased to reduce the duration of
unprotected soil exposure and to minimize soil
removal.
· The graded areas which would not be
permanently disturbed would be hydromulched
prior to the rainy season to further reduce soil
exposure.
· Sharp changes in slope would be reduced to
eliminate areas where erosion could begin.
· Limits of temporary and permanent grading
would be clearly delineated during construction
to prevent encroachment into areas to be left un-
disturbed.
· Pedeslxian and bicycle paths would be
constructed to reduce the effects of
indiscriminate travel across the project site and
adjacent upslope areas.
IMPLEMENTED BY
WHEN IMPLEMENTED
[ MONITORED BY
] VERIFIED BY/DATE
IMPACT I MITIGATION
1982 GEOLOGY MITIGATION -- CONTINUED -- 1982 EIR
Tcuabay Co,,~.ons has a few shallow slides in both
paris of the area and is affected by a large dccp slide
above thc cast Commons '~which would need croci
excavation and repair. Thc west Co,mnous could
bc filled in thc c~.ntci and on cut slopes on th,. sides.
Thc fill would be subject to modeiatc settlcmeut.
Grades of roads would bc less than 14 pcl~cnt.
Tel,,bay Poiat would require cxtcusivc excavation
to .,old the top of thc knob and to cut thc hillside
above thc cxtcasiou of Ilillsidc BoulcvaixL Thc
road cut would bc up to 90 f~ct high and would
have two beaches...to ¢caltrol debris fall and
d, ainagc.
The kuoll top would be low, red 100 feet to
acco ..... ,Mate thc buildings. Some of thc b~<lrock
may not bc rippablc and could require blasting?
The following mitigation measures are specifically
directed toward the development of the steeply
sloping project area at Terrabay. Many of them
reiterate sound practices which would be required
by City regulations or followed by responsible
engineers or builders. They are recommended by
the EIR consultant to assist the City and the project
sponsor in creating a development which would be
sensitive to the special conditions posed by the
Terrabay site.
· The preliminary design criteria for each
proposed development area provided in the
geotechnical feasibility and general
geotechnical summary should be used as a
guidefine for planning. Detailed
geotechnical investigations for each
specific project site should be conducted to
provide design recommendations for each
area.
The grading plans should be evaluated after
detailed geotechnical information is obtained
from the investigation of each project
development area.
All grading and site preparation should be
done under the direct supervision of the soil
engineer in accordance with the guide
specifications for engineered fill supplied by
the geotechnical consultant.
] IMPLEMENTED BY
Project sponsor's geo-
technical consultant.
] WHEN IMPLEMENTED
In Precise Plan prior to
issuance of grading
permits.
MONITORED BY
City's Geologic
Consultant and
Engineering Division.
] VERIFIED BY/DA TE
10
IMPACT I MITIGATION
1982 GEOLOGY MITIGATION-- CONTINUED -- 1982 EIR
· Weak or unstable soils should be over-excavated
and replaced with sound material properly keyed
and compacted.
· Fill slopes and cut slopes should be inclined no
greater than 2:1 unless specifically reviewed and
approved by a qualified soils engineer,
Subdrainage and surface drainage should be
installed to prevent sloughing or raveling of
slopes. Cut slopes should be designed on an
individual basis and approved by the City /
County.
· High fill slopes should be overfilled and graded
back to obtain stable surfaces, All fill slopes
must be compacted to City / County
specificaions with no loose outer slopes.
· Cut and fill slopes should be planted to reduce
erosion. Cut slopes should be terrace[d] between
benches for silt retention where appropriate.
· Storm drainage and subdrainage should be in-
stalled and maintained to prevent erosion of fill.
· Retaining walls should be subdrained. All
retaining walls should be designed to resist
pressures appropriate to the size of the backslope.
· After building sites are graded, they should be
inspected by a qualified engineer and treated
where necessary by over-excavation and back
filling. Moisture prevention treatment should b
used beneath building slabs where necessary.
· Landslides should be repaired by over-
excavation, installation of subdrains and
engineered backfilling, or by installation of
retaining walls, or by some other appropriate
method.
· Disturbed areas should be stabilized as quickly as
possible either by vegetation or mechanical
methods.
· During construction, limits of grading should be
defined by fencing.'~
IMPLEMENTED BY
WHEN IMPLEMENTED
[ MONITORED BY
VERIFIED BY/DA TE
11
IMPACT I MITIGATION
1982 GEOLOGY MITIGATION -- CONTINUED -- 1982 EIR
· Both temporary and permanent erosion control
measures should be employed.
· Slope lengths and gradients should be kept to a
minimum
· Runoff should be kept away from disturbed areas
using water bars during construction.
· Construction sediment should be trapped before
it leaves the site.
· Adherence to grading principles and
recommendations to reduce geologic and
hydrologic impacts should be made a condition
of approval of the proposed project. It should be
the responsibility of the City / County to see that
the recommendations are carried out. Grading,
drainage, and erosion control plans should be
submitted to and reviewed by the City / County
for each final subdivision during the phased
development of the site. Site-specific soils and
foundation studies for each neighborhood would
be necessary to complete these plans.
· All landslides and areas of weak soil in nor near
proposed development should be repaired.
* Although all faults on the site are considered
inactive, the maps for each final subdivision
located along a suspected fault trace should
include verification of inactivity. Setbacks
should be provided as necessary.
· The project sponsor should investigate the avail-
ability of landslide insurance programs. Liability
for the cost of damage from future landslides on
the site to on-site property or adjacent property
should be clarified.
· Construction on hillsides should be designed to
avoid areas of potential landslide or erosion
problems.
· Cut and fill should be balanced within each
project site, to the extent feasible.
· Whenever possible, grading activities during the
rainy season should be avoided.
[ IMPLEMENTED BY
[ WHEN IMPLEMENTED
[ MONITORED BY
[ VERIFIED BY/DA TE
III development which is identified as 57 acres of additional area beyond that which was
~ The 1998-99 SEIR analyzed all the grading that could occur as a result of Phase II and
previously g~aded as a p,~t of Phase I. Tile p~,oject was bifm~ated at tile request of the project sponsor to separate Phase II fix~m III, fllerefore grading associated with Phase II
development is considerably less than that identified for both phases. The ptx)ject was fulfl~er sepiuated at the request of tile develope~ (Novembe~ 10, 1999) to reflect a "Woods
only" MMRP. The ptx)ject sponsor withdrew the Co~lmlons application fo~ residential develop~ncnt (on Feb~uiuy 1, 1999) and while doing so, requested a two-lot subdivisiou for
that podlon of the p~,oject. The two-lot subdivision was approved by City Council on May 12, 1999 to construct a catchment basin and maintenance access ~,oad only on a half-acre
parcel. The remaining 7.5 - ac~e pa~x;el was created which is identified as unspecified use. On March 10, 1999 tile project sponsor offer,ed file Conmlons ~eighbodmod for
12
dedicatiou as vv .... vhce to the County and the City Council (oil May 12, 1999) request ....... ihe dedication language be included in the Amended and Restateo r~,cvc~°proem
Agreement for Phase II. The Point neighbodiood was denied by Council on May 12, 1999. The~efoie, the additional grading that would occur as a result of the approved project
(Woods and minor giading foi an access lxvad iii tile Conunons) would be consideiably less than that identified for both Phase II and III (57 acres) as well as that for Phase II
(Woods, Conm~ons, Point - 27 acres), as no additional g~ ading would occm iii the Point and nfiuimal gl ading would occur in the Conmions. Exhibits 4.1 a, baud c and page 115
of the 1998-99SEIR discuss this iii detail.
· No development of the Point was approved as a part of this project. Minimal grading
~ Grading is reduced from the project analyzed in the 1998-99 SEIR, see footendnote #1i
(p~edonfinately restoration) of the Conm~ons would occm to consuuct the catchment basin and access for maintenance road. Additionally, tile soil sto~age permitted on Woods
East as a p,ut of Phase I created an a~tificial canyon which requires the compacting, erosion conta~ol and settlement mitigation measures.
repaired. See biology impact 4.3-1.
~ Commons fire access roads need to be
; therefore this mitigation measure does not apply to the project approved by the City
~* The Commons residential application was withdrawn by the applicant on February 1, 1999
Council on May 12, 1999. Woods only MMRP.
grading would have already been completed·
v Should have read "the building permit" as
tent the Woods· Rockslide mitigations will be applied to the Woods as appropriate.
~ Potential rockslides are primarily associated with the Point and to a much lesser ex
as a part of this project. Some rockslide mitigation may be required for the Woods.
~ Rockslides are impacts predominately associated with the Point which was not approved
y applied to the Point, however it does to a much lesser extent apply to the Woods East
~ The Point was denied by Council on May 12, 1999. Impact and Mitigation 4.5-5 primaril
neighborhood where soil sto~age was pemfitted as a pa~t of Phase I.
d by Council. As identified above soil storage (i.e., fill area) on Woods East requires
~ Triplex lots (60 to 64 feet in width) were intended for the Point only, which was denie
,fitigation and the linear distance is fl~e same as that which was identified by the language "across a triplex lot".
e into the 1998-99 SEIR.
~ Incorporated by referenc
nd 1996 EIR's is a part of the Point subarea analyzed by the 1998-99 SEIR.
'~ The subarea referred to as "Commons East" and "east Commons" in the 1982 a
ry 1, 1999 and Council denied the Point on May 12, 1999. See Impact and Mitigation
~ The Commons development application was withdrawn by the project sponsor on Februa
4.1-1 g~ ading of this document.
t to the HCP regulations and as provided for in Title 20 of the South San Francisco
'~ The location of the fencing shall be verified by the HCP Plan Administrator pursuan
Municipal Code.
13
IMPACT
HYDROLOGY MITIGATION -- PHASE II SITE
1998-1999 SE1R
IMIrIanrIoN IIU~UE~ED ~r
4.2-1 Stormwater Drainage Patterns and Flooding
Some of the streets proposed for con-stmction on the
Phase II site would be drained by concrete V-channels
aligned between street travel lanes and parking bays.
This design would promote the occasional clogging of
the channel with debris and potentially could create
minor flooding conditions where the tiers of parked
cars obstruct the gutter flow section.
4.2-2 Stormwater Drainage and Flooding Nuisance No mitigation would be required. See findings in
flooding could occur in backyard areas if insufficient Exhibit A of environmental resolution.
grades are not provided in the vicinity of residential
building pads. The Uniform Building Code (UBC)
specified a minimum slope of two percent for surface
grades in such areas to promote efficient stormwater
drainage and to deter structural damage due to
excessive groundwater seepage. The project grading
and drainage plans indicate one percent grades for
drainage swales which would be constructed to drain
residential lots. In addition, yard grades leading away
from the building pads toward the swales would be a
minimum of two percent. Since the drainage swales
would be excavated into the adjacent terrain, efficient
drainage still would be achieved. Accordingly, this
would be a less than significant impact)
4.2-3 Sto, ,a ,vatet D, ainage Putte, ,,s a,,d Etmion
and Sedimentation Abscacc of d~ain inlets on cut
b,mchcs would pc, mit runoff to flow cnito an
unprotected lfillslopc wlfich could triggc~ hillslopc
ccosion in thc fo.. of gully incision.
No mitigation required. See findings in Exhibit A of
environmental resolution.
IWHEN IMPLEMENTED ]MONITORED BY IVERIFtEO BY / DA TE
Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable.
Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable.
Thc p~x)pos,.d g~ading plan shall be ~cviscd to pro-vide h~ojcct sponsor's civil
fo~ g~ading of thc b,mch identified in thc Co,,~,,cau engineer t~ revise g, ad-in
neighborhood in o~t~ to direct runoff flows towa~xt plan to diix;ct in, face
thc inlet to thc deb/is basin, runoff to the Couunons
d~bris basin.
NONE REQUIRED
NONE REQUIRED
ncforc filing of Final Sub City Planniug aud Public
division Map and issuance of Works Dcpa, t-mcancst to
g, ading pc,~fits for Husc Il. rcvicw and appix~vc
~.visions.
13
IMPACT
HYDROLOGY MIT1GA TION -- PHASE H SITE
1998-1999 SEIR
4.2-7 Erosion and Sedimentation Unnecessary
grading for culvert installation in the Woods East
neighborhood would constitute a significant impact.
4,2-8 Ei~osion and Sedimentation Reg~aded
Cou..ons n¢ighbodiood roadways left unpaved after
project imp}c,.cntation could c~dc and g,.neratc
duwn~hcam ~cdimcntatiuu ~
IMITIGATION IIMPLEMENTED BY IWHEN IMPLEMENTED IMONITORED BY
Vesting Tentative Map and Preliminary Grading Plan Proj. ect sponsor's civil
Sheets 8 and 9 shall be revised to eliminate the storm engineer.
drain segment in Woods East proposed on the contour
bench of Lots G and J from the drainage and grading
plan design.
Thc existing diJt access roads arc located entirely
within thc limits of proposed ~,,~ding. Therefore, both
~x~ads shall b,. rc,.ovcd. According to thc City Filet
Marshall and thc project sponsor-s engineer, none of
thc roadways outside of paved subdivision streets
would bc required for fire access. In additicar, whcix;
no rcg~ading is proposed, thc original hillslopc
topog, aphy shall bc restored with no installation of
artificial diainagc facilities. Within thc proposed
slope l,c~ading area, thc ~cgiadcd slope shall be
slightly a~m. nde. d to allow for thc roadway elinfinafica~.
All ~c~;,adcd and restored hillslopc al,cas shall be
subjected to appropriate c~,osion e. ca~hol tslc_,asurcs in
confo,.,ance with an approvx.d Sto,.,watcr Pollu
PROTECT ADJA CENT 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 MA TERIAL AND
CONSTRUCTION WASTE STORAGE~
HANDLING, AND DISPOSAL PRACTICES
INCLUDE DETAILED POST CONSTRUCTION
TREATMENT CONTROLS BEST
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) TO
PROTECT THE STORM DRAINS AND WATER
QUALITY AFTER CONSTRUCTION IS
COMPLETED
Before filing of the Final
Subdivision Map and
issuance of grading permits
for Phase m.
City Planning and
Public Works Depart-
meanest to review
revisions.
]VERIFIED BY/DATE
14
Hydrology Mitigation -- Phase II Site
Supplemental Impact D-I Joint Powers Agreement ... The
County of San Mateo has re-ently 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 lmpact D-2 Stormwater Regulations City
adoption of a "Storm Water Management and Discharge
Control" program as Chapter 14.04 of the Municipal Code
suggests a revision to water quality related mitigation
measures recommended in the 1982 EIR. ff these mitigation
standards are not met, the project could result in a potentially
significant water quality impact.
Consider disbandment of the Joint Powers Authority City of South San
for catchment basin maintenance, as proposed by Francisco and San
thc County of San Mateo If the Joint Powers Mateo County.
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 .... If the Joint Powers Authority is to be
maintained, continue to fulfill City responsibilities
in accordance with thc joint powers agreement of
June 21, 1983.
In addition to measures recommended in the 1982 Project sponsor.
EIR for water quality impacts, require the project
applicant to:
(1) Comply with all applicable provisions of thc
City of South San Francisco "Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control" program
(Chapter 14.04 of the Municipal Code).
(2) As required for projects involving construction
on sites of more than five acres, file a Notice of
Intent with the State Water Resources Control
Board, in order to be covered by the City's general
NPDES permit or apply to the State Water
Resources Control Board for an individual NPDES
WIIEN IMPLEblENTED
Prior to issuance of any
grading permit.
Prior to issuance of any
grading permit.
AIONITORED BI'
City's Engineering
Division.
City's Engineering
Division. And Water
Quality Control
Division.
I vc~irtco BY/DATE
(3) Prepare a Stortn Water Pollution Prevention
· stabilize areas denuded due to construction with
pproved. The mitigation measure is needed to direct water toward the catchment basin.
Still required although residential development of the Commons was not requested or a
15
ment Was withdrawn on February 1, 1999, a two-lot subdivision of land was approved by
Applies to the Commons development. Although the application for residential develop
the City Council on May 12, 1999. Two existing dirt roads were to bc paa'tially regradcd to conshuct three roads in the Conunons aa,ca for residential development and,
as then proposed by the developer, left in an unprotected state, hnpact 4.2-8 stated that thc remaining unprotected roads could yield substantial quantities of sediment
onto (proposed and paved) N and L Streets. Thc approved two-lot subdivision proposes on a half ac~e a catchment basin and access road (for maintenance pth[,oses) to
the catchment basin. In order to avoid sedimentation (although it would bc expected to be less than that identified in the 1998-99 SEIR due to thc lack of imp¢~ vious
st~ faces) the roads require nfitigation. Woods only MMRP.
1999 and is not a part of the "approved project".
Point Development was denied by Council on May 12,
nied by Council on May 12, 1999 as is not a part of the "approved project".
Point Development, including construction of the drainage connector, was de
16
IMPACT
BIOLOGY MITIGATION -- PHASE II S/TE
1998-1999 SEIR
4.3-1 Vegetation Removal, Wildlife Habitat
Loss, and Landscape Compatibility Grading
associated with project implementation would re-
quire removal of existing vegetation and associated
wildlife habitat in areas proposed for development.
Loss of non-native grassland would not be consider-
ed significant, but impacts on native freshwater
marsh and riparian habitat and remnant stands of
native grasslands would be significant. Proposed
landscaping and restoration of graded slopes appear
to be compatible with open space designations on
parts of the site, but without a salvage component to
the proposed restoration plan anticipated impacts
would continue to be significant.
4.3-2 Impacts on Special-Status Species
Except for callippe silverspot butterfly and mission
blue butterfly, no impacts on populations of other
special-status plant and animal species are antici-
pated. While the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Con-
servation Plan (HCP) fully addresses potential im-
pacts of anticipated development on mission blue,
amendments to the HCP would be necessary for the
recently listed callippe silverspot. Further loss of
suitable habitat for callippe silverspot on the site
would be a significant impactfi
I MITIGATION
(a) The proposed Restoration Plan for the project shall
be revised to include an additional component which
provides for the selective use of native plant material
that otherwise would be eliminated as a result of
grading and development The scope of the salvage
effort shall be determined by the project sponsor's
vegetation specialist responsible for implementing
the Restoration Plan and shall consider proven
success rates and availability from other sources in
targeting specific species. Methods of plant
material salvage may include transplanting, seed
collection and propagation, and use of cuttings from
on-site vegetation. Transplanting shall be performed
during the optimum period necessary to ensure plant
survival, generally in the fall and early spring months,
with salvage_material stored in a tem-porary growing
area if necessary and eventually Wans-planted onto
slopes where restoration is to occur following final
grading and soil preparation. Any plant salvage and
seed collection operation shall be restricted to the limits
of final grading to prevent the further loss of native
species in permanent open space areas?
(b) Any pedestrian trails linking the site with the open
space lands of San Bruno Mountain preferably shall
follow the aligmnent of existing fire trails to minimize
disturbance to vegetative cover and shall avoid areas of
native grasslands, freshwater seeps, and larval host
plants for eallippe silverspot butteffiy. Final pedestrian
trail alignments shall be approved by the Habitat
Conservation Plan coordinator.
(a) The project sponsor shall be required to fulfill the
landowner / developer obligations identified by the San
Brtato Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan with
respect to the site. If San Mateo County and the Cities
of South San Francisco, Brisbane, and Daly City (co-
applicants) do not obtain an amended inci-dental take
permit which includes the callippe silver-spot butterfly,
the project must be redesigned to avoid any take, as
defined by the Federal Endangered Spec-ies Act, of the
callippe silverspot or its habitat, includ-ing avoiding all
larval host plants. If the permit is amended to include
the callippe silverspot, the landowner shall incorporate
any new permit conditions into the project. The
following measures also shall be implemented to
further minimize potential impacts of the project on the
......... tENTED BY
Project sponsor to revise
proposed Restoration
Plan for Phase II site,
and cooperate with City,
County, and HCP
coordinator about trail
location to connect the
project site and San
Bruno Mountain
County Park. Project
sponsor's vegetation
specialist.
Project sponsor' s
vegetation specialist.
Project sponsor to revise
Precise Plan and grad-
ing plan and conceptual
development plan, re-
vise proposed Restora-
tion Plan, and post
trailhead signs in
coopera-tion with City,
County, and HCP
coordinator.
] WHEN IMPLEMENTED
Plan revisions to occur in
formulating Precise Plan.
Salvaging to occur before
grading is initiated after
issuance of grading
permits are issued to
prevent premature removal
of plants.
In Precise Plan (before fil-
ing of Final Subdivision
Map).
In Precise Plan (before fil-
ing of Final Subdivision
Map).
I MONITORED BY
City and HCP coor-
dinator to monitor
compliance.
City and HCP coor-
dinator to monitor
compliance.
City and HCP coor-
dinator to monitor
compliance.
[ VE ........ 7DATE
19
IMPACT I MITIGATION
BIOL OG Y MI TIGA TION -- CONTINUED -- 1998-1999 SEIR
· If an amendment to the incidental take
permit to include the callippe silverspot
butterfly is not obtained:
(1) Project development shall not result in the
"take" (as defined in the Federal Endangered
Species Act) of the callippe silverspot butterfly ot
its habitat including redesign of the project plans to
avoid disturbance to and development of areas
supporting populations of the larval host plant
(Viola pedunculata).
(2) A supplemental survey shall be conducted in
spring 1999 to verify the presence or absence of
any of any larval host plants (Viola peduncu-
lata) on the Phase II site.
(3) If permitted under the Federal Endangered
Species Act, the proposed Restoration Plan
shall be revised to include a component to
salvage and transplant existing adult nectar
plants (espe-cially natives such as Monardella)
which other-wise would be lost due to grading
and develop-merit in accordance with
Mitigation Measure 4.3-1(b). Salvage material
shall be used as part ora propagation program
to reestablish adult nectar plants on restored
slopes and in addition-al grassland habitat
where they currently are absent.
(4) All stands of larval host plant which are to
be preserved on the Phase Il site should be ade-
quately protected from construction-related dis-
turbance. These locations should be identified
as a "no disturbance zone" on all grading plans.
The perimeter of stands of larval host plants
within 100 feet of proposed grading and con~
struction should be fenced ptior to initiating of
grading to prevent possible damage and loss.
IIMPLEMENTED BY
WHEN IMPLEMENTED
MONITORED BY
VERIFIED BY/DA TE
20
iMPACT I MITIGATION
BIOL OG Y MITIGA TION -- CONTINUED -- 1998-1999 SEI R
(5) Signs shall be prepared, in cooperation with
the San Mateo County Parks Department and
HCP coordinator, and installed along trails and
other appropriate locations warning park users
against illegal activities (such as poaching).
4.3-3 Loss of Jurisdictional Wetland Habitat
Implementation of the project as proposed would
eliminate approximately two acres no~t eliminate
jurisdictional habitat, including areas of sensitive
freshwater seeps, riparian habitat, and the perennial
spring on the site. Thc This i,,pacts on loss of
jmisdicfioaal wetland habitat would no._~t bca
sig,,ificant [,,,pact of thc project, iv This loss of
jurisdictional wetland habitat would be a
significant impact on the proposed project.
Only 0.088 acres of streams are located on the
Woods site.
(6) Appropriate dust control measures shall be
implemented as a component of the project's
sedimentation and erosion control plans in order
to minimize construction-generated dust (as re-
quired by Mitigation Measures 4.1-2(c) and
4.5-I). Measures shall include frequent
watering of graded area, equipment, and haul
roads to mini-mize dust and control its
dispersal.
If an amendment to the incidental take permit to
include the calfippe silverspot butterfly is
obtained, the landowner/developer shall comply
with all the conditions of the incidental take
permit amendment and measures 3, 4, 5, and 6
(above) to the extent they do not conflict with
the conditions to the amended incidental take
permit.
(a) The proposed project was shall-be redesigned to
avoid jurisdictional wetland habitat to the maximum
extent feasible,v
(b) If complete avoidance of jurisdictional wetlands
is not feasible, a wetland mitigation plan shall be
prepared by the project sponsor's wetland consultant
to provide for their replacement. The plan shall
include the following details:~
iMPLEMENTED BY
Project sponsor to revise
Specific Platt grading
plan and conceptual
development plan, for-
mulate and implement
Wetland Mitigation
Plan, and prepare and
implement erosion and
sedimentation control
measures?
Project sponsor's
wetland consultant.
WHEN IMPLEMENTED
In Precise Plan (before fil-
ing of Final Subdivision
Map).
MONITORED BY
City to monitor
compliance with
Corps, CDFG, and
RWQCB
City to monitor
compliance with
Corps, CDFG, and
RWQCB
IVERtFIED BY~ DA TE
21
IMPACT I MITIGATION
BIOLOGY MITIGATION -- CONTINUED -- 1998-1999 SEIR
· All plantings to be used as part of any replace-ment
mitigation shall be restricted to native wetland,
riparian, and adjacent upland species.
Site preparation and revegetation procedure
planting design, implementation schedule, and
funding sources shall be defined to ensure long-
term management of the overall wetland
mitigation plan.
Performance criteria, maintenance and long-
term management responsibilities, monitoring
requirements, and contingency measures, if
per-formance standards and mitigation goals
are not met, shall be specified. Replacement
habitat shall be monitored for a minimum of
five years until all success criteria are met.
· Before issuance of any grading or building per-
mit for the project, the mitigation plan shall be
reviewed and approved by the U.S. Army Coxps
of Engineers, California Department of Fish and
Game, and Regional Water Quality Control
Board subject to their authority under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act, Section 1603 of the Cali-
fornia Fish and Game Code, and Section 401
Certification, respectively.
(c) A de~ailed erosion and sedimentation control plan
shall be prepared and implemented during construction
on the site. The plan shall contain detail-ed measures
to control erosion of stockpiled eaxth anti exposed soil,
minimize construction-generated dust, provide for
revegetation of graded slopes before the first rainy
season following construction, and specify procedures
for monitoring of the plan's effectiveness. The
revegetation component of the plan shall be con-sistent
with the revised Restoration Plan.
IMPLEMENTED BY
Project sponsor geotech-
nical and vegetation
consultants.
22
WHEN IMPLEMENTED
In Precise Plan (before fil-
ing of the Final Subdivision
Map).
MONITORED BY
City's Geology Con-
sultant.
VERIFIED BY/DA TE
BIOLOGY CONTINUED
Development of the proposed project
would have a number of biological
impacts varying in signifi-cance. The
most noteworthy of these impacts is
the elimination of habitat currently
used by a federally-listed endangered
species as well as another rare, but
not listed, butterfly.
Elimination of 126 acres '~of annual grassland
would also have an impact on those other wildlife
species that occasionally use or are dependent upon
that habitat. In particular, the amount of raptor
foraging
habitat would be reduced .... Other carnivores such
as gray fox would experience a similar modification
in available hunting territory, especially due to in-
creased human and potential domestic animal activ-
ity.
The removal of some riparian-type habitat (e.g., wil-
lows and rashes) would also reduce the available
habitat for certain other species of birds.
1982 EIR x
(a) Habitat Conservation Plan Guidelines. The
Habitat Conservation Plan provides explicit
guidelines for mitigating adverse impacts of the
project on species of concern.
(b) The project sponsor has included the following
mitigation measures in the Terrabay Development
Specific Plan which directly or indirectly relate to
impacts on vegetation and wildlife:
· The limits of temporary and permanent grading
will be clearly delineated during construction to
prevent encroachment into areas that are to re-
main undisturbed.., as required by the Habitat
Conservation Plan presently under review.
City, project
sponsor, and
HCP coordinator.
In Precise Plan
and grad-ing plans.
Implemented
continuously.
City Planning
and Engineering
Divisions and
HCP
coordinator.
Project sponsor Prior to issuance of grad- City Geologic Con-
ing permits, sultant and HCP
coordinator.
road for maintenance of the basin. Council denied the Point development request on
~ The Commons area would require minimal grading for the catchment basin and the access
May 12, 1999. Therefore, the area of grading would bc predonfinately in thc Woods neighborhood. The majority of thc grading in the Woods was completed as a pa~t of Phase I.
Grading of the Woods would include approximately 25 acres of which nine acres would be lands not previously distmbcd by grading (sec end note i and ii and iii in Geology). As
a result of the rcduccd project, significantly less grading would occur.
lection shall be reviewed and supervised by the HCP Administrator.
~ Opportunity for seed collection exists in the Commons area. Col
he northern project boundary and Woods East has approximately 35 at the eastern-most
~ The majority of the Viola is in the Commons area. Woods West has one plant along t
projkect boundary sec Exhibit 4.3-1 1998-99 SEIR.
s the Commons, Point and Commercial Area waters (in other words Phases II and III).
~ The two-acre loss of jurisdictional wetlands identified in the 1998-99 SEIR include
Ju, isdictional wetlands include approximately 1.63 acres and 0.24 potential waters (sueaan channels). Thc 1.63 acres of wetlands are located entirely on the Phase III site and the
0.24 acres of stre~un channels arc prcdonfinatcly located in the Phase III area. Thrcc strc~un channels that are located in Phase II me identified as Stream 5 and 5a (in the Woods
area), Ste/un 6 (in the Conunons area) and Stream 7 (in the Point area). Stream channels 5 and 5a would bc affccted by this project.
The City has not appro~x~--d the Conunercial Arca (Phase III) as the entitlement process was bifurcated to separate Phase II from III (sec Geology endnote ii) at the request of thc
developer. The approved project, the subject of this nfitigation monitoring and repo~aing progr~un, is residential development of the Woods (135 units) and a two-lot subdivision
of the Conunons to consUuct a catchment basin and access road on a half-acre parcel. The Council deoicd the Point on May 12, 1999 and the project sponsor withdrew thc
application for residential development of the Conm~ons on Febm~uy 1, 1999. Stre~uns 5 and 5a "unvegetated potential jurisdictional waters (stream channel)" identified in
23
Exhibit 4.3-1 .... -~) SEIR (also mapped by Vicki Reynolds, Pt elimitm, y Ju, isdictio~, ~,~,,izeation Pm suatlt to Section 404 of the Cleat1 Water Act T~,, abay oeveto~pment
Site, April 8, 1998 and peer reviewed by Jim Mm'tin of Enviromnental Collaborative for the 1998-99 SEIR) are located in the Woods neighborhood area. Stre/uns 5 and 5a would
be affected by development although they were significantly altered as a pax of Phase I g~ading in 1989 under the auspices of Nationwide Pemfits issued by the Co, i, as a pm't of
Phase I in 1989 and 1990 (#18052S91 and 18052S91A. Stremn 6 (Conunons) would bc largely if not completely preserved by the catchment basin and 7 (Point) would not be
affected by development. Therefore, the ~unount of wetland (potential jmisdictional waters) distmbance is g~eatly reduced as a result of the proposed project alfl~ough some
Mitigation wilhnay be required by the Coq~ to develop the Woods.
ed project which was evaluated in the 1998-99 SEIR) would result in less disturbance to
* See endnote iv, above. The approved project (which is less development than the propos
"potcntial jurisdictional wateis" (unvegetatcd streaans). All wetlands are on the Phase III site which is not a part of this approved project.
s are incorporated in the 1999 Modified Terrabay Specific Plan Phase II -Woods and
'~ The Specific Plan was revised by City Council action on May 12, 1999. The change
Cool,Boris.
rmine if/what mitigation is required based upon the reduced Approved Project.
'~ US Army Corp of Engineers shall review the grading plans for Phase II and dete
note vii.
'~ See end
ore vii.
~ See endn
ce in the 1998-99 SEIR.
~ Incorporated by referen
for an explanation of the reduced grading.
'~See endnote I in Geology (page 11 and 12)
24
IMPACT
TRAFFIC MITIGATION -- PHASE II SITE
1998-1999 SEIR
4.4-1 Year 2000 Base Case plus Phases II +
III Freeway Impacts Phase II and · traffic
combined would increase volumes by more than one
percent on segments of U.S. 101 freeway already
operating unacceptably at LOS F.~
· Southbound: north of the off-ramp to Bayshore
Boulevard (AM=1.25 percent / PM 2.43 percent
increases), from the new Bayshore Boulevard
on-ramp to the Dubuque on-ramp (PM=2.45
percent increase) and south of the Dubuque on-
ramp (AM=1.66 percent increase) (Segments 1,
3 and 4 in Exhibit 4.4-2).
· Northbound: from the Grand Avenue on-ramp
to the Dubuque off-ramp (AM= 1.71 percent/
PM=2.76 percent increases), from the Oyster
Point on-ramp to the Bayshore Boulevard off-
ramp (PM=1.60 percent increase) and north of
the Bayshore Boulevard off- ramp (AM=l.65
percent/PM= 1.75 percent increases)
(Segments 5, 7 and 8 in Exhibit 4.4-2).
Phase II and III traffic would change operation from
LOS E to an unacceptable LOS F:
· Northbound: from the Oyster Point northbound
on-ramp to the Bayshore Boulevard northbound
off-ramp during the AM peak period (Segment
7 in Exhibit 4.4-2).
· Southbound: from the Oyster Point southbound
on-ramp to the Grand Avenue interchange
during the PM peak period (Segment 4 in
Exhibit 4.4-2).
] MITIGATION
The project sponsor shall reduce the amounts of
development proposed within the Phase II and
Phase III sites and / or shall assist with funding for
regional circulation system improvements. Based
upon the freeway segments receiving the biggest
significant impact due to the project, Phase II + III
trip generation would need to be reduced at least 64
percent.
~ENTED BY
Project sponsor.
WHEN IMPLEMENTED
In Precise Plan.
MONITORED BY
City Planning and
Engineering Divisions
to monitor.
I VE ........ ~DATE
25
IMPACT I MITIGATION
TRAFFIC MITIGATION -- CONTINUED -- 1998-1999 S EI R
4.4-2 Year 2010 Base Case plus Phases II +
III Intersection Impact AM peak hour Base Case
operation plus project txaffic would change operation
from an unacceptable LOS E to an acceptable LOS D
at the Sister Cities Boulevard / Bayshore Boulevard /
Airport Boulevard / Oyster Point Boulevard
Intersection (a beneficial impact), but acceptable
LOS D PM peak hour operation would change to an
unacceptable LOS F.
4.4-3 Year2010 Base Case plus Phases
II + III Intersection Impact Project Phase II
+ III traffic would change 2010 AM peak hour
operation at the Oyster Point Boulevard /
Dubuque Avenue / U.S. 101 Northbound On-
Ramp Intersection from an unacceptable
LOS E to an acceptable LOS D (a beneficial
impact) but would change acceptable PM peak
hour LOS D operation to an unacceptable
LOS F.
The project sponsor shall provide a fair share
contribution towards restriping the westbound
(Oyster Point Boulevard) intersection approach (to
provide a single left turn lane, two exclusive
through lanes, and a shared through / fight turn
lane). A contribution also would be needed towards
a third westbound departure lane (on Sister Cities
Boulevard) which then would merge into the two
existing departure lanes just west of the intersection.
In addition, although not strictly needed for capacity
reasons, restriping also is recommended for the
southbound (Bayshore Boulevard) intersection
approach (to provide an exclusive right, a shared
through / right, a through, and two left turn lanes)
Based upon total traffic growth to 2010, the
project's fair share contribution would be 21
percent of the improvement costs.
The project sponsor shall provide a fair share
contribution towards construction of a second
exclusive right-turn lane on the westbound (Oyster
Point Boulevard) approach and a second exclusive
left-turn lane on the northbound (Dubuque Avenue)
intersection approach. Both measures would
require widening existing structures. Based upon
total traffic growth to 2010, the project's fair share
con-tribution would be five percent of the
improvement costs (see Exhibits 4.4-10 and 4.4-15).
IMPLEMENTED BY
Project sponsors of
Terrabay Phase II and
Phase I]I and other local
area development to pay
their fair share of the
improvements.
Project sponsors of
Terrabay Phase II and
Phase Ill and other local
area development to pay
their fair share of the
improvements.
WHEN IMPLEMENTED
Execution of amended and
restated Development
Agreement prior to
approval of Final
Subdivision Map.
Execution of amended and
restated Development
Agreement prior to
approval of Final
Subdivision Map.
MONITORED BY
City Planning and
Engineering Divisions
and City Attorney to
monitor
implementation. As
part of this process,
the City should review
modifying the existing
capital improvements
program to include fair
share funding
mechanisms for major
roadway
improvements.
City Planning and
Engineering Divisions
and City Attorney to
monitor
implementation. As
part of this process,
the City should review
modifying the existing
capital improvements
program to include fair
share funding
mechanisms for major
roadway
improvements.
I VERIFIEDBY/DATE
26
IMPACT I MITIGATION
TRAFFIC MITIGATION -- CONTINUED -- 1998-1999 SEIR
4.4-4 Year 2010 Base Case plus Phases II
and III Freeway Impact Phase II and Ill project
traffic combined would increase Base Case volumes
by more than one percent on U.S. 101 freeway ii
segments already operating unacceptably at LOS F.
,, Southbound: north of the off-ramp to Bayshore
Boulevard (AM= 1.10 percent / PM=2.09 percent
increases), from the new Bayshore Boulevard
hook on-ramp to the Dubuque on-ramp
(PM=2.19 percent increase) and south of the
Dubuque on-ramp (AM=1.48 percent / PM =
2.00 percent increases) (Segments 1, 3 and 4 in
Exhibit 4.4-2)
· Northbound: from the Grand Avenue on-ramp to
the Dubuque off-ramp (AM=1.50 percent /
PM=2.41 percent increases) from the Oyster
Point on-ramp to the Bayshore Boulevard off-
ramp (AM=I.34 percent/PM=l.39 percent
increases) and north of the Bayshore Boulevard
off-ramp (AM=1.46 percent/PM=1.51 percent
increases) (Segments 5, 7 and 8 in Exhibit
4.4-2).
4.4-5 Year 2010 Base Case plus Phase II + III
Ramp Impacts Phase II + III development
combined would increase PM peak hour Base Case
over-capacity operation by 6.8 percent on the
Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard.
Project sponsors shall reduce the amounts of
development proposed within the Phase Il and
Phase llI sites and / or shall assist with funding for
regional circulation system improvements. Based
upon the freeway segment receiving the biggest
significant impact due to the project, Phase II + Ill
trip generation would need to be reduced at least 59
percent.
The project sponsor shall reduce Phase II and III
development trip generation. Approximately an 85
percent reduction in Terrabay trip generation would
be required to reduce the project traffic impact to
less than a 1 percent increase. Alternatively, the
sponsor shall provide a fair share contribution to-
wards construction of a second on-ramp lane
connection to the U.S. 101 freeway. Based upon
total traffic growth to 2010, the project's fair share
con-tribution would be 12 percent of the
improvement costs.
I IMPLEMENTED BY
Project sponsor to
implement.
Project sponsor to
implement.
(Alternatively, project
sponsor and other local
area developers to
contribute funds
towards construction of
second on-ramp lane,
which would re-quire
Caltrans approval.)
WHEN IMPLEMENTED
Execution of amended and
restated Development
Agreement prior to
approval of Final
Subdivision Map.
Execution of amended and
restated Development
Agreement prior to
approval of Final
Subdivision Map.
I MONITORED BY
City Planning and
Engineering Divisions
to monitor.
City Planning and
Engineering Divisions
and City Attorney to
monitor.
VERIFIED BY~ DA TE
27
IMPACT I MITIGATION
TRAFFIC MITIGATION -- CONTINUED -- 1998-1999 SEIR
No mifigaton will be required. See findings in
Exhibit A of Environmental resolution.
4.4-6 Roadway Width Roadways would
conform to adopted standards and not raise safety
concerns.
4.4-6a Gated Entrances to Point and
Com;ilons Neighborhoods Gated cnUanccs
may not pJ,ovidc adequate tu,,avound a[~:a and
sufficient queuing space fo~ vehicles to stack while
waiting to c,~t,~t thc ncighbod,ood,n
4.4-7 Turnarounds Angled, hammerhead, and
cul-de-sac turnarounds proposed for the Phase II site
would accommodate fire trucks.
4.4-8 Residential Parking Dimensions
Although the Precise Plan would conform to mini-
mum parking supply requirements, dimensions
of some spaces would be substandard.
4.4-9 Overflow Parking Although the Precise
Plan would conform to minimum parking supply
requirements, it does not provide for overflow
parking for use by visitors attending parties or
special events.
4.4-11 Pedestrian and Bicycle Access and
Trailhead Access and Parking Sidewalks, bike
lanes, and a new trail would be provided with
project implementation, but the project currently
does not specifically provide trailhead parking.
Gated chi, antes would rccluiix, provision of a
tu,,aro~nd a~ca and sufficient qucuing space foJ
vehicles to stack while waiting to enter thc
ncighboi hood.
No mitigation would be required. See findings in
Exhibit A of Environmental resolution.
The parking dimensions for parallel parking, garage,
and driveway aprons shown on the Precise Plan
shall be revised to comply with the Specific Plan,
the City's Zoning Ordinance, and other applicable
City standards. As shown on Exhibit 4.4-18, this
would include revisions to driveway apron lengths
of Plan A and B downslope duplexes (64 units),
Plan C upslope duplexes (eight units), Plan A
upslope triplexes (47 units), Plan B and C down-
slope triplexes (94 units), and Wqoods Plan 1, Plan
3, and Plan 4 garage floor space dimensions (35
units, 35 units, and 34 units respectively), and the
dimensions of the garage parking spaces in Woods
Plan 3 (35 units). See findings in Exhibit A of
Environmental resolution.
The Precise Plan shall be revised to provide over-
fiow parking, consisting of six to eight spaces, with-
in each residential neighborhood. These spaces
could, for example, be provided by enlarging cul-
de-sac bulbs, paving areas at the ends of
hammerhead turnarounds, or eliminating one to two
housing units adjacent to the street end
(hammerhead or cul-de-sac). If housing units are
eliminated, on-site parking should be monitored at
regular intervals. If it is found that the amount of
overflow parking provided is not required, then one
or both of the remaining units could be constructed.
See findings in Exhibit A of Environmental
resolution.
No mitigation would be required. See findings in
Exhibit A of Environmental resolution.
IMPLEMENTED BY
Not apphcable.
IYojcct sponsoi.
Not required.
Project sponsor to
redesign Precise Plan to
incorporate this
measure.
Project sponsor to
incorporate overflow
parking into the Precise
Plan
Not required.
WHEN IMPLEMENTED
Not applicable.
In Pte~ise PI,.,,,.
Not applicable.
In Precise Platt.
In Precise Plan.
Not applicable.
] MONITORED BY
Not applicable.
City Planning,
Engineoing, and
Building Divisions.
Not required.
City Planning,
Engineering, and
Building Divisions to
re-view Precise Plan
for compliance with
standards for parallel
parking spaces and
garage and driveway
apron dimensions.
City Planning,
Engineering, and
Building Divisions to
review the Precise
Plan before City
approval to ensure
parking adequacy.
Not required.
I VERIFIEDBY/DATE
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
28
IMPACT I MITIGATION
TRAFFIC MITIGATION -- CONTINUED -- 1998-1999 SEIR
4.4-12 Potential Storage Distance
Deficiencies Between Intersections Queues
would exceed available storage capacity at three to
six intersections, depending on analysis
methodology
4.4-13 Year 2020 Hook Ramps Impact on
Freeway Mainline Traffic from the new on-ramp
would increase AM and PM peak hour volumes by
more than one percent on the U.S. 101 Freeway
Southbound Mainline from the new southbound
buttonhook on-ramp to the southbound on-ramp
from Dubuque Avenue, a segment about 3,500 feet
long that would already be experiencing
unacceptable LOS F operation. '~
4.4-14 Year 2020 Hook Ramps Impact on
Freeway Ramps Increased a'affic due to the
hook ramp project would increase AM peak hour
off-ramp volumes by more than one percent at the
diverge of the Southbound U.S. 101 Freeway Off-
Ramp to Bayshore Boulevard where diverge traffic
flow operation would akeady be an unacceptable
LOS F."7
Interconnected and coordinated signal operation and
flow between these four closely spaced intersections
along Bayshore Boulevard shall be provided in
order to preclude storage deficiencies. Due to right-
of-way limitations along Bayshore Boulevard, pro-
vision of dual left-tam lanes is not considered
feasible on the northbound approaches to the
Terrabay Phase III site driveways or on the
southbound approach to the U.S. 101 southbound
hook on-ramp. Also the northbound left-turn lane
on the approach to the Terrabay North Access could
not be lengthened without shortening the
southbound left-turn lane on the approach to the
U.S. 101 southbound on-ramp. Traffic volumes and
queues shall be monitored at these intersections as
development occurs on the Terrabay site to
determine if the turn lane lengths and signal timing
should be adjusted.
No mitigation is feasible other than not constructing
the project.
No mitigation is feasible other than not to construct
the project.
IMPLEMENTED BY
Terrabay Phase III
project sponsor, City,
and Caltrans to
implement.
IWHEN IMPLEMENTED
MONITORED BY
City to monitor
effectiveness.
VERIFIED BY / DA TE
29
1996 SEIRv'''
Supplemental Impact T-t9 ! ? No significant
impacts were identified for year 2000 or 2010 Base
Case plus Phase I traffic conditions. However, in
2010 with Phases I, II, and Ill, the Serramonte
Boulevard / Hillside Boulevard intersection would
be expected to experience an approximately [three
to] four percent in-crease in traffic volumes which
could be considered a [potentially] significant
adverse impact, [if the intersection already is
operating at or on the borderline of unacceptable
operation].
Require that project Phases II and / or III provide a
reasonable fair-share contribution towards
improvements needed at this intersection by 2010 if
it is operating unacceptably during the peak hour.
The contribution should be in proportion to the
volume of project traffic passing through the
intersection in relation to the total traffic volume. In
addition, any major new development projects in
the town of Colma located along or in close
proximity to Hill-side Boulevard should be required
to provide their fair share contribution towards
needed improvements along Hillside Boulevard in
South San Francisco.
City of Colma to
develop improvement
projects; project sponsor
to pay fair share.
When identified by the
City of Colma that there is
a capacity problem at the
intersection·
City of Colma in co-
ordination with City of
South San Francisco's
Engineering Division.
ution//6499. Both Phase II and III project impacts are included in this Mitigation
~ Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by Council on May 12, 1999 by Resol
Monitoring and Repo, ting Program as the de~elopcr and the City have discussed the possibility of a transfer of development rights providcd that the transfer does not incrcase any
impacts beyond those identified and analyzed in the 1998-99 SEIR.
s adopted by Council on May 12, 1999.
~ Statement of Overriding Consideration
ns adopted by Council on May 12, 1999
~ Statement of Overriding Consideratio
· The Woods is not proposed to be gated. The impact and mitigation does not apply
~v No development of Point or Commons which had proposed gated communities is approved
to the development as approved.
nd triplex units apply to the Point.
* The Point was not approved and floor plans for duplex a
ns adopted by Council on May 12, 1999
*~ Statement of Overriding Consideratio
ns adopted by Council on May 12, 1999
*~ Statement of Overriding Consideratio
ce in the 1998-99 SEIR.
~ Incorporated by referen
Woods only MMRP.
30
IMPACT
AIR (~UALITY -- PHASE II SITE
1998-1999 SEIR
4.5-1 Short-Term Construction Impacts
Dust generated during construction periods could
result in both health and nuisance effects. Although
temporary, this would be a significant impact.
[ MmGATION
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) recommends the following measures
for large construction areas located near sensitive
receptors. The BAAQMD typically determines the
level of significance based on the control measures
implemented. These measures constitute all feasible
control measures, with the addition of a disturbance
coordinator to monitor compliance with the control
measures and respond to neighborhood complaints.
The disturbance coordinator shall be retained by the
City and paid for by the project sponsor. The
following controls shall be implemented throughout
the construction area:
· All active construction areas shall be watered at
least twice daily and more often when
conditions warrant. This measure would reduce
emissions by at least 50 percent.
· All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose
materials shall be covered, or all trucks shall be
required to maintain at least two feet of free-
board.
· All unpaved access roads and parking areas at
construction sites shall be paved, watered three
times daily, or treated with (non-toxic) soil
stabilizers.
· All paved access roads, parking areas, and
staging areas at construction sites shall be swept
daily (with water sweepers).
· Streets shall be swept daily (with water
sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto
adjacent public streets.
· Inactive construction areas (previously graded
areas inactive for ten days or more) shall be
hydroseeded or treated with (non-toxic) soil
stabilizers.
· Exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) shall be
enclosed, covered, watered twice daily, or
treated with (non-toxic) soil binders.
· Traffic speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited
to 15 miles per hour (mph).
· Sandbags or other erosion control measures
shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways.
ENTED BY
Project sponsor and
sub-sequent developers
of individual parcels to
incorporate Mitigation
Measure 4.5-1 into all
contractors' contracts.
31
[ WHEN IMPLEMENTED
Before and during
construction.
] MONITORED BY
A mitigation monitor
("disturbance
coordinator") hired by
the City and paid for
by the project sponsor.
] VE~ ........ ~DATE
IMPACT
AIR QUALITY -- CONTINUED -- 1998-1999 SEIR
MITIGATION
· Disturbed areas shall be replanted with
vegetation as quickly as possible (within one
month of the disturbance).
· Wheel washers shall be installed for all exiting
trucks, or the tires or tracks shall be washed off
all trucks and equipment leaving the site.
· Excavation and grading activity shall be
suspended when winds (instantaneous gusts)
exceed 25 mph and cause visible clouds to
extend beyond the construction site. Activities
shall be suspended until the disturbance
coordinator decides that the emissions from
construction activities would be controlled
(such as through additional watering or
installation of wind fences). This measure
could reduce dust emissions by up to 80
percent.
· Wind breaks shall be installed, or trees /
vegetative wind breaks shall be plant on
windward sides(s) of construction areas, if
conditions war-rant, to prevent visible dust
clouds from extending beyond the site.
· The area subject to excavation, grading, and
other construction activity shall be limited at
any one time.
· A disturbance coordinator, retained by the City
and paid for by the project sponsor, shall be
designated to be responsible for monitoring
compliance with dust control measures and to
respond to neighborhood concerns regarding air
pollutant emissions (primarily dust) during
construction. The project sponsor and
coordinator shall be responsible for operating a
neighborhood "hotline" for neighbors to voice
complaints regarding air quality during
construction.
[ IMPLEMENTED BY
I WHEN IMPLEMENTED
[ MONITORED BY
VERIFIED BY/DA TE
32
IMPACT
AIR QUALITY-- CONTINUED -- 1998-1999 SEIR
4.5-2 Changes in Local Long-Term Air
Quality Carbon monoxide levels attributable to
traffic substantially affected by the project would be
below State and Federal ambient air quality stan-
dards.
4.5-3 Changes in Regional Long-Term Air
Quality Direct and indirect emissions of air
pollutants associated with full buildout of the
project could interfere with the efforts within the
Terrabay region to attain ozone and PM10 air
quality standards. Thus, while the incremental
change between the currently and previously
proposed Phase I1 and III projects would be less-
than-significant, the cumulative impact of full
Terrabay project development (Phases I, 11, and m)
would exceed standards tightened since examination
in the 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR.i
I MITIGATION
No mitigation would be required.
Air pollutant emissions which would be regionally
significant could be reduced from motor vehicles
through a reduction in vehicle txips, vehicle miles
traveled, and reduced traffic congestion. The
following measures either are included in the project
design or shall be implemented by the project
sponsor to reduce regionally significant air pollutant
emissions.
· Coordinated traffic signals shall be installed to
provide more efficient levels-of-service at inter-
sections substantially affected by project traffic.
The project includes roadway improvements to
Sister Cities Boulevard which have already
been constructed. Additional intersection
improvements are proposed along Bayshore
Boulevard as part of Phase Ill. This measure
could reduce total year 2000 project emissions
by ten (10) pounds per day of ROG, seven (7)
pounds per day of NOx, and one (1) pound per
day of PM~0.
· Thc U.S. 101 southbound fi,.cway off,amp
shall be re¢onst.~¢tcd and a new U.S. 101 on
tamp shall b~ constauctcd (thc "hook fait,ps").
The project sponsor shall pay a fee established
in the Amended Development Agreement for
Phase II Woods to be used for the construction
by the City of the US 101 southbound freeway
off ramp and new US 101 on ramp (the "hook
ramps').This measure would allow direct access
on to the freeway, eliminating emissions
associated with congestion at local
intersections, which provide access to
southbound U.S. 101. This measure could
reduce total year 2000 project emissions by five
(5) pounds per day of ROG, six (6) pounds per
day of NOx, and seven (7) pounds per day of
PM~o.
IMPLEMENTED BY
Not required.
City's Engineering
Division.
City's Engineering
Division.
] WHEN IMPLEMENTED
Not applicable.
Prior to final acceptance of
Final map
In Development
Agreement.
] MONITORED BY
Not required.
City's Engineering
Division.
City's Engineering
Division
VERIFIED BY/DA TE
Not applicable.
33
IMPACT
AIR QUALITY-- CONTINUED -- 1998-1999 SEIR
MITIGATION
· Bus shelters, easy pedestrian access, and
bicycle lanes shall be provided in the project
design to facilitate alternative modes of
transportation. This measure could reduce total
year 2000 project emissions by ten (10) pounds
per day of ROG, 12 pounds per day of NO~, and
11 pounds per day of PM~0.
· Fireplaces shall be equipped with certified
wood burning fireplace inserts, which meet
Federal emission standards. It is difficult to
assess the overall effectiveness of this measure
due to the infrequent use of fireplaces.
However, the mea~sure would reduce PMl0
emissions from fireplaces by up to 90 percent.
Installation of natural gas fireplaces is
encouraged to further reduce particulate
emissions.
· The applicant proposes to include outdoor
electrical outlets and natural gas subs to avoid
the use of gasoline-powered landscape
equipment. This would provide a minor
reduction in overall emissions of ozone
precursor air pollutants.
] IMPLEMENTED BY
Project sponsor.
WHEN IMPLEMENTED
In Precise Plan and
building plans.
I MONITORED BY
City Planning and
Building Divisions.
Project sponsor. In Precise Plan and City Planning and
building plans. Building Divisions.
Project sponsor. In Precise Plan and City Planning and
building plans. Building Divisions.
] VERIFIED BY/DA TE
ution #6499, however the mitigations still apply. Both Phase II and III impacts and
i Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by Council on May 12, 1999 by Resol
mitigations are included, see endnote i in traffic.
34
IMPACT ~
NOISE -- PHASE II SITE
1998-1999 SEIR
4.6-1 Construction Noise Impacts During
construction periods, noise levels would be elevated
outside existing homes located across Hillside
Boulevard and Sister Cities Boulevard from the
Phase II Woods residential development.
I MITIGATION
The following measures shall be required to reduce
the project's short-term construction noise impacts
to a less-than-significant level:
· Construction Scheduling Noise-generating
construction activities, including truck traffic
going to and from the site for any purpose, and
maintenance and servicing activities for
consmaction equipment, shall be limited to the
hours stipulated by the City's Noise Ordinance
which are 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays,
9:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Saturdays, and 10:00
AM to 8:00 PM on Sundays.
· Mufflers and Maintenance All equipment
used on the project site shall be adequately
muffled and maintained. All internal
combustion engine-driven equipment shall be
fitted with intake and exhaust mufflers, which
are in good condition. Use of good mufflers
with quieted compressors on all non-impact
tools should result in a maximum noise level of
85 dBA when measured at a distance of 50 feet.
· Idling Prohibitions Powered construction
equipment shall be turned off when not in use.
· Equipment Location and Shielding
Stationary noise-generating construction
equipment shall be located as far as possible
from nearby residences.
· Blasting Blasting noise control mcasuccs used
in Ptmsc I, including linc chilling, ti.,~, delayed
chargus, and blasting .~ats, shall be used in
Phase Il where blasting is lx.quircd. Blasting
shall bc rcstlictx.d to thc hems of 8.00 AM to
5:00 PM. i
· Noise Disturbance Coordinator A project
construction supervisor shall be designated as a
"noise disturbance coordinator" who would be
responsible for responding to any local
complaints about construction noise (as was
done for Phase I site development). The
disturbance coordinator shall determine the
cause of the noise complaints (such as staaing
~ENTED BY
Project sponsor or sub-
sequent developers in
contracts of all contrac-
tors involved in site
preparation and
development activities.
WHEN IMPLEMENTED
Environmental and
entitlement review and
permit approval for each
phase of development shall
be conditioned on
incorporation of
Mitigation Measure 4.6-1.
] MONITORED BY
City Engineering
Division to grant
grading and building
permits contingent on
full compliance with
the measures.
Mitigation Monitoring
Coordinator to super-
vise project
construction for each
phase of development.
[ VER~rscu =, ~iDATE
35
IMPACT
NOISE -- CONTINUED -- 1998-1999 SEIR
4.6-2 Land Use Compatibility Impact
Proposed uses in Phase II Woods would be exposed
to noise levels which would exceed those considered
satisfactory for the intended uses.
] MmGATION
too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall require
implementation of reasonable measures
warranted to correct the problem. The
telephone number of the disturbance
coordinator also shall be posted conspicuously
at the construction site.
In order to reduce potential noise and land use
compatibility impacts to a less than-significant-
level, the project sponsor shall retain a qualified
Acoustical Engineer to prepare a detailed acoustical
analysis and mitigation plan pursuant to Title 24 of
the California Code of Regulations. The report shall
be submitted to the City for review and approval
before issuance of building permits. The report
shall include a detailed acoustical analysis of noise
reduc-tion requirements and specifications for each
project phase, in accordance with land use / noise
level compatibility standards established by the
State and set forth in the City's Noise Element. The
identified noise reduction requirements and
specifications then shall be included in the siting or
design of individual housing units:
Noise levels in backyards of homes proposed
adjacent to and overlooking the Sister Cities
Boulevard-Hillside Boulevard corridor and
Sister Cities Boulevard / Oyster Point
Boulevard~ intersection shall be mitigated with
a noise barrier. The proposed upsloping
geometry to a graded building pad would
provide an excellent opportunity to mitigate
with a property line barrier. Calculations based
on the Precise Plan grading plans indicate that
a six-foot high ban/er measured above the rear
property line elevation would be appropriate at
locations shown on Exhibit 4.6-7. To be
effective, the ban/er must be constructed
airtight over its face and at the base and have a
minimum surface weight of three pounds per
square foot. Suitable materials include wood,
masonry block, precast masonry, or precast
concrete panels. If the ban/er is constructed of
wood, a post and panel or board and batten
construction method should be used to eliminate
sound leaks.
IMPLEMENTED BY
Project sponsor or sub-
sequent developers to
prepare acoustical
report including noise
reduction measures.
Report to comply with
City (Noise Element)
and State (State
Building Code)
requirements. Likely
acoustical mitigation
measures include sound
rated windows and
doors, forced air
mechanical ventilation,
sound ratings for
through-the-wall air
conditioning units,
special wall
construction details, etc.
WHEN IMPLEMENTED
Before City approves
building permit.
] MONITORED BY
City Planning and
Building Divisions to
review compliance
with Noise Element
and State Building
Code requirements.
VERtFtED BY / DA TE
36
IMPACT
NOISE -- CONTINUED -- 1998-1999 SEIR
4.6-3 Traffic Noise Impacts Traffic-generated
noise would not increase ambient noise levels
measurably on existing neighborhood streets or
roadways, which would provide access to the
project site.
1982 EIR '"
Along the extension of Hillside Boulevard, traffic
noise levels would increase .... Due to the
continuous nature of traffic noise as opposed to the
sporadic nature of aircraft noise, the extension of
Hillside Boulevard might still annoy some of the
homeowners in this area. The resulting noise levels
due to traffic on the extension of Hillside Boulevard
would be high enough to occasionally interfere with
speech outdoors.
I MITIGATION
· Forced air mechanical ventilation shall be pro-
vided pursuant to residential building sound
insulation requirements so windows may be
kept closed at the discretion of building
occupants to
control noise. Additioual building sound
insulation treatments (such as sound ,atcd
windows and dools) would likely bc rcquitcd in
parts of thc Point neighborhood overlooking
U.S. 101.
· The interior CNEL shall be reduced to a level of
45 dB or less to conform to City General Plan
and State Building code requirements. The
noise analysis also shall include adequate
consideration of aircraft noise to achieve the
FAA's recommended maximum single-event
noise level of 55 dBA in bedrooms of housing
units.
No mitigation would be required.
Increased traffic noises along Hillside Extension
could be mitigated by the erection of a sound barrier
on the south side of the extension. Detailed studies
during the engineering of the road would determine
the required height and location of this barrier ....
The purpose of this barrier would be to maintain
traffic noise levels at their existing levels in the
absence of aircraft noise.
I IMPLEMENTED BY
Not required.
Project Sponsor.
WHEN IMPLEMENTED
Not applicable.
With approval of the
Phase II Precise Plan.
I MONITORED BY
Not required.
Department of Public
Works.
] VERIFIEDBY/DATE
Not applicable.
ed by Council on May 12, 1999. Woods only MMRP.
Applies to the Point only and the Point was deni
ences shall serve as soundwalls for the Woods also.
Applies to the Point (see endnote above) however f
ce in the 1998-99 SE1R.
~ Incorporated by referen
37
IMPACT
PUBLIC SERVICE MITIGATION -- PHASE II SITE
1998-1999 SEIR
4.7-1 Impact of Residential Development on
Police Services The 1998 Precise Plan proposes
84~ 65 fewer housing units than the Woods 1996
Specific Plan. However, larger three-, four-, and
fi ve-bedroom units currently are proposed compared
with smaller two-, three-, and four-bedroom units
previously pro-posed. The South San Francisco
Police Department is concerned that this difference
would result in a larger residential population on the
Phase II site with a proportionate increase in
demands for police services. The future Phase II
site population would not be expected to change
staffing requirements by one full officer position.
The 0.2- to 0.3-officer dif-ference would be
considered a less-than-significant impact.
4. 7-3 Combined Project Impact on Police
Services The combined effect of Terrabay Phase
II and III development according to the 1998 Precise
Plan could be interpreted to require one additional
police position (0.91 position) which still would
represent a less-than-significant impact due to
requirements of finding a fully-staffed beat under
the 1982 EIR.
4. 7-5 Traffic Impact on Police Response
Times Congestion causing delays in future traffic
conditions with the project would be expected at
two intersections at the Oyster Point interchange but
not before the year 2010. Unconstrained conditions
elsewhere would off-set potential future delays, thus
not affecting police response times significantly.
4.7-6 Police Impact from Cumulative
Development Substantial cumulative develop-
ment by thc year 2010 would greatly increase the
number of calls for service to the South San Fran-
cisco Police Department and could require an estim-
ated 5.4 to 6.2 additional police positions plus two
additional police vehicles. While these cumulative
impacts would be significant, the incremental
contri~bution of Terrabay Phase II and III
development would not be "considerable", thus less-
than-signifi-cant for the purposes of CEQA.
4.7-7 Impact on Brisbane School District
Development of 213 duplex and triplex units in the
Terrabay Phase II Point and Corm-nons neighbor-
hoods and creation of an estimated 720-780 jobs on
the Phase llI site would add about 85-88 new stu-
dents to Brisbane School District (BSD) schools.
This number would be fewer than the 90 students
previously estimated to be generated by the Terra-
bay proiect, approximately 85-88 new students
MITIGATION
No mitigation would be required.
No mitigation would be required.
No mitigation would be required.
No additional mitigation would be required of the
Terrabay Phase II or KI project than identified by
Mitigation Measure 4.7-4 and the 1982 EIR/1996
SEIR. The prior EIRs required funding provision of
a separate new fully-staffed beat (1982 EIR) to con-
sist of three officer positions and one new patrol
vehicle (1996 SEIR).
Implementation of Brisbane School District efforts
to carry out its class size reduction policy -- when
facility improvements (and funding sources to make
them) have been identified -- will mitigate the im-
pact of decreasing elementary school capacity.
Such efforts would accommodate students originat-
ing from development of the Terrabay Phase II or IH
site at Brisbane Elementary School, and no
addition-al mitigation would be required.
)ENTED BY
Not required.
Not required.
Not required.
Not required.
Not required.
38
] WHEN IMPLEMENTED
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
MONITORED BY
Not required.
Not required.
Not required.
Not required.
Not required.
!
I VE~ ....... ~DATE
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
IMPACT I MITIGATION
PUBLIC SERVICE MITIGATION - CONTINUED -- 1998-1999 SEIR
would contribute incrementally to capacity
constraints, but class size reductions are affecting
school capacity more profoundly than increased
enrollments attributable to new development.
4.7-8 Impact on Jefferson Union High
School District Fewer but larger Point and Com-
mons units proposed by the Precise Plan would gen-
erate virtually the same number of students to
Jefferson Union High School District schools (21
students) as estimated from more but smaller units
previously proposed by the Specific Plan (22 stu-
dents). ~
4. 7-9 Impact on South San Francisco
Unified School District Development of 135
housing units in the Termbay Phase Il Woods neigh-
borhood would add about 45-61 students to South
San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD)
schools, including about 11-27 students in Grades
K-5, 15 students in Grades 6-8, and 19 students in
Grades 9-12. This number would be fewer than the
103 students previously estimated from the former
204-unit Terrabay Woods part of the Phase II pro-
ject. This also is the same elementary school enroll-
ment increase as estimated by the SSFUSD (11 stu-
dents).
4.7-10 Cumulative Impacts Schools
Substantial residential and non-residential develop-
ment could increase Brisbane School District and
Jefferson Union High School District enrollments
by an unknown number of students by year 2010,
although the Terrabay Phase Il and Ill share of stu-
dents would not be defined as "considerable". Plan-
ned development within the South San Francisco
Unified School District has been taken into account
by district plans for elementary school enrollments.
1996 SEIR"
Public Schools"~
Supplemental Impact PS-1 South San Fran-
cisco Unified School District The project
would be expected to generate approximately 260
new students attending South San Francisco Unified
No mitigation would be required.
No mitigation would be required. See findings in
Exhibit A of environmental resolution.
No mitigation would be required.
As mitigation for SSFUSD impacts, require the
applicant, as a provision of the project development
agreement, to prepare and submit for city review
and approval, a schoolfinancing plan that includes:
IMPLEMENTED BY
Not required.
Not required.
Not required.
Project sponsor.
] WHEN IMPLEMENTED
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Issuance of building
permits.
MONITORED BY
Not required.
Not required.
Not required.
City Planning and
Building Divisions.
VERtFIED BY/DA TE
Not appficable.
Not applicable.
Not appficable.
39
IMPACT I MITIGATION
PUBLIC SERVICES MITIGATION -- CONTINUED -- 1996 SEIR
Public Schools -- Continued
School District (SSFUSD) schools .... The
SSFUSD has indicated that school impact fees ac-
cruing from the project ... may not be sufficient to
cover the cost of providing additional classroom ca-
pacity and associated facilities to serve the addition-
al students generated by the project. As a result, the
project can be expected to have a significant
adverse itnpact on SSFUSD capacity. Note: The
school impact fees accruing to the district from the
project appear to be underestimated because of the
size of the residential units estimated by the district
is smaller than the actual units being built.
Although the SSFUSD has indicated that all
elementary school students would attend Hillside
Elementary School, in the event that some project
elementary school students attend SSFUSD schools
other than Hillside Elementary School, adult
crossing guards would be needed at the signalized
Hillside Boulevard Extension / South San Francisco
Drive and Sister Cities Boulevard South San
Francisco Drive intersections.
Supplemental Impact PS-2 Brisbane School
District,.. The School District anticipates that en-
rollment of students from the Terrabay project
would cause both Brisbane School and Lipman
School to exceed capacity .... School impact fees
accruing to the district from the project ... would
cover the cost of providing two additional portables
but would not be sufficient to fund other necessary
improvements at Brisbane and Lipman schools.
Note: The school impact fees accruing to the dist-
rict from the project appear to be underestimated
because of the size of the residential units estimated
by the district is smaller than the actual units being
built.
(1) Payment of State-Mandated School Impact
Fees Require the applicant to comply with
applicable SSFUSD school impact fee requirements.
If it is determined by the City that the project fees
would not be sufficient to reduce project school
impacts to a less-than-significant level, the City
may also
(2) Additional Impact Fees Require that the project
applicant / developer pay additional in-kind contr-
ibution or establish other financing mechanisms in
consultation with the city and acceptable to the suf-
ficient to cover the cost of providing classroom
space and ancillary school facilities needed to serve
the increased enrollment generated by the project, to
the city's satisfaction.
The City shall periodically monitor crossings at the
Hillside Boulevard Extension / South San Francisco
Drive and Sister Cities Boulevard South San Fran-
cisco Drive intersections to determine if40 or more
elementary school children cross within any two
hour period. If the threshold is attained at either of
these intersections, then the Phase 11 project
homeowners association shall be required to:
(1) Fund the provision of an adult crossing guard at
that intersection (including all salary, background
check, equipment, and training costs), and
(2) Actively recruit candidates for the position and
for an alternative part-time back-up fill-in position
from among project residents. (Project residents are
preferred because of opportunities for more famili-
arity with students.)
Same as Supplemental Mitigation Measure PS-I
and
IMPLEMENTED BY
Project sponsor.
40
IWHEN IMPLEMENTED
Issuance of building
permits.
MONITORED BY
City Planning and
Building Divisions.
VERIFIED BY/DA TE
IMPACT I MITIGATION
PUBLIC SERVICES MITIGATION -- CONTINUED -- 1996 SEIR
Public Schools -- Continued
Also, the district does not provide transportation for
its students. Brisbane School is located approxi-
mately 1.9 miles and Lipman School approximately
2.6 miles from the farthest part of the project within
the district boundaries, distances which may be too
great for young students to walk to school. There
are no sidewalks along busy Bayshore Boulevard
between the project and Brisbane.
Because the state-mandated school impact fees may
not be sufficient to cover the total cost of accommo-
dating the project-generated enrollment increase and
because the needed transportation to school has not
been adequately provided for, the project could be
expected to have a significant adverse impact on
the Brisbane School District.
Solid Waste
Supplemental Impact PS-5 Recycling Pro-
gram Collection Services State law requires
provision of adequate space for recycling in
multiple family residential projects with five or
more units and all new commercial developments.
Future pro-ject 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 ira-pact.
1982 EIR'v
Fire Services
Planned development in the project area and subse-
quent annexation would result in an increase to the
Fire Department's service area and an increase in
calls for service ....
[The} Fire Chief... anticipates a possible manpow-
er shortage at Station I with the relocating of one
engine company plus its staff to the new station.
Require the project applicant to provide for safe
transportation to Brisbane School District schools
for students from the project. This may be accom-
plished by installing a sidewalk along Bayshore
Boulevard and / or other streets to allow students
from the project to walk to Brisbane Elementary
School and Lipman Intermediate School or in some
other manner acceptable to the district. Require the
applicant to submit to the City an official statement
in writing form the Brisbane School District
declaring that the needed transportation has been
adequately provided for to the satisfaction of the
district.
In order to ensure that project waste is recycled in a
manner consistent with the State-mandated require-
ment that the City divert at least 50 percent of po-
tential waste from landfill disposal by 2000, require
the design of future project development to provide
common exterior trash and recyclable material stor-
age areas in commercial developments and in those
multi-family developments that would use dump-
stem, rather than relying on individual curbside
pick-up for trash collection. Such areas should be
conveniently located and accessible to residents and
collection vehicles and personnel, properly protect-
ed from the elements, screened, and architecturally
integrated into the development.
The proposed project would have to conform with
all fire code provisions. The project sponsor is cur-
rently working with the Fire Prevention Officer to
identify specific design features necessary to con-
form to existing fire codes.
To increase efficiency and improve the station's
ability to cope with more serious fires, the Chief
recommends the addition of one firefighter position
to Station I.
IMPLEMENTED BY
Project sponsor.
Project architect.
Project sponsor.
City Fire Department.
WHEN IMPLEMENTED
Prior to occupancy
permits.
In Precise Plan.
In Precise Plan and build-
ing permit applications.
Completion of Phase B.
] MONITORED BY
City Planning and
Engineering Divisions.
City's Planning and
Building Divisions.
City Building Division
and Fire Department.
City Fire Department.
VERIFIED BY / DA TE
41
IMPACT [ MITIGATION
PUBLIC SERVICE MITIGATION - CONTINUED -- 1982 EIR
Gas and Electricity
The proposed project would be designed in accor-
dance with the energy conservation standards of
Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. The
Code requires that structures comply with specified
prescriptive measures for such architectural details
as wall and ceiling insulations, climate control sys-
tems, water heating systems, and infiltrations ....
Water Service.
Based on the proposed uses of each building and
associated landscaping, the total project would con-
sume an average of about 320,370 gallons of water
per day, or 0.32 [million gallons per day] .... The
location of the water tank would coincide with a
dis-turbed open space area within the jurisdiction of
the City to facilitate servicing.
The proposed project would require a new water
distribution system, independent of existing neigh-
borhood water mains.
None required.
California Water Service Company has indicated
that an above-ground tank would provide maximum
resistance to possible seismic forces. Screening
pro-vided by such methods as painting the tank with
earthtone colors and landscaping and mounding
would be utilized to reduce visual impacts, although
an underground tank could be more easily designed
to minimize visual impacts and should be given ser-
ious consideration.
The entire cost for the new on-site system and im-
provements to the off-site water system which oc-
curred as a result of the on-site system would be in-
curred by the project sponsor.
Wastewater
Since enlargement of the Colma Creek line is still in
the planning stage, impacts to that line are undeter-
mined at this time.
Sewage service for the proposed project would be
provided through a system of on-site gravity sewer
mains and interceptors which would connect to the
existing sewer system in Airport Boulevard.
The project sponsor would participate with the
South San Francisco Public Services Department
and the City Engineer for the town of Colma to en-
sure that enlargement of the Colma Creek line
would also accommodate wastewater flows generat-
ed by the proposed prqiect.
Costs of the on-site sewer system and any correc-
tions or modifications to the existing system that are
required as a direct result of the project would be in-
curred by the sponsor. Upon dedication of the facil-
ities, the City of South San Francisco would assume
maintenance responsibilities for the sewer system.
IIMPLEMENTED BY
Project architect.
Project sponsor. The
initial cost of the water
system installation
would be the responsi-
bility of the project
sponsor. Ongoing main-
tenance of the water
lines from the meters to
the individual dwelling
units would be the re-
sponsibility of a borne-
owners association in
the residential areas and
the property owners in
the commercial areas.
The Cahtomia Water
? ryicc Compan',, woul~
t e~ ~Yn~tab~..m
Project sponsor and City
of South San Francisco.
IWHEN IMPLEMENTED
Prior to issuance of
building permits.
hi process.
Precise Plan, completion
of Phase II.
MONITORED BY
City Building
Division.
City of South San
Francisco's Engineer-
ing Division.
City of South San
Francisco's Engineer-
ing Division.
IVERIFIED BY/DA TE
Completed.
Complete 1982
42
MITIGATION
IMPACT
PUBLIC SERVICE MITIGATION -~ CONTINUED -- 1982 EIR
Parks and Recreation
The project design designates approximately 46 per-
cent (153 acres) of the site as open space. Most of
the open space is adjacent to the San Bruno Moun-
tain State and County Park. The project sponsor
has agreed to dedicate all undisturbed areas of the
pro-ject site to the County as permanent open space.
The San Bruno Mountain HCP stipulates dedication
of the project's undeveloped open space at the time
the first grading permits are granted for the parcel of
the project to which it pertains,v
The proposed project provides for trail access to San
Bruno Mountain.
The County Department of Parks and Recreation
has recommended that the open space areas of the
pro-ject be deeded in fee to the County and fenced.
Juncus Ravine, a separate 157-acre parcel of land, is
located west of Hillside Elementary School. This
area has been designated general open space on the
County General Plan and as a community park on
the City's General Plan.
A 2,000 square foot child care center would be
located within Terrabay Village ....
Upon pi, ojeet approval, the project sponsor has
agreed to dedicate Juncus Ravine to the County as
permanent open space.
The Terrabay Development plan indicates develop-
ment of Hillside Recreation Center, a four-acre
community park with both indoor and outdoor
facilities ....
The Terrabay Development concept also indicates
improvement of four acres of Hillside Elementary
School with development of an illuminated adult
softball field, soccer field, bleachers, and a
rest. room.
~m~'~.=MENTED BY
Project sponsor.
Project sponsor, HCP
Administrator, City and
County.
WHEN IMPLEMENTED
Completion of Phase II.
Being implemented
MONITORED BY
City's Planning Divi-
sion, HCP Adminis-
trator.
City's Planning Divi-
sion, HCP Adminis-
trator, and County.
VERIFIED BY / DA TE
Complete.
City accepted in lieu fee
September 25, 1996 by
Ordinance 1191-96, for
Phase I, II, and III
impacts.
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
ved for the Commons and the Point was denied by Council on May 12, 1999. This MMRP is
~ This impact would be less given that no residential development is proposed or appro
for the Woods only.
ce in the 1998-99 FSEIR.
~ Incorporated by referen
roject as analyzed in the 1998-99 SEIR. The approved project does not include commercial
~ This calculation is based on the entire calculation for the entire proposed Terrabay P
land uses (Phase II) and includcs 135 dwelling units (Woods only) as opposed to thc o, lginally proposed 348 residential units.
e in the 1998-99 FSEIR.
iv Incorporated by referenc
cordation of Parcel Maps Pages 82-85 in Volume 53 at San Mateo County in 1983. The
' This is included in this document as provisions for open space were addressed by re
parccl maps ad&,esscd all the remainder lands for dedication for Phases I, II and III.
43
-_,
IMPACT
HAZARDS' MITIGATION -- PHASE II SITE
1998-1999 SEIR
4.8-2 Effect of EMI- on Future Residents
Rcsi&ntial dcv~lop,,,¢nt of thc Co,,u.ous West
site would not expose residents to unusual
m,~,¢tic field levels or, in thc absence of
Califo, Ma State o~ F~de, al standards, levels which
gc~ve,~.ncnt entitles outside Califo, uia ~cgulate,
I MmGATION
Although fl,,. p~od.,;ty of clccu;,~ powcr lh~cs to p~o-
posed housing atfits would not bc expected to ,~ult in
si~,ificant h.pacts rc. quiring ,,fitigafioa, file August
1997 I~&E ,aport ~cviewcd by this SEIR ,,ak-es two
recon,.,,.ndafions. Thc fa~t co,,,.~ponds wifl, 1996
SEIR .fifigat[on, Thcs,. a~x: to:
· An advisory disclosure statc,.cnt shall bc in-
cluded ou all d~ds of pl~opcrties witlfin fl~c
Co..,,ons West subarea of the site that the sub-
ject pl~opoty is located nca~ power lines and
purchas¢.s should be aw,~c that thcl~c is
going ccscarch on thc potential h~alth effects
associated with m,~;,~fic fields which exist
v,l~cl~cvei fl~crc is clccuic
· Potential buyers shall bc rc.,indcd that PG&E
can and will, upon request, provide info..atiou
on EMF and thc cu.,~nt state of ongoing
search on th,~ potential health effects of EMF.
.......... ~-NTED BY
Project sponso~ or
developer of Commons
West to advise home
WHEN IMPLEMENTED
Bcfo~< ho.,c sales and
with r~-purchasc.
[ MONITORED BY
City Planning Dcpart-
.,tnt initially and
I Io,.~owncrs' Asso-
ciation long4c,,..
] VEfi,r,=u=, ,iDATE
hdrew the application for residential development of the Commons on February 1, 1999.
EMF hazards apply to residential development of the Commons. The project sponsor w~t
Therefore, this impact and mitigation does not apply to the project approved by Council on May 12, 1999. (Woods only MMRP.)
45
IMPACT
ENERGY MITIGATION -- PHASE II SITE
1982 EIR
Annual energy use for project operation, not includ-
ing traffic-related consumption, would total 235 bil-
lion BTU .... The estimates of energy consump-
tion assume that the structures would conform to the
provisions of Title 24 of the California Administra-
tive Code.
MITIGATION
The project sponsor has planned to include several
design features which go beyond the minimum re-
quirements of Title 24. These options are [as fol-
lows]:
· favorable solar orientation
· night setback thermostats
· energy-efficient lighting
· solar heat for swimming pool .. ?
There are also additional options which would
reduce energy consumption in the residential
buildings, although at increased cost. These
include:
· additional insulation
· additional infiltration control measures
· energy-efficient space and water heating
equipment
· energy-efficient glazing
I SMr~.c'MENTED BY
Project architect.
WHEN IMPLEMENTED
Prior to issuance of
building permits.
I MONITORED BY
City Building Divi-
sion.
] VEH#'IeU dY/DATE
i The swimming pool applied to Phase I construction, and a gymnasium was constructed in its place.
46
IMPACT ~
WIND AND CLIMATE MITIGATION -- PHASE II SITE
1982 EIR
The project would not have a significant impact on
the microclimate of the area, but the microclimate
could impact proposed uses. Wind would have the
most direct impact on outdoor activities.
Thc coudo, finiums near thc intciscction of [Sistc~
Cities and Bayshol~c] Boul,.val~t arc located on a
ridge and would probably bc exposed to stroug
westci ly winds.i
MITIGATION
The current layout locates most of the project in
areas at least partially sheltered from the wind.
Nevertheless, the entire site would be breezy. Care
should be taken in the layout of buildings and the
planting of vegetation to put wind-sensitive activit-
ies to the east of some form of shelter. Vegetation,
such as trees and hedges, are the most effective
wind shelter. Where this type of windbreak is not
feasible, porous screens could be used, such as the
kind installed around tennis courts.
Thc exposed lo~.ation of thc proposed
eondomlniums would t,cquirc that wind influences
bc accounted for in the dcsi~u. Pathways,
enhances, and outdoor rcc~x.ation spaces should bc
laid out so that buildings, landscapes, and fcaiccs a~,c
used to advantage in a;dueing winds.
JENTED BY
Project architect.
Pl~oj cot a~xrhit~.ct.
WHEN IMPLEMENTED
Prior to issuance of
building permits.
Dior to issuance of
building pc, ,,,its.
MONITORED BY
City Building
Division.
City Building Divi-
I VEmr ..... ~/DATE
Not applicable
by Council on May 12, 1999. Woods only MMRP.
i Applies to the Point which was not approved
47
IMPACT
VISUAL MITIG,z ?HASE II SITE
1982 EIR ~
Architectural elements of the proposed development
would be visible within the context of existing topo-
graphy and proposed landscaping.
South-facing faqades and roofs of the proposed
buildings would be their most prominent feature.
Parking and service roads running perpendicular to
the hill's contours would be steep and prominent.
Grading which does occur would be highly visible
since existing vegetation and topography would not
screen views.
The light colored residences would appear bright in
the sunlight, and, unless shielded by plantings, win-
dows may reflect low morning and afternoon sun as
glare.
The buildings' colors and shadows would be visible
against the green firebreaks and against the
hillside's natural grassy cover.
From trails in the San Bruno Mountain State and
County Park and the open knolls above the develop-
ment, lights, file roofs, cars, and paved areas could
be seen, although landscape buffer would soften and
break up the mass of this development.
I MITIGATION
The project sponsor has incorporated the following
mitigation measures into the project design in an
effort to mitigate visual impacts:
,, Development would be generally restricted to the
swales; the knolls would remain open. The deve-
lopment would appear as a series of clusters, not
as a mass. The entire project would not be visible
at one time, nor would it break the ridgeline.
· Residential structures would be oriented for solar
absorption and for views but would not incorpor-
ate solar panels for hot water heating.
· To save space, the road system would be effi-
ciently designed.
· To unify the project, lower building costs, and
create homogeneously designed neighborhoods
within the project, restrained natural colors,
unifying building materials, and landscaping
would be used throughout the development.
· To save space, units would attach or group more
closely together than in standard subdivisions ....
· Stepped buildings would break up the visual
mass and reduce the amount of required grading.
The visual mass would be integrated into the hill-
side by stepping, offsetting, and rotating build-
ings where feasible and by providing tree grove
clustering in a naturalistic setting.
· Articulated facades, recessed entries, roof over-
hangs, and courtyards would create va~ing pat-
terns of light and shadow to soften the residential
buildings' appearance and to create visual inter-
est.
· Pedestrian access would be provided at the inter-
section of Hillside Boulevard and Jefferson
Street, at Hillside Boulevard and Hillside Exten-
sion, and near the intersection of Randolph Ave-
nue and North Spruce Avenue."
· Pedestrian walkways would be provided to mini
mize street widths as sho~vn on the walkway plan.
· Landscaping is used to reduce visual impacts.
· Open spaces are added to reduce visual impacts.
· Street lighting would be kept be kept low to
reduce glare.
· Landscaping, including trees, are used to break
up mass of roofs and building structures when
viewed from above. The trees also break up the
mass of south facing facades when the project is
viewed from the south.
] IMPLEMENTED BY
Project sponsor's archi-
tect.
WHEN IMPLEMENTED
Precise Plan.
I MONITORED BY
City's Planning and
Engineering Divisions.
I VEF~tFIFn RtY/DATE
48
Under the HCP, areas at higher elevation above
the Project development area are dedicated to the
County as permanent open space to maintain the
natural setting and appearance of these areas.
i Incorporated by reference in the 1998-99 SEIR.
ii Completed as a part of Phase I.
49
IMPACT
LAND USE MITIGATION -- PHASE II SITE
1982 EIR
The proposed project would replace existing open
space uses of the site with a mixture of residential,
commercial, recreational, and open space uses.
Terrabay development would eliminate current use
of the site by pedestrians along Hillside Boulevard.
Residents north of Randolph Avenue would no
longer be able to use the site for small garden plots
due to construction of the Hillside Boulevard
extension.
MITIGATION
Mitigation measures proposed as part of the project:
· The undisturbed open space located between the
developed area and the northerly and easterly
property lines would be dedicated to the County
of San Mateo for inclusion into the San Bruno
Mountain State and County Park. All other open
space areas would remain within the jurisdiction
of South San Francisco and under the purview of
the combined property owners association.
· Community recreational facilities and trailheads
to the park would be provided by the developer
on the project site. The City would most likely
assume maintenance of the recreation facifities.
I IMP'£tzJVIENTED BY
Project sponsor.
Project sponsor.
WHEN IMPLEMENTED
In Specific and Precise
Plans.
In Specific Plan.
MONITORED BY
City Planning
Division.
City Planning
Division.
VERIFIED ~Y / DATE
Recreation Center
Complete.
50