Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 154-1985 RESOLUTION NO. 154-85 CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS AND STATENENT OF FACTS SUPPORTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONNENTAL INPACT REPORT/ENVIRONNENTAL ASSESSNENT SUPPLENENT, AND THE ADDEN- DUN THERETO, FOR THE SOUTH SLOPE GEOTECHNICAL ANENDNENT TO THE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR SAN BRUNO NOUNTAIN (14 CAL. ADH. CODE §§15091, 15092 and 15096) RECITALS WHEREAS, It Is the policy of the State of California and the Clty of South San Francisco, as provided in the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act o* 1970, as amended, and the provisions o~ Title 14, California Adminlstratlve Code, Guidelines ~or Implementation of the California Environ- mental Quallty Act of 1970 (hereinafter "CEQA" and "Guidelines," respectively), that the City should not approve projects as proposed If there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available whlch would mltlgate the environmental ef*ects o* such projects to a level o~ Inslgnl*lcance; and WHEREAS, on November 15, 1982, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 139-82 authorizing execution of said Agreement with respect to the San Bruno Mountain Area Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) after considering the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) prepared for the HCP pursuant to the provlslons of CEQA and the Guidelines and previously certl*led by the County of San Mateo; and WHEREAS, the City Councll supplemented and clarified Its ~lndlngs with respect to the EIR/EA on February 16, 1983, as set forth In Resolution No. 25-83, In order to ensure compliance with CEQA and the Guldellnes; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 1983, the U.S.F. tsh and Wlldllfe Service Issued an Endangered Species Act Section lO(a) Permit (Section lO(a) Permlt) based on the HCP and EIR/EA and on November 4, 1982 and thereafter all parties ~o the HCP and Section lO(a) Permit entered into an Agreement with Respect to the San Bruno Mountain Conservation Plan (HCP Agreement); and WHEREAS, geotechnical Investigations conducted since approval of the HCP, HCP Agreement and Section lO(a) permlt have disclosed the need to repair slide areas on San Bruno Mountain which directly threaten the proposed Terrabay development; and WHEREAS, a slte specl~lc amendment to the HCP, HCP Agreement and Section lO(a) permit has been prepared to allow such sllde repair work to be perform- ed (herelnafer "South Slope Amendment"); and WHEREAS, a Final Supplement to the HCP EIR/EA (Final EIR/EA Supplement) has been prepared pursuant to Sectlons 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines to address environmental effects of said proposed amendment to the HCP, HCP Agreement and Section lO(a) permit; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR/EA Supplement ls a ~ocused supplement, addressing biological, geological and visual Impacts, which are the only new significant environmental Impacts o~ the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Councll has reviewed and considered the Final EIR/EA Supplement, all flndlngs adopted In Resolution No. 25-83, comments received from the public both oral and written, and other substantial evidence In the record and before the Clty Council; and WHEREAS, an Addendum to the Final Supplement to the HCP EIR/EA (Addendum) has been prepared pursuant to Section 15164 o~ the CEQa Guidelines to address the cumulative environmental Impacts of all of the amendments proposed ~or the year 1985 under Section IX B o~ the HCP Agreement; and WHEREAS, none of the conditions described In Section 15162 o~ the CEQA Guide- lines have occurred, only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the HCP EIR/EA and EIR/EA Supplement adequate under CEQA, and the changes made by the Addendum do not raise Important new Issues about effects on the environment with respect to the South Slope Amendment; and WHEREAS, this Council has reviewed and considered the Addendum to the Final EIR/EA Supplement, all findings adopted In Resolutions 139-82, 25-83, and 46-85, comments received from the public both oral and written, staf~ responses to comments received during the publlc review period for the EIR/EA Supplement and Addendum, and other substantial evidence In the record and before the Clty Council; and WHEREAS, Section 15091 of the Guldellnes requires that the Clty Council make one or more of the following findings prior to approval o~ a project for which the Flnal EIR/EA Suppl.ement has been completed, and whlch ldentlfles one or more significant effects of the project, along with statements o~ ~act supporting each flndlng: -2- Finding 1 - Changes or alterations have been requlred in, or Incorporated Into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental e~ects thereof as Identi- fied in the Final EIR/EA Supplement. Finding 2 - Such changes or alterations are within the responsl- blllty and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Finding 3 - Specl~lc economic, soclal, or other considerations make lnfeaslble the mitigation measures or project alternatives Identified In the Final EIR/EA Supplement; and WHEREAS, Section 15163 of the Guidelines requlres that the City Council consider the previous EIR/EA as revised by +he Final EIR/EA Supplement and the Addendum, and, for each significant e~fect shown In the previous EIR/EA as revised, make findings pursuant to Section 15091. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds the ~ollowlng based upon Its review and considera- tion o~ the Final EIR/EA Supplement and the Addendum, and other substantial evidence In the record: FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR THE SOUTH SLOPE GEOTECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO THE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN Background Statement o~ Facts 1. History of Development of the San Bruno Mountaln HCP. San Bruno Mountaln Is a unique ecological Island situated In the midst o~ a metropolitan area. It comprises several biological communities Including grass- land, native brushland, woodland, and wetland habltat. These communities support populations of rare plant species and several Invertebrate populations, Includ- Ing two federally Ilsted rare and endangered Invertebrate species, the Mlsslon Blue and San Bruno Elfin butter~lles. In addition, there are some areas where Introduced (exotic) species, primarily eucalyptus and gorse, have established themselves. San Bruno Mountain also represents an Important regional visual resource. In the mld-1970's, a number of proposals to develop the lower slope of San Bruno Mountain were made by various private development Interests. A+ the time the proposals were made, there existed a well-documented, County-wide need for houslng, a need which continues to this day. Approval of such development, however, was precluded by the presence o~ the two federally listed butter~lles -3- described above. An amendment to the Federal Endangered Specles Act was sought, and obtained In 1982, whlch authorizes the Incidental taking o~ endangered specles, In conjunction with development, pursuant to a Sectlon lO(a) permit Issued by the Unlted States Fish and Wlldll~e Service. A condition o~ such a permlt Is the submlsslon of a Habitat Conservation Plan, supported by a biological study, establlshlng that the affected specles wlll not be jeopardized. In order to allow development on San Bruno Mountain to proceed, thus achieving the Im- portant publlc objectlve o~ alleviating a crltlcal housing shortage while providing for the maximum protection and long range conservatlon o~ the en- dangered specles on San Bruno Mountain, an HCP was prepared and a Section lO(a) permlt obtained. The HCP and the Sectlon lO(a) permit were based on an envlron- mental assessment embodled In a combined EIR/EA. This EIR/EA certlfled by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors on September 14, 1982, Is the base document for all future projects which might result In significant envlronmental Impacts on San Bruno Mountain. 2. Function o~ the San Bruno Mountain HCP. In order to obtain the necessary Information to develop an HCP for San Bruno Mountain, an lntenslve two year blologlcal survey of the Mountaln was performed In 1980 and 1981, as described In detail In the EIR/EA. The specific objective o~ the survey was to determine the population and habltat distribution of two butterfly species on the Mountain. These specles, the endangered Mlsslon Blue (Plebejus Icarloldes mlsslonensls) and the Calllppe Sllverspot (Speyerla calllppe calllppe), live prlmarlly wlthln the grassland portions o~ the Mountaln. The San Bruno Elfin was not a subject of the biological survey slnce the habitat of the San Bruno Elfin Is located wlthln the San Bruno Mountain State and County Parks and Is not Impacted by any proposed development. The San Bruno Mountaln Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) was based on this blologlcal survey. The HCP establishes a program for conserving the ecology o~ the mountain. The two major objectives o~ the HCP are (1) mltlgatlon for the ~aklng of Mlsslon Blue butter~lles associated with a certaln amount o~ habitat loss to development and (2) conservation, restoration and enhancement o~ the ecologlcal value o~ all the open space remalnlng on the mountaln. (See EIR/EA, p. 111-15) The HCP specifies areas where development Is permitted and areas which will remain as permanent open space. For each development area, the HCP establishes a line showlng the extent o~ gradlng and Incidental takings o~ endangered species allowed under the Section lO(a) Permit. These Ilmlts were based on plans submitted durlng preparation of the HCP. -4- The HCP provides specific and general mitigation measures for the short tern} designed to minimize the impact Of con- ruction related activities on the species. These measures, which include strict limitations and controls on grading, supervision By a qualified Biologist for activities in areas designated for reclamation as habitat, and the phasing of-grading, limit the taking of Mission Blue to 13.59% of the total population on the mountain under the present HCP. This short term impact will restttt in some increased risk of extinction of.the species-on San Bruno Mountain. This increased risk of extinction in the abort term is off- set by long term mitigation measures in the HCP intended, to verse long term habitat degradation which presently threatens survival of the endangered species. Development allowed and contemplated by the HCP provides the long range funding source required for the mitigation measures, all as more part£cularly described in the HCP itself. Without the HCP, there would be a significant risk that the Mission Blue and Callippe Silverspot would Become extinct in San Bruno Mountain Within 5 to 20 decades. The HCPwas rsviewedByU. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which must determine whether any federally protected species will Be ~eopardized'By proposed' development. The Service may issue a Section 10(a) permit only if it finds that proposed development wil~ not Jeopardiz~ the long term survival of threatened or endangered species. The Service made such a finding with respect 'to the San Bruno Mountain HCP,'and accordingly issued a Sectiofl lO(a) ~ermit. 3. The Southeast Ridge. The HCP divides San Bruno:Mountain into four planning areas (Guadalupe Hills, Southeast Ridge, Radio Ridge, Saddle} for management purposes. Those areas are divided into smaller administrative parcels, which correspond to ownership. The Southeast Ridge planning area is characterized slopes and contains the majority'of the Mission Blue an~ Callippe Silverspot' populations. Grading and the maintenance of corridor connections with the rest of the Mountain are major concerns.in. this' planning area. Grading is generally limited to the lower parts of the slopes in or,er not to destroy essentia~ habitat area. The initial approach to the upper slopes of the 8outhsast Ridge is to leave them untreated, possibly using'brush management at a later stage. In development areas, grading will be mini- mizen, erosion prevention implemente~, fire and vandalism increased and enhancement landscaping encouraged (i.e. landscap- ing with host plants or fire retardant vegetation). Long-term enhancement may be necessary to control expansion of brush, exotics, poison oak and the further spread o~ annual grasses. 4. Terraba¥ Development. The South Slope development, known as Terrabay (HCPAdmin/- strat~ve Parce~ 2-04), a proposed residential and commercial p=oJeat, is located on the south slope, of San Bruno Mountain~ within the Southeas= Ridge planning area. The TerrabaySpeci£ia Plan was apprOved by San Mateo County and the City of South San Francisco in November 1982. The Terrabay development provides zesidential and commercial land uses. The residential uses are groupe~ into a series of seven neighborhoods totaling 745 units. Each neighborhood consists of a distinct housing type. The..number of units and the distinct housing types were selecte~ to carry out the objectives and policies of the Housing Element of the South San Francisco g~neral plan. Included within the residential areas are the ~ollowing co~unity relate~ facilities: a firehouse, kiddie park/child care center, and a 'recreation center complex which -6- Includes a swimming pool, a multi-use room, outdoor tennis courts, and a basket- ball court. The commerclal development Includes an 18-story 400 room hotel, a 268,800 sq. ft. office bulldlng, a 57,500 sq. ft. four-story condominium offlce bulldlng, a 18,000 sq. ft. health club, and three restaurants. The Terrabay development has been deslgned to provlde for a substantial balance o~ cut and fill within the boundarles to eliminate the need ~or major flll Import or export. Adoption o~ an alternate plan requiring significant Importation of fill would slgnlflcantly Increase the cost o~ the project (approximately $6 to $7 per yard for each cublc yard of flll importatlon required) and cause adverse environmental Impacts. Importation o~ ~III In the standard 20 yard truck will slgnl~Icantly enhance traffic Impacts durlng the course o~ construction, and create Impacts In the area from whlch the fill Is obtained, Impacts which cannot be quantified untll such site or sites have been Identified. The balanced cut and ~III aspect of the Terrabay plan was deemed to be a critical and controlling element of project ~easlblllty by the developer and the City of South San Francisco. Development on the South Slope In the Terrabay Project area cannot be undertaken without construction o~ major infrastructure Improvements for roads, storm dralnage and other publlc Improvement features. Due to the unique nature of the site and Its relatlonshlp to other areas wlthln the Clty of South San Francisco, these Infra- structure costs are relatively ~lxed, regardless o~ the size and character of the pro- posed development. In order for the Project to Include housing units calculated to carry out the goals and pollcles of the Housing element of the general plan of the Clty of South San Francisco and, at the same time, to provide su~lclent funds to defray the Infrastructure costs, it Is not feaslble for the Project to Include a significantly re- duced number of units slnce slgnl~lcant reductlon o~ unit count will not signlflcantly reduce Infrastructure requlrements. 5. The Proposed Amendment to the HCP, HCP Agreement and Section lO(a) Permlt. After the HCP approval, detailed geotechnlcal studies and on-site testing per- formed for the Terrabay Development revealed the extent o~ landslide repalr which would be necessary above the designated development area. Without landsllde repair, development of Terrabay in a manner consistent wlth the approved Speclfic Plan cannot proceed. The current HCP, HCP Agreement and Section lO(a) Permit does not allow taking of endangered specles In designated preserved habitat areas as shown In the HCP. Slnce the landslide zones are wlthin areas planned for dedlcatlon as preserved habitat, the developer Is required to seek an amendment to the HCP, the -7- - % HCP ^greement, and th~ Section tO(a) Permit be;ore the slide repair activities can commence. ^ slte-speclflc geotechnical amendment to the HCP, Section tO(a) Permit and HCP Agreement was prepared. The proposed geotechnlcal repair applies only to the Terrabay development and will not affect any other development areas on San Bruno Mountaln. suppor~ tlxe Prolmmsed Amendment, with 1984 as a site sp~fic ~en~en2 to re~ ~he r~al of ~1 palisade ~e C~y 0f Br~sb~e' v~e~ not ~o a~rove ~e propose~ ~en~ent has been rein~roduue~ as a three ~ear ~en~ ~er paragrap~ IX B of the HCP Agreement. ~ Ad~eu~ t~ ~e EIR/~ Su~le~ ~o ~e HCP EIR/EA ~as been aa~cess th~ c~ulat~ve =~ulative enviro~tal ~mpauts p~opoaed three yeax amendments not previousl~ addressed in the · EIP~EA Supplement. Other p~se~ ~ee. year ~e~ments tnclu~ ~' ~n~en~ ~o reduce ~e.grad~ng p~se8 ~rom three ~o one on :the Rio Verde Heights project (parcel 1-03), ,zemove & 19.2 awe area of land lo~ated in 02 from the HCP. The Addendum identifies no additionaX significant'environmental impacts not identified in ~e Final EXR/E~ Supplement. ' · 'San Mateo County is lead agency with respect to this proposed Amendment, whic~ will result in grading in are&s presently designated as preserved habitat within the County of San Mateo and the City of South San Francisco. The City of South San Francisco is a ~esponsible agency for CEOA purposes amid must approve the Amendment. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service must approve the proposed Amendment in order to amend the Section lO(a) permit. No other approvals are required. I T T PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Proposed project is a site-specific three year amendment to the HCP, the HCP Agreement and the Section lO(a) Permit. The Proposed Project is analyzed in detail In the EIR/EA Supplement. the EIR/EA Supplement is intended to make the previous EIR/EA adequately apply to the proposed amendments to the HCP, HCP Agree- ment and Sectlon lO(a) Permit. The Addendum was prepared to address potential environmental impacts oS the other proposed three year amendments and to provlde an analysis of the cumulative impact of all three year amendments. The physical aspect of the Proposed Project Involves geotechnlcal repair oS existing landslides which dlrectly threaten the completion of the Terrabay development as presently approved. There are seven landslide areas in preserved habitat areas, referred to as landslides 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2, 3, 4.1, 4.2, 5, 6 and 7. Landslides 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 are located above Neighborhoods A and B. Landsllde 2 is located above Neighborhood C. Landslide 3 Is located above Neighborhoods F and G. Landslides 4.1, 4.2, 5, 6, and 7 are located above the commercial area. The repair of the landslides can be accomplished In any of a number of ways, Involving various combinations oS engineered backfill, re~alnlng walls, and the elimination of units presently allowed under the approved Terrabay Specific Plan. Engineered backfill and retaining walls are mitigation measures approved by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors and this City Council in certifying the EIR for the Terrabay project In November 1982 (Appendix 2 os supplemental EIR/EA, p.86). CEQA and NEPA requires analysis of alternatives to a Proposed Project In order to study envlronmental eSfects and to consider alternatives which might achieve substantially the same public purpose with a lesser environmental Impact. To carry out the mandate of the law, and to provide the County, the City, other interested agencies and the public with an Informed range of choices for purposes of studylng the proposed action, the consultants for the developer, the City and the County developed alternatives ranging from the "no project" alternative ("no repair") at one end of the scale and the conventlonal excava- tion and backfill method oS sllde repair (the conventional solution In the absence of environmental sensitivity) on the other. The alternatives in between utilize various combinations of conventional excavation/backfill, retaining wall and development elimination solutions. Alternative 2 describes the "Proposed Project." -9- Alfernatlve 2. Preferred Alternative - Proposed_ ProJect: Under Alternaflve 2, the specTflc plan would be modified to reduce the heights of vertical cuts by the Importatlon of addltlonal fill material. Five retaining walls would be con- structed to hold landslides 1.1 (210 ft.), 1.3 (200 ft.), 4~.2 (110 ft.), 5 (80 ~t.), and 6 (80 ft.). All other landslides would be removed and replaced with engineered ~III. A total of 24 units would be eliminated from the development. Bullding perml~s for 19 units on the upper elevations o~ Nelghborh~d B would be held In abeyance ~o allow ~hls area ~o be revlewed In detail by geotechnlcal engineers ~or one year prior to a decision ~o proceed wl~h construction. The grading would be unbalanced requlrlng 66,000 cubic yards o~ material ~o be Imported. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED PROJECT Alternatives to the Proposed Projec~ were Identified and evaluated In ~he Dra~ and Final EIR/EA Supplement. Followlng Is a descrlp~lon o~ each alternative. ~TE~ATI~ 1: Under ~ternative 1, al~ ex~sting landslides woul~ be =e~v~ an~ rep~cea with engineer~ fill. Hn~ts would be elim~nate~ and the grading would be balanced, t .e., all earth ~te=ials woul~ be collecke~ onsite an~ no ~=~a~on o~ soils'wo~ be require~. ~e height o~ max~mu~ wo~ be 46 to 48 ~eet. ~ree retai~g walls-wouL~ be con-- ot~ct~ to hola l~sliae areas 4.2 (110 ~t.), 5 (80 f~.} and 6 '(80 f~.) ~n the ~erci~ area. ~erna~ve 1 woul~ res~ ~]o= d~s~urb~ce of 34.5 acres o~ pres~ habitat, 10 a~os ~re ~' the Pr~s~ Pzo]ea~. ~ addit~on~ 0.25% o~ ~h~ ~ss~on Blue pop~ation on San Brio Moun~ain' w~11 bo. 2aken above ~ of ~he .Pro~s~ .Pro~t. Fr~ = b~01og~c~ 'st~dpo~n~, ~ter~tiv® '!. ~ere would be a greater v~sual ~pac= tbs- w~th '~e Pr~s~ Projec= since ~e addition~ engineered back~ill Slides 1.1 and 1.3 would resu12 in a larger area having an arti-- £i¢ia1' appearance. From a visual standpoint, there~orew the Proposed'Pro~eCt is environmentally superior to Alternattve I. _Alternative 3= Under Alternative 3, the Specific Plan would be mod/£ted to reduce the heights of vertiCal cuts by 12 to 16 feet by the importation 0£ additional'fill material. Five reta~nin9 -10- walls woulcl be (2].0 {t:. ), 1.3 · engimeered fill. A total o~ 23 units would be eliminated the development. Building permits for 19 units on the upper served habitat as the Proposed logical impacts would result. elevations of Neighborhood B would be held in abeyance to allow this area to be reviewed in detail by geotechnical engineers for o one year prior to a decision to proceed with construction° Alternative 3 would result in the same major disturbance to pre- P~ojeut, and thus, the same Overall grading ~nder this alternative, however, would require importation of 26L,000~cabic '- yards of fill due to a grading imbalance. This woul~ require 13,050 round trips (assuming a 20-ya=~ truck), resulting in in- crease~ traffic impacts. Alternative 48 Under Alternative 4, the Speci~i~ Plan would be mo~ifie~ to =e~uce the heights of vertical cuts. Five retaining walls would be constrtlcte~ to hold portions of la~dslide £to), 1.3 (200 ft.), 4.2 (110 ft.), 5 (S0 ft.) and 6 (80 ft.) All other landslides would be remove~an~ replaced with gineere~ fill The total of 43 units which would be eliminated from the ~evelopm~nt is more 'than under the Propose~ Project. Alternative 4 woul~ result, in a net.~turbance to preserve~habita~ o~ 7ol acres less than the Propose~Project. The impact on th~ Mission Blue would be reduce~ from 3.02% to 2.77% of the total San Bruno Mountainpopulati°n. Prom a biological standpoint, therefore, Alternative 4 is environmentally superior to the Proposed Proj- ect, but does not substantially reduce the impact to the Mission Blue under the Propose~ Project. Alternative ~ would require importation of 146,000 cubi~ yards of .fill ~ue to a grading ~mbalance, requ~ring 7,300 round trips (assuming a 20-yard truck), resulting in increased traffic impacts over the Pro~ose~ Project. Alternative 4 woul~ add ~800,000 to construction costs required for implementat~on of the Propose~ Project. There woul~ -1t- he slightly reduced visual impacts by elimination of the top tier of units in Neighborhood B. Alternative 5: Under this alternative, the Specific Plan would be modified to reduc, e the heights of vertical cuts by the impor- tation of addit~.onal fill material. Six retaining walls would be constructed to hold portions of landslides 1.1 (210 ft.},. 1.3 (200 ft.), 2 (655 ft.), 4.2 (110 ft.), 5 (S0 ft.) and and 6 (S0 ft. ). All other landslides would be removed and i~eplaced with engineered fill. A total of 24 units would be elim~-natecl from the development. Building per,its for 19 units on the upper elevations of Neighborhood B would be held in abeyance to allow this area to be reviewed in detail by geotechnical engineers for one year prior to a decision to proceed.with c0net=uctton, Alternative 5 would result in a net disturbance to preserve~ habitat of 8.8 acres less than that caused by the Proposed ProJ- ect. The impact on the Mission blue would be =educed from 3~02% to 2.92% of the totaX San Bruno Mount&in population. From. a biological standpoint, therefore, Alternative 5 is env~ron~ mentally superior to the Proposed Project, but does not substan- tially reduce the impact to the Mission Blue under the Proposed Proje=t. The use of a retaining wall on Slide 2 would reduce the visual impa~ts of this alternative over that of the Propose~ Project, but visual impacts from repair of Slides 1.2, 3, 4.1 and 7 wiX1 remain= From a visual standpoint, therefore, Alterna- tive 5 is environmentally.superior to the Proposed Projeot, but does not substantially reduce the visual impact under the Pro- pOSed ProJe~t~ Alternative 5 woul~ require the importi"§ho£ 53,000 cubic yards of fill due to a grading imbalance. 'This importation would require 2,65Q round trips (assuming a 20-yard. · truck). Alternative 5 would add $600,000 to the construction cost required for implementation of the Proposed Project. · . ~Alternative 6.. Under this alternative, the Specific Plan would be modified to reduce the heights of vertical cuts by the impor- tation of-additional fill material, siX' retaining walls woul~ be constructed to hold portions of landslides 1.1 (210 ft.}, 1.3 ' (200 ft.), 3 (530 ft.), 4.2 (110 ft..), 5 (80 ft.) and 6 (80 : ft. ). All other landslides would be removed and rel~laced with engineered fill. the development. A total of 24 units would be eliminated from Building permits for 19 units on the upper elevations of Neighborhood B would be held in abgyance to alIow this area to be reviewed in detail by geotechnlcal engineers, for.' one year prior to a decision to proceed with construction. Alternative 6 would result in a net disturbance to preserve~ ltabitat of 6.6 acres less than the Proposed Project. The ~mpact on the Mission blue would be reduced from 3.02% to 2..87% of the total San Bruno mountain population. From a biol°gtcal stand-- point, therefore, Alternative 6 iS environmentally superior t° the Propose~ Pro~ect, but does not substantially reduce the pact to the mission Blue under the Proposed Project. The use & retaining wall on Slide 3 wilt reduce the visual impacts of this alternative over that of the Proposed Project,-but visual. i~pact's from repair'Slides 1.2, 2, 4.1 and 7 will remain. From visual standpo, in~, therefore, Alternative 6 is. environmentally superior to the Proposed Project, but does not substantially reduce the visual impact under the Proposed Project. Alterna- tive 6 would require the importation of 58,000 cubic yards of fill due to grading imbalance. This importation would require 2,900 round trips (aSsuming a 20-yard truck). Alternative 6 would add $700,000-to construction cost above that o~ the Pro-- posed Project. Alternative 7: Under this alternative, the specific plan woul~ be modified to reduce the heights of vertical cuts by the ration of additional fill material. Seven retaining walls would be constructed to hold portions of landslides 1.1 (210 ft.), .(200 ft.), 2 (655 ft.), 3 (530 ft.), 4.2 (110 ft.), 5 (80 ft.) and.6 (80 ft.). Ail other landslides would be removed or re- placed with engineered fill. A total of 24 units would be eliml- hated from the development. 'Building permits for 19 units on the upper elevations of Neighborhood B would be held in abeyance to allow this area to be reviewed in detail by geotechnlcal en- gineers for struction. one year prior to a decision to proceed with con- Alternative 7 would result ii1 a net !~'~sturbance of } 12.8 acres less than the Proposed Project. Impact to the ~s~on" Blue will be reduced from 3.02% to 2.77% of the total San Bruno Mountain population. From a biological standpoint, therefore, Alternative 7 is environmentally superior to the Proposed Pro,- .eot, but does not substantially reduce the impact to .the Mission Blue under the Proposed Project. The use of retaining walls on Slides 2 and 3 will reduce the v~sual ~mpacts of this aIternative over that of the Proposed Project, but visual impacts from pa~rs of Slides 1, 2, 4.1 and 7 will remain. FrOm a visual s~andpoint, therefore, Alternative 7 is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project, but aces not substantially reduce the visual impact under 'the Proposed Project. Alternative 7 will 'recluire the importation of..46,000 cubic yards of f~11 due to a grading imbalance. This iml~rtat~on would require 2,300 round tr~ps (assuming a 20-yard truck). Alternative 7 would result in' an increase of construction costs of 1.3 million from that of the Proposed Project. Alternative 8~ Under. this alternative, the specific plan would be modified to reduce the heights of vertical cuts b y the ~mpor- · at~on of additional £ill materfalo Five retaining walls would be constructed to hold portions of 'landslides 1.1 [210 ft.}, 1.3 (200 ft.), 4.2 (110 ft.), $ {SO ft.) and 6 (80 ft.}. AIL other landslides would be removed and replaced with engineered f~11, except for Slide.2 above ~eighborhood C, which would not be re- paired. Fifty-seven (57) units in Neighborhood C below a land- . slide.., would be eliminated,' reducing the total development by81 un,ts, 57 more than under the Proposed Project. BuiIding ~ermits for 19 units on the.upper elevations of Neighborhood B would be held in abeyance to allow this area to be reviewed in detail by geotechnical engineers for one year prior to a decision to pro- ceed with construction. Alternative 8 would result in a net disturbance of 16.9 acres less than the Proposed Project. Im~' -]4- to the Mission Blue will be reduced from 3.02% to 2.62% ofrthe total San Bruno Mountain population. Impact to the Callippe Silver Spot will be reduced from 0.45% to 0.44% of the total San Bruno Mountain population. From a biological standpoint, there- fore, Alternative 8 is environmentally superior to the Propose~ Project, but does not substantially reduce the.impact to the Mission Blue or Callippe 'Silverspot under the Proposed Pro~ecto The election not to repair Slide 2 would re4uce the visual pacts of %his alternative over that of t~e Proposed Project, but visual impacts from .repair Of Slides 1.2, 3, 4.1 an~ ? would remain. From a visual standpoint, therefore, Alternative 8 is e~Vironmentally superior to the Proposed Project, but does not substantially reduce the v%sual impact of the Proposed Project. Alternative 8 will require the importation of 25,000 cubic ~ards of fill due to a grading imbalance. This importation Would re- quire 1,250 round trips (assuming a 20-yar~ truck). Alternative 8 would result in a reduction of construction costs of 1.2 million from that of the Propose~ Project. ~lternatiVe 9: Under this alternative., the Specific Plan woul~ be modified to reduce the heights of'vertical cuts by the impor- tation of additional fill ~terial. Five retaining walls woul~ be cOnstructed to hold portions of landslides 1.1 (210 ft.), 1.3 (200 ft.), 4.2 (110 ft.), 5 (80 ft.) and 6 (80 ft.). All other · landslides would be removed and replaced with engineered fill except for Slides 2 and 3 above Neighborhoods C, F and G, which would not be repaired. ~o Hundred and ~enty Seven (227) units in Neighborhoods C, F and G would be eliminated, reducing the total development by 251 units, 227 more than under the Proposed Project. Building permits for 19 units ~on the uppe~ elevations of Neighborhood B would be held in abeyance to allow this area to be reviewed in detail by geotechnical engineers for one year ";[iternative 9 ........ prior to a decision to Proceed with construction.!! would result in a net disturbance of 37.7 acres less than =he Proposed Project. Impact to the Mission Blue w~11 be reduced from 3.02% to 2.37% of the total San Bruno Mountain population. Impact to the Callippe silverspot will be reduced from 0°45% to 0.43% of the San Bruno mountain population. From a standpoint, therefore, A~ternative 9 i~'environment&lly superior to the Proposed Project, but does not substantially reduce the impact to the mission Blue or Callippe Silverspot from t~at of the Propose~ Project. The election not to repair Slides 2 ami woUld reduce the visual ~mpacts over that of the Proposed Pro~- ect, but v~sual ~mpacts from repair of Slides 1, 2. 4.1 aha 7 w6uld remain. Froma visual standpoint' therefore, Alternative 9 is environment~11y supericu~ to the Proposed Project, but does not substantially reduce the visual impa~t from that of the Proposed Project. Alternative 9 will require the importation of 527,000 cubic yards of fill due to a grading imbalance. This importation will require 26,350 round trips (assuming a 20-yard truck), sulting in increased traffic impacts. 'Alternative 9 woul~ ad~ $500,000 tO the construction cost above that of the Propose~ Pro~ect. Alternative 10= Under ~his alternative, the specific plan woul~ be modified to reduce the heights of vertical cuts by the impor- tation of additional fill material. Four retaining walls would be constructed =o hold portions of'landslides 1.1 (210 ftc), 1.3 (200 ft.), 4.2 (110 ft.), S (80 ft.) and 6 (80 ft.). All other ~andsl~des would be removed and replaced w~th engineere~ fill except for Slides 1.i, 1.2, 2 and 3 above ~e~ghborhoods A, C, and G, which would no= be repaired. Three Hundred and ~inety Three (3~3] un,ts ~n Neighbo=hoods:A, C, F and G would be elimi- nated, reducing the total development by 417 units. Building permits for 19 un,ts on the ug~er elevations o~ Neighborhoo~ B would be held in abeyance to a11o~ th~s area to-be Teviewed ~n detail by geotechnical engineers for one year prior to a decision'- to proceed.with construction. Alternative 10 would result in a net disturbance of 56.6 acres less than the Proposed Project. Impact to the Mission Blue will be reduced from 3.02% to 1.62% o~ the total San Bruno Mountain population. Impact to the Callippe Silverspot will be reducec% from 0.45% to 0.40% of the total San Bruno Mountain population. From a biological standpoint, there- fore, Alternative 10 is environmentally superior to the Proposed : Project. The election not to repair Slides 2, 3 and a port,on of- Slide 1.2 would reduce the visual impacts over that of the Pro- posed Projects, but visual impacts from repairs of Sli~es 4.1, 7 a~d a portion of Slide 1.2 will remain. Alternative 10 woul~ require the impoFt of 311o.900 cubic yards of fill due to a grading imbalance. This importation would require 15,550 round trips (assuming a 20-yard truck), resulting in increased traffic i~pacts. Alternative 10 would result in a reduction of construc- tion cost of $3.4 ndllion from that of the Proposed Project. Alternative 11~ This alternative is the 'no project' alternative required by CEOA. Under this alternative the specific plan would be modified to reduce the heights of vertical cuts by tl~e inpor~:- ation of additional fill materiall One retaining wall would be constructed to hold landslide 1.3 for a length of 210 feet. No other landslides .would be repaired. All development in Neighbor- hoo~s A, C, F and. G, Four Hundred and Six (406) units° an~l one half of the Commercial area would be eliminated, reducing the development by 430 units. Building permits for 19 units on the upper elevations of -~eighborhood B would be held in abeyance to allow this area to be reviewed in detail by geotechnical en- gineers for one year prior to a decision to proceed with con- struction. Alternative 11 would result in a net disturbance of 70 acres less than the Proposed Project. Impact to the Mission Blue will be reduced from 3.02% to 1.27% of the,total San Bruno Mountain population. Impact to the Callippe Silverspot wiCk-be reduced from 0.45% to 0.35% of the total San Bruno Mountain popu- lation. From a biological standpoint, therefore, Alternative 11 is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project. The elec- tion'not to repair any slides will eliminate the visual impacts which would occur from fha Proposed Project. From a visual standpoint, therefore, Alternative 11 is environmentally to the Proposed Project. Alternative 11 will require the ~mpor-- ration of 239,000 cubic yar~s of fill due to a grading balance. This importationwill require 11,990 round trips (assuming a 20-ton truck), resulting in increased traffic pacts. Alternative'11 woul~ result in a reduction of $7.9 million from the construct%on cost of the Proposed Project. Major Redesign Alternative= The 'major redesign" alternative would involve-the elimination' of all units in one or more neigh- borhoods and the transfer of density to the remaining neighbor- hoods. Under this alternative, the landslides above eliminated neighborhoods would remain unrepaired. Ideally, enough equiva- lent habitat could be identifie~ for an exchange, pursuant to paragraph XIA of the HCP Agreement, to allow the slide repair ~equired above remaining neighborhoods. If this were accom- plished, an a~endment to the HOP would not be require~. Redesign would require amendment o~ the Specific Plan and the existing -Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance, with all of the delays and cost expenditures inherent in architectural and en- gineering design. According to the developer, any such design would result in a mid- or high-rise development in the neighborhoods. ~y such mid- or h[gh-rlse d~velopment would conflict with the Existing Specific Plan for Te~rabay and would likely be [n conflict with the Housing Element of the South San Francisco General Plan. The developer has stated that he considers Infeasible and would not elect to proceed with construction of a project requiring a significant change In the character of the units proposed, such as by requlrlng hlgh-rlse or mid-rise construction or a ~orm of construction which would require construction of slgnl~lcant subgrade parking ~acllltles. · PRELIMINARY FINDING WITH RESPECT TO THE EIR/EA FOR THE HCP The Final EIR/EA Supplement Is a ~ocused supplement addressing biological, geological and vlsual Impacts after lnltlal study determlned that blological, geologlcal and visual Impacts were the only Impacts o~ slide repair requiring further study. The project Involves the readjustment o~ the established HCP Ilne to allow landslide repalr in an area previously designated as preserved habltato The areas designated for permanent disturbance will not be affected. The only Impacts which are changed ~rom those considered In the lnltlal EIR/EA for the HCP are the blologlcal, geological and visual Impacts. Thls Clty Council therefore finds that the remalnlng environmental Impacts considered In the Initial EIR/EA for the HCP, certlfled by the San Mateo County Board of Supervlsors on September 14, 1982 are not affected by the Proposed Project, and that the flndlngs made with respect to those other effects, as contained In Resolutlon No. 25-83 o~ thls Council, dated February 16, 1983, remain valid and In full force and e~fect. Further, the City Councll finds that the Proposed Project Is In Itself a mltigatlon ~or Impacts caused by landslides situated above the Terrabay development. Therefore, the Proposed Project wlll not have a negative geological Impact. FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO CUMULATIVE IMPACTS This Councll further finds that the Addendum correctly and adequately addresses the only two other reasonably foreseeable proposed Amendments to the HCP: An Amendment to reduce the number of gradlng phases from three to one In the Rlo Verde Heights Project (1-03), and an Amendment to the County Park Parcel (3-02) to remove 19.2 acres from the HCP. This Councll ~urther flnds that neither Amendment, as proposed, creates any new slgnlficant environmental effects relating to the South Slope Amendment, nor does elther or both proposed Amendments Increase the magnltude o~ any envlron- mental effects related to the South Slope Amendment. -19- SUPPLEMENTAL SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN SUPPLEMENTAL EIR/EA The slgnificant Impacts associated with the Implementation o~ the HCP were ldentl~ied In the Initial EIR/EA prepared ~or the HCP. The findings o~ this Clty Councll with respect to that EIR/EA, and the mitigation measures Inter- preted thereln, made by the adoptlon o~ Resolution No. 25-83, are Incorporated hereln by re~erence. The following sets forth all significant adverse Impacts Identified In the Initial EIR/EA, whlch are affected by the Proposed Project, and with respect to each Impact makes one or more o~ the ~Indlngs set forth herelnabove, states ~acts In support o~ such flndlngs and, as appropriate, refers to the Statement of Overrldlng Considerations which is attached hereto. BIOLOGY Slgnlflcant Impact The project wlll cause the ~ollowlng significant Impacts: 1. The Proposed Project (Alternative 2) will result In additional temporary dlstburbance of approximately 24.5 acres o~ open. space, lncludlng grassland and other habitat than that presently allowed by the HCP. With this addltlonal temporary disturbance the total disturbance caused by the Terrabay Project Is Increased to 68 acres. With the Increase In temporary disturbance associated with Terrabay, the total amount of temporary disturbance In the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) area wlll increase to 135 acres. 2. An undetermined number of Mlsslon Blue butterflies (Plebejus Icarloldes mlsslonensls), a Federally Ilsted endangered specles, will be Incidentally taken as a result of gradlng Incidental to landslide repair activity. Approximately 3.02% o~ the population of the Mission Blue butterfly on San Bruno Mountain will be lost due to construction activltles assoclated with the Terrabay develop- ment, an increase o~ 0.80% from that presently allowed by the HCP. It ls estimated the total impact upon the population o~ Mlsslon Blue on San Bruno Mountain will be increased from 13.59% to 14.39%. -20- 3. Some habltat of other species o~ concern to wit: the Golden Aster (Chrysopsls vlllosa), the Brownle Thlstle (Clrslum quercltorum), the Wild Buckwheat (Erlogonum latlfollum), the Harkella (Horkella call~ornla), and the Sliver Luplne (Luplnus albl~rons) may be des- troyed Incidental to gradlng ~or landslide repairs. Flndln9 The Clty Council of the City of South San Francisco makes findings (1) and (3) as described at pages 2 and 3 herelnabove and as requlred by CEQA Guldellnes Section 15091 with respect to all o~ the above ldentl~ied significant Impacts. Facts In Support o~ Flndln~ (1) All mltlgatlon measures Incorporated Into the HCP to substantially reduce the slgnlflcant biological Impacts associated wlth Implementation of the HCP, as set ~orth In the ~lndlngs o~ this Council In Resolution No. 25-83, remain valld and In ~ull force and e~ect. The mitigation measures set ~orth below are specifically directed to the Increased biological Impacts resulting from the Proposed Project. To the extent that these Impacts are not ~ully mltlgated by the mltlgatlon measures Imposed In connection with the HCP and approval o~ the Proposed Project, they are reduced to an acceptable level In light o~ the overrldlng conslderatlonst The proposed mltlgatlon measures are applicable to all three of the slgnl- ~icant biological Impacts set ~orth above. These Impacts would all occur as a direct result o~ gradlng and landslide repalr operations In areas presently designated as preserved habitat. The ~ollowlng mitigation measures are adopted to substantially lessen the biological environmental effect of the Proposed Project. (a) Gradlng ~or landslide repair wlll be phased over a two-year period to reduce the number of Insects lost In any one glven year. Phaslng will provide reduction In the short term Impact to the species and substantially reduce the severlty of the slgnlflcant Impact which would occur If all grading took place In the same year. Phasing re~ers to the time schedule o~ development, I.e., the area that can be graded each year. Phasing would provide time to: Spread the Impact of habl~at loss over more than one generatlon/fllght season; and Allow for reclamation of previously dlsturbed areas before new areas are disturbed. Phasing the project by phasing of g~ading should have the effect of lessenin~ the short term impact on the Mission Blue· The landowner/developer will fund an off-site enhance- ment program on a thirty (30) acre area located within the San Bruno Mountain State and County Park (HCP AdministratiVe Parcel 1-09). ' This will provide mitigation for the impact by creating a substitute area for the utilization of the Mission Blue. There is a substantial likelihood that this will result in the creation of new habitat which will offset some of the loss of habitat resulting from implementa- tion- of the HCP. This conclusion is.supported by the fact that the Mission Blue has been determined to have utilized habitat created by man-made disturbance for more than twenty years along road cuts adjacent to the 'Guadalupe Canyon Parkway. (c) The landowner/developer will incorporate the slide re- pair areas'into the areas of temporary disturbance designated in the HCP for the Terrabay development and implement the following measures: (1) (2) (3) (4) Construct a temporary habitat fence at the boundary between the land slide repair, minor disturbance and undisturbed areas. Post signs along the fence every 100 feet which state the penalty for grading beyond the fenced areas. Have a biolOgist on-site to help avoid sensitive habitat areas while performing drainage improvement and landslide repair work within minor disturbance areas. Reclaim all temporarily disturbed areas with a Plan Operator approved reclamation plan to rectify to a -22- substantial degree the destruction of species habi- tat.by restoring the .imlma=ted environment. o four specific mitigation measures above are drawn from mitigation measures ~rovi~ed for in fha HCP, and are readopted and reemphasized as' being specifically .related .to the landslid~ ~.e~airs cOn~em~late~ by the Proposed .ProJ&ct'.' i Strict ~mplcm~nt&. tiOn of these'measures will'prevent inadvertent incursions'into areas o£ preserve~ habitat and& .thus,' will ensure .that an~ o£ 't/~e Mission Blue' will not exceed that estimated ~or 'th~ Pro~ posed Pro~ecto. Presence 'o~ a quali£ie~btol~Ast will assist-.~n preserving .sensitive~abi~at.in areas designat~a ~or minor 'dis- "turbance, t~erebyresulting in the posslbili~'that actual takings, of the M~ssion Blue will.be leas.than that estimated for ~he' Prop0sea Project. Recla~ation o£ temporarily .disturbed 'area 'will.restore areas Of sensitive habitat £or the ~isston Blue, .The success o~ such reclamation 'is supported by the evkdence Mission Blue habitat has been 'create~ in road cuts 'adjaCent to . ~uadalupe Canyon Parkway. Pa=ts In Support o~= ~in~ing range of alternatives was considered when'developing the Prolmosed Project. T~ese alternatives are discusse~ in ~eptb in Final ~IR Supplement, and are summarized beginning at ~ 1~' · above. The mitigation measures required with respect to the Proposed Project'may be imposed with various alternatives. Nevertheless, respect' to each of the these alternatives are re- jecte~ as infeasible for the reasons set out below. Alternative 1 (see p. 10. ) is rejecte~ for the reasons Proposed Pro]ec~ is environmentally super[or ~o Alterna- .......... t_ive 1. Alternative 3 (see p.' 10) is r~jected' for the r=ason it is not environmentally superiOr to the Proposed Project and that-it would entail significant additional'traffic impacts due to the requirement to import 261,000 cubic yards of fill, and would. create as yet undetermined impacts in the area from w~ich t~e -fill would be obtained. . Alternative 4 (see p. 11:) is reje¢~e4 for 'the reason that it ~OU14 entail significant additional tra£fic ~mpaots requirement to ~mport 146,000 c~bic yards of fill an~ would .create as yet'undetermined ~mpacts ~n the area from which the fill woul~ be obtaine~. Alternative 4 is also economicaliy infeasible as. it would require the. expen~iture 6f. $800,000 more -kn construction costs than require~ for the Proposed Project, Alternative 5 (see p. 1~~} is rejecte~ as economically. ~nfeas~ble for the reason that ~t would require t~e expenditure. of $600,000 more i~ construction Costs than require~for the Proposed Project~ Alternative 6 (see p. 'iZ.') is rejected .as ec0n0m~cally ~nfeasible for the reason that it would[ require the exp~n~itur6- of $700,000 more' in construction costs than required for the Proposed Project. · ' . ~nfeasible for the reason that it would result an the expenditure- of $1,300,000 more in construction costs than required for the Proposed Project. Aiternative 8 (see p. 14) is rejectedas'sociall~ infeasi~ ble for the reason that it would result in the elimination of 81 'units from the presently approved Terrabay Specific Plan, ~ich would conflict with the stated need for.housing in the South San Francisco Gene~l Plan. -24- ..]' Alternative 9 (see p. 15') is rejected as socially infeasi- ble for the reason that it would result in the elimination of 251 units from the presently .approved Terrabay Specifi~ Plan, which would c~nflict with the stated need for housing .in the South San Francisc° General.Plan, and as economically infeasible for the re~$on that it would result in the e~penditure.-.o~$500,000 more in Construction costs.than required for the ProPose~roJeut~ .. Alternative 10 (see p. 16 .) is rejected as so~ially. - . "~nfeasible for the reason that it' would result in the elimination of the 41?.units from the presentiY approved Tgrrab.ay Specific .Plan, which wouldconflict with the stated need 'for housing in the South San Francisco General Plan. Alternative 10 would also .entail' significant additional traffic impacts-due ~o the require- ment.to import 311,000 cubic.yards' of fill and Would create aS Yet Undet~rmined impacts in the .area from which the fill would be obtained. -' .Alteraativell (see p. 17 ) is rejected as socially infeasible for the reason that it would result ~n the eiimination of the 450 units from the.presentlY'approved Terrabay S~ecifi~ Plan, which Would conflict with the stated, need for..housing in the South San Francisco General Plan.· Alternative 11 would also entail significantadditional traffic impacts due to the require- ment to import 239,000 cubic yards of fill and would create as .- yet undetermined impacts in the area from which the fill would be obtained. . ~ajor Redesign Alt~rnatlve (see p. 18} is rejected as economically infeasible for the reason that it would entail major delays and significant expenditures' for engineer%ng and archi- tect~ral work in such a redesign. The developer has stated that, in his opinion, such a redesign may be impossible to finance, build ~nd sell on an economically feasible basis, and that he would be unwilling to proceed with such a development. Further, redesign entailing the transfer of density to a mid- or high-rise development .wOuld likely conflict with the goals and policies of the South San Francisco General Plan, which contemplates a mix of housing type~. In addition, the overriding economic, social and other'considerations, as enumerated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, provide additional -facts in support of finding (3). Any remaining unavoidable significant impacts are acceptable when balanced, against the facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. VISUAL IMPACTS Significant Effect The project will have the following significant impacts: 1. The landslide repair areas replaced with engineeredlfill will be altered to an artifical man-made appearance. FINDING This Council hereby makes findings (1) and (3) as described above and as required by the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091, with respect to the above identified significant effect. Facts in Support of Finding (1) ~ : 1. The developer shall minimize the visual impact of the re-engineered slopes, using good design practices which will conform the benched slopes as much as possible to the natural topography. 2. to the extent practicable, and within the constraints of the Habitat Conservation Plan, the developer shall institute a revegetation scheme designed to soften the textured appearance of the benched slopes. These mitigation measures should reduce the visual impact of'the Proposed Project. However, the Council realizes that these measures, while lessening the visual impact, do not eliminate this stgnifican~*tmpact. -26- Facts in Support of Finding (3) A range of alternatives was consldered when developing the Proposed Project. These alternatlves are discussed In depth in the Final EIR/EA Supplement, and are summarized above. The mltlgatlon measures required with respect to the Proposed ProJect may be Imposed wlth respect'to each of the varlous alternatives. Nevertheless, these alternatives are rejected as Infeasible for the reasons set out below. ^lternative 1 (see p.lO) Is rejected for the reasons that +he Proposed Project Is environmentally superior to Al+ama+lye ~lterna+Ive 3 (see p.lO) Is reJedted for the reason it Is no+ environ- mentally superior fo +he Proposed Project and fha+ it would entail significant additional traffic Impacts due to the requirement to Import 261,000 cubic yards of fill, and would create as yet-undetermined impacts In th~ area froa whlch the fill would be obtained. ~.lfe?atlv~.4 (see p. 11) is rejected for the reason that If would entail slgnlflcant'addl+lonal traffic, impacts due to the requirement to 146,000 cubic yards of fill and would'create as yet undetermined Impacts In the area from which the fill would be obtained. Alternatlve 4 Is also eco- nomically Infeasible as If would requlre +he expenditure of $800,O00more in construction costs than required for the Proposed Project~ Alternative 5 (see p. 12 ] is rejected as economically infeasible for the reason that it would require the expenditure of $600,000 more in construction costs than required for the Proposed: Project. . '-' Alternative 6 (see p. 1~,) is rejected for as economically -~nfeasible for the reason that' it would require the expenditure · of $700,000 more in construction costs' than required for the Proposed P~oject. · Alternative 7 (see p. 13:) is rejected as economically infeasible for the reason that ~t would result in the expenditur~ of $1,300,000 mo~e in construction cost~ than required for the Pro~ose~ Project. . Alternative 8 .'(see.. p. 14] ' ts rejected as socially-inf,a~2' bio for the reason that.it would result ~n elimination of 81 -units from the presently approved. Terrabay Specific_Plan, which would conflict with the stated need for housing in the South San Francisco General Plan. '~. Alternative 9. (see p~ 15') ~s rejected as socially infeasi- ble for the reason 'that'it would result in the elimination of 251 'units from the presently approved Terrabay Specific Plan, which would, conflict with the stated need for housing in the South San Francisco General Plan, and as economically infeasible for the reason that it would result in-the expenditur~ of $500,000 more. ~n construction costs than r~quired for the Proposed Project. Alternative 10 (see p."l~') is rejected as socially ~nfeasible for the .reason that it would result in the elimination of the 417 units from the Presently approved Terrabay Specific Plan, which would conflict with the stated need for housing in the So~th San Francisco General Plan. Alternative.10 would also entail sigaificant additional traffic impacts due to the r~uire-'- ment to import 311,000 cubic yards of fil1 and would create as yet undetermined impacts in the area from which the fill would b~ obtained. .. · Alternative 11. [see. p..17) is rejected as socially infeasible for the. reason that it'would result i~..the elimination Of the 450 units from the'presently approved Terrabay Specif£~ Plam,' which woul4 conflict' with-the stated:need fOr housing ~ the South San Francisco Genera1 Plan. Aiternatfve 1~' woul~ also entail significant additional traffic imlmacts due to the regu~re- ~nt to import 239,000 cubic.yards of fill and woul~ create as yet Undetermined impacts in the area from which the fill woul~ obta ined. Major Redesign Alternative (see p..]8-) ~s rejected'as- economically infeasible for the reason that it would entail major delays and. significant expenditures for engineering and architec- tural work in such a redesign. The developer has stated t~at, his opinion; such a redesign may be impossible to. finance, build. and sell on an economically feasible ~as~s, .and that he.would be unwilling to proceed with such a development. Further,-redesign entafl~n~ the transfer of density to a.mid--or high-rise develop- me~t would li~ely conflict with the goals and policies of t~e South San Francisco General Plan, which contemplates a mix of.' housing types. In addition, the overridin~ economic, social and other con- siderations, as enumerated in* the Statement of Overri'~i~g Consi- derations,' provide additional facts in support of findin9 (D). Any remaining unavoidable significant effect is.acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth, above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regu'larly Introduced and adopted by the City Councll of the Cl~y of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the loth day of duly , 19 85 , by the following vo~e: AYES: Councilmembers Richard A. Halley, Gus Nicolopulos; and Roberta Cerri Teglia NOES: ABSENT: Councilmember Mark N. Addiego Councilmember Emanuele N. Damonte -30-