HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 155-1985 RESOLUTION NO. 155-85
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
RELATED TO APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AND SECTION 10(a) PERMIT TO PERMIT
SITE-SPECIFIC GEOTECHNICAL REPAIRS
(14 CAL. ADMIN. CODE §15093)
RECITALS
WHEREAS, It ls the policy of the State o~ California and the City of South
San Francisco, as provided in the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the provisions of Title 14, California
Admlnlstratlve Code, Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environ-
mental Quality 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 which would mitigate the
environmental effects of such projects to a level of lnslgnlficance; and
WHEREAS, on November 15, 1982 the Clty Council adopted Resolution No. 131-82
authorizing execution of the Agreement with respect to San Bruno Mountain Area
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), a~ter considering +he *Inal Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA), prepared for the HCP pursuant to the
provisions of the CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and previously certl*led by the
Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo; and
WHEREAS, the City Council supplemented and clarified Its findings with re-
spect to the EIR/EA on February 16, 1983, as set *orth In Resolution No. 25-83,
In order to ensure compllance with CEQA and the CEQA Guldellnes; and
WHEREAS, on March 4, 1983, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servlce Issued an
Endangered Species Act Section lO(a) Permit (Section lO(a) Permit) based on
the HCP and EIR/EA and on November 4, 1982 and thereafter all parties to the
HCP and Section lO(a) Permit entered Into an Agreement with Respect to the
San Bruno Mountaln Conservatlon Plan (HCP Agreement); and
WHEREAS, geotechnlcal Investigations conducted since approval of the HCP,
HCP Agreement and Section lO(a) permit have disclosed the need to repair slide
areas on San Bruno Mountain which dlrectly threaten the proposed Terrabay
development; and
WHEREAS, a site speclflc amendment to the HCP, HCP Agreement and Section
lO(a) permit has been prepared to allow such slide repair work to be performed;
and
WHEREAS, a Final Supplement to the HCP EIR/EA (Final EIR/EA Supplement) has
been prepared pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines to
address environmental effects of said proposed amendment to the HCP, HCP Agree-
ment and Section lO(a) permlt; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR/EA Supplement Is a focused supplement, addressing
biological, geological and visual Impacts, which are the only new slgnlflcant
environmental Impacts of the proposed amendment; and
WHEREAS, an Addendum to the Final Supplement to the HCP EIR/EA (Addendum)
has been prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines to address
the cumulatlve environmental Impacts of all of the amendments proposed for the
year 1985 under Sectlon IX B of the HCP Agreement; and
WHEREAS, none of the conditions described In Section 15162 of 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
--2--
WHEREAS, +he City Council, In Resolution No. 154-85, has made certain
findings pursuant to requirements of CEQA and Section 15091 of the Guidelines
pertainlng to the significant Impacts Identified in the Final EIR/EA Supplement
and has identtfled those slgnlflcant Impacts which, by virtue o~ mitigating
measures described In the Final EIR/EA Supplement have been mitigated to
acceptable levels, as well as those impacts which are Infeasible o~ mitigation
and for which feasible alternatives are not available; and
WHEREAS, Section 15093(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the City to
balance the benefits of a proposed project against Its unavoidable environ-
mental rlsks In determlnlng whether to approve the project; and
WHEREAS, Section 15093(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires where the
decision of +he City allows the occurrence of significant e~fects which are
Identified In the Final EIR/EA Supplement but are not mitigated, the City
must state In writing the reasons to support Its action based on the Final
EIR/EA and/or other ln~ormation In the records;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council o~ the City o~
South San Franclsco makes the following Statements of Overriding Considera-
tions in support o+ its action, and as required by the Guidelines.
1. The San Bruno Mountain Area Habitat Conservation Plan ("HCP") sets
forth a program to preserve and enhance habitat for an endangered species,
the Mission Blue butterfly and other Identified specles, Including the
Calllppe Silverspot butterfly (hereinafter "Species o~ Concern") and the San
Bruno Mountain Area Ecological Community.
2. The primary purpose of the HCP is to provide for the Indefinite per-
petuatlon of the Mission Blue butterfly and to provide ~or the protection and
enchancement oY the San Bruno Mountain Area Ecological Communlty including all
o~ the Species o~ Concern, while simultaneously providing private landowners
wlth a permanent resolution of the endangered species and habitat Issues they
face In order to obtain approval for development projects.
--3--
3. The HCP and the EIR/EA and EIR/EA Supplement and Addendum supporting
the HCP have comprehensively addressed all known threats to +he endangered
species, Including biological threats as well as threats from human activity.
The HCP and Its mitigation program Is based upon sound biological judgment
performed by an Independent expert under contract to the County of San Mateo
(hereinafter the "County") as Plan Operator for the Habitat Conservation Plan
and sets forth a program which will guide habitat conservation strategies with-
in the area of the Habitat Conservation Plan.
4. The biological consultant for the County has concluded In the Final
EIR/EA Supplement that the additional Impact contemplated by the geotechnlcal
repair will not Impair the long term survival of the Mission Blue butterfly.
5. The biological consultant has concluded that approval of the geo-
technical repair activity for the Terrabay development will no+ confllct with
the primary purpose of the HCP to provide for the Indefinite perpetuation of
the Mission Blue butterfly.
6. The biological consultant has also concluded that the o~Sslte mitiga-
tion adopted with approval of the site specific geotechnlcal amendment, will
provide protection and enhancement for other species oS concern within the San
Bruno Mountain Area Ecological Community, by removing Invaslve vegetation which
threatens the Mission Blue habitat within other areas oS the ecological community.
7. Implementation oS the HCP and Its attendant development is likely to
alleviate the significant risk that both Mission Blue and Calllppe Sllverspot
butterfly species will become extinct on San Bruno Mountain within 5 to 20
decades. The HCP provides that certain mitigation measures be adopted, Includ-
Ing the conveyance of privately owned property to the County and the retention
of such habitat In public ownership In perpetuity.
8. The planned development will provide a mix of housing opportunities for
various Income levels and will significantly add to the stock of available
-4-
housing wlthln the Clty of South San Francisco. The planned development wlll
help alleviate an exlstlng housing shortage In South San Franclsco. In addltlon
to housing units, the HCP provides for the development of office and commercial
space, visitor serving facilities, and addltlonal recreational and community
facllltles.
9. Development allowed by the HCP will provide the permanent ~undlng source
to protect the existlng grassland areas from both Invasions of brush and exotic
species and from destruction by o~f-road vehicles and vandalism. It will also
provide the funding for conservatlon activities such as restoration o~ Iow grade
habitat areas.
10. Approximately $50,000 per year will be obtained through Interim ~undlng
paid by land owners wl+hln the area for preliminary habltat restoration activi-
ties, native plant seeding and species population monitoring and other habitat
enhancing and monltorlng activities. It is antlclpated that the amount of
permanent annual funding will ultlmately be in excess of $60,000.
11. The planned Terrabay development will provide for the upgrading of +he
storm dralnage system presently handling runoff from San Bruno Mountain. The
present system ls subject to perlodlc overflows In Colma Creek and ls the source
of perlodlc flooding of Highway 101. The Improvements to this system to be
constructed by the Terrabay developer will alleviate these problems. Without
the proposed project, development o~ Terrabay would be uncertain, and the
contemplated Improvements to the storm drainage system could not occur.
12. The proposed project would repalr landslide areas which carry the
potential of failure. As long as the slide areas remain unrepalred, a threat
to the safety of persons and property would exist below the toe of the slide
areas. These slide areas presently represent a threat to proposed improvements
-5-
below the toe o~ the slide. Slide repalr would ellmlna+e thls potential threat
tO public safety.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly Introduced and
adopted by the City Council o~ the City o~ South San Francisco at a r~eqular
meeting held on the lOth day o~ Jul.y , 19 8~5, by the ~ol lowing vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Richard A. Haffes, Gus Nic,01opulos; and
Robert~ ~erri Tealia
NOES:
ABSENT:
Cn,,nc. ilmBi~hp.r ~la/'k N~ Addiego
Couq¢ill-mmh~r Fmnn.~lm N. Ilnmnrkt. p
City Clerk
-6-