Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 46-1985 RESOLUTION NO. 46-85 CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS SUPPORTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SUPPLEMENT FOR THE SOUTH SLOPE GEOTECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO THE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN (14 CAL. ADM. CODE §§15091, 15092 and 15096) RECITALS WHEREAS, it is the policy of the State of 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 Administrative 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 insignificance; 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 provisions of CEQA and the Guidelines and previously certified by the County of San Mateo; and WHEREAS, the City Council supplemented and clarified its findings 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 Guidelines; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 1983, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 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 Mountain Conservation Plan (HCP Agreement); and WHEREAS, geotechnical 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 directly threaten the proposed Terrabay development; and WHEREAS, a site specific amendment to the HCP, HCP Agreement and Section lO(a) permit has been prepared to allow such slide repair work to be perform- ed; 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 Agreement and Section lO(a) permit; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR/EA Supplement is a focused supplement, addressing biological, geological and visual impacts, which are the only new significant environmental impacts of the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Final EIR/EA Supplement, all findings 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 City Council; and WHEREAS, Section 15091 of the Guidelines requires that the City Council make one or more of the following findings prior to approval of a project for which the Final EIR/EA Supplement has been completed, and which identifies one or more significant effects of the project, along with statements of fact supporting each finding: Finding 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects thereof as identi- fied in the Final EIR/EA Supplement. Finding 2 - Such changes or alterations are within the responsi- bility 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 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR/EA Supplement; and WHEREAS, Section 15163 of the Guidelines requires that the City Council consider the previous EIR/EA as revised by the Final EIR/EA Supplement and, for each significant effect 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 following based upon its review and considera- tion of the Final EIR/EA Supplement and other substantial evidence in the record: -2- FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR THE SOUTH SLOPE GEOTECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO THE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN BackCround Statement of F~cts 1. History of. Dev~lopmen~ of the San Bruno Mountain HCP. San Bruno Mountain is a unique ecological island situated in the midst of a metropolitan area. It comprises several biological communities including grass- land, native brushland, woodland, and wetland habitat. These communities support populations of rare plant species and several invertebrate populations, includ- ing two federally listed rare and endangered invertebrate species, the Mission Blue and San Bruno Elfin butterflies. 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 mid-1970's, a number of proposals to develop the lower slope of San Bruno Mountain were made by various private development interests. At the time the proposals were made, there existed a well-documented, County-wide need for housing, a need which continues to this day. Approval of such development, however, was precluded by the presence of the two federally listed butterflies described above. An amendment to the Federal Endangered Species Act was sought, and obtained, which authorizes the incidental taking of endangered species, in conjunction with development, pursuant to a Section lO(a) permit issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. A condition of such a permit is the submission of a Habitat Conservation Plan, supported by a biological study, establishing that the affected species will not be jeopardized. In order to allow development on San Bruno Mountain to proceed, thus achieving the im- portant public objective of alleviating a critical housing shortage while providing for the maximum protection and long range conservation of the en- dangered species on San Bruno Mountain, an HCP was prepared and a Section lO(a) permit obtained. The HCP and the Section lO(a) permit were based on an environ- mental assessment embodied in a combined EIR/EA. This EIR/EA certified by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors on September 14, 1982, is the base document to which the Final EIR/EA Supplement is a supplement. -3- 2. FUnction of the San Bruno Mountain HCP. In order to obtain the necessary information to develop an HCP for.San Bruno Mountain, an intensive two year biological survey of the Mountain was performed in 1980 and 1981, as described in detail in the EIR/EA. The specific objective of the. survey was to determine the population and habitat distributioD of two butterfly species on the Mountain. These species, the endangered Mission Blue (Plebejus .~carioides missionensis) and the Callippe Silverspot (Speyerla callippe callippe), live pri- marily within the grassland portions of the Mountain. The San Bruno Elfin was not a sub.4~ct of the biological survey since the habitat of the San Bruno Elfin is located within the San Bruno Mountain State and County Parks and is not impacted by any pro- posed development. The San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) was based on.this biological survey. The HCP establishes a program for conserving the ecology of the mountain. The two major objectives of the HCP are (1) miti- gation for the taking of Mission Blue butterflies associated with a certain amount of habitat loss to development.and (2) conserva- tion,.restoration and enhancement of the ecological value of all the open space remaining on the mountain. (See EIR/EA, p. III- 15) The HCP specifies areas where development is permitted and areas which will remain as permanent open space. For each de- velopment area, the HCP establishes a.line showing the extent of grading and incidental takings of endangered species allowed under the Section 10(a) Permit. These limits were based on plans submitted during preparation of the HCP. The HCP provides specific and general mitigation measures for the short term designed to minimize the impact of construc- tion 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 result in some increased risk of extinction of.the species on San Bruno Mountain. This increased risk of extinction in the short term is off- set by long term mitigation measures in the HCP intended to re- verse long term habitat degradation which presently threatens the 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 particularly 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 HCP was reviewed by U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which must determine whether any federally protected species will be jeopardized by proposed'development. The Service may issue a Section 10(a) permit only if it finds that proposed development will not jeopardize 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 Section 10(a) Permit. 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. -5- The Southeast Ridge planning area is characterized by'~teep '- slopes and contains the majority'of the Mission Blue and 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 essential habitat area. The initial approach to the upper slopes of the Southeast Ridge is to leave them untreated, possibly using'bruSh management at a later stage. In development areas, grading will be mini- mized, erosion prevention implemented, fire and vandalism control 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 of annual grasses. 4. ~errabay Development. The South SlOpe development, known as Terrabay (HCP Admini- strative Parcel 2-04), a proposed residential and commercial project, is located on the south slope of San Bruno Mountain, within the Southeast Ridge planning area. The Terrabay Specific Plan was approved by San Mateo County and the City of South San Francisco in November 1982. The Terrabay development provides residential and commercial land uses. The residential uses are grouped 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 selected to carry out the objectives and policies of the Housing Element of the South San Francisco general plan.. Included within the residential areas are the following community related facilities: al firehouse, kiddie park/child care centez'~ and a recreation center complex which -6- includes a swimming pool, a multi'use room, outdoor tennis courts, and a basketball court. The commercial development in- cludes an 18-story 400 room hotel, a 268,800 sq. ft. office building, a 57,500 sq. ft. four-story condominium office build- ing, a 18,000 sq. ft. health club, and three restaurants. The Terrabay development has been designed to provide for a substantial balance of cut and fill within the boundaries to eliminate the need for major fill import or export. Adoption of an alternate plan requiring significant importation of fill would significantly increase the cost of the project (approximately $6 to $7 per yard for each cubic yard of fill importation required) and cause adverse environmental impacts. Importation of fill in the standard 20 yard truck will significantly enhance traffic impacts during the course of construction, and create impacts in the area from which the fill 'is obtained, impacts which cannot be quantified until such site or ~ites have been identified. The balanced cut and fill aspect of the Terrabay plan was deemed to be a critical and controlling element of project feasibility by the developer and the City of South San Francisco. Development on the South Slope in the Terrabay Project area cannot be under- taken without construction of major infrastructure improvements for roads, storm drainage and other public improvement fea- tures. Due to the unique nature of the site and its relationship' to other areas within the City of South San Francisco, these infrastructure costs are relatively fixed, regardless of the size and character of the proposed development. In order for the Project to include housing units calculated to carry out the goals and policies of the Housing Element of the general plan of the City of South S~n Francisco and, at the same time, to provide sufficient funds to defray the infrastructure costs, it is not feasible for the Project to include a significantly reduced hum- . bet of units since significant reduction of unit count will not significantly reduce infrastructure requirements. 5. T~e Proposed Amendment to the HCP~ HCP ~greement and Section lO(a) Permit. After HCP approval, detailed geotechnical studies and on-site testing per- formed for the Terrabay Development revealed the extent of landslide repair which would be necessary above the designated development area. Without land- slide repair, development of Terrabay in a manner consistent with the approved Specific Plan cannot proceed. The current HCP, HCP Agreement and Section lO(a) permit does not allow taking of endangered species in designated preserved habitat areas as shown in the HCP. Since the landslide zones are within areas planned for dedication as preserved habitat, the developer is required to seek an amendment to the HCP, the HCP Agreement, and the Section lO(a) Permit before the slide repair activities can commence. Consultation with parties to the HCP and other interested parties led to the conclusion that the concept of a "generic" geotechnical amendment applicable to all lands subject to the HCP pre- sented difficulties and would not be supported by various interested parties. Consequently, a site-specific geotechnical amendment to the HCP, Section lO(a) permit and HCP Agreement has been prepared. The proposed geotechnical repair applies only to the Terrabay development and will not affect any other develop- ment areas on San Bruno Mountain. The Final EIR/EA Supplement is a supplement to the EIR-EA prepared to support the issuance of the Section lO(a) Permit and implementation of the HCP, certified by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors on September 14, 1982. As with that document, San Mateo County is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Responsible agencies include the cities of South San Francisco, Daly City, and Brisbane. The Final EIR/EA Supplement also covers the issuance of a grading and encroach- ment permit by the County of San Mateo and the issuance of a grading permit for slide repair by the City of South San Francisco. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Proposed project is a site-specific amendment to the HCP, the HCP Agree- ment 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 pre- vious EIR/EA adequately apply to the proposed amendments to the HCP, HCP Agreement and Section lO(a) Permit. The physical aspect of the Proposed Pro- ject involves geotechnical repair of existing landslides which directly 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. Landsides 1.1, 1.2 --8-- and 1.3 are located above Neighborhoods A and B. Landslide 2 is located above Neighborhood C. Landslide 3 is locatd 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 of engineered backfill, retaining 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 of supplemental EIR/EA, p.86). CEQA and NEPA requires analysis of alternatives to a Proposed Project in order to study environmental effects 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 studying 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 conventional excava- tion and backfill method of slide 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." Alternative 2. Preferred Alternative - Proposed Project: Under Alternative 2, the specific plan would be modified to reduce the heights of vertical cuts by the importation of additional 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 ft.), and 6 (80 ft.). All other landslides would be removed and replaced with engineered fill. A total of 24 units would be eliminated 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 geotechnical engineers for one year prior to a decision to proceed with construction. The grading would be unbalanced requiring 66,000 cubic yards of material to be imported. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED PROJECT Alternatives to the Proposed Project were identified and evaluated in the Draft and Final EIR/EA Supplement. Following is a description of each alternative. -9- ALTERNATIVE 1: Under Alternative 1, all existing landslides would be removed and replaced with engineered fill. No housing ~nits would be eliminated and the grading would be balanced, i.e., all earth materials would be collected onsite and no im- portation of soils would be required. The height of maximum cuts would be 46 to 48 feet. ~hree retaining walls.would be con- strutted to hold landslide areas 4.2 (il0 ft.), 5 (80 ft.) and 6 (80 ft.) in the commercial area. Alternative 1 would result in ~ major disturbance of 34.5 acres of preserved habitat, 10 acres ~ more than the Proposed Project. An additional 0.25% of the total' 'Mission Blue population on San Bruno Mountain will be taken above 'that of the Proposed Project. From a biological standpoint, therefore, the Proposed Project is environmentally superior to Alternative 1. There would be a greater visual impact than with the Proposed Project since the additional engineered backfill of Slides 1.1 and 1.3 would resul~ in a larger area having an arti- ficial appearance. From a visual standpoint, therefore, the Proposed Project is environmentally superior to Alternative 1. Alternative 3: .Under Alternative 3, the Specific Plan would be modified to reduce the heights of'vertical cuts by 12 to 16 feet by the importation of additional fill material. Five retaining walls would 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.). Ail other landslides would be removed and replaced with engineered fill. A total of 23 units would be eliminated 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 geotechnical engineers f~r one year prior to a decision to proceed with construction. Alternative 3 would result in the same major disturbance to pre- served habitat as the Proposed Project, and thus, the same bio- logica! impacts would result. -10- Overall grading under this' alternative, however, would require importation of 261,000rcubic yards of fill due to a grading imbalance. This would require 13,050 round trips (assuming a 20-yar~ truck), resulting in in- creased traffic impacts. Alternative 4: Under Alternative 4, the Specific Plan would be modified to reduce the heights of vertical cuts. Five retaining walls would be constructed to hold portions of landslide 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 en- gineered fill. A total of 43. units would be eliminated from the d~velopment is more 'than under the Proposed Project. Alternative 4 would result, in a net dJ~turbance to preserved habitat of 7.1 acres less than the Proposed Project. The impact on th~ Mission Blue would be reduced from 3.02% to 2.77% of the total San Bruno Mountain population. From 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 Proposed Project. Alternative 4 would require importation of 146,000 cubic yards of .fill due to a grading imbalance, requiring 7,300 round trips (assuming a 20-yard · truck), resulting in increased traffic impacts over the Proposed Project. Alternative 4 would add $800,000 to construction costs required for implementation of the Proposed Project. There would be 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 reduce the heights of vertical cuts by the impor- tation of additional fill material. Six retaining walls would constructed to hold portions of landslides 1.1 (210 ft.), 1.3 (200 ft.), 2 (655 ft.), 4.2 (110 ft.), 5 (80 ft.) and and 6 (80 ft.). .All other landslides would be removed and replaced with -11- engineered fill. A total of 24 units would be eliminated 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 geotechnical engineers for one year prior to a decision to proceed with construction. Alternative 5 would result in a net disturbance to preserved habitat of 8.8 acres less than that caused by the Proposed Proj- ect. The impact on the Mission blue would be reduced from 3~02% to 2.92% of the total San Bruno MOuntain population. From' a biological standpoint, therefore, Alternative 5 is environ- mentally superior to the Proposed Project, but does not substan- tially reduce the impact to the Mission Blue under the Proposed Project. The use of a retaining wall on Slide 2 would reduce the visual impacts of this. alternative over that of the Proposed Project, but visual impacts from repair of Slides 1.2, 3, 4.1 and 7 will remain~ From a visual standpoint, therefore, Alterna- tive 5 is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project, but does not substantially reduce the visual impact under the Pro- posed Project~ Alternative 5 would require the important of 53,000 cubic yards of fill due to a grading imbalance. 'This importation would require 2,650 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 replaced with engineered fill. A total of 24 units would be eliminated from the development. Building permits for 19 units on the upper elevations of Neighborhood B would be held in abeyance to allow -12- this' area to be reviewed in detail by geotechnical engineer~ for one year prior to a decision to proceed with. construction. Alternative 6 would result in' a net disturbance to preserved habitat of 6.6 acres less than the Proposed Project. The impact on the Mission blue would be reduced from 3.02% to 2.87% of the total San Bruno mountain population. From a biological stand- point, therefore, Alternative 6 is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project, but does not substantially reduce the im- pact to the mission Blue under the Proposed Project. The use of a retaining wall on Slide 3 will reduce the visual impacts of this alternative over that of the Proposed Project, but visual 'i~pacts from repair'Slides 1.2, 2, 4.1 and 7 will remain. From visual standpoint, therefcu;e, 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 of the Pro- posed Project. Alternative 7: Under this alternative, the specific plan would be modified to reduce the heights of vertical cuts by the impor- tation of additional fill material. Seven retaining walls would be constructed to hold portions of landslides 1.1 (210 ft.), 1.3 (200 ft.), 2 (655 ft.), 3 (530 ft.), 4.2 (110 ft.), 5 (80 ft.) and 6 (80 ft.). All other landslides would b~ removed or re- placed with engineered fill. A total of 24 units would be elimi- nated 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 geotechnical eh- gineers for struction. one year prior to a decision to proceed with con- Alternative 7 would result in a net disturbance of 12.8. acres less than the Proposed Project. Impact to the ~T~sion'- Blue will be reduced from 3.02% to 2.77% of the total San Bruno Mountainpopulation. From a biological standpoint, therefore, Alternative 7 is environmentally superior to the'Proposed Proj- ect, 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 visual impacts of this alternative over that of the Proposed Project, but visual impacts from re- .pairs of Slides 1, 2, 4ol and 7 will remain. From a visual standpoint, therefore, Alternative 7 is environmentally superior to'the Proposed Project, but does not substantially reduce the .~sual impact under'the Proposed Project. Alternative 7 will require the importation o~.46,000 cubic yards of fill due to a grading imbalance. This importation would require 2,300 round trips (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 by the impor- tation of additional fill material. Five retaining walls would 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 Slide 2 above Neighborhood 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 by 81 units, 57 more than under the Proposed Project. 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 geotechnical engineers for one year prior t° a decision to pro- ceed with construction. Alternative 8 would result in a net disturbance of 16.9 acres leSs. than the Proposed Project. -14- Impact to the Mission Blue will be reduced from 3.02% to 2.62% ofrtbe 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 Proposed Project, but does not substantially reduce the.impact to the Mission Blue or Callippe'Silverspot under the Proposed Project. The election not to repair Slide 2 would reduce the visual pacts of this alternative over that of the Proposed Project, but visual impacts from repair of Slides 1o2, 3, 4.1 and 7 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 yards of fill due to a grading imbalance. This importation would re- quire 1,250 round trips (assuming a 20-yard truck). Alternative 8 would result in a reduction of construction costs of 1,2 million from that of the Proposed Project. Alternative 9: Under this alternative., the Specific Plan would be modified to reduce the heights of vertical cuts by the impor- tation of additional fill material. Five retaining walls would 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.). Ail 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. Two Hundred and Twenty 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 allo~ this area to be reviewed in detail by geotechnical engineers for one year prior to a decision to proceed with construction. Alternative 9 would result in a net disturbance of 37.7 acres less than the Proposed. Project. Impact to the Mission Blue will be reduced from 3.02% to 2.37% of the total San Bruno Mountain population. Impact to the Call~ppe silverspot will be reduced from 0.45% to 0.43% of the San Bruno mountain population° From a biological standpoint, therefore, Ai~ernative 9 is environmentally superior to the'Proposed Project, but does not substantially reduce the impact to the mission Blue or Callippe Silverspot from that of · the Proposed Project. The election not to repair Slides 2 and 3 would reduce the visual impacts over that of the Proposed Proj- ect, but visual impacts from repair of Slides 1, 2, 4.1 and 7 w6uld remain. From 'a visual standpoint, therefore, Alternative 9 is environmentally superio~ to the Proposed Project, but does not substantially reduce the visual impact 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), re- sulting in increased traffic impacts. Alternative 9 would add $500,000 tO the construction cost above that of the Proposed Project. Alternative 10: Under this' alternative, the specific plan would be modified to reduce the heights of vertical cuts by the impor- tation of additional fill material. Four retaining walls would 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.). Ail other landslides would be removed and replaced wit~ engineered fill except for Slides 1.!, 1.2, 2 and 3 above Neighborhoods A, C, F and G, which would not be repaired. Three Hundred and Ninety Three (393) units in Neighborhoods~A, C, F and G would be nated~ reducing the total development by 417 units. 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 geotechnical engineers for one year prior to a decision'- to procee~ 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% of the total San Bruno Mountain population. Impact to the Callippe Silverspot will be reduce~ 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 portion of- Slide 1.2 would reduce the visual impacts over that of the Pro- posed Projects, but visual impacts from repairs of Slides 4.1, 7 a~d a portion of slide 1.2 will remain. Alternative 10 would require the import of 311,.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 impacts. Alternative 10 would result in a reduction of construc~ tion cost of $3.4 million from that of the PropoSed Project. Alternative 11: This alternative is the "no project" alternative requ.ired by CEQA. Under this alternative the specific plan would be modified to reduce the heights of vertical cuts by the import- ation of additional fill material. '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- hoods A, C, F and. G, Four Hundred and Six (406) units, and 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 5~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 pro~eed with con- struction. Alternative 11 would result in a net disturbance of 70 acres less th~n 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 st'andpoint, 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 superior to the Proposed Project. Alternatige 11 will require the impor- tation of 239,000 cubic yards of fill due to a grading im- balance. This importation will require-Il,990 round trips (assuming a 20-ton truck)~ resulting in increased traffic im- pacts. Alternative'I1 would result in a reduction of $7.9 million from the construction 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 identified 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 amendment to the HCP would not be required. Redesign would require amendment of the Specific Plan and the existing Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance, with all of the time 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 remaining neighborhoods. ~y such mid= or high-rise development would conflict with the Existing Specific Plan for Te~rabay and would likely be in conflict with the Housing Element of the South San Francisco General Plan. -18- 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 requiring high-rise or mid-rise construction or a form of construction which would require construction of significant subgrade parking facilities. PRELIMINARY FINDING WITH RESPECT TO THE EIR/EA FOR THE HCP The Final EIR/EA Supplement is a focused supplement addressing biological, geological and visual impacts after initial study determined that biological, geological and visual impacts were the only impacts of slide repair requiring further study. The project involves the readjustment of the established HCP line to allow landslide repair in an area previously designated as preserved habitat. The areas designated for permanent disturbance will not be affected. The only impacts which are changed from those considered in the initial EIR/EA for the HCP are the biological, geological and visual impacts. This City Council therefore finds that the remaining environmental impacts considered in the Initial EIR/EA for the HCP, certified by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors on September 14, 1982 are not affected by the Proposed Project, and that the findings made with respect to those other effects, as contained in Resolution No. 25-83 of this Council, dated February 16, 1983, remain valid and in full force and effect. Further, the City Council finds that the Proposed Project is in itself a mitigation for impacts caused by landslides situated above the Terrabay development. Therefore, the Proposed Project will not have a negative geological impact. SUPPLEMENTAL SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN SUPPLEMENTAL EIR/EA The significant impacts associated with the implementation of the HCP were identified in the Initial EIR/EA prepared for the HCP. The findings of this City Council with respect to that EIR/EA, and the mitigation measures inter- preted therein, made by the adoption of Resolution No. 25-83, are incorporated herein by reference. The following sets forth all significant adverse impacts identified in the Initial EIR/EA, which are affected by the Proposed Project, and with respect to each impact makes one or more of the findings set forth hereinabove, states facts in support of such findings and, as appropriate, refers to the Statement of Overriding Considerations which is attached hereto. -19- BIOLOGY ~ignificant I~pact The project will cause the following significant impacts: 1. The Proposed Project (Alternative 2) will result in additional temporary distburbance of approximately 24.5 acres of open space, including grassland and other habitat than that presently allowed by the HCP. With this additional 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 will increase to 135 acres. 2. An undetermined number of Mission Blue butterflies (Plebejus icarioides missionensis), a Federally listed endangered species, will be incidentally taken as a result of grading incidential to landslide repair activity. Approximately 3.02% of the population of the Mission Blue butterfly on San Bruno Mountain will be lost due to construction activities associated with the Terrabay develop- ment, an increase of 0.80% from that presently allowed by the HCP. It is estimated the total impact upon the population of Mission Blue on San Bruno Mountain will be increased from 13.59% to 14.39%. 3. Some habitat of other species of concern to wit: the Golden Aster (Chrysopsis villosa), the Brownie Thistle (Cirsium quercitorum), the Buckwheat (Eriogonum latifoltum), the Harkelia (Horkelia california), and the Silver Lupine (Luptnus albifrons) may be des- troyed incidental to grading for landslide repairs. Finding The City Council of the City of South San Francisco makes findings (1) and (3) as described at page 2 hereinabove and as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 with respect to all of the above identified significant impacts. F~cts in, Support of Finding (1) All mitigation measures incorporated into the HCP to substantially reduce the significant biological impacts associated with implementation of the HCP, as set forth in the findings of this Council in Resolution No. 25-83, remain valid and in full force and effect. The mitigation measures set forth below are specifically directed to the increased biological impacts resulting from -20- the Proposed Project. To the extent that these impacts are not fully mitigated by the mitigation measures imposed in connection with the HCP and approval of the Proposed Project, they are reduced to an acceptable level in light of the overriding considerations. The proposed mitigation measures are applicable to all three of the signi- ficant biological impacts set forth above. These impacts would all occur as a direct result of grading and landslide repair operations in areas presently designated as preserved habitat. The following mitigation measures are adopted to substantially lessen the biological environmental effect of the Proposed Project. (a) Grading for landslide repair will be phased over a two-year period to reduce the number of insects lost in any one given year. Phasing will provide reduction in the short term impact to the species and substantially reduce the severity of the significant impact which would occur if all grading took place in the same year. Phasing refers to the time schedule of development, i.e., the area that can be graded each year. Phasing would provide time to: * Spread the impact of habitat loss over more than one generation/flight season: * Allow for reclamation of previously disturbed areas before new areas are disturbed. -21 - Phasing the project by phasing of grading should have the effect of lessening the short term impact on the Mission Blue. (b) 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 w~ll 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. 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 impacted environment. The four specific mitigation measures above are drawn from mitigation measures provided for in the HCP, and are readopted and reemphasized as being specifically related to the landslide repairs contemplated by the Proposed Project° Strict implementa- tion of these measures will prevent inadvertent incursions into areas of preserved habitat and, thus,'will ensure that any taking of the Mission Blue will not exceed that estimated for the Pro- posed Project. Presence of a qualified biologist will assist in preserving sensitive habitat in areas designated for minor dis- turbance, thereby resulting in the possibility that actual takings of the Mission Blue will be less than that estimated for the Proposed Project. Reclamation of temporarily disturbed areas will restore areas of sensitive habitat for the Mission Blue. The success of such reclamation is supported by the evidence that Mission Blue habitat has been created in road cuts adjacent to Guadalupe Canyon Parkway. Facts In Support of Finding 3 A range of alternatives was considered when developing the Proposed Project. These alternatives are discussed in depth in the Final EIR Supplement, and are summarized beginning at p 11 above. The mitigation measures required with respect to the Proposed Project may be imposed with respect'to each of the various alternatives. Nevertheless, these alternatives are re- jected as infeasible for the reasons set out below. Alternative 1 (see p. 10.) is rejected for the reasons that the Proposed Project is environmentally superior to Alterna- tire 1. ~ Alternative 3 (see p. 10) is rejected 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 which the fill would be obtained. Alternative 4 (see p. 11~) is rejected for the reason that it would entail significant additional traffic impacts due to the requirement to import 146,000 cubic yards of fill and would create as yet undetermined impacts in the area from which the fill would be obtained. Alternative 4 is also economically infeasible as it would require the expenditure of $800,000 more -in construction costs than required for the Proposed Project. Alternative 5 (see p. 11) 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. 12:) is rejected for as economically infeasible for the reason that it would require the expenditure of $700,000 more' in construction costs than required for the Proposed Project. (see p. 13) is rejected as economically Alternative 7 infeasible for the reason that it would result in the expenditure of $1~300,000 more in construction costs than required for the Proposed Project. (see po 14) is rejected as socially infeasi~ Alternative 8 ble for the reason that it would result in the elimination of 81 units from the presently approved Terrabay Specific Plan, ~:hich would conflict with the stated need for housing in the South San Francisco General 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 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 expenditure, of $500,000 more in construction costs than required for the Proposed Project. Alternative 10 (see po 16 ) is rejected as socially infeasible 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 South San Francisco General Plan. Alternative 10 would also entail significant additional traffic impacts due to the require- ment ~to import 311,000 cubic yards of fill and would create as yet undetermined impacts in the area from which the fill would be obtained. Alternative 11 (see p. 17 ) is rejected as socially infeasible for the reason that it would result in the elimination of the 450 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 11 would also entail significant additional 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. Major Redesign Alternative (see p. 18) is rejected as economically infeasible for the reason that it would entail major delays and significant expenditures' for engineering and archi- tectural work in such a redesign~ The developer has stated that, in his opinion, such a redesign may be impossible to finance, build and sell on an economically feasible basis, and that he would be unwilling to proceed with such a development. Further, -25- redesign entailing the transfer of density to a mid- or high-rise development jwould likely conflict with the goals and policies of the South San Francisco General Plan, which contemplates a mix of housing types. 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 balances 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 engineered fill 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 significant impact. -26- T1F Fac~ in S~p~or~gf Findin~ (3) A range of alternatives was considered when developing the Proposed Project. These alternatives are discussed in depth in the Final EIR/EA Supplement, and are summarized above. The mitigation measures required with respect to the Proposed Project may be imposed with respect to each of the various alternatives. Nevertheless, these alternatives are rejected as infeasible for the reasons set out below. Alternative 1 (see p.lO) is rejected for the reasons that the Proposed Project is environmentally superior to Alternative 1. Alternative 3 (see p.lO) is rejected for the reason it is not environ- mentally 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 which the fill would be obtained. Alternative 4 (see p. 11) is rejected for the reason that it would entail significant additional traffic impacts due to the requirement to import 146,000 cubic yards of fill and would create as yet undetermined impacts in the area from which the fill would be obtained. Alternative 4 is also eco- nomically infeasible as it would require the expenditure of $800,000 more -27- '1 '~ ] TE in construction costs than required for the Proposed Project~ Alternative 5 (see p. 11) 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. 12") is rejected for as economically infeasible for the reason that' it would require the expenditure 'of $700,000 more in construction costs than required for the Proposed Project. Alternative 7 (see p. 13) is rejected as economically infeasible for the reason that it would result in the expenditure of $1,300,000 more in construction costs than, required for the Proposed Project. Alternative 8 '(see p. 14) ' is rejected as socially-infeasi- ble for the reason that it would result in the 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) is 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 in construction costs than required for the Proposed Project. Alternative 10 (see 9.' 16) is rejected as socially infeasible 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 ~lso -28- entail significant additional traffic impacts due to the 'r~auire--- ment to import 311,000 cubic yards of fil1 and would create as yet undetermined impacts in the area from which the fill would be obtained. Alternative 11 (see po ]7) is rejected as socially infeasible for the reason that it would result in the elimination of the 450 units from the presently approved Terrabay Specif~.c Planv which would conflict with .the stated need for housing in the South San'Francisco General Plan. Alternative 1i would also entail significant additional 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. Major Redesign Alternative (see p. ]8 ) is 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 that, in his opinion, such a redesign may be impossible to finance~ build and 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 develop- ment would likely conflict with the goals and policies of the South San Francisco General Plan, which contemplates a mix of housing types. In addition, the overriding economic, social and other con- siderations, as enumerated in' the Statement of Overriding Consi- derations, provide additional facts in support of finding Any remaining unavoidable significant effect is.acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth above and in the Statement -29- of Overriding Considerations. 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 27th day of Februar~v , 19 85_, by the fol lowing vote: AYES: Councilmembers Emanuel_e N. Damonte, Richard A. Haffe~, G. us Nicolopulos; a_nd Roberta. Cerri Te,qlia Counc_ilmember Mark N. Addiego _ NOES: ABSENT: -30-