HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 76-2006
RESOLUTION NO. 76-2006
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE PHASE II WET
WEATHER PROGRAM GENERALLY LOCATED WEST
OF THE 101 FREEWAY
WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco proposes to undeliake a nun1ber of
in1provelnents to sewer pipes in pOliions of the con1l11unity to n1eet San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board water quality standards; and
WHEREAS, underground sewer pipes are proposed to be replaced within the following
public streets: Hillside Boulevard, Portola Avenue, Francisco DIive, Victory Avenue, Del
Monte Avenue, Westborough Boulevard, Can1aritas Avenue, First Street, B Street, Airport
Boulevard, Cypress Avenue, South Linden Avenue, Mission Road and South Maple Avenue.
Sewer pipes are also proposed to be replaced in vaIious public utility easelnents and within a
portion of Orange MelnoIial Park; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study to assess the potential envirOlunental
ilnpacts of the proposed proj ect consistent with the California EnvirOlunental Quality Act
(CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared a Mitigated
Negative Declaration dated July 2006 (attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference
herein) and circulated the h1itial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for public review for a
30-day period between August 1 and Septelnber 1,2006; and
WHEREAS, the City received one COlmnent letter duIing the public review period. The
conunent letter and response is attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Staff Report, the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, COlm11ents on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the response thereto at a
regular City Councillneeting held on Septelnber 27, 2006; and
WHEREAS, a Mitigation MonitoIing and Reporting Progratn, as required by CEQA, is
contained in attached Exhibit C, and is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the docmnents which constitute the record of
proceedings for the project is the City of South San Francisco, EngineeIing Division, 315 Maple
Avenue, South San Francisco, CA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby finds as follows:
A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.
B. The potential envirolnnental effects of the Phase II Wet Weather project have been
analyzed in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, which detennined that the
proj ect will not have a significant effect on the envirolunent with the application of
Initigation n1easures identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
These n1itigation n1easures are also reflected in the Mitigation Monitoring and Repoliing
Progrmn, which ensures that mitigations will be in1plen1ented at the proper time by the
appropriate agency or departlnent. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole
record before the City that the proj ect as Initigated could have a significant effect on the
envirolunent.
C. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed in cOlnpliance
with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines.
D. The h1itial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is con1plete and adequate and reflects the
City's independent jud~nent as to the envirOlunental effects of the Phase II Wet Weather
project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that based on the aforementioned findings, the City
Council hereby adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Phase II Wet Weather
project, consisting of Exhibits A and B, as descIibed heretofore and incorporated herein by
reference.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Progran1 as set forth in Exhibit C, which is incorporated herein by
reference,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager is hereby authoIized to execute the
Agreement on behalf of the City of South San Francisco.
*
*
*
*
*
I hereby celiify 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 Septelnber 2006 by the following vote:
AYES:
Councihnelnbers Mark N. Addiego. Pedro Gonzalez and Karyl Matsun10to.
and Mayor Joseph A. Fen1ekes
NOES:
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Vice Mayor Richard A. Garbarino
ATTEST:
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Phase II Wet Weather Project
Lead Agency:
City of South San Francisco
Prepared By:
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner
July 2006
Exhibit A
Table of Contents
Introduction ........... ........ .................. .......... ..... .......................................... ... ........... .......2
Applicant/ Contact Person. ....... ........... ..... ........ ...... ...................................... ............ ...2
Project Location and Context ......... ....... ...... ........ .................. ...... ........ ........................2
Project Description........................................................................................................2
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ....................... .......... ............ ....... ....... ..10
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .......................................................................12
Attachment to Initial Study... ...... ............ ............. ................................... .......... ... .......24
1. Aesth.etics .... .......... ......... ............. .............. ............................. .............. ..24
2. Agricultural Resources.. ...................... ......... ........ ............................. ...24
3. Air Quality.. ........... ......................... .............................. ..... ................... .25
4. Biological Resources........................... .... ................... ........... .............. ..30
5. Cultural Resources...................................... ................... ......... .......... ....33
6. Geology and Soils........ ...... ................................................. ......... ......... .39
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.. .... .................... ........... .............. ..41
8. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................43
9. Land Use and Planning.... ............ .................................... .............. .... ..45
10. Mineral Resources ........ ............. ...... ........ .... ......................... ............... ..47
11. Noise .. ......... .... ............... .... .... ........ ...... ... ........ ....... ............................. ....47
12. Population and Housing. .................. ........................ ....... .................. ..49
13. Public Services... ............ ...... ....... ..... .......................... ............. ....... ...... ..52
14. Recreation..... ........................... ..... ...... ........... ................ ............... ...... ....52
15. Transportation/ Traffic .................. ........................ ...... .... ........... ........ ..52
16. Utilities and Service Systems.... ............ .................. ........... .......... ........54
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................55
16. Alternatives .............. .......... .............. ......... ................... ..... .......... .......... .56
Initial Study Preparers..... ....................... ......... ........ ............ ....... .... ............... ............ ...57
Agencies and Organizations Consulted ..................................... ........... ............... .....57
References................................................................... ................................................... .57
Appendix 1........ .......... .......... ...... ............ ............. ...... ............ .......................... ........... ...58
Appendix 2.................................................................................................................... .59
Appendix 3.................................................................................................................... .60
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Checklist/
Initial Study
Introduction
This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and assesses the potential environmental impacts
of implementing the proposed project described below. The Initial Study consists of a
completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the environmental topics
addressed in the checklist.
Applicant/Contact Person
City of South San Francisco
Public Works Department
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco CA 94083
Attn: Ray Razavi, City Engineer
Project Location and Context
The project is sited in the central portion of South San Francisco within San Mateo
County. The proposed project includes a number of related construction improvements
located west of US 101. Most of the proposed improvements are located within existing
roadway rights-of-way. Other improvements would occur within dedicated easements.
Exhibit 1 depicts the regional setting of South San Francisco and Exhibit 2 shows the
location of project components in context with the larger City of South San Francisco.
Land uses adjacent to proposed improvements are generally residential, industrial or
commercial in nature.
Project Description
Project history and background
The City of South San Francisco provides a comprehensive sanitary sewer system to
serve the community. Major components of this system include sewer laterals and
trunks to collect wastewater from individual dwellings, businesses and industrial
operations and transport this effluent to the City's Water Quality Control Plan (WQCP)
located at the terminus of Belle Air Road, east of US 101. A number of pump stations
are also maintained by the City to ensure that effluent maintains a continuous flow to
the WQCP. Following treatment at the WQCP, treated effluent is disposed of in San
Francisco Bay via an outfall pipe.
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 2
The WQCP is presently operating under a Cease and Desist Order issued by the San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board in 1997. The Order notes that Plant
equipment is dated and no longer complies with current discharge requirements. The
Order also notes that the wastewater collection system (sewer system) receives high
inflows during the rainy season of each year. This is due to older, leaky pipes and
various cross-connections between storm drains and the sewer system. Because of this,
the system is inadequate to convey sewage during the rainy season. The Order
establishes milestones to be met by the plant operator to comply with state and federal
discharge requirements into San Francisco Bay.
The City completed construction of WQCP improvements in May, 2002. The project
upgraded treabnent processes and provided peak wet weather flow facilities. The dry
weather capacity of the upgraded plant is 13.0 mgd. The completed project did not,
however, include upgrade of deficiencies associated with the local sewage collection
system.
In addition, several portions of the City's sewer system in the East of 101 geographic
area of the City were identified as older and in need of replacement. This includes older
pumping stations and underground sewer lines. Phase V of the W et Weather Program
remediated many of these older facilities in 2003~04.
Proposed improvements
The current project is identified as the Wet Weather Phase II project and is intended to
replace older underground sewer pipes that have been identified as failing or are
anticipated to fail in the near future.
The proposed project is not intended to increase the overall wastewater treabnent
and/ or disposal capacity of the City's wastewater treabnent plant. Localized
wastewater collection facilities may be increased in size to replace existing failing
facilities and to accommodate proposed expansion of local business in accord with the
South San Francisco General Plan.
Wet weather project components
Proposed Phase II Improvements include the following specific portions of South San
Francisco. Unless otherwise noted, sewer pipe replacements would be accomplished by
pipe "bursting," which is a technology that does not require full trenching of the
ground above the pipe, but is a process whereby a cone-shaped bursting head is forced
into an existing pipe, expanding the surrounding soil allowing the insertion of a new
pipe of desired size. Typically, for this technology, excavation is required at either end
of the affected pipe, at manholes and laterals.
. Hillside Subtrunk. This portion of the project would include replacing an existing
8-inch diameter sewer pipe with a 12-inch diameter pipe within the Hillside
Avenue right-of-way. The length of the pipe is anticipated to be approximately
900 feet.
. Westborough Subtrunk. This portion of the project would include replacing an
existing 8-inch diameter pipe along Del Monte Avenue from Nyla Avenue to
Arroyo Drive with a 12-inch diameter pipe. Replacement IS-inch diameter pipes
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 3
would also be placed in Arroyo Drive from Del Monte to an existing public
utilities easement just west of Camaritas Avenue within this Public Utilities
Easement from Arroyo Drive to Westborough Boulevard, and in Westborough
Boulevard from this Public Utilities Easement to and continuing in a second
easement paralleling Westborough Boulevard to EI Camino Real, crossing EI
Camino real, a City of San Francisco Public Utility Commission water main and
BART, proceeding to Chestnut Street to the existing sewer trunk line in Mission
Boulevard. The last three portions of this sub trunk would replace and existing
12-inch diameter pipe.
An alternative alignment for the segments downstream of Del Monte Avenue is
being investigated and is likely to be adopted. This alignment would continue
the Arroyo Drive segment, within Arroyo Drive from the above-indicated public
utilities easement which is just west of Camaritas Avenue, to EI Camino Real,
crossing EI Camino Real and proceeding within the proposed Oak Avenue
extension right-of-way to Mission Road.
One of the benefits of this alternative routing is to avoid work in the easement
behind existing commercial uses, including a bank and gas station/ car wash.
This alternative alignment would not be using existing mains for pipe bursting
and would require open trenching. The existing sewer line in Mission Road from
Oak Avenue to Chestnut Street may also be upsized using pipe bursting
technology.
. First Street Subtrunk. This portion of the project would include replacing existing
sewer pipes in First Street from EI Camino Real to the San Francisco Water
Department right-of-way, then splitting with a portion of the replacement line
extending along a portion of B Street turning northeast and ending along a short
stretch of Second Street terminating at the San Francisco Water Department
right-of-way. A portion of the First Street subtrunk would extend through the
San Francisco Water Department easement and through the City of South San
Francisco's Orange Memorial Park.
. Airport Subtrunk. The Airport Subtrunk would include replacement of older
sewer pipes within Airport Boulevard, Baden Avenue and Linden Avenue as
shown on Exhibit 3.
. Portola and Victory Subtrunks. These portions of the project would include
upgrading sewer lines in Portola Avenue from El Camino Real to Francisco
Drive and in a portion of Francisco Drive from Portola Avenue to Sonora
Avenue. A second portion of this sub trunk would include sewer pipe
replacement in Victory Avenue from South Spruce Street to South Linden
A venue. An alternative to this second portion of the project may be to trench a
new sewer line in South Maple Avenue to Victory Boulevard approximately
1,000 feet southerly to an existing sewer line in an existing public utility
easement.
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 4
Phasing of improvements
The proposed project is anticipated to be phased over two construction seasons,
beginning construction early 2007, assuming all necessary approvals are granted and
funding is approved.
Proposed funding
Funding of the wet weather improvement portion of the project is proposed to be
through the California State Water Resources Control Board's State Revolving Loan
Fund loan program. This will consist of a low interest, 20-year term loan, to be re-paid
from City-wide sewer revenues.
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 5
8
N
'"
.0
~
.2
'0
(J
~
Q
<!
..
'"
~
1:;
"'
.~
~
~
~
a
Exhibit 1
REGIONAL LOCATION
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
WET WEATHER PROJECT PHASE II
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
N
!
A
o
I
2
,
4
.
6
,
8
,
10 miles
I
r-TiI
I I ~11
I .
CIJ
Z
o
~
N ()
- 0
:.c ...J
1:
)( t-
W ()
W
..,
o
a:
a..
l:j
~
?J5
~
~
~l
c
Z ...5 ~
Ow
0(1)
(/)<Z
o:I:2
ZQ.~
<t-cr;
a:: 0 <
u..W..J
Z-:l@
<00
(/)8:~
:I:a::~
I-WO
:;):I:w
~~~
u..WW
03l:~
>....S2
I-W....
o3l:SE
Ui
~
o
<J)
~
Z
::)
It:
Cll to-
M m
- ::)
:0 en
:E w
~ c
en
..J
..J
-
J:
Ow
(.)00
OOc(Z
-::J:O
(.)D.-
Z ~
c(1-a:
a:(.)<
LLW..J
Z"")(,)
c(O~
ooa:W
D.>
::J: -
I-a:~
::;)WO
O::J:W
oo!ccZ
U.W~
O:=~
>1-0
I-W-
o:=i
Not to Beale
\
SOURCE: City of South San Francisco. 01-04-2006.
(
Exhibit 3b
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
WET WEATHER PROJECT PHASE II
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PORTOlA SUBTRUNK
Not to Bcale
SOURCE: City of South San Francisco, 01-04-2006.
Exhibit 3c
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
WET WEATHER PROJECT PHASE II
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
VICTORY SUBTRUNK
---<r"f'l1
WI -.'I
i
to
8
~
9
a
o
l.l
.C/)
13
c:
~
LC
c:
c)1J
.s
::.
c5l
'"-
o
.0
o
::.&::
Z
:J
a:
?-
m
:J
en
J:
e"
:J
o
a:
o
m
I-
en
w
~
0=
OW
CJ)CJ)
_c:Cz
oJ:O
zD.-
c:C ~
a:1-a:
l.Lo<c
W..J
z"")(.)
c:C~~
CJ)D.W
J:a:2:
I-w~
=>>J:CJ
OL-W
CJ)<z
I.LWC
o;:~
>1-<
I-WS2
-:>1-
O:>:E
ORANGE
MEMORIAL
PARK
7 .0
SOURCE: City of South San Francisco, 01-04-2006.
Exhibit 3e
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
WET WEATHER PROJECT PHASE II
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FIRST STREET SUBTRUNK
SOURCE: City of South San Francisco, 01-04-2006.
Exhibit 31
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
WET WEATHER PROJECT PHASE II
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AIRPORT SUBTRUNK:
Sister Cities to Linden
Not to scale
SOURCE: City of South San Francisco, 01-04-2006.
Exhibit 39
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
WET WEATHER PROJECT PHASE II
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AIRPORT SUBTRUNK:
Linden to Sixth
SOURCE: City of South San Francisco, 01-04-2006.
Exhibit 3h
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
WET WEATHER PROJECT PHASE II
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AIRPORT SUBTRUNK:
Sixth to Commercial
1. Project description:
Upgrading substandard portions of the South San
Francisco sewer collection system to accommodate
peak wet weather sewer flows in the west of 101
portion of the community.
2. Lead agency:
City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Street
South San Francisco CA 94083
3. Contact person:
Ray Razavi, City Engineer
(650) 829- 6652
4. Project location:
Generally located west of US 101 Freeway in the
central and northern portions of South San Francisco
5. Project sponsor:
City of South San Francisco
6. General Plan designation:
Varies: Residential, Commercial, Light Industrial and
Public Use land use designations
7. Zoning:
Varies: Residential, Commercial, Light Industrial and
Public Use districts
8. Public agency required approvals:
. Approval of Negative Declaration (City of South San Francisco)
. Approval of Improvement Plans and Bid results (City of South San
Francisco)
. Encroachment permit for work in US 101 right-of-way (Caltrans)
. Approval of project funding (State Water Resources Control Board)
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 9
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
- Aesthetics - Agricultural x Air Quality
Resources
- Biological x Cultural Resources x Geology /Soils
Resources
x Hazards and - Hydrology / Water x Land Use/
Hazardous Quality Planning
Materials
- Mineral Resources x Noise - Population/
Housing
- Public Services - Recreation x Transportation/
Circulation
- Utilities / Service - Mandatory
Systems Findings of
Significance
Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
_ I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the
environment and the previous Negative Declaration certified for this project by the
City of South San Francisco adequately addresses potential impacts.
--X- I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Negative
Declaration will be prepared.
_ I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect on the
environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets, if the
effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated."
An Environmental Impact Report is required, but must only analyze the effects that
remain to be addressed.
_ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 10
ElR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed
proj ed.
Signatu,,, ,L7 ~;;
Printed Name: Si<.rl/ ;!..,ILJ-..
/
Date: vly, I~. UJO'
For: r;'~ 1/ s.......llch... {;....., (JA ~e 0
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 11
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the
parenthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does
not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault
rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should be explained where it is based on
project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose
sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as
well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and
construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,
then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially
significant, less-than-significant with mitigation, or less-than-significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that
an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant
Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less-than-Significant With Mitigation Incorporated"
applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from
"Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less-than-Significant Impact." The lead
agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce
the effect to a less-than-significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17,
"Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other
CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion
should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identity and state where they are available for
reVIew.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above
checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less- Than-Significant with
Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures
which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist
references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g.
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 12
general plans, zoning ordinances, etc.). Reference to a previously
prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,
include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached and other
sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is a suggested form and lead agencies are free to use different formats;
however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist
that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each agency should identify the significance criteria or
threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question and the mitigation measures
identified, if any, to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 13
Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of
sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist)
Note: A full discussion of each item is found
following the checklist.
I. Aesthetics. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic
vista? (Source: 1,6)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway? (Source: 1,56
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings? (Source: 6)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area? (Source: 6)
II. Agricultural Resources
Would the project:
. a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance, as
showing on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to a non-agricultural use? (Source:
1)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture
use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source:
1)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
farmland to a non-agricultural use? (Source:
1)
III. Air Quality (Where available, the
significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management district
may be relied on to make the following
determinations). Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 2)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation? (Source: 2)
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 14
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors? (2)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? (Source:2, 6)
e) Create objectionable odors? (Source: 2,6)
IV. Biological Resources. Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(Source: 2, 3)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies or regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source:
2,3)
c) Have a substantial adverse impact on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including but not limited to marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption or other
means?
(Source: 2, 3)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? (Source: 2, 3)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as tree
protection ordinances? (Source: 2, 3)
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 15
f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan or other
approved local, regional or state habitat
conservation plan? (Source: 1)
V. Cultural Resources. Would the project
a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 7)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource
pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 7)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or unique geologic
feature? (Source: 7)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of a formal cemetery?
(Source: 7)
VI. Geology and Soils. Would the project
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist or based on other known evidence
of a known fault (Source: 2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (2)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? (2,)
iv) Landslides? (2,6)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? (2, 6)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in
on- and off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or similar hazards
(Source: 2)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 13-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property? (Source: 2)
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitil!ation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase \I Wet Weather
Page 16
e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste?
(Source: 7)
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would
the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport,
use or disposal of hazardous materials
(Source: 7)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous into the environment?
(Source: 7)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Source: 7)
d) Belocated on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites complied
pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5
and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
(Source: 7)
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such plan has not been
adopted, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (Source: 2)
f) For a project within the vicinity of private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (Source: 2)
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with the adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
(Source: 2, 5)
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitie:ation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 17
h) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(Source: 6)
IX. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? (Source: 2, 5)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g. the
production rate of existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted?
(Source: 2, 5)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the aeration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site? (Source: 8, 5)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or areas, including through
the alteration of a course or stream or river,
or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site?
(Source: 5, 6)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff? (Source: 5, 6)
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality? (Source: 5)
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
delineation map? (Source: 2)
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Miti!!:ation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 18
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which impede or redirect flood
flows? (Source: 2)
i) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury, and death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam? (2)
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?
(2)
IX. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
(Source: 1, 2, 6)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect? (Source: 1, 2)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or ;natural community
conservation plan? (1,2,6)
X. Mineral Resources. Would the project
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
(Source: 1, 2)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general Plan, specific
plan or other land use plan? (Source: 1,2)
XI. Noise. Would the proposal result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in
the general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
(Source: 2)
b) Exposure of persons or to generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? (Source: 2, 10)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above
existing levels without the project? (Source:
2,10)
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitieation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 19
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels without the project? (Source:2)
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working n the
project area to excessive noise levels?
(Source: 2)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (Source: 2)
XII. Population and Housing. Would the project
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (Source: 7)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (7)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the replacement of housing
elsewhere? (Source: 7)
XIII. Public Services. Would the proposal:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service rations, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services? (Sources: 1,2,5)
Fire protection
Police protection
Schools
Parks
Other public facilities
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 20
XIV. Recreation:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood or regional facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated
(Source: 2)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Source: 2)
XV. Transportation and Traffic. Would the
project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (Le.
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads or congestion at
intersections)? (2, 5)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the
County Congestion Management Agency for
designated roads or highways? (2)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? (5)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses, such as
farm equipment? (5)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (6)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (6)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or
programs supporting alternative
transportation (such as bus turnouts and
bicycle facilities)
(1)
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitil!ation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 21
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the
project
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board? (2)
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? (2, 5)
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
effects? (5)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing water
entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? (2)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the providers existing
commitments? (5)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs? (2)
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste? (2)
XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number of or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 22
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
X
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects and the
effects of probable future projects).
Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts
1. South San Francisco General Plan
2. South San Francisco General Plan Existing Conditions Report
3. Improvement Plans for Proposed Project
4. Discussion with City staff or service provider
5. Site Visit
6. Other Source
XVII. Earlier Analyses
b
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other
CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration. Reference Section 15063 (c)(3)(d).
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures
for this Initial Study refer to environmental information contained in the General
Plan and General Plan EIR (1999) (SCH#97122030), available for review at the
South San Francisco Planning Deparbnent, 315 Maple Avenue, South San
Francisco, during normal business hours.
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 23
Attachment to Initial Study
Discussion of Checklist
1. Aesthetics
Environmental Setting
The project is set in a largely urbanized portion of the community, characterized by
commercial land uses (along Airport Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard),
industrial uses (along South Linden Avenue and Hillside Drive) residential uses (along
Del Monte Avenue, First Street, Second Street, and Portola Avenue), public uses (along
portions of Arroyo Drive). All of the project area has been developed and no significant
or unusual aesthetic features are found within the project site, including unusual rock
outcroppings or major scenic vistas.
As a largely developed area, a number of light sources exist within the project area,
primarily street and freeway lights, building and yard lights associated with existing
development.
Project Impacts
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? NI. The proposed project
includes subsurface work associated with sewer pipe replacement. No impacts or
changes to scenic vistas would occur should the proposal be implemented.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including state scenic highway? NI. No changes
to scenic resources are proposed, since all of the proposed work is intended to be
subsurface so no impacts are anticipated with regard to this topic.
c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? NI. The project
area has been previously developed for a mix of commercial, industrial,
residential and similar uses. Proposed construction would be below ground.
There would therefore be no impacts to the existing visual character or quality of
the project area.
d) Create light or glare? NI. A number of light sources presently exist within the
project area. Approval and implementation of the proposed project would have
no impact on new sources of light and glare, since new construction would be
below grade. No impacts are anticipated with regard to light and glare.
2. Agricultural Resources
Environmental Setting
The project area has been developed for a number of years for primarily commercial,
residential and light industrial uses. Although underlying soils may support
agriculture, no crops have not been cultivated in many years nor have any portions of
the project area been used for animal grazing. No Williamson Act conservation
agreements have been signed for properties affected by this project, since the great
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 24
majority of the land is owned by public agencies. No agricultural zoning had been
adopted for any portion of the project area by the City of South San Francisco.
Project Impacts
a-c) Convert Prime Farmland, conflict with agricultural zoning or agriculture land use or
convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use? NI. The project area lies in a
highly urbanized area of South San Francisco and there would be no impact with
regard to agricultural uses, zoning or Williamson Act agreements.
3. Air Quality
(Note: This section of the Initial Study is based on an air quality analysis prepared by
Donald Ballanti, an air quality specialist, which is found in the Appendix of this
document.)
Environmental Setting
Air pollution climatology
The amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by the rate of release
and the atmosphere's ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major
determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and, for
photochemical pollutants, sunshine.
Northwest winds are most common in South San Francisco, reflecting the orientation of
wind gaps within the mountains of the San Francisco Peninsula. Winds are persistent
and strong, providing excellent ventilation and carrying pollutants downwind. Winds
are lightest on the average in fall and winter. The persistent winds in South San
Francisco result in a relatively low potential for air pollution. Even so, in fall and winter
there are periods of several days when winds are very light and local pollutants can
build up.
Ambient air quality standards
Both the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board
have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient
air quality standards are levels of contaminants which represent safe levels that avoid
specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality
standards cover what are called "criteria" pollutants because the health and othereffects
of each pollutant are described in criteria documents.
The federal and California ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table 1 for
important pollutants. The federal and state ambient standards were developed
independentl y with differing purposes and methods, although both federal and state
standards are intended to avoid health-related effects. As a result, the federal and state
standards differ in some cases. In general, the California state standards are more
stringent. This is particularl y true for ozone and PMw
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) monitors air quality at
numerous sites within the nine-county District, although not within South San
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 25
Francisco. The closest air monitoring stations are in San Francisco to the north and
Redwood City to the south. In general, the federal ambient air quality standards are met
at these sites, but the more stringent state standards are exceeded for two pollutants:
ozone and particulate matter.
Attainment status and regional air quality plans
The federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act of 1988 require that the State
Air Resources Board, based on air quality monitoring data, designate portions of the
state where the federal or state ambient air quality standards are not met as
"nonattainment areas." Because of the differences between the national and state
standards, the designation of non attainment areas is different under the federal and
state legislation.
The Bay Area is currently a non attainment for I-hour ozone standard. However, in
April 2004, U.S. EPA made a final finding that the Bay Area has attained the national 1-
hour ozone standard. The finding of attainment does not mean the Bay Area has been
reclassified as an attainment area for the I-hour standard. The region must submit a re-
designation request to EP A in order to be reclassified as an attainment area.
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified the San Francisco Bay Area as
a nonattainment area for the federal 8-hour ozone standard. The Bay Area was
designated as unclassifiable/ attainment for the federal PM2.5 standards.
Under the California Clean Air Act San Mateo County is a nonattainment area for ozone
and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.S)' The county is either attainment or unclassified
for other pollutants. The California Clean Air Act requires local air pollution control
districts to prepare air quality attainment plans. These plans must provide for district-
wide emission reductions of five percent per year averaged over consecutive three-year
periods or if not, provide for adoption of "all feasible measures on an expeditious
schedule."
Table 1. Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Federal State
Time Primary Standard
Standard
Ozone I-Hour -- 0.09 PPM
8-Hour 0.08 PPM 0.07 PPM
Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9.0 PPM 9.0 PPM
I-Hour 35.0 PPM 20.0 PPM
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average 0.05 PPM --
I-Hour - 0.25 PPM
Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average 0.03 PPM --
24-Hour 0.14 PPM 0.04 PPM
I-Hour -- 0.25 PPM
PMlO Annual Average 50 -%,/m3 20 -%,/rnJ
24-Hour 150 ~/m3 50 g/m3
PM2.5 Annual 15 -%,/m3 12-%,/mJ
24-Hour 65 -%,/m3 --
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 26
Lead Calendar Quarter 1.5 ~/m3 --
3D Day Average -- 1.5 J!. / m3
Sulfates 24 Hour -- 25 ~ / m3
Hydrogen Sulfide I-Hour -- 0.03 PPM
Vinyl Chloride 24-Hour -- 0.01 PPM
PPM = Parts per Million
--9/m3 = Micrograms per Cubic Meter
Source: California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards (5/17/06)
http://www.arb.ca.gov .aqs/aaqs2. pdf
Toxic air contaminants
In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs)
are another group of pollutants of concern. There are many different types of T ACs,
with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of TACs include industrial processes such as
petroleum refining and chrome plating operations, commercial operations such as
gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle exhaust. Cars and trucks release
at least forty different toxic air contaminants. The most important, in terms of health
risk, are diesel particulate, benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene and acetaldehyde.
Public exposure to T ACs can result from emissions from normal operations, as well as
accidental releases. Health effects of T ACs include cancer, birth defects, neurological
damage and death.
Project Impacts
a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? NI. The San
Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently non-attainment for ozone (state and
federal ambient standards) and particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10)(state ambient
standard). While air quality plans exist for ozone, none exists for particulate
matter. The Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy is the current ozone air quality plan.
The plan contains mobile source controls, stationary source controls and
transportation control measures to be implemented in the region to attain the state
ozone standards within the Bay Area Air Basin.
A project would be judged to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
regional air quality plan if it would be inconsistent with the growth assumptions,
in terms of population, employment or regional growth in Vehicle Miles Traveled.
The Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy utilized the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) Projections 2003 forecasts of population and employment
that are based on city / county general plans.
The project would not conflict with the growth assumptions made in the
preparation of the regional air quality plans nor would obstruct implementation of
control measures contained in the regional air quality plans. The proposed sewer
wet weather improvements would not directly or indirectly induce additional
population or employment growth, so no impact would result.
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 27
Project funding sources may include the State Revolving Loan Fund. Since this
program is partially funded by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, the
project would be subject to the conformity requirements of the Clean Air Act
Amendments. The conformity provisions of the Act are designed to ensure that
federal agencies contribute to, instead of jeopardizing, efforts to achieve the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
The General Conformity rules require conformity determinations for projects if
they generate more emissions than minimum thresholds and are not specifically
exempted by the regulation. The Bay Area is currently a federal non attainment
area for ozone, and the General Conformity rules establish the following "de
minimis" thresholds:
100 tons per year for VOCs
100 tons per year for NOx
The operation of the project would not increase long-term emissions. However,
during construction of the project additional emissions would be generated by
construction equipment and vehicles. These emissions have been estimated for the
entire construction period based on the types and numbers of equipment/ vehicles
and the number of days they would be needed during construction. The emission
factors utilized were taken from the construction module of the URBEMIS-2002
emissions program.
Construction emissions shown in Table 2 are substantially below the "de minimis"
thresholds for ozone precursors established for the region by the Federal Clean Air
Act conformity rules. The proposed project would not interfere with attainment of
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and would not require a conformity
determination.
Table 2. Construction Emissions in Tons Per Year
ROG NOx
Project Construction 0.32 2.42
De Minimis Threshold 100 100
Source: Donald Ballanti, 2006
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 28
Based on the above analysis, there would be no impact with regard to conflicts or
obstruction of implementation of a clean air plan.
b)
Would the project violate any air quality standards? LS/M. Uncontrolled construction
dust has the potential to locally cause exceedances of the state/ federal standards
and/ or contribute significantly to an existing violation. This would be a potentially
significant impact. The dust generating potential of the storm drain improvements
is very limited. The project would not involve grading, earthmoving, clearing or
burning, which are the construction activities with the highest potential for
generating dust.
The BAAQMD significance threshold for construction dust impacts is based on the
appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide
feasible control measures for construction emission of PMw If the appropriate
construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for
construction activities would be considered less-than-significant. Mitigation
Measure 1, below, is required so that the proposed project will meet BAAQMD
standards:
Mitigation Measure 1. The following dust reduction measures shall be
inc~u~ed in construction plans and specifications to control fugitive dust
emISSIOns:
a) Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often
during windy periods; active areas adjacent to existing land uses shall
be kept damp at all times, or shall be treated with non-toxic stabilizers
or dust palliatives;
b) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require
all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard;
c) Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access road,
parking areas and staging areas at construction sites;
d) Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to
exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.);
e) Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph;
f) Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt
runoff to public roadways;
The above measures include all feasible measures for construction emissions
identified by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. According the
District threshold of significance for construction impacts, implementation of the
measures would reduce construction impacts of the project to a less than
significant level.
c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? LS. The project
would not result in any long-term, operational air quality impacts. See item "b,"
above regarding construction emissions.
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 29
d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations? LS.
The project would involve construction activity largely within roadway right-of-
way adjacent to sensitive receptors. Construction activity would affect some
residential areas, and construction would occur within streets adjacent to two
schools (Spruce School and Buri-Buri School. The project would result in dust
emissions and diesel exhaust emissions adjacent to sensitive receptors.
In 1998 the California Air Resources Board identified particulate matter from
diesel-fueled engines as a toxic air contaminant (T AC). CARB has completed a risk
management process that identified potential cancer risks for a range of activities
using diesel-fueled engines. High volume freeways, stationary diesel engines and
facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic (distribution centers,
truck stops, etc.) were identified as having the highest associated risk.
Health risks from Toxic Air Contaminants are function of both concentration and
duration of exposure. Unlike the above types of sources, construction diesel
impacts at any location would be short-lived. Construction would proceed at rates
of 150 to 500 feet per day, so that construction emissions would affect a given
location for no more than a few days. Due to the short duration of effect and the
level of emission control required under "b," above, this impact would be less-than-
significant.
e) Would the project create objectionable odors? LS. During construction the various
diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use would create odors. These odors
would be temporary and localized and would not affect neighboring properties for
any extended time. The potential for diesel odors impacts would be less-than-
significant.
4. Biological Resources
Environmental Setting
Project components are located within upland, urbanized areas of South San Francisco.
Proposed work includes trenching and related activities within existing paved
roadways or dedicated public utility easements.
A biological resources reconnaissance of the project area was completed in June, 2006
by WRA Environmental Consultants, a San Rafael-based biological consulting firm. The
results of the reconnaissance-level analyses are summarized below and are included as
an appendix to this Initial Study.
Special-status species
Potential occurrence of special-status species in the project area was evaluated by first
determining which special-status species might occur in the vicinity of the six subtrunk
areas through a literature and database search. Database searches were conducted for
known occurrences of special-status species included in the San Francisco South 7.5
minute USGS quadrangle and the eight surrounding USGS quadrangles. The following
sources were reviewed to determine which special-status plant and wildlife species
have been documented to occur in the vicinity of the project area.
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 30
. California Natural Diversity database records (CNDDB 2006)
. U.s. Fish & Wildlife Service Species Lists (USFWS 2006)
. Calif. Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory records (CNPS 2006)
. Calif. Deparbnent of Fish & Game (CDFG) publication "California Wildlife,
Volumes I-III" (Zenier et, al. 1990)
. CDFG publication" Amphibians and Reptile Species of Special Concern in
California" Gennings and Hayes, 2004)
A site visit was conducted by WRA staff biologists in June 2006 to search the project
area for those species identified as potentially occurring in the project area and within
the vicinity. The site visit does not constitute a protocol-level survey and was not
intended to determine the actual presence of a special-status species; however, if a
special-status was observed during the site visit, its presence was recorded.
The site reconnaissance revealed that vegetation with the project area consists primarily
of ornamental trees and herbaceous species planted along roads and in roads medians
and turf lawns in front of dwellings and some businesses. In addition, a redwood grove
and pine woodland are present in Orange Memorial Park through which the First Street
sub trunk would pass.
The only plant community within the project area that can be described is the ruderal
grassland field between First and Second Streets and along the southwest edge of
Orange Memorial Park. This field is dominated by non-native plants, including slender
wild oats, ripgut brome, wild radish, Italian ryegrass and fennel.
Fifty-one special-status species of wildlife have been recorded in the vicinity of the
project area. Table A located in the biological analysis summarizes the potential for
occurrence of these species in the project area. Of these, forty-five were determined not
to be present because suitable habitat is not present or is limited in the project area, four
species are unlikely to occur and two have a moderate potential for occurrence.
The two special-status wildlife species with a moderate potential for occurrence in the
project area are identified and discussed below.
Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis). The Yuma myotis is found throughout most of
California at lower elevation in a wide variety of habitats. Day roosts are found in
buildings, trees, mines, caves, bridges and rock crevices. Night roosts are usually
associated with buildings bridges or other man-made structures. The Yuma myotis
may roost in buildings and under bridges near the project area. Although this
species may potentially be found roosting near the project area, the type of
construction will not disturb this species.
Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). The Loggerhead Shrike is listed as a species of
special concern by the CDFG and is a common resident and winter visitor in
lowlands and foothills throughout California. It prefers open habitats with scattered
trees, shrubs, posts, fences, utility lines and other perches. Nests are usually built on
a stable branch in a densely foliaged shrub or small tree and are usually well
concealed. Loggerhead Shrike foraging habitat may be found near the project area.
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 31
Based on a review of the resources and databases, sixty-three special-status plant
species have been documented in the general vicinity of the project area. These are
shown in Table A, contained in the Appendix, which also includes an evaluation of the
suitability of on-site habitats to support these species. Based on the evaluation
contained in Table A, none of the special-status species are likely to be present in the
project area. The habitat has been determined to be unsuitable due to a variety of
factors, including lack of naturally occurring vegetation, lack of appropriate landforms
and disturbed natural conditions.
The site assessment occurred during the blooming period of forty-five of the special-
status plant species identified in the records search and none of these plants were
observed.
Wetlands
The site was surveyed to determine if any wetlands or and waters of the u.s. potentially
subject to jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality
Control Board and/ or California Department of Fish and Game were present. The
presence was based on the presence of wetland plant indicators, but may also include
and observed indicators of wetland hydrology or wetland soils.
No wetlands or other waters were observed on any of the sub trunk portions of the
project. Colma Creek forms the southerly boundary of the Victory subtrunk.
Regulatory framework
Biological resources are protected by the following primary local, state and federal
regulations:
. Federal Endangered Species Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
jurisdiction over formally listed threatened and endangered terrestrial and
freshwater species. The act protects listed animal species from harm or take.
Plant species are also legally protected.
. Clean Water Act: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible under section
404 of the Clean Water Act to regulate discharge of fill material into waters of the
United States, which include streams that are tributaries to navigable waters and
their tributaries.
. Rivers and Harbors Act: Certain structures and/ or work in or affecting navigable
waters of the U.S. are regulated under the authority of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. The creation of any obstruction to the navigable capacity without
specific approval is prohibited.
. Migratory Bird Treaty Act: This Act prohibits the taking, hunting, killing, selling,
purchasing of migratory birds, eggs or nests.
. California Endangered Species Act: The California Department of Fish and Game
has jurisdiction over state listed threatened, rare (plants) and endangered plant
and animal species. Also, species proposed for listing under the state act are
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 32
protected by its provisions. CDFG maintains a list pf species of special concerns,
defined as species that appear vulnerable to extinction due to declining
populations, limited ranges and continuing threats.
. Section 401 Water Quality Certification: All Corps permits, including Nationwide
Permits, require water quality certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. This is administered by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control
Board. The Regional Board has adopted a policy requiring mitigation for loss of
streambed, wetland or jurisdictional area.
. McAteer-Petris Act: The Bay Conservation and Development Commission
(BCDC) was established under this legislation to prevent unnecessary filling of
San Francisco Bay and to increase public access to the bayfront shoreline.
Project Impacts
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species? NI.
Based on the site reconnaissance prepared by WRA, no special-status plants or
animal species are expected to be found on or immediately adjacent to the project
site, including candidate and sensitive species. No impacts are therefore
anticipated to occur with regard to this impact.
b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands?
NI. Based on the site reconnaissance prepared by WRA, no wetlands or other
waters of the Unities States or waters of the state exist on the project site.
Although a portion of Colma Creek flows south of the Victory subtrunk portion
of the project area, no project work is anticipated within or adjacent to the bank
of Colma Creek No impacts are therefore anticipated.
d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? NI. The project involves
temporary construction activities for replacement underground sewer pipes.
Although temporary construction fencing may be erected along portions on the
project area, these would be located in an urban area and would result in no
impact with regard to interference with native fish or wildlife species.
e, f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted
Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? NI. The site is
not located within the boundaries of any Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural
Community Conservation Plan. No impacts would therefore result.
5. Cultural Resources
Environmental Setting
Historical overview
The development of South San Francisco began in the 19th Century when cattle ranchers
from California's Central Valley purchased large expanses of open land as a place to
hold and graze livestock before sending them to meatpacking houses in San Francisco's
Hunters Point area. In 1890, several major meatpackers banded together to layout
City of South San Francisco Page 33
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
residential and industrial neighborhoods. Other industries were attracted to the area
assisted by the extension of the Southern Pacific mail rail line through the town.
Although sustaining some damage during the 1906 earthquake, the solid bedrock under
Point San Bruno protected many structures. The City incorporated in 1908. By the 1920's
many of the meatpackers had moved out of the community and were replaced by steel
manufacturers, including Bethlehem Steel and U. S. Steel. During WWII, several major
defense industries located in South San Francisco, especially ship building. After the
war, the growth and expansion of San Francisco International Airport increased the
demand for industrial properties. In the 1970's and 1980's, development of the large
Cabot, Cabot & Forbes business park in the east of 101 area provided a home to large
office users.
Most recently, major biotechnology users have developed major research and
development campuses in the community.
Archaeological overview
The geomorphological setting of the project area is pertinent as the matrix in which
archaeological resources would occur. Most of South San Francisco is within the Colma
Creek watershed, which has been the subject of extensive geomorphological study.
However, the area east of Highway 101 are largely former areas of San Francisco Bay
and its margins historically filled for development, areas highly sensitive for prehistoric
archaeological deposits and which also contain historic features and resources under
the fill.
The Colma Creek corridor has been subject to extensive alluvial filling during the
Holocene, burying the formerly steeper valley under several meters of alluvial deposits,
primarily Colma Formation sand. The watercourse of Colma Creek meandered over
time but remained basically along the geomorphic dividing line between the Franciscan
Complex Cretaceous and Jurassic rocks of San Bruno Mountain to the east and the
Pleistocene Colma Formation to the north and west. Exposures of Franciscan bedrock
on the slopes of San Bruno Mountain include dark grey to yellow brown interbedded
sandstones and shales (Bonilla 1998). The Colma Formation is mostly /Ifine-to-medium
sand deposited in near-shore marine and continental settings. The deposit contains few
interbeds of sandy silt, clay to sandy clay and graveL.. The age is estimated between
500,000 to one million years" (Witter 2001:3). Though both sides of the drainage
contribute to sediment load and bank development along the creek, the highly erosive
Colma Formation supplies much more bulk; in turn, those sand deposits are easily cut
and transported by water flow. Natural filling was accentuated and added to by a
program of historic filling in the mid to late nineteenth century, involving purposely
altering the watercourse to bring sand to specific areas. This filling extended to near the
Bay margin and deposited considerable depths of recent fill.
A prehistoric shell midden site on the former banks of Colma Creek, at Chestnut
Avenue and Mission Road, was discovered under a minimum 150 em (approximately 5
feet) of recent fill, and more than 600 em below surface in some locations; the majority
of the fill which is interpreted as quite recent and likely to have resulted from both
natural and purposeful filling. This location is on the west side of Highway 101 and
older fill extending out into twentieth century fill around Point San Bruno. It is likely
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 34
that Holocene fill, both natural and artificial, is deeper at the more easterly extent of the
project area locations subject to direct filling by Colma Creek. With the exception of the
Project elements nearest the highest, erosion-resistant knobs of serpentinite and sheared
Franciscan Formation rocks on Point San Bruno, all other portions of the project area are
in mapped artificial fill upto 30 m deep. This artificial geomorphic setting makes
research into the filling progression and episodes along the Bay margin and around
Point San Bruno essential in assessing project potential to encounter both prehistoric
and historic archaeological resources. Another prehistoric site was found under more
than 5 m (16 feet) of historic fill near the mouth of Colma Creek after research into local
filling showed the area to have been deeply covered.
Prehistoric/Ethnohistoric/ Archaeological
Though it is likely the San Francisco Peninsula has been inhabited by humans for
something approaching 10,000 years, data confirming such a long tenure is lacking in
San Mateo and San Francisco counties. While Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties have
furnished carbon dates in that age range, the oldest published dates for the Peninsula
appear to be about 5000 years for undoubted habitation sites. The oldest published date
for San Mateo County remains that from a site near the outlet of Colma Creek to the Bay
at SMA-40, at just over 5100 years before present. Nearly equally old are the oldest
component of the University Village Site (SMA-77) at the southeast of the county, and
the "BART Man" in San Francisco. Hints of possibly older occupation on the San Mateo
coast have been published, but are unsupported by technical dating techniques. It is
safe to say that the Peninsula, including the Colma Creek drainage, was probably
occupied by Native Americans at least 5000 years ago, but by different people than
would later own the area.
Ethnohistorically, the Colma Creek drainage was occupied by the Urebure tribelet, an
Ohlone group, the Native Americans who owned the San Francisco Bay region, Santa
Cruz Mountains, East Bay Hills, and the Monterey Bay area at the 1769 Spanish
invasion. Archaeological evidence indicates the ancestral Ohlones arrived in the San
Francisco/Monterey Bay region-depending on location-somewhere around AD. 500,
possibly from the lower Sacramento Valley /Delta, displacing an earlier population.
Natural resources of their home areas provided for nearly all the needs of the aboriginal
Ohlone populations. The prehistoric Ohlones were hunters and gatherers, who adapted
to and managed their abundant local environment so well that some places were
continuously occupied for literally thousands of years. Compared to modern standards,
population density always remained relatively low, but the Ohlone area, especially
around Monterey and San Francisco Bays, was one of the most densely lived in areas of
prehistoric California.
The basic unit of Ohlone society was the "tribelet," a small independent land-holding
group of usually related families occupying a specific territory and speaking the same
language or dialect. An incredible diversity of languages had evolved in Central
California, evidence of centuries of in-place divergence of very small social groups.
Early linguists encountered some groups of only 50-100 people speaking dialects
sometimes but not generally unintelligible to their neighbors.
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 35
Traditional trade patterns thousands of years old operated when the Spanish invaded,
supplying the Ohlones with products from sources sometimes hundreds of kilometers
distant and allowing export of products unique to their region. Obsidian was obtained
from the North Coast Ranges and Sierran sources, in patterns that changed through
time. By 1769, the Ohlones had been buying finished obsidian arrowheads of specific
forms, manufactured by North Coast Range tribes, for hundreds of years.
By the time of European incursion, a unique native settlement pattern was in place
along the Peninsula, in which the same tribelet group would own a strip across the
Peninsula from ocean to Bay, based on drainages. These watercourses formed natural
travelways across the spine of the Peninsula. Like other watercourses from the southern
Santa Clara Valley to the northern end of the Peninsula, Colma Creek has a series of
archaeological sites along its banks, connected to prehistoric cultural sites along the
margins of the Bay. The Colma Creek (known as "San Bruno Creek" by the Spanish)
drainage was probably held by a single group, the Urebure, that extended from the
slopes of San Bruno Mountain to about San Mateo Creek, and used the creek corridor to
travel from village sites on the Bay, the Pacific, and in between.
Around the beginning of the twentieth century, N.C. Nelson recorded more than 400
major shell midden sites around San Francisco Bay, some of which had already been
leveled or destroyed (Nelson 1909). Nelson's 1909 "Map of San Francisco Bay Region
Showing Distribution of Shell Heaps" shows sites #378 and #377/ 379? in the vicinity of
the proposed project. Nelson shows #378 south of Oyster Point on the north shore of
San Bruno Point, and #377 /379? on the south side of Point San Bruno. Nelson's rough
and sometimes inaccurate mapping, plus historic changes in the Bay shore and local
topography, filling, massive construction projects in and around South San Francisco
such as steel and meat packing plants, the Southern Pacific Railroad, and the Bayshore
Freeway, and Nelson's generalized location descriptions, make a positive identification
of the possibly rediscovered site on the south shore of Point San Bruno or near the
mouth of Colma Creek difficult.
Prehistorically, the upper Project Area (near Hickey Boulevard) would have been an
area of windswept sand dunes fringed by oak grassland alongside the more thickly-
vegetated Colma Creek riparian corridor. The Bay shore was very marshy, marshes
extended up to approximately the Orange Memorial Park region in modern South San
Francisco, with extensive mudflats and wetlands that offered very abundant resources
but made access to the Bay difficult, so ideal habitation locations were at spots where
hard ground met the Bay, surrounded by the marshes. The open exposure, easy slope,
availability of fresh water, and location along one of only two easy routes along the
Peninsula made this location attractive to the Ohlone Indians long before the European
invasion.
Several villages were located in the territory of the Urebure tribelet when the Spanish
arrived, including occupations along Colma (San Bruno) Creek and on the margin of
the Bay. A major site is located at the foot of San Bruno Mountain, just north of Point
San Bruno (SMA-40), two habitation middens are recorded on the creek between the
northwest and east of the Project (SMA-299 and -355), and another on the ocean at the
western end of the route up Colma Creek (SMA-72); all were probably in use by the
Urebure when the Spanish arrived. SMA-72 and SMA-355 are Late Period sites) and
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 36
SMA-40 has a late component. Further, Brown (1973) reports that prior to 1835 the San
Bruno Mountain south slope area was known asa location of "Indian huts," perhaps a
resettling of an old village site after secularization of the missions and dispersal of many
of the missionized Indians, but no village or place name is recorded.
The Colma Creek corridor and mouth, and surrounding Bay margin were a focus of
aboriginal settlement and use. While the creek occasionally runs dry, the area still
afforded sources of freshwater year round. Historic accounts affirm the area of the
upper creek was" characterized by small lakes and an abundance of springs" (Svanivik
and Burgett 1995: 16), and the earliest maps show a lake and springs near Hickey
Boulevard. Remnants of these lakes are still shown on EI Camino plans in 1925 and exist
today. The creek drainage below, in South San Francisco, was extensively filled and any
such lakes covered, along with prehistoric sites. Bay margin filling and historic
development have also covered or destroyed prehistoric shell middens on the former
marshland margin of the Bay, which once extended far up Colma Creek. Farther from
the current, or historic shoreline, prehistoric sites are still possible; it has been
hypothesized that sites along the Bay shore older than about 5000 years lie buried under
sediment or under the Bay itself due to rising sea level.
Archeological records search
Archaeological research for the proposed project was initiated with a search of relevant
records, maps, and archives maintained by the Northwest Information Center of the
California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at Sonoma State
University. Due to the indeterminate scope of the Project when the records search was
sent in, a very wide area was addressed in the record search, essentially the entire
Colma Creek drainage, and all of South San Francisco east of Junipero Serra Boulevard.
The records search was conducted by the Center staff, revealing that numerous small
areas of the Project Area had been surveyed for cultural resources previously, only a
few of which proved finally to be directly applicable to the Project as now understood.
Few cultural resources or historic properties are recorded within 500 m of the proposed
project elements, none east of Highway 101. The CHRIS Records Search File Number
for the Project Area is 00-560. A copy of this report will be submitted for inclusion in the
permanent archives of the CHRIS.
The records search revealed only three prehistoric archaeological sites in the vicinity of
the proposed project, the aforementioned SMA-40, SMA-299, and SMA-355. SMA-40 is
a large shell midden mound on the southeast slope of San Bruno Mountain west of
Highway 101, a major cultural resource. SMA-299 is a diffuse shell midden once found
on both banks of Colma Creek, now mostly destroyed. SMA-355 is a buried Late Period
shell midden on the north bank of Colma Creek at Chestnut A venue. Both these last
two sites may be near the nearest project work.
Project Impacts
a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? NI. The proposed
project would include work only within public rights-of-way, primarily public
roads. No impacts are therefore anticipated with regard to significant historical
resources.
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 37
b) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological resource? LS / M. As
noted in the Environmental Setting section above, the various broad categories of
project components have differing potential to effect archaeological resources.
Project components that would not involve excavations nor significant surface
disturbances, even in areas with demonstrated archaeological sensitivity, would
not potentially affect historic properties. Work with excavations that would not
penetrate undisturbed subsurface strata, or that would not penetrate recent fills
into older fills, or that would only penetrate into strata known to have been cut
into sterile soil, similarly do not have potential to affect historic properties.
Project components requiring excavations that would or could penetrate into
native or undisturbed strata, or into historic land surfaces that might contain
historic archaeological deposits, or into historic fill that could contain potentially
significant historic materials, would have the potential to affect historic
properties. This would result in a potentially significant impact.
Finally, project excavations that would only re-disturb strata known to have been
previously, recently, disturbed, cannot be seen as having potential to affect
historic properties. Though this process is necessarily complex for a project
involving several separate components, detailed examination of the
Environmental Setting and potential impacts will illustrate that many proposed
elements would not have potential to affect historic properties. By the process of
eliminating from consideration those Project Components that do not have
potential to effect historic properties, the number of elements of concern in the
Section 106 context is substantially reduced.
As described in the Environmental Setting above, every element of the project is
in a location with archaeological sensitivity, either for prehistoric or historic
resources, or both. Basically, all elements are in the Colma Creek drainage or
along the historic margins of the Bay and marshlands, clearly in areas of high
sensitivity for prehistoric archaeological deposits. Even components in what
were in the 1850s open Bay waters are in an archaeologically sensitive zone due
to rising Bay waters over the last several thousand years. There is therefore a
potential to encounter archaeological resources potentially meeting NRHP
criteria.
Based on the preliminary information above, detailed construction information
on each project component is not always available due to the phased nature of
this project. Therefore, the following mitigation measure is recommended to
reduce potentially significant archeological impacts to a less-than-significant
level:
Mitigation Measure 2. An Archeological Resources Program shall be
prepared by a qualified archeologist prior to start of any construction that
shall include:
a) Provision for submittal of Section 106-level analyses for each project
component as they are designed and submitted to the State Water
Resources Control Board for State Revolving Loan funding.
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 38
b) Language added on individual project improvement plans and
specifications to the effect that if archeological materials or artifacts are
identified, work on that portion of the project shall cease until a
resource protection plan conforming to CEQA Section 15064.5 is
prepared by a qualified archeologist and / or paleontologist and
approved by the South San Francisco City Engineer or an authorized
representative. Project work may be resumed in compliance with such
plan. If human remains are encountered, the County Coroner shall be
contacted immediately and the provisions of State law carried out.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geological
feature? LS/M. Any potential impacts to palenotological impacts will be
addressed as part of Mitigation Measure 2.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? NI.
No formal cemeteries have been identified in either the archeological or
architectural historical resources survey, so no impacts would result.
6. Geology and Soils
Environmental Setting
Geology and soils
The 1999 General Plan Existing Conditions Report identifies three general geological
zones within South San Francisco. The Lowland Zone is primarily located east of the
101 Freeway and consists of gently sloping areas with areas of man-made fill over Bay
mud. Slope is generally less than three percent. The Upland Zone is located in the
middle portion of the community with topographic elevations ranging from 30 to 200
feet above sea level. This zone also includes the alluvial plain of Colma Creek. The
Hillside Zone consists of the westerly portion of the community and is characterized by
steeply sloping hillsides.
The entire lowland zone consists of artificial fill underlain by Bay mud. Bay mud in this
area consists of younger mud of the Holocene age, which is organic rich clay with silty
clay with occasional beds of peat. Development hazards associated with this formation
include shrink-swell potential, differential settlement, corrositivity and earthquake
wave amplification.
The Upland Zone consists of Colma Formation soils with the following characteristics:
loose, friable, well-sorted sand with subordinate gravel, silt and clay deposits. It
generally provides for good foundations and provides for earthquake stability when
not disturbed by artificial cuts. The Merced Formation is comprised of poorly
consolidated to semi-consolidated sand and silt deposits. It is subject to landslide
hazard in areas of artificial cuts and generally provides for good seismic stability.
The Colma Creek substrate is made of fine-grained alluvial deposits with
unconsolidated, moderately sorted fine sand, silt and clayey silty debris deposited by
Colma Creek during historic periods.
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 39
Seismic hazards
In terms of seismic hazards, the City of South San Francisco, and the Bay area as a
whole, is located in one of the most seismically active regions in the United States.
Several major faults and fault zones traverse the region, including the San Andreas,
approximately 3.5 to 5 kilometers (km) from the site, the San Gregorio fault, the
Hayward fault, the Calaveras fault, the Coyote Point fault and the Hunters Point fault.
The closest fault zone to the project area is the Coyote Point fault zone, which lies north
of the project area. The zone consists of a complex two-mile wide zone of faulting with
three prominent strands in the vicinity of the project area. Because the California
Department of Mines and Geology has not evaluated the Coyote Point and Hunters
Point fault zones, neither has been included within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies
Zone.
The 1990 Working Group on the California earthquake Probabilities estimated a 67%
probability of a major earthquake (7.0+ magnitude) by the year 2020. There are no know
active faults within the project area.
Project Impacts
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss,
injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or
landslides? NI. There would be no direct or indirect impacts to people or
structures due to a seismic event with the proposed project, since no habitable
structures would be constructed. Construction would be limited to underground
facilities, including new and replacement sewer pipes. No impacts to humans or
structures are therefore anticipated.
b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? LS / M. Portions of
the project would include trenching for replacement of sewer lines. Although
limited, a possibility exists that stockpiling of trench spoils could erode into
nearby streets, Colma Creek, other drainage facilities and ultimately into San
Francisco Bay. This would be a significant impact. The following mitigation
measure is therefore recommended to reduce erosion impacts to a less-than-
significant level.
Mitigation Measure 3. Contract specifications for this project shall require
the preparation and implementation of an erosion control plan for all
portions of the project that would involve trenching, excavation or
stockpiling of dirt. The plan shall be prepared by a registered civil
engineer and be consistent with applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board guidelines and standards.
c,d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral
spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? LS. The General Plan Background
Report indicates that much of the project area consists of artificial fill over Bay
mud, which is susceptible to liquefaction and lateral spreading, especially during
a seismic event. According to the project design engineer, the presence of
potential liquefaction and other soil and geotechnical hazards has been taken
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 40
into account in the project plans, so less-than-significant impacts are anticipated
with regard to liquefaction and lateral spreading.
Since the project area, with the exception of the Hillside Sub trunk, is generally
flat, no impacts are anticipated with regard to landslides. The Hillside Subtrunk
is proposed to be located in area of the community near previous minor
landslides. However, since the project would involve subsurface improvements
engineered to withstand anticipated geological risks, the potential of landslide or
earth collapse in the Hillside Subtrunk area is considered less-than-significant.
e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? NI.
The proposed project involves upgrades to the City's sewer system, so there
would be no impacts with regard to septic systems.
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Setting
The General Plan Existing Conditions Report (1999) identifies a number of major
hazardous waste sources in South San Francisco within the east of 101 areas, including
the Koll site (a closed landfill), the Gateway site (former steel fabrication site), the Bay
West Cove site (former steel mill and shipyard) and the Wildberg Brothers site (metal
smelting). The Report also identified 114 sites in South San Francisco on the Cortese list
that contain leaking underground storage tanks.
The City of South San Francisco commissioned a Phase I Environmental Site Analysis
for the proposed Phase II Wet Weather project from Kleinfelder Associates. The draft
report is included in Appendix 3 of this Initial Study. The Draft Phase I report identifies
numerous sites in or near each of the sewer sub trunk locations that contain or contained
potentially hazardous materials.
A summary of chemicals of potential concern by each subtrunk include:
. Hillside Subtrunk: Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), gasoline, diesel and
motor oil (gdmo), volatile organic carbons (VOCs), hexavalent chromium (Hex
Chrom), Title 22 metals (CAM 17), semivolatile organic carbons (SVOCs) and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
. Portola Subtrunk: TPHgdmo, VOCs, Hex Chrom and CAM 17.
. Victory Subtrunk: TPHgdmo, VOCs. Hex Chrom, CAM 17, SVOCs and PCBs.
. Westborough Subtrunk: TPHgdmo, VOCs, Hex Chrom and CAM 17.
. Airport Subtrunk: TPHgdmo, VOCs, Hex Chrom, CAM 17, SVOCs and PCBs.
A Phase Ii Environmental Site Assessment is currently being completed for this project
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 41
Project Impacts
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use or disposal of hazardous materials? LS/M. Although there would be no impacts
with regard to transport or use of hazardous materials, there could be potentially
significant impacts related to, excavation of soil to accommodate new sewer
pipelines that could uncover contaminated soils and/ or contaminated
groundwater. Potentially contaminated material would need to be removed in
order to complete that portion of the project. The following mitigation measure is
recommended to reduce the possibility of release of hazardous material into the
abnosphere or disposal of hazardous material off of the project area to a less-than-
significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4. Prior to commencement of construction of each of
the sub trunks, a Soil and Water Management Plan (SWMP) shall be
prepared to address potentially contaminated soil and/ or groundwater
that may be encountered during construction activities. The SWMP shall
be prepared by a state-certified environmental professional, and will
include the following components:
a) An identification of visual and odor indicators that may indicate
the presence of contaminants.
b) A soil sampling and analysis plan detailing protocols for collecting
and analyzing appropriate soil samples during site development to
determine if contaminated soil is present
c) A management plan detailing what specific steps will be taken if
contaminated soil or groundwater is found, including additional
testing, for removing and/ or isolating contaminated material,
disposal site(s) for contaminated material, and a list of parties to be
identified of the presence of contaminated material. As appropriate,
the management plan implementation steps shall be included on
construction plans and specifications.
d) Worker education and safety plans shall be included in the SWMP.
e) Necessary permits and approvals shall be obtained from
appropriate regulatory agencies.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment? LS / M. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4 will reduce the potential
of release of hazardous materials into the atmosphere to a less then significant level.
c) Emit hazardous materials or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? LS/M.
Elementary at 501 Spruce Avenue and Buri-Buri Elementary School at 120 EI
Campo. Release of hazardous materials near these schools could occur during the
construction phase of the project and this would be a potentially significant impact.
Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4 would reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level. No impacts are anticipated with regard to release of hazardous
material to schools during project operation.
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 42
d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? LS / M. The Draft Phase I ESA lists a
number of sites within and adjacent to each of the sub trunks that are included on
the Cortese list. This would therefore be a potentially significant impact and would
be reduced to a less-than-significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.
e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? LS.
The project area is located north of San Francisco International Airport and within
a flight path of the airport. However, since no above-ground structures would be
constructed, there would be no interference with flight operations or safety
concerns. No impacts are therefore anticipated regarding airport safety issues.
g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? NT. The proposed project would not
involve any change to existing roads or development patterns. Therefore, no
impacts are anticipated with regard to interference with emergency evacuation
plans.
h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? NT. The project area
lies in a substantially urbanized area with minimal risk of wildland fires. No
impacts are therefore anticipated.
8. Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Setting
The main surface body of water within South San Francisco is Colma Creek, a perennial
stream with a watershed of approximately 16 square miles. Colma Creek extends in a
southeastern direction through the center of the community. The two primary
tributaries of Colma Creek include Twelve Mile Creek and Spruce Creek. Both of these
smaller creeks have been almost all channelized and/ or undergrounded.
Colma Creek provides the main transport of stormwater runoff and other runoff from
South San Francisco into the Bay. East of the 101 Freeway, Colma Creek is contained in
concrete and rip-rap channels.
San Francisco Bay, another major body of water, forms the easterly boundary of South
San Francisco.
Surface water quality
All flows into Colma Creek originate as stormwater, irrigation runoff or are from
similar sources. As an urban stream, Colma Creek is expected to have high levels of
heavy metals as well as other pollutants typical of urban bodies of water.
South San Francisco has joined the other cities and San Mateo County to create the San
Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program. The purpose of this
program is to administer a Joint Municipal NPDES Permit for stormwater quality
management. Each participant has adopted a Stormwater Management Plan to ensure
that Best Management Practices are enforced to protect surface water quality, during
both construction and operational stages of a project.
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase" Wet Weather
Page 43
Groundwater
Low topographic elevations and the Colma Creek floodplain in the East of 101 area
provide conditions conducive to high groundwater. In some instances, groundwater
has been encountered a few feet below surface elevations. During the rainy season,
water often stands above ground surface in drainage ditches for several months.
Flooding and tsunami hazards
Periodic flooding occurs along most of the right-of-way of Colma Creek in South San
Francisco. Portions of the project located southwest of Colma Creek and along the
northerly edges of the Water Quality Control Plant are presently subject to flooding
during lOO-year flood events.
This information is based on Figure 10-2 contained in the 1999 General Plan Existing
Conditions Report.
Project Impacts
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? NI. Approval of
portions of the requested project would serve to meet the Regional Water Quality
Control Board Cease-and-Desist Order by replacing older, failing or substandard
sewer lines thereby reducing inflow and infiltration into the system. No impacts are
anticipated with regard to exceeding water quality discharge requirements.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? NI. No
impacts are anticipated with regard to depletion of groundwater resources, since
none of the project components would require use of water resources. Similarly, no
impacts are anticipated with regard to overcovering groundwater recharge areas
since no new impervious surfaces would be created as part of project
implementation.
It is anticipated that trenching for a number of project elements may require
dewatering to remove groundwater intruding into excavations. If dewatering is
necessary, standard specifications included on project plans would be employed to
safely dewater trenches. Necessary permits would be obtained from the Regional
Water Quality Control Board to ensure water quality standards are met.
c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial
siltation or erosion would occur? NI. There would be no additions to the amount of
impervious surface in the community, since portions of existing streets would be
disturbed for pipe replacement, then repaved. No impacts would occur with regard
to altering drainage patterns.
d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the project site?
NI. No impacts or changes to drainage patterns are anticipated since no additions to
existing amounts of impervious surfaces are proposed.
e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add
substantial amounts of polluted runoffi NI. No increases in the quantity, direction or
velocity of existing drainage patterns are proposed since no changes to existing
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 44
development patterns or in the amount of impervious surfaces are proposed. No
impacts would therefore result with regard to drainage systems.
f) Substantially degrade water quality? NI. The objectives of the proposed project are to
improve surface water quality by replacing failing existing sewer lines. There
would therefore be no impact with regard to degradation of water quality.
g) Place housing within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate
Map? NI. The proposed project does not include a housing component, so there
would be no impact with regarding to placement of housing within a 100-year flood
plain.
h, i) Place within a 1 DO-year flood hazard boundary structures that impeded or redirect flood
flow, including dam failures? NI. Proposed construction would include replacement
and minor upgrading of existing below ground sewer lines. No impacts are
anticipated with regard to impedance of floodwaters or flows.
j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? NI. Based on Figure 10.2
contained in the General Plan Existing Conditions Report, none of the project
components would be subject to seiche, since the subtrunks are located inland
from San Francisco Bay.
9. Land Use and Planning
Environmental Setting
Existing land uses
Land uses in the project area include a mix of industrial (portion of Airport Sub trunk,
Victory A venue, the Hillside Sub trunk), commercial (portions of Airport Subtrunk,
portions of the First Street Subtrunk and portions of Westborough Sub trunk) and
residential (portions of Airport Subtrunk, portions of Westborough Subtrunk and
portions of the First Street Subtrunk). A potion of the First Street Subtrunk also extends
through a portion of Orange Memorial Park.
As noted in the Project Description, all of the various subtrunk portions of the project
are located in urbanized areas of South San Francisco.
Regulatory framework
Land uses within South San Francisco are regulated by the South San Francisco General
Plan, which was recently updated in 1999. The General Plan includes the Land Use
Element, Transportation Element, Parks, Public Facilities and Services Element,
Economic Development Element, Open Space and Conservation Element, Health and
Safety Element and Noise Element.
Wastewater Guiding Policies adopted as part of the Parks, Public Facilities and Services
General Plan Element include:
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 45
· 5.3.G-4: Promote the orderly and efficient operation and expansion of the
wastewater treabnent system to meet projected needs.
· 5.3.G-5: Promote equitable sharing of the costs associated with providing
wastewater service to new development.
· 5.3-G-6: Maintain environmental appropriate wastewater practices
Wastewater Implementing Policies include:
· 5.3-1-4: Ensure coordinated capital improvements with respect to the extent and
timing of growth.
· 5.3.1-5: Ensure that future residents and businesses equitably share costs
associated with providing wastewater service to new development in South San
Francisco.
· 5.3-1-6: Monitor industrial discharges to ensure that wastewater quality continues
to meet various federal, State and regional standards: treabnent costs should
remain affordable
· 5.4-1-7: Encourage new projects in East of 101 area at are likely to generate large
quantities of wastewater to lower treabnent needs through recycling, pre-
treabnent or other means as necessary.
General Plan land use designations in the vicinity of the project area include a mix of
Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential, Park,
and Mixed Industrial.
The City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance regulates land uses on private
property in the community. Since project elements associated with this project are
typically located within public rights-of-way or public properties, the Zoning
Ordinance does not have authority for this project.
Project Impacts
a) Physically divide an established community? LS / M. Approval and construction of the
proposed project would involve work within public rights-of-way, public
easements or on properties currently owned by the City of South San Francisco,
such as Orange Memorial Park. Short-term construction could result in a hardship
for local businesses by restricting access during business hours. Accessibility to
residential dwellings may also be temporarily disrupted during construction. This
could be a potentially significant impact and the following mitigation measure is
recommended to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure 5. The City shall undertake an advance notification
program to property owners and residents that could be affected by the
proposed construction program indicating, at a minimum, a description of
proposed work, hours of operation, construction phasing and an
individual to be notified in the event of emergencies.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? NI. The proposed sewer
improvement programs would be consistent with the Guiding and Implementing
Policies of the Parks, Public Facilities and Services Element of the South San
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 46
Francisco General Plan as identified in the Environmental Setting section. No
impacts would therefore result.
c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NI.
No such plan has been adopted within the City of South San Francisco. There
would therefore be no impact to a habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan for the proposed project.
10. Mineral Resources
Environmental Setting
The project area contains no known mineral resources. This is based on the Existing
Conditions Report prepared as part of the 1999 General Plan Update process.
Project Impacts
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? NI.
The City of South San Francisco General Plan (1999) does not indicate that
significant deposits of minerals exist in the project area, so no impacts would occur.
11. Noise
Environmental Setting
The City defines "noise" as a sound or series of sounds that are intrusive, irritating,
objectionable and/ or disruptive to daily life. Noise is primarily a concern with regard to
noise sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, churches and hospitals. Although
noise is controlled around commercial, industrial and recreation uses, community noise
levels rarely exceed maximum recommended levels for these uses.
The Noise Element of the General Plan EIR identifies the following primary sources on
noise in South San Francisco: aircraft noise from San Francisco International Airport,
traffic noise from freeways and arterial roadways in the community, railroad noise and
industrial noise.
The Noise Element identifies the following maximum noise exposure levels by land use
type.
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 47
Table 3. City of South San Francisco Noise Exposure Levels
Land Use Noise Exposure Level
Residential Less than 65: Satisfactorv
66 to 70: Conditionally Acceptable
70+: Unacceptable
Commercial Less than 70:Satisfactory
70 to 80: Conditionally Acceptable
80+ Airport-related development only
Industrial Up to 75: Satisfactory
75 to 85: Conditionally Acceptable
85+ Airport related development only
Open Up to 75: Satisfactory
75+ A void uses involving concentrations of people
or animals
Source: South San Francisco General Plan Noise Element, 1999
Noise level references reflect Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL) decibels
Project Impacts
a) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established by the General Plan or other applicable standard: NI. All of the project
components are proposed to be located underground so there would be no
permanent noise generation and no impacts would therefore result.
b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? LS / M.
A portion of project components are proposed to be located within industrial and
commercial areas, so there would be no impacts related to vibration during project
construction. Construction of other portions of the project located in primarily
residential areas could generate a temporary source of ground borne vibration as a
result of trenching, pipe bursting, truck activity and other construction activities.
Adherence to Mitigation Measure 6, below, would limit construction times of this
project to normal construction times. With adherence to this mitigation measure,
there would be less-than-significant impacts relative to vibration impacts.
c) Substantial increases in permanent in ambient noise levels? NI. There would be no
changes and no impacts with regard to potential permanent noise impacts since no
noise-generating uses or operations are associated with the proposed project.
d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels without the project? LS/M. Construction of the project could result in
short-term noise and vibration due to trenching, generators, compressors and
similar activities. There would also be increased noise levels from trucks and other
construction vehicles needed for the project. In the short-term, these activities
could exceed City noise exposure standards. For many of the sites and project
components the potential for increased noise and vibration would be less-than-
significant, since the surrounding areas have been developed for light industrial,
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 48
commercial or similar non-residential land uses. Construction activities within
portions of the Westborough Sub trunk, portions of the First Street Sub trunk,
portions of the Portola/Victory Subtrunk, the Hillside Sub trunk, and portions of
the Airport Subtrunk of the project could result in potentially significant impacts
to surrounding residential and park uses. The following measure is therefore
recommended to reduce short-term construction noise to acceptable levels.
Mitigation Measure 6. For portions of the project adjacent to residentially
zoned portions of the project and within Orange Memorial Park, .
construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 6 p.m.,
Monday-Saturday. No construction shall occur on Sunday or on local,
State or federal holidays. Exceptions may be granted on an emergency
basis by the South San Francisco City Engineer. Construction activities
shall be deemed to include vehicle warm-up and maintenance and
delivery of construction materials. These limitations shall be included in
all construction plans and specifications for the project.
The above mitigation measure would also serve to limit any groundboume
vibrations to a less-than-significant level.
e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, would the project expose people to
excessive noise levels? NI. The project does not include construction of buildings or
facilities that would house people. No impacts are therefore anticipated in terms of
this topic.
12. Population and Housing
Environmental Setting
Population
South San Francisco is San Mateo County's fourth largest City. Population growth in
the City has been cyclical over the last few years, generally fueled first by heavy
industrial uses in the early and mid-part of the last century. More recently,
biotechnology and related high tech and office uses have spurred residential growth.
The one major project that is in the process of completion is the Terra Bay project on the
south slopes of San Bruno Mountain. Other infill residential projects have been built
along the El Camino corridor and other areas.
Since the supply of large vacant parcels of land in the community is nearly exhausted,
future residential growth is anticipated to be limited. Additional population growth
must come from redevelopment projects.
The following table includes historical population projections for the Bay Area, San
Mateo County and South San Francisco, based on the Association of Bay Area
Government's Projections 2005 publication.
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 49
The City/s General Plan (1999) anticipates a maximum build-out population of 67,400
for the community. No time horizon for build-out is assumed for the General Plan.
Table 4. Regional, County and City Population (1)
2000 Population 2010 Population 2020 Population
Region 6/783/762 7,419/600 8/094/000
San
Mateo 707/163 741/000 794,400
Co.
South
San 60/732 62/500 68/700
Francisco
Source:
(1) ABAG Projections 2005, includes City Sphere of Influence
Employment
Employment trends in South San Francisco have been changing from a heavy industrial
center, dominated by steel mills, meat packing, ship building and similar "blue collar"
industries to high tech and research jobs. Due to the proximity to regional
transportation facilities and to San Francisco, continued employment growth is
anticipated for the next 20+ years.
The following table summarizes projected employment growth in South San Francisco.
Table 5. Regional, County and City Employment (1)
2000 Jobs 2010 Jobs 2020 Jobs
Region 3/753,460 3/836/540 4/463/630
San
Mateo 386/590 368/390 433/860
Co.
South
San 45/190 45/120 51/210
Francisco
Source:
(1) ABAG Projections 2006, includes Sphere of Influence
Project Impacts
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? NI.
Approval of the proposed project would not increase population growth in South
San Francisco, since the purposes of the project are to meet wastewater discharge
requirements and to replace older, failing sewer facilities. No new and
undeveloped areas of the community would receive sewer service that is not
already receiving such service. The existing dry weather treabnent capacity of the
City of South San Francisco Page 50
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Water Quality Control Plant would not be expanded. No impacts are therefore
anticipated with regard to population inducement.
h,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? NI.
The proposed project would not change existing land use patterns or uses. No
impacts would therefore occur with regard to population displacement.
13. Public Services
Environmental Setting
The following provide essential services to the community:
· Fire Protection. Fire protection services are handled by the City of South San
Francisco Fire Deparbnent. The Deparbnent provides fire suppression, fire
prevention, education, building inspection services and hazardous material
control.
· Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by the City of
South San Francisco Police Deparbnent, which maintains a 24-hour security
patrol throughout the community.
. Schools. The South San Francisco Unified School District provides K-12
educational services to the community.
· Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities
are the responsibility of the City of South San Francisco.
· Solid Waste: Solid waste service is offered by South San Francisco Scavenger
Company. After collection, waste is brought to the Line Transfer Station in
the east of 101 area of the City and ultimately disposed of at the Ox Mountain
Sanitary Landfill located near Half Moon Bay. The Ox Mountain facility has a
permit to accept fill material until 2016. Upon expiration of that permit, the
facility is proposed for expansion.
Project Impacts
a) Fire protection? NI. Approval of the proposed project would have no impact to fire
protection since the proposed facilities would be underground.
b) Police protection? NI. Since all of the project elements would be closed to the public
no impacts to police services are anticipated.
c) Schools? NI. There would be no impact to school service should the proposed
project he approved since no new residential development would occur, nor
would the project indirectly induce new residential development.
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 51
d) Other governmental service, including maintenance of public facilities? NI. There would
be no impact to maintenance services provided by the City, since older, out-of-date
facilities would be replaced by new facilities.
e) Solid waste generation? NT. No impacts regarding generation of solid waste is
anticipated since no new residential, commercial, industrial or similar land uses
would be constructed.
14. Recreation
Environmental Setting
South San Francisco maintains 319.7 acres of parks and open space, equivalent to 5.4
acres per 1,000 residents. This includes 70 acres of developed parkland, 168.5 acres of
open space and 81.2 acres of school lands.
The City also provides a range of recreation programs available in 6 community
recreation buildings, some of which provide specialized services.
Project Impacts
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? NI. Since
the project does not propose the amount of habitable floor space in the community
there would be no increase in the use of any parks in the community and no impacts
would result.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational
facilities? NI. Since no residential development is proposed as part of the project, no
recreational services are required to be acquired or constructed and no impacts
would result.
15. Transportation/Traffic
Environmental Setting
The community is served by a range of surface transportation facilities, including
freeways (US 10.1 and 1-280), arterial roadways intended to serve through traffic (EI
Camino Real, Sisters Cities Boulevard, Junipero Serra Boulevard and East Grand
Avenue, collector roadways (Commercial, Del Monte Avenues) and local streets.
The City also has made provision for a bicycle pathway through the community
consisting of Class I, II and III facilities and public transit (SAMTrans). The Bay Area
Rapid Transit System (BART) operates a station in South San Francisco along EI Camino
Real. There is a Caltrain station near downtown South San Francisco. National and
international air service is available at San Francisco International Airport, located
immediately south of the community.
Project Impacts
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 52
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and street capacity?
NI. The proposed project does not include facilities that would generate vehicular
traffic. No impacts regarding traffic increase are therefore anticipated.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the County
CMA for designated roads)? NI. Since no vehicular-generating development is
proposed as part of the project there would be no impact to CMA routes.
c) Change in air traffic patterns? NI. The proposed project would have no impact on air
traffic patterns, since it involves an upgrade to the City's wastewater collection
system.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? LS / M. No
permanent changes are proposed to the street system. However, temporary
construction activities for trenching and excavating could partially block local
streets during construction periods. This could result in a potentially significant
impact due to disruption of local traffic patterns, especially during peak hour
traffic periods.
e)
The following mitigation measure is therefore recommended to reduce this
potential impact to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure 7. A Traffic Construction Management Plan shall be
prepared prior to commencement of construction, identifying specific
methods to be undertaken to ensure that peak hour traffic can flow freely
and that access to abutting properties is maintained for emergency
vehicles. This shall include vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle modes of
transportation. The Management Plan shall be reviewed and approved by
the South San Francisco Engineering Division, Police and Fire
Departments
Result in inadequate emergency access? LS/M. Short-term access to properties may be
restricted near project construction zones. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7,
above, would ensure that access would remain adequate to emergency service
providers.
f)
Inadequate parking capacity? NI. No impacts to existing parking patterns are required
since no development is proposed as part of the project.
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? LS / M. Construction of the proposed
project could restrict access for bicyclists and pedestrians near portions of the
project area, especially where trenching and excavating is required to replace
existing sewer pipes. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7 would ensure that
potential barriers to pedestrians and bicyclists would be reduced to a less-than-
significant level.
g)
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 53
16. Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Setting
The project area is served by the following service providers:
· Water supply: California Water Service. This private water company obtains
water via an agreement with the San Francisco Water Deparbnent and from
groundwater resources. In addition to South San Francisco, the water company
serves customers in San Carlos and San Mateo. The Water Company prepares a
range of water use projections based on fluctuations in population and
employment demands. The company has indicated an adequate water supply for
the highest projected demand for future uses.
· Sewage collection and treabnent: City of South San Francisco. The City's sanitary
sewer collection system has an interconnecting work of gravity sewers, force
mains and pump stations which function together to bring wastewater from
individual properties to the Water Quality Control Plant.
Wastewater treabnent is accomplished at the City's Water Quality Control Plant,
located at the easterly terminus of Belle Air road just south of Colma Creek. The
Plant also provides service for the city of San Bruno, San Francisco International
Airport and portions of other communities. The Plant has been recently
upgraded and expanded to accommodated growing employment uses in the
Plant's service area and to meet Regional Water Quality Control Board discharge
requirements.
. Storm drainage: City of South San Francisco maintains a series of drainage pipes
and culverts through the City to accommodate stormwater runoff. East of the 280
freeway, storm water flows into Colma Creek for ultimate disposal in San
Francisco Bay.
. Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Co. provides electrical
and natural gas service to the City of South San Francisco through a series of
overhead and underground electrical lines. Existing pump stations receive
electrical power from PG&E.
. Communications: AT & T provides a range of telephone and telecommunication
service to homes and businesses in the community.
Project Impacts
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? NI. The proposed project is
being undertaken to meet such discharge requirements. No impacts are therefore
anticipated.
b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities? NI.
The proposed project would not include any work on water or wastewater
treabnent facilities so no impacts are anticipated. The project would involve
upgrades to existing sewer lines.
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 54
-~.
c)
Require new storm drainage facilities? NI. Existing drainage patterns would not be
changed and no new drainage facilities would be needed. No impact would
therefore result.
d)
Are sufficient water supplies available? NI. Based on information provided in the
General Plan Existing Conditions Report, the water purveyor to the City has
indicated that an ample water supply exists to serve future land uses. In this
instance, the proposed project would not require any new source of water, so no
impact to water service is anticipated.
e)
Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? LS. See response to "a,"
above.
e, f)
Solid waste disposal? LS. Small quantities of solid waste would be generated by the
implementation of the proposed project, which would be construction debris. This
amount of solid waste is anticipated to be less-than-significant and can be
accommodated in the local sanitary landfill.
Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? NI.
The existing service provider will ensure adherence to federal, state and local solid
waste regulations should the proposed reorganization be approved. No impacts are
anticipated in this regard.
g)
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No. The
preceding analysis indicates that the proposed project would not have a significant
adverse impact on overall environmental quality, including biological resources or
cultural resources.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). No, the
proposed project involves elements to upgrade the City's sewer facilities to assist
in meeting wastewater discharge requirements. The project has been designed to
replace existing facilities and to allow limited new growth consistent with the
City's adopted General Plan, so there would be no cumulative impacts associated
with project approval.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. No such impacts have been
discovered in the course of preparing this Initial Study.
City of South San Francisco
Initial StudylPhase II Wet Weather
Page 55
18. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
This Initial Study includes two alternatives to the proposed project that is analyzed in
the preceding sections: a "No Project" alternative and an alternative routing alternative.
No Project alternative
Under this alternative, the proposed Phase II wet weather sewer upgrade project would
not be undertaken and none of the construction included in the Project description
section would occur. If this alternative is chosen by the City of San Francisco, none of
the impacts related to air quality, hazardous materials, erosion, short-term noise,
construction traffic impacts or other impacts identified in the preceding analysis would
occur. However, existing failing underground sewer facilities would not be replaced
and the City would not respond to a portion of the Cease-and-Desist Order issued by
the Regional Water Quality Control Board and potential groundwater pollution would
continue to occur. Therefore, the no project alternative would not be environmentally
sensitive to the proposed project.
Alternative Routing
Another alternative would include excavation of an open trench to stay within
Westborough Boulevard from Camaritas Avenue to EI Camino Real, crossing EI
Camino real and continuing in Chestnut Street to Mission Boulevard.
A benefit of this alternative would be to avoid work within an easement behind
commercial uses, including a bank and auto service station/ car wash. Since this
alternative would require open trenching, impacts relating to air quality, noise and
traffic may be somewhat greater than the proposed routing. The same impact to
hazards and hazardous materials and cultural resources would result as under the
proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would not be environmentally superior to
the proposed project.
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 56
Initial Study Preparers
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager
Miley Holman, Holman Associates, archeology
Matthew Clark, Holman Associates, archeology and cultural resources
Donald Ballanti, air quality
Tom Fraser, WRA, biology
Jane Maxwell, report graphics
Agencies and Organizations Consulted
The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial
Study:
City of South San Francisco
Terry White, P.E., Public Works Director
Dennis Chuck, P .E., Senior Engineer
Susy Kalkin, Acting Chief Planner
CSG (City consultant engineer)
Curt Luck, P.E., Project Engineer
References
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration for the South San Francisco Sewer
Improvement Project, Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, July 2002
South San Francisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues.
Dyett & Bhatia, 1997 .
South San Francisco General Plan, Dyett & Bhatia, 1999
South San Francisco General Plan EIR, EIP Associates, 1999
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 57
Appendix 1
Air Quality Analysis (Donald Ballanti)
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 58
Donald BaUanti
Certified Consulting Meteorologist
1424 Scott Street
EI Cerrito, CA
94530
(510) 234-6087
Fax: (510) 232-7752
AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
WET WEATHER PROGRAM PHASE II PROJECT
Prepared for:
Jerry Haag
2029 University Avenue
Berkeley, CA. 94704
June 2006
)
Air Pollution Meteorology - Dispersion Modeling -Climatological Analysis
-
Environmental Setting
Air Pollution Climatoloav
The amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by the rate of release
and the atmosphere's ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major
determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and, for
photochemical pollutants, sunshine.
-
Northwest winds are most common in South San Francisco, reflecting the orientation of
wind gaps within the mountains of the San Francisco Peninsula. Winds are persistent
and strong, providing excellent ventilation and carrying pollutants downwind. Winds
are lightest on the average in fall and winter.
The persistent winds in South San Francisco result in a relatively low potential for air
pollution. Even so, in fall and winter there are periods of several days when winds are
very light and local pollutants can build up.
Ambient Air Quality Standards
-
Both the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board
have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air
quality standards are levels of contaminants which represent safe levels that avoid specific
adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards
cover what are called "criteria" pollutants because the health and other effects of each
pollutant are described in criteria documents.
-
The federal and California ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table 1 for
important pollutants. The federal and state ambient standards were developed
independently with differing purposes and methods, although both federal and state
standards are intended to avoid health-related effects. As a result, the federal and state
standards differ in some cases. In general, the California state standards are more
stringent. This is particularly true for ozone and PM1O.
-
-
-
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) monitors air quality at
numerous sites within the nine-county District, although not within South San
Francisco. The closest air monitoring stations are in San Francisco to the north and
Redwood City to the south. In general, the federal ambient air quality standards are
met at these sites, but the more stringent state standards are exceeded for two
pollutants: ozone and particulate matter.
2
-
Table 1: Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Federal State
Time Primary Standard
Standard
Ozone 1-Hour -- 0.09 PPM
8-Hour 0.08 PPM 0.07 PPM
Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9.0 PPM 9.0 PPM
1-Hour 35.0 PPM 20.0 PPM
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average 0.05 PPM --
1-Hour - 0.25 PPM
Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average 0.03 PPM --
24-Hour 0.14 PPM 0.04 PPM
1-Hour - 0.25 PPM
PM10 Annual Average 50 jJg/m~ 20 jJglm~
24-Hour 150 l.Ig/m3 50 l.Ig/m3
PM2.5 Annual 15 jJglm3 12 jJg/m~
24-Hour 65 jJg/m3 --
Lead Calendar Quarter 1.5 jJg/m3 -
30 Day Average - 1.5 l.Ia1m3
Sulfates 24 Hour - 25 IJg/m3
Hydrogen Sulfide 1-Hour - 0.03 PPM
Vinyl Chloride 24-Hour - 0.01 PPM
PPM = Parts per Million
p.g/m3 = Micrograms per Cubic Meter
Source: California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards (5/17/06)
htto:/Iwww.arb.ca.Qov . aas/aaas2.odf
3
Attainment Status and Reaional Air Qualitv Plans
The federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act of 1988 require that the State
Air Resources Board, based on air quality monitoring data, designate portions of the
state where the federal or state ambient air quality standards are not met as
"nonattainment areas". Because of the differences between the national and state
standards, the designation of nonattainment areas is different under the federal and
state legislation.
The Bay is currently a nonattainment for 1-hour ozone standard. However, in April
2004, U.S. EPA made a final finding that the Bay Area has attained the national1-hour
ozone standard. The finding of attainment does not mean the Bay Area has been
reclassified as an attainment area for the 1-hour standard. The region must submit a
re-designation request to EPA in order to be reclassified as an attainment area.
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified the San Francisco Bay Area
as a nonattainment area for the federal 8-hour ozone standard. The Bay Area was
designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the federal PM2.5 standards.
Under the California Clean Air Act San Mateo County is a nonattainment area for
ozone and particulate matter (PM1o and PM2.5). The county is either attainment or
unclassified for other pollutants. The California Clean Air Act requires local air
pollution control districts to prepare air quality attainment plans. These plans must
provide for district-wide emission reductions of five percent per year averaged over
consecutive three-year periods or if not, provide for adoption of flail feasible measures
on an expeditious schedule".
Toxic Air Contaminants
In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs)
are another group of pollutants of concern. There are many different types of T ACs,
with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of T ACs include industrial processes such as
petroleum refining and chrome plating operations, commercial operations such as
gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle exhaust. Cars and trucks
release at least forty different toxic air contaminants. The most important, in terms of
health risk, are diesel particulate, benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene and
acetaldehyde.
Public exposure to T ACs can result from emissions from normal operations, as well as
accidental releases. Health effects of T ACs include cancer, birth defects, neurological
damage and death.
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
PROJECT IMPACTS
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? (NI)
The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently non-attainment for ozone (state and
federal ambient standards) and particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10)(state ambient
standard). While air quality plans exist for ozone, none exists for particulate matter.
The Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy1 is the current ozone air quality plan.
The plan contains mobile source controls, stationary source controls and transportation
control measures to be implemented in the region to attain the state ozone standards
within the Bay Area Air Basin.
A project would be judged to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional air
quality plan if it would be inconsistent with the growth assumptions, in terms of
population, employment or regional growth in Vehicle Miles Traveled. The Bay Area
2005 Ozone Strategy utilized the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
Projections 2003 forecasts of population and employment which are based on
city/county general plans.
The project would not conflict with the growth assumptions made in the preparation of
the regional air quality plans nor would obstruct implementation of control measures
contained in the regional air quality plans. The proposed sewer improvements would
not directly or indirectly induce additional population or employment growth, so no
impact would result.
Project funding sources may include the State Revolving Loan Fund. Since this
program is partially funded by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, the project
would be subject to the conformity requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments. The
conformity provisions of the Act are designed to ensure that federal agencies contribute
to, instead of jeopardizing, efforts to achieve the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.
The General Conformity rules require conformity determinations for projects if they
generate more emissions than minimum thresholds and are not specifically exempted
by the regulation. The Bay Area is currently a federal nonattainment area for ozone,
and the General Conformity rules establish the following "de minimis" thresholds:
100 tons per year for VOCs
100 tons per year for NOx
The operation of the project would not increase emIssIons. However, during
construction of the project additional emissions would be generated by construction
1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bav Area 2005 Ozone Strateav, January 4,
5
-
equipment and vehicles. These emiSSions have been estimated for the entire
construction periOd based on the types and numbers of equipment/vehicles and the
number of days they would be needed during construction. The emission factors
utilized were taken from the construction module of the URBEMIS-2002 emissions
program. 2
-
Construction emissions shown in Table 2 are substantially below the "de minimis"
thresholds for ozone precursors established for the region by the Federal Clean Air Act
conformity rules. The proposed project would not interfere with attainment of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards and would not require a conformity
determination.
-
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected
air quality violation? (LS/M)
-
Uncontrolled construction dust has the potential to locally cause exceedances of the
state/federal standards and/or contribute significantly to an existing violation. The dust
generating potential of the storm drain improvements is very limited. The project would
not involve grading, earthmoving, clearing or burning, which are the construction
activities with the highest potential for generating dust.
-
The BAAQMD significance threshold for construction dust impacts is based on the
appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide
feasible control measures for construction emission of PM10. If the appropriate
construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for
construction activities would be considered less-than-significant.
Mitigation Measure: The following measures should be included in construction
contracts to control fugitive dust emissions:
· Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during windy
periods; active areas adjacent to existing land uses shall be kept damp at all times,
or shall be treated with non-toxic stabilizers or dust palliatives;
· Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to
maintain at least two feet of freeboard;
· Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas
and staging areas at construction sites.
2 Jones and Stokes Associates, Software User's Guide: URBEMIS2002 for Windows
with Enhanced Construction Module, Version 8.7, April 2005.
6
-
. Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking
areas, and staging areas at construction sites; water sweepers shall vacuum up
excess water to avoid runoff-related impacts to water quality;
Table 2: Construction Emissions in Tons Per Year
ROG NOx
Project Construction 0.32 2.42
De Minimis Threshold 100 100
7
-
· Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking
areas, and staging areas at construction sites; water sweepers shall vacuum up
excess water to avoid runoff-related impacts to water quality;
· Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed
stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.);
· Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph;
· Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways;
· Watering or covering of stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can
be blown by the wind.
The above measures include all feasible measures for construction emissions identified
by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. According the District threshold of
significance for construction impacts, implementation of the measures would reduce
construction impacts of the project to a less than significant level.
-
c) Result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? (LS)
The project would not result in any long-term, operational air quality impacts. See item
(b) above regarding construction emissions.
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (LS/M)
The project would involve construction activity largely within roadway right-of-way
adjacent to sensitive receptors. Construction activity would affect some residential
areas, and construction would occur within streets adjacent to two schools (Spruce
School and Buri-Buri School. The project would result in dust emissions and diesel
exhaust emissions adjacent to sensitive receptors.
-
-
In 1998 the California Air Resources Board identified particulate matter from
diesel-fueled engines as a toxic air contaminant (T AC). CARB has completed a risk
management process that identified potential cancer risks for a range of activities using
diesel-fueled engines.3 High volume freeways, stationary diesel engines and facilities
attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic (distribution centers, truckstop) were
identified as having the highest associated risk.
Health risks from Toxic Air Contaminants are function of both concentration and
duration of exposure. Unlike the above types of sources, construction diesel impacts at
3 California Air Resources Board, Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter
Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Enaines and Vehicles, October 2000.
8
any location would be short-lived. Construction would proceed at rates of 150 to 500
feet per day, so that construction emissions would affect a given location for no more
than a few days. Due to the short duration of effect and the level of emission control
required under (b) above, this impact would be less-than-significant.
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (LS)
During construction the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use would
create odors. These odors are temporary and localized, and would not affect
neighboring properties for any extended time. The potential for diesel odors impacts is
less-than-significant.
9
-
Appendix: Emissions Calculation Spreadsheet Printout
10
1Il
Q)
:;:;
.S;
~
c:
o
:;:;
U
::J
....
-
1Il
c:
o
()
E
o
.j::
1Il
c:
o
.iij
1Il
.E
w
oS
m
S
u
CO
()
,g
(j)
Q)-
L: 55
~ E
mOo
l!! .5
0.0-
cnw
-
Ul
"C
C
::J ><
&.0
";;Z
c
o
'in
.!! C)
EO
UJ~
c\/...-<O<OOO
......(")101000
....to>"':"':o"":
oC\/......C\/C\/(")C\/
....
:::!:
a.
(")C\/C\/c\/100
~~~o)c\/q
<O(")I01O('")c\/
(")...-<o<oIOc\/
10...... "<t""<t" <000
...-
1O"<t""<t""<t"01O
0)C\/C\/C\/0c\/
cO....toOoO"':o
<o...-lOlOoo"<t"
c\/ ...-
~~~~~~
...
CD
.a
E
::J
Z
C
o
;;
l!
::J
C
(")(")00001010
00C\/C\/............
...- ...-
000000000000
CD
II
Ul
::I
~
'j;
C
"<t".................."<t"<O
c\/ ...... ............ . (")
- 000000
i;'o
"C....
-:::!:
~a.
c
::J
o
c.
-><
l!!0
SZ
u
co
u.
c
o
'in
.!! C)
EO
UJD::
...-"<t""<t""<t"...-<O
C\/<O<O<O......O)
10 cO cO 'cO 00 0
~ ~..- ..-
1000000000......
<0000000
oC\iC\iC\i"':"':
CD ...
c. 0
>- Ul... !it
t- UlCD co
1: ~:;...U)...
CDCDC....OCDO
EoEt-7Ua;7U
.e- ~ 8 'fi ~ b ia
::J U c: c: c U
0" co .!:: .- CD 0 ><
UJID<c3:C)OUJ
1Il
-0
c:
::J
o
0.
10
..-
....t
o
c\/
~
......
10
<0
"<t"
c\/
~
00
...-
<0
1Il
c:
o
-
10
......
o
c\/
o
..-
o
c\/
00
00
c\/
(")
C\i
-
Ul
"C
C
::J ><
&.0
";;Z
c
o
'in
,!! C)
EO
UJ~
<0
"<t"
0)
o
(")
o
...
CD
.a
E
::J
Z
c
o
;;
l!
::J
C
CD
C)
co
Ul
::I
~
'j;
C
-
.!!!o
.- ....
E:::!:
Via.
E
l!
C)
-><
l!!o
SZ
U
co
u.
c
o
'in
.!! C)
EO
UJ~
1Il
Q)
u
:c
~
(")00
0...-......
"':cOO>
o
....
::E
a.
O(")"<t"
"<t""<t"1O
oC\i....t
..-10...-
..-
0000..-
"<t"100
('")....to
..-
c\/..-(")
(")(")10
00......
..- ...-
000
C\/C\/c\/
c\/..-..-
C\/<O<O
OC\/c\/
000
<0<0<0
"<t"101O
"":~~
..- ..- ...-
..- ..-
(")...-..-
0000
(") . .
. ...- ..-
o
~
U
8. ::J ~
>- ~ g
t-Ul"C'"
CD C. CD t-
13::110 c.
:E~-E
CD .2 .!!! ::J
>a.u.C
1Il
-0
c:
::J
o
0.
(")
~
<0
..-
00
(")
,...:
......
..-
......
q
00
1Il
c:
,g
"<t"
..-
"<t"
00
o
o
o
00
00
<0
00
00
o
o
10
(")
o
0)
o
q
o
....
m
Q)
~
1Il
c:
o
-
..-
..-
o
c\/
'<3:
c\/
c\/
(")
o
co
"0
-
-0
c:
~
C>
-
Appendix 2
Biological Reconnaissance (WRA)
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 59
Biological Assessment Report
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WWP PHASE II
SAN FRANCISCO, SAN MATEO COUNTY
CALIFORNIA
Prepared For:
Ray Razavi, City Engineer
City of South San Francisco
PO Box 711; 400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco. CA 94083
Date:
June 2006
Contact:
Tom Fraser
fraser@wra-ca.com
(e)wra
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
2169-G Eaa1 Franclsc:o Blvd., San Rafael. CA 94'01 (415) 454-8868 tel (415) 454-0129 tax Info@WICI.ca.com WWW.wra-ca.ClOm
-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
1.1 General Study Area Description ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
1.2 Regulatory Background ........................................... 1
1.2.1 Special Status Species ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
1.2.2 Sensitive Plant Communities and Aquatic Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3
2.0 METHODS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
2.1 Plant Communities ............................................... 4
2.2 Sensitive Plant Communities and Aquatic Features. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.1 Wetlands and Waters ....................................... 5
2.3 Special Status Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5
2.3.1 Literature Review .......................................... 5
2.3.2 Site Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5
3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6
3.1 Plant Communities ............................................... 6
3.2 Sensitive Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6
3.3 Special Status Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6
3.3.1 Wildlife................................................... 6
3.3.2 Plants ................................................... 7
4.0 CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7
5.0 REFERENCES......................................................... 8
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Location Map of Study Area ............................................ 2
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix B
List of potentially occurring special status plant and wildlife species
Study Area photographs
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On June 1, 2006 a biological assessment was conducted at six sewage pipe construction
locations in South San Francisco (Study Areas) by biologists from WRA, Inc.
A biological assessment provides general information on the potential presence of sensitive
species or habitats. The biological assessment is not an official protocol level survey for listed
species that may be required for project approval by local, state, or federal agencies. However,
specific findings on the occurrence of any species or the presence of sensitive habitats may
require that protocol surveys be conducted. This assessment is based on information available
at the time of the study and on site conditions that were observed on the date of the site visit.
1.1 General Study Area Description
The Study Area consists of six locations in the San Francisco South USGS quadrangle (Figure
1). The six Study Area locations are along residential and commercial neighborhood streets
throughout South San Francisco and are designated as 1) Airport Boulevard relief trunk, which
runs from Sister Cities Boulevard to North Canal Street and South Linden Avenue; 2) Hillside
Boulevard subtrunk, which runs from Linden Avenue to Arden Avenue; 3) Portola Avenue
subtrunk, which runs from EI Camino Real, across EI Cortez Avenue and Ramona Avenue
through Portola Avenue and Francisco Drive to the intersection of Francisco Drive and Sonora
Avenue; 4) Victory Avenue subtrunk, which runs between South Spruce Avenue and South
Linden Avenue; 5) Westborough Boulevard subtrunk, which runs along Del Monte Avenue from
Nyla Avenue to Arroyo Drive and along Camaritas Avenue from Arroyo Drive to Westborough
Boulevard and along Westborough Boulevard and Chestnut Avenue from Camaritas Avenue to
Mission Rd; and 6) 151 Street subtrunk, which runs along EI Camino Real northeasterly under
BART to the connection with Mission Road trunk sewer in Orange Memorial Park.
1.2 Regulatory Background
1.2.1 Special Status Species
Special status species include those plants and wildlife species that have been formally listed,
are proposed as endangered or threatened, or are candidates for such listing under the federal
Endangered Species Act (ESA) or California Endangered Species Act (CESA). These Acts
afford protection to both listed and proposed species. In addition, the California Department of
Fish and Game (CDFG) Species of Special Concern, which are species that face extirpation in
California if current population and habitat trends continue, are considered special status
species. Although California Species of Concern generally have no special legal status, they
are given special consideration under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In
addition to regulations for special status species, most birds in the United States, including non-
status species, are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Under this legislation,
destroying active nests, eggs, and young is illegal. Plant species on California Native Plant
Society (CNPS) Lists 1 and 2 are also considered special status plant species. Impacts to
these species are considered significant according to CEQA. The CNPS List 3 and 4 plants
have little or no protection under CEQA, but are included in this analysis for completeness. The
assessment may also include species of local concern as designated by a city or county.
-
-
1.2.2 Sensitive Plant Communities and Aquatic Features
Sensitive habitats include habitats that fulfill special functions or have special values, such as
wetlands, streams, and riparian habitat. These habitats are regulated under federal regulations
(such as the Clean Water Act), state regulations (such as the Porter-Cologne Act, CDFG's
Streambed Alteration Program, or CEQA), or local ordinances or policies (such as City or
County Tree Ordinances, Special Habitat Management Areas or General Plan Special Land
Use areas).
-
Waters of the United States
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates "Waters of the United States" under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. "Waters of the U.S: are defined broadly as waters
susceptible to use in commerce, including interstate waters and wetlands, all other waters
(intrastate waterbodies, including wetlands), and their tributaries (33 CFR 328.3). Potential
wetland areas, according to the three criteria used to delineate wetlands stated in the Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987), are identified by the presence of (1)
hydrophytic vegetation, (2) hydric soils, and (3) wetland hydrology. Areas that are inundated for
sufficient duration and depth to exclude growth of hydrophytic vegetation are subject to Section
404 jurisdiction as "other waters" and are often characterized by an ordinary high water line
(OHW). Other waters, for example, generally include lakes, rivers, and streams. The
placement of fill materials into "Waters of the U.S," (including wetlands) generally requires an
individual or nationwide permit from the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Waters of the State
"Waters of the State" are defined by the Porter-Cologne Act as "any surface water or
groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state." The Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) protects all waters in its regulatory scope, but has special
responsibility for wetlands, riparian areas, and headwaters. These waterbodies have high
resource value, are vulnerable to filling, and are not systematically protected by other programs.
RWQCB jurisdiction includes "isolated" wetlands and waters that may not be regulated by the
Corps under Section 404. "Waters of the State" are regulated by the RWQCB under the State
Water Quality Certification Program which regulates diSCharges of fill and dredged material
under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.
Projects that require a Corps permit, or fall under other federal jurisdiction, and have the
potential to impact .Waters of the State," are required to comply with the terms of the Water
Quality Certification determination. If a proposed project does not require a federal permit, but
does involve dredge or fill activities that may result in a discharge to "Waters of the State," the
RWQCB has the option to regulate the dredge and fill activities under its state authority in the
form of Waste Discharge Requirements or Certification of Waste Discharge Requirements.
Streams. Lakes. and RiDarian Habitat
Streams and lakes, as habitat for fish and wildlife species, are subject to jurisdiction by CDFG
under Sections 1600-1616 of the State Fish and Game Code. Alterations to or work within or
adjacent to streambeds or lakes generally require a 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration
Agreement. The term stream, which includes creeks and rivers, is defined in the California
Code of Regulations (CCR) as follows: "a body of water that flows at least periodically or
intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life.
This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported
3
riparian vegetation" (14 CCR 1.72). In addition, the term stream can include ephemeral
streams, dry washes, watercourses with subsurface flows, canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches,
and other means of water conveyance if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream
dependent terrestrial wildlife (CDFG ESD 1994). Riparian is defined as "on, or pertaining to, the
banks of a stream". Therefore, riparian vegetation is defined as "vegetation which occurs in
and/or adjacent to a stream and is dependent on, and occurs because of, the stream itself'
(CDFG ESO 1994). Removal of riparian vegetation also requires a Section 1602 Lake and
Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG.
Sensitive Plant Communities
Sensitive plant communities include habitats that fulfill special functions or have special values.
Natural communities considered sensitive are those identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by CDFG. CDFG ranks sensitive communities as "threatened" or "very
threatened" and keeps records of their occurrences in its Natural Diversity Database. Sensitive
plant communities are also identified by CDFG on their List of California Natural Communities
Recognized by the CNDDB. Impacts to sensitive natural communities identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFG or USFWS must be considered and
evaluated under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Code or Regulations: Title
14, Div. 6, Chap. 3, Appendix G). Examples of sensitive plant communities include wetland,
riparian oak woodland, and serpentine communities.
2.0 METHODS
On June 1, 2006, the Study Area was visited to determine (1) plant communities present within
the Study Area, (2) if existing conditions provided suitable habitat for any special status plant or
wildlife species, and (3) if sensitive habitats were present. Prior to the site visit, the Soil Survey
of San Mateo County, Eastern Part, and San Francisco County, California (U.S. Department of
Agriculture 1991) was examined to determine if any unique soil types that could support
sensitive plant communities and/or aquatic features were present in the Study Area. A list of
special status plants and animals that may occur in the area is listed in Appendix A.
2.1 Plant Communities
Plant communities were classified based on the existing descriptions developed by The
California Manual of Vegetation (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995). However, in some cases it is
necessary to identify variants of plant community types or to describe non-vegetated areas that
are not described in the literature.
2.2 Sensitive Plant Communities and Aquatic Features
Plant communities identified within the Study Area were evaluated to determine if they are
considered sensitive under federal or state regulations or policies. Special methods used to
determine potential jurisdiction under these regulations and policies are given below:
4
-
-
2.2.1 Wetlands and Waters
The Study Area was surveyed to determine if any wetlands and "waters" potentially subject to
jurisdiction by the Corps, RWQCB, or CDFG were present. The assessment was based
primarily on the presence of wetland plant indicators, but may also include any observed
indicators of wetland hydrology or wetland soils. Any potential wetland areas are identified as
areas dominated by plant species with a wetland indicator status1 of OBL, FACW, or FAC as
given on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National List of Plant Species that Occur
in Wetlands (Reed 1988). Evidence of wetland hydrology can include direct evidence (primary
indicators) such as visible inundation or saturation, surface sediment deposits, algal mats and
drift lines, or indirect indicators (secondary indicators), such as oxidized root channels. Some
indicators of wetland soils include dark colored soils, soils with a sulfidic odor, and soils that
contain redoximorphic features as defined by the Corps Manual and Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils in the United States (NRCS 2002).
-
2.3
Special Status SpeCies
-
2.3.1 Literature Review
Potential occurrence of special status species in the Study Area was evaluated by first
determining which special status species occur in the vicinities of the six locations through a
literature and database search. Database searches for known occurrences of special status
species included the San Francisco South 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle and the eight
surrounding USGS quadrangles. The following sources Were reviewed to determine which
special status plant and wildlife species have been documented to occur in the vicinities of the
Study Area:
· California Natural Diversity Database records (CNDDB) (CDFG 2006)
· USFWS Quadrangle Species Lists (USFWS 2006)
· CNPS Electronic Inventory records (CNPS 2006)
· CDFG publication "California's Wildlife. Volumes I-I"" (Zeiner et at 1990)
· CDFG pUblication "Amphibians and Reptile Species of Special Concern in
California" (Jennings and Hayes 2004)
-
2.3.2 Site Assessment
A site visit was conducted to search for suitable habitats within the Study Area for those species
identified as occurring within the vicinity. Potential for special status species to occur in the
Study Area was then evaluated according to the following criteria:
(1) Not Present. Habitat on and adjacent to the site is clearly unsuitable for the species
requirements (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant
community, site history, disturbance regime).
(2) Unlikelv. Few of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are
present, and/or the majority of the habitat on and adjacent to the site is unsuitable or
of very poor quality. The species is not likely to be found on the site.
1 OBL = Obligate, always found in wetlands (>99% frequency of occurrence); FACW = Facultative
wetland, usually found in wetlands (67-99% frequency of occurrence); FAC = Facultative, equal
occurrence in wetland or non-wetlands (34-66% frequency of occurrence).
5
-
-
(3) Moderate Potential. Some of the habitat components meeting the species
requirements are present, and/or only some of the habitat on or adjacent to the site
is unsuitable. The species has a moderate probability of being found on the site.
(4) Hiah Potential. All of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are
present and/or most of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is highly suitable. The
species has a high probability of being found on the site.
(5) Present. Species is observed on the site or has been recorded (Le., CNDDB, other
reports) on the site recently.
Appendix A presents the special status plant and wildlife species with a potential to occur within
the Study Area, their habitat requirements, and a rating of potential for occurrence.
A site visit is intended to identify suitable habitat for special status species known to occur in the
vicinity in order to determine their potential to occur within the Study Area. The site visit does
not constitute a protocol level survey and is not intended to determine the actual presence or
absence of a species; however, if a special status species is observed during the site visit, its
presence will be recorded and discussed.
3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The following sections present the results and discussion of the biological assessment for
special status species and sensitive habitats within the Study Area.
3.1 Plant Communities
The vegetation within the Study Area consists mostly of ornamental trees and herbaceaous
species planted along the roads and in road medians, and turf grass lawns in front of
residences. In addition, a redwood and pine woodland is present in Orange Memorial Park
through which the 1st Street subtrunk runs.
The only plant community that can be described is the ruderal grassland field between 1 st and
2nd Streets, along the southwest edge of Orange Memorial Park in the 1st Street subtrunk
location. This field is dominated by non-native plants including, slender wild oats (Avena
barbata), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), Italian ryegrass
(Lo/ium multiflorum), and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare).
3.2 Sensitive Habitats
No sensitive habitats were identified within the Study Area.
3.3 Special Status Species
3.3.1 Wi/dlife
Fifty-two special status species of wildlife have been recorded in the vicinity of the Study Area.
Appendix A summarizes the potential for occurrence for these species in the Study Area. Of
these species, 46 wildlife species were determined not to be present because suitable habitat is
6
-
-
not present or is limited within the Study Area, four species are unlikely to occur in the Study
Area, and two species have a moderate potential for occurrence.
The two special status wildlife species with a moderate potential for occurrence in the Study
Area are discussed further below.
Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis), WBWG, High Priority. The Yuma myotis is found
throughout most of California at lower elevations in a wide variety of habitats. Day roosts are
found in buildings, trees, mines, caves, bridges, and rock crevices. Night roosts are usually
associated with buildings, bridges, or other man made structures (Philpott 1996). The Yuma
myotis may roost in buildings and under bridges near the Study Area. Although the Yuma
myotis potentially can be found roosting near the Study Area, this project will not impact roost
habitat within the Study Area. No mitigation measures will be necessary.
-
Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovic/anus), CDFG Species of Special Concern, BCC Bird
of Conservation Concern. The Loggerhead Shrike is a common resident and winter visitor in
lowlands and foothills throughout California. It prefers open habitats with scattered trees,
shrubs, posts, fences, utility lines or other perches. Nests are usually built on a stable branch in
a densely-foliaged shrub or small tree and are usually well-concealed. Loggerhead Shrike
foraging habitat may be found near the Study Area, but no impact to nests will occur within the
StUdy Area. No mitigation measures will be necessary.
-
3.3.2 Plants
Based upon a review of the resources and databases given in Section 2.3.1, 63 special status
plant species have been documented in the general vicinity of the Study Area. Appendix A
summarizes species habitat requirements and evaluates the suitability of on-site habitats to
support these species. Based on this evaluation, none of the special status species are likely to
ever be present in the Study Area. The habitat was determined to be unsuitable for a variety of
factors, including lack of naturally occurring vegetation communities (e.g., coastal scrub,
cismonate forest, marshes), lack of appropriate substrates or landforms (e.g., serpentine soils,
rocky soils, coastal bluffs), and disturbed habitat conditions (e.g., planted ornamental
vegetation) .
The site assessment occurred during the blooming period of 45 of the special status plant
species generated by the record search; however, none of these species were observed.
-
-
4.0 CONCLUSION
No special status plant species and two special status wildlife species have a moderate
potential to occur within the Study Area. However, these species will not be affected by the
project. No sensitive habitats were found in the Study Area.
Based on the results of the biological assessment, no special status species, their potential
habitat, or sensitive plant communities within the Study Area will be impacted by the proposed
sewage upgrade project.
7
-
5.0 REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Game. Environmental Services Division (ESD). 1994. A
Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements, Sections 1600-1607,
California Fish and Game Code.
California Department of Fish and Game. 2006. Natural Diversity Database, Wildlife and
Habitat Data Analysis Branch. Sacramento.
California Native Plant Society. 2006. Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular
Plants of California. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Department of the Army, Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi,
39180-0631.
Hickman, J. C. (ed.) 1993. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. University of
California Press.
Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of
California. Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento,
California.
Jennings, Mark R. 2004. An Annotated Check List of Amphibians and Reptile Species of
California and Adjacent Waters. Third, revised edition. California Department of Fish and
Game.
Jennings, M. R. and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in
California. California Department of Fish and Game, Rancho Cordova, California.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2002. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the
United States, version 5.0. G.w. Hurt, P.M. Whited, eds. USDA, NRCS in cooperation
with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, Fort Worth, TX.
Sawyer, J.D. and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native
Plant Society.
Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: California (Region 0).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88(26.10).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1991. Soil Survey of San Mateo
County, Eastern Part, and San Francisco County, California. 120 pp. + appendices.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Unofficial Species Lists, Sacramento
Fish and Wildlife Service. Sacramento. June 5.
Zeiner, D. C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayers, and M. White. 1990. California's Wildlife,
Volume I-III: Amphibians and Reptiles, Birds, Mammals. California Statewide Wildlife
Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
8
-
-
APPENDIX A
LIST OF POTENTIAL SPECIAL STATUS PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES
-
~
Appendix A. Special status plant and animal species that may occur, or are known to occur in the vicinity of the Study Area. List compiled for the
San Francisco South USGS quad and the eight surrounding quads, using the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Califomia Natural
Diversity Database (CNDDB) 2006, the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) electronic inventory 2006, and the United States Fish and INildlife
USFWS) Official Soecies List 2006.
Species Status * Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence
Mammals
salt-marsh wandering CSC Found in salt marshes of the South Arm of San Not Present. Suitable salt marsh habitat is
shrew Francisco Bay. Prefer medium to high marsh 6-8ft not present in the Study Area.
Sorex vagrans above sea level.
halicoetes
Townsend's western CSC Primarily found in rural settings in a wide variety of Not Present. Suitable foraging and roosting
habitat is not present due to disturbed
big-eared bat habitats including oak woodlands and mixed development in the Study Area.
Corynominus townsendii coniferous-deciduous forest. Day roosts highly
townsendii associated with caves and mines. Very sensitive to
human disturbance.
western small-footed WBWG Commonly found in arid uplands of California. Feeds Not Present. Suitable roosting and foraging
myotis on a variety of small flying insects. Seeks cover in habitat is not present in the Study Area.
Myotis ci/iofabrum caves, buildings, mines, crevices, and occasionally
under bridges.
long-eared myolis WBWG Primarily a forest associated species. Day roosts in Not Present. Suitable roosting and foraging
habitat in a forested area is not present in
Myotis evotis hollow trees, under exfOliating bark, rock outcrop the Study Area.
crevices and buildings. Other roosts include caves,
mines and under bridges.
fringed myotis WBWG Associated with a wide variety of habitats including Unlikely. Existing disturbance in buildings
Myotis thysanodes mixed coniferous-deciduous forest and in the urban area likely precludes presence
redwood/sequoia groves. Buildings, mines and large in the Study Area.
snags are important day and night roosts.
Yuma myolis WBWG Known for its ability to survive in urbanized Moderate Potential. Suitable roosting and
Myotis yumanensis environments. Also found in heavily forested settings. foraging habitat may be present in the
Day roosts in buildings, trees, mines, caves, bridges vicinity of the project, particularly in older
and rock crevices. Night roosts associated with man- buildings. Probably forages in the Study
made structures. Area.
A-1
Species Status * Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence
greater western mastiff CSC, WBWG Found in a wide variety of habitat. Distribution Not Present. Suitable roosting and
bat appears to be tied to large rock structures, which foraging habitat in boulders and cliff
Eumops perotis provide suitable roosting sites, including cliff crevices crevices is not present in the Study Area.
ca/ifomicus and cracks in boulders.
salt-marsh harvest FE,SE Primary habitat in pickleweed-dominated saline Not Present. Suitable pickleweed and
mouse emergent marshes of San Francisco Bay. Require saline emergent marsh habitat is not
Reithrodontomys adjacent upland areas for escape from high tides. present in the Study Area.
raviventris
San Francisco dusky- CSC Occurs in forest habitats of moderate canopy and Not Present. Suitable canopy and dense
footed woodrat moderate to dense understory. Also found in understory habitat is not present in the
Neotoma fuscipes chaparral habitats. Feeds mainly on woody plants: live Study Area.
annectens oak, maple, coffeeberry, alder, and elderberry
Birds
Common Loon CSC INinter in estuarine and sub-tidal marine habitats along Not Present. Suitable nesting and foraging
habitat in sub-tidal marine areas are not
Gavia immer coast, San Francisco Bay. Dresent in the Study Area.
California Brown Pelican FE, SE Found in estuarine, marine sub-tidal, and marine Not Present. Suitable nesting habitat on
Pe/ecanus occidenta/is pelagic waters along the coast. Nest on rocky or low undisturbed islands and foraging habitat in
estuarine and marine sub-tidal areas are
ca/ifomicus brushy slopes of undisturbed islands. not present in the Study Area.
Double-Crested CSC Nests along coast on sequestered islets, usually on Not Present. Suitable nesting and foraging
habitat in tall trees along lake margins are
Cormorant ground with sloping surface or in tall trees along lake not present in the Study Area.
Pha/acrocorax aufitus margins.
. Not Present. Suitable nesting and foraging
lNhite- Tailed Kite CFP Year-long resident of coastal and valley lowlands; habitat in agricultural areas are not present
E/anus /eucurus rarely found away from agricultural areas. Preys on
small diurnal mammals and occasional birds, insects, in the Study Area.
reptiles, and amphibians.
Bald Eagle FT,SE Requires large bodies of water, or free-flowing rivers Not Present. Suitable nesting and foraging
habitat in large bodies of water are not
Haliaeetus with abundant fish adjacent snags or other perches. present in the Study Area.
/eucocepha/us Nests in large, old-growth, or dominant live tree with
open branchwork.
A-2
-
-
-
-
-
Species Status * Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence
Northern Harrier CSC Found in open grasslands, prairies, and marshes. Not Present. Suitable nesting and foraging
Circus cyaneus Tend to nest near water. habitat in open grassland, prairies, and
marshes are not Dresent in the Studv Area.
Cooper's Hawk CSC Inhabits areas with dense tree stands or patchy Unlikely. Poor nesting and foraging habitat
Accipter cooperi woodlands. Usually nests in deciduous riparian areas present in the Study Area.
or second-growth conifer stands near streams.
Ferruginous Hawk CSC, BCC Frequents open grasslands, sagebrush flats, desert Not Present. Suitable nesting and foraging
Buteo rega/is scrub, low foothills surrounding valleys and fringes of habitat in grasslands, sagebrush flats, and
pinyon-juniper habitats. scrub are not present in the Study Area.
American Peregrine SE, BCC INinters throughout Central Valley. Requires protected Not Present. Suitable nesting and foraging
Falcon cliffs and ledges for cover. Feeds on a variety of birds, habitat in cliff side are not present in the
Falco peregrinus and some mammals, insects, and fish. Study Area.
anatum
California Black Rail ST, BCC Rarely seen resident of saline, brackish, and fresh Not Present. Suitable nesting and foraging
Latera/fus jamaicensis emergent wetlands in the San Francisco. Bay Area. habitat in emergent wetlands and
coturnicu/us Nest in dense stands of pickleweed pickleweed stands are not present in the
Studv Area.
California Clapper Rail FE,SE Found in tidal salt marshes of San Francisco Bay. Not Present. Suitable nesting and foraging
Ra/fus longirostris Require mudflats for foraging and dense vegetation on habitat in tidal salt marshes and dense
obso/etus higher ground for nesting. vegetation are not present in the Study
Area.
Western Snowy Plover FT, CSC, BCC Federal listing applies only to the Pacific Coastal Not Present. Suitable nesting and foraging
(nesting) Population. Found on sandy beaches, salt pond levees habitat are not present in the Study Area.
Charadrius a/exandrinus and shores of large alkali lakes. Need sandy gravelly
nivosus or friable soils for nesting.
Long-Billed Curlew CSC, BCC INinters in large coastal estuaries, upland herbaceous Not Present. Suitable foraging habitat in
Numenius americanus areas, and croplands. Breeds in northeastern estuaries and cropland is not present in the
California in wet meadow habitat. Study Area.
Califomia Least Tern FE,SE Breeding colonies in San Francisco Bay found in Not Present. Suitable nesting and foraging
(nesting colony) abandoned salt ponds and along estuarine shores. habitat salt ponds and estuarine shores are
Stema antif/arum browni Nests on barren to sparsely vegetated site near water. not present in the Study Area.
A-3
-
-
Species Status * Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence
Black Skimmer <nesting CSC, BCC Nests on gravel bars, low islets, and sandy beaches in Not Present. Suitable nesting and foraging
colony) unvegetated sites. habitat in gravel bars, low islets, and sandy
Rynchops niger beaches are not present in the Study Area.
Marbled Murrelet FT,SE Breed in old-growth redwood stands containing Not Present. Suitable nesting and foraging
Brachyramphus platform-like branches along coastal areas. habitat in old-growth redwood stands are
marmoratus not present in the StUdy Area.
Westem Burrowing Owl CSC Frequents open grasslands and shrublands with Not Present. Suitable nesting and foraging
Athene cunicu/aria perches and burrows. Preys upon insects, small habitat in open grasslands are not present
hypugea mammals, reptiles, birds, and carrion. Nests and in the Study Area.
roosts in old burrows of small mammals.
Short-Eared Owl CSC Found in open, treeless areas with elevated sites for Not Present. Suitable nesting and foraging
Asio ffammeus perches and dense vegetation for roosting and habitat in open treeless areas and dense
nesting. vegetation are not present in the Study
. Area.
Vaux's Swift CSC Forages high in the air over most terrain and habitats Not Present. Suitable foraging habitat in
Chaetura vauxi but prefer rivers/lakes. Requires large hollow trees for riversnakes and hollow trees for nesting is
nesting. not present in the Study Area.
Black Swift CSC,BCC Breeds in small colonies on cliffs behind or adjacent to Not Present. Suitable nesting and foraging
Cypse/oides niger waterfalls in deep canyons and sea-bluffs above surf. habitat on cliffs and sea bluffs are not
Forages widely. present in the Study Area.
Olive-Sided Flycatcher BCC Most often found in montane conifer forests where tall Unlikely. Suitable nesting and foraging
Contopus cooperi trees overlook canyons, meadows, lakes or other open habitat in tall trees and open terrain may be
terrain present in the Study Area.
Bank Swallow ST Migrant in riparian and other lowland habitats in Not Present. Suitable nesting and foraging
Riparia riparia western California. Nests in riparian areas with vertical habitat in riparian areas with vertical cliffs
cliffs and bands with fine-textured or sandy soils in are not present in the Study Area.
which to nest.
Loggerhead Shrike CSC,BCC Prefers open habitats with scattered shrubs, trees, and Moderate Potential. Suitable foraging
Lanius /udovicianus utility lines from which to forage for large insects. Nest habitat in scattered! open areas are present
well concealed above ground in densely-foliaged shrub in the Study Area. Not likely to nest in or
or tree. near the Study Area.
-
A-4
-
-
Species Status * Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence
Yellow Warbler esc Nests in riparian stands of willows, cottonwoods, Not Present. Suitable nesting and foraging
Dendroica petechia aspens, sycamores, and alders. Also nests in habitat in riparian willows, cottonwood,
brewsteri montane shrubbery in open conifer forests. aspen, sycamore, and alder are not present
in the Studv Area.
Saltmarsh Common CSC, BCC Frequents low, dense vegetation near water including Not Present. Suitable nesting and foraging
Yellowthroat fresh to saline emergent wetlands. Brushy habitats habitat in emergent wetlands are not
Geoth/ypis trichas used in migration. Forages among wetland herbs and present in the Study Area.
sinuosa shrubs for insects primarily.
Bell's Sage Sparrow esc, BCC Prefers dense chaparral and scrub habitats in breeding Not Present. Suitable nesting and foraging
Amphispiza belli season. Found in more open habitats in winter. habitat in dense chaparral and scrub are
not Dresent in the Studv Area.
Alameda (South Bay) esc, BCC Found in saline emergent wetlands of the south bay. Not Present. Suitable nesting and foraging
Song Sparrow Require low, dense vegetation for cover and nesting. habitat in saline emergent wetland and
Me/ospiza me/odia dense vegetation are not present in the
pusiffu/a Study Area.
Tricolored Blackbird CSC,BCC Usually nests over or near freshwater in dense cattails Not Present. Suitable nesting and foraging
Age/aius tricolor tules, or thickets of willow, blackberry, wild rose or ' habitat in freshwater dense cattail or
other tall herbs. thickets of willow are not present in the
Studv Area.
Lawrence's Goldfinch Bee Inhabits oak woodlands, chaparral, riparian Unlikely. Suitable nesting and foraging
Carduelis /awrencei woodlands, pinyon-juniper associations, and weedy habitat may be available in weedy areas in
areas near water during the breeding season. the Study Area; however, not typically found
Reptiles and Amphibians in urban areas.
western pond turtle CSC Occurs in perennial ponds, lakes, rivers and streams Not Present. Suitable aquatic habitat is not
C/emmys marmorata with suitable basking habitat (mud banks, mats of present in the Study Area.
floating vegetation, partially submerged logs) and
submerged shelter.
California homed lizard CSC Occurs in valley-foothill hardwood, conifer and riparian Not Present. Suitable conifer, riparian, and
Phrynosoma coronatum habitats, as well as in pine-cypress juniper and annual annual grass habitat are not present in the
fronta/e grass habitats. Prefers sand areas, washes, flood Study Area.
plains and wind-blown deposits.
A-5
-
-
-
Species Status * Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence
San Francisco garter FE, SE Found in the vicinity of freshwater marshes, ponds and Not Present. Suitable freshwater marsh
snake slow moving streams. Prefers dense cover and water and pond habitat are not present in the
Thamnophis sirtafis depths of at least one foot. Upland areas important. Study Area.
tetrataenia
California tiger FT,CSC Inhabits annual grass habitat and mammal burrows. Not Present. Suitable annual grass habitat,
salamander Seasonal ponds and vernal pOOls crucial to breeding mammal burrow, and seasonal ponds are
Ambystoma not present in the Study Area.
cafifomiense
California red-legged FT, CSC Associated with quiet perennial to intermittent ponds, Not Present. Suitable ponds, pools, and
frog stream pools and wetlands. Prefers shorelines with wetland habitat are not present in the Study
Rana aurora draytonii extensive vegetation. Documented to disperse Area.
through upland habitats after rains.
foothill yellow-legged CSC Found in or near rocky streams in a variety of habitats. Not Present. Suitable roclky stream habitat
frog Feed on both aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates. is not present in the Study Area.
Rana boylii
Invertebrates
vernal pool fairy shrimp FT Inhabit small, clear-water sandstone-depression pools, Not Present. Suitable vemal pool habitat is
Branchinecta /ynchi grassy swales, slumps, or basalt-flow depression not present in the Study Area.
pools.
vernal pool tadpole FE Pools commonly found in grass bottomed swales of Not Present. Suitable vernal pool habitat is
shrimp unplowed grasslands. Some pools are mud-bottomed not present in the Study Area.
Lepidurus packardi and highly turbid.
ohlone tiger beetle FE The Ohlone tiger beetle is endemic to Santa Cruz Not Present. Although this species is
Cicinde/a oh/one County where it is known only from coastal terraces historically found in San Mateo County,
supporting remnant patches of native grassland Califomia oatgrass (Danthonia ca/ifomica)
habitat. and purple needlegrass (Stipa pu/chra) are
not oresent in the Studv Area.
-
A-6
-
-
Species Status * Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence
San Bruno elfin butterfly FE Coastal, mountainous areas with grassy ground cover Not Present. Host plant Sedum
Incisalia mossi bayensis mainly in the vicinity of San Bruno Mtn. Colonies are ' spathufifolium is not present in the Study
located on steep, north-facing slopes within the fog Area.
belt. Larval host plant is Sedum spathufifofium.
Mission blue butterfly FE Inhabits grasslands of the San Francisco peninsula. Not Present. Host plant Lupinus albifrons,
Icaricia icariodides Host plants: Lupinus albifrons, L. variico/or. and L. L. variicolor, and L. formosus are not
missionensis formosus. present in the Study Area.
Bay checkerspot FT Restricted to native grasslands on outcrops of Not Present. Host plant Plantago erect a is
butterfly serpentine soil in the vicinity of San Francisco Bay. not present in the Study Area.
Euphydryas editha Plantago erecta is the primary host plant.
bayensis
Callippe silverspot FE Restricted to northern coastal scrub of the San Not Present. Host plant Viola pedunculata
butterfly Francisco peninsula, and grassy hills of Solano, is not present in the Study Area.
Speyeria caJ/ippe Contra Costa, and Alameda counties. Host plant is
caf/ippe Viola pedunculata.
Myrtle's silverspot FE Restricted to areas immediately adjacent to the coast: Not Present. Host plant Viola adunca is not
Speyeria zerene dunes, scrub, and grasslands. Host plant: Viola present in the Study Area.
myrtleae adunca. Known from only 4 remaining populations.
A-7
-
-
-
-
PLANTS
.
PLANT SPECIES AND STATUS. HABITAT BLOOMING POTENTIAL. FOR OCCURRENCE
COMMUNITIES PERIOD
San Mateo thorn-mint FE, SE, Chaparral, valley and foothill April-June Not present. Chaparral not present.
Acanthomintha duttonii List 1B.1 grassland on serpentine soils. Serpentine soils are not present in the Study
50-300 m. Area.
Franciscan onion List 1 B.2 Cismontane woodland; valley May-June Unlikely. Ruderal grassland of unsuitable
Allium peninsu/are var. and foothill grassland, often on quality to support this species.
franciscanum serpentine soils. 100-300 m.
bent-flowered fiddleneck List 1 B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, March-June Unlikely. Coastal bluff scrub and woodland
Amsinckia lunaris cismontane woodland, valley habitats not present. Ruderal grassland of
and foothill grassland. 3-500 unsuitable quality to support this species.
m.
Santa Cruz manzanita List 1 B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, November-April Unlikely. Small redwood and pine woodland
Arctostaphylos chaparral, openings and in Orange Memorial Park but no shrub
andersonii edges of North Coast species observed in the understory.
coniferous forest. 60-730 m.
Franciscan manzanita List 1 A Coastal scrub. 60-300 m. February-April Not Present. Presumed extinct in California.
Arctostaphylos hookeri
ssp. franciscana
Presidio manzanita FE,SE, Chaparral, coastal prairie, February-March Not Present. No native shrubs observed in
Arctostaphylos hookeri List 1 B.2 coastal scrub, serpentine the Study Area.
ssp. ravenii outcrop. 45-215 m.
San Bruno Mountain SE, Chaparral, rocky coastal February-May Not Present. Chaparral and coastal scrub
manzanita List 18.1 scrub. 275-370 m. habitats not present in the Study Area.
Arctostaphylos imbricata
Montara manzanita List 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub. January-March Not Present. Chaparral and coastal scrub
Arctostaphy/os 150-500 m. habitats not present in the Study Area.
montaraensis
-
-
-
A-8
-
PLANT SPECIES AND STATUS. HABITAT BLOOMING POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE
COMMUNITIES PERIOD
Kings Mountain List 1 B.2 Broadleaved upland forest, January-April Not Present. Species occurs at an elevation
manzanita chaparral, North Coast range far above that of the Study Area.
Arctostaphylos coniferous forest on granitic or
regismontana sandstone soils. 305-730 m.
marsh sandwort FE, SE, Bogs and fens, marshes and May-August Not Present. Marsh habitats not present in
Arenaria paludico/a List 18.1 swamps. 3-170 m. the Study Area.
coastal marsh milk-vetch List 1 B.2 Coastal dunes, coastal scrub, April-October Not Present. Coastal habitats and marsh
Astragalus marshes and swamps. 0-30 habitats not present in the Study Area.
pycnostachyus var. m.
pycnostachyus
alkali milk-vetch List 18.2 Playas, valley and foothill March-June Unlikely. Playas and vernal pools not
Astragalus tener var. grassland, alkaline vernal present. Ruderal grassland of unsuitable
tener pools. 1-60 m. quality to support species.
San Joaquin spearscale List 1 B.2 Chenopod scrub, meadows April-October Unlikely. Chenopod scrub, meadows, seeps,
Atriplex joaquiniana and seeps, playas, valley and and playas not present. Ruderal grassland of
foothill grassland. unsuitable quality to support species.
1-835 m.
pappose tarplant List 1B.2 Coastal prairie, meadows and May-November Unlikely. Coastal prairie and meadows not
Centromadia parryi ssp. seeps, marshes and swamps, present. Ruderal grassland of unsuitable
parryi valley and foothill grassland, quality to support species.
often on alkaline soils. 2-420
m.
San Francisco Bay List 1 B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal April-July Not Present. Coastal bluff scrub, dune, and
spineflower dunes, coastal prairie, coastal prairie habitats not present in the Study Area.
Chorizanthe cuspidata scrub. 3-215 m.
var. cuspidata
A-9
-
-
-
-
PLANT SPECIES AND STATUS. HABITAT BLOOMING POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE
COMMUNITIES PERIOD
robust spineflower FE, Cismontane woodland, coastal April-September Not Present. Woodland, and coastal dune
Chorizanthe robusta var. List 1B.1 dunes, coastal scrub on sandy and scrub habitats not present in the Study
robusta or gravelly soils. 3-300 m. Area.
Sonoma spineflower List 1 B.1 Coastal prairie on sandy soils. June-August Not Present. Coastal prairie not present in
Chorizanthe valida 10-305 m. the Study Area.
Franciscan thistle List 1 B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, March-July Not Present. Forest and coastal habitats not
Cirsium andrewsii coastal bluff scrub, coastal present in the Study Area.
prairie, mesic coastal scrub,
sometimes on serpentine
soils. 0-150 m.
fountain thistle FE, SE, Chaparral, valley and foothill June-October Not present. Chaparral serpentine soils are
Cirsium fontinale var. List1B.1 grasslands in serpentine not present in the Study Area.
fontina/e seeps. 90-175 m.
compact cobwebby List 1 B.2 Chaparral, coastal dunes, April-June Not Present. Chaparral, coastal dune, prairie
thistle coastal prairie, coastal scrub. and scrub habitats not present in the Study
Cirsium occidentale var. 5-150 m. Area.
compactum
Presidio c1arkia FE, SE, Coastal scrub, valley and May-July Unlikely. Ruderal grassland of unsuitable
Clarkia franciscana List 1B.1 foothill grassland, sometimes quality to support this species.
on serpentine soils. 25-335 m.
round-headed Chinese List 1 B.2 Coastal dunes. 0-20 m. April-June Not Present. Coastal dune habitats not
houses present in the Study Area.
Collinsia corymbosa
San Francisco collinsia List 1 B.2 Closed-cone coniferous forest, March-May Not Present. Closed-cone coniferous forest
Collinsia mu/ticolor coastal scrub, sometimes on and coastal scrub habitats not present in the
serpentine soils. 30-250 m. Study Area.
-
-
A-10
-
PLANT SPECIES AND STATUS. HABITAT BLOOMING POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE
COMMUNITIES PERIOD
Point Reyes bird's beak List 1B.2 Marshes and swamps. June-October Not Present. Marsh and swamp habitats not
Cordylanthus maritimus 0-10 m. present in the Study Area.
ssp. palustris
western leatherwood List 1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, January-March Unlikely. Small redwood and pine woodland
Dirca occidentafis closed-cone coniferous forest, in Orange Memorial Park but no hardwood
chaparral, cismontane species observed in the understory.
woodland, North Coast
coniferous forest, riparian
forest, mesic riparian
woodland. 50-395 m.
marsh horsetail List 3 Marshes and swamps. N/A Not Present. Marsh and swamp habitats not
Equisetum pa/ustre 45-1000 m. present in the Study Area.
Tiburon buckwheat List 3.2 Chaparral, coastal prairie, June-September Not Present. Serpentine soils not present in
Eriogonum lutecIum var. valley and foothill grassland on the Study Area.
caninum serpentine soils. 10-500 m.
San Mateo woolly FE, SE, Cismontane woodland, often May-June Not Present. Cis montane woodland and
sunflower List 1B.1 on serpentine soils and on serpentine soils not present in the StUdy
Eriophyllum latifobum roadcuts. 45-150 m. Area.
round-leaved fjlaree List 2.1 Cismontane woodland, valley March-May Unlikely. Ruderal grassland of unsuitable
Erodium macrophyllum and foothill grassland on clay quality to support species.
soils. 15-1200 m.
Hillsborough chocolate List 1B.1 Cismontane woodland, valley March-April Not Present. Serpentine soils not present in
lily and foothill grassland on the Study Area.
Friti/faria bitlora var. serpentine soils. 150 m.
ineziana
A-11
-
-
PLANT SPECIES AND STATUS. HABITAT BLOOMING POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE
COMMUNITIES PERIOD
fragrant fritillary List 1B.2 Cismontane woodland, coastal February-April Unlikely. Ruderal grassland of unsuitable
Fritiffaria /iliacea prairie, coastal scrub, valley quality to support species.
and foothill grassland, often on
serpentine soils. 3-410 m.
dune gilia List 18.1 Coastal dunes, coastal scrub. April-July Not Present. Coastal dunes and scrub
Gifia capitata ssp. 2-200 m. habitats not present in the Study Area.
chamissonis
dark-eyed gilia List 1 B.2 Coastal dunes. 2-30 m. April-July Not Present. Coastal dunes not present in
Gilia miffefofiata the Study Area.
San Francisco gumplant List 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal June-September Not Present. Coastal habitats and
Grindelia hirsutula var. scrub, valley and foothill serpentine soils not present in the Study
maritima grassland on sandy or Area.
serpentine soils. 15.400 m.
Diablo helianthella List 1B.2 Broadleaved upland forest, March-June Unlikely. Hardwood habitats not present in
Hefianthelfa castanea chaparral, cismontane the Study Area and ruderal grassland of
woodland, coastal scrub, unsuitable quality to support species.
riparian woodland, valley and
foothill grassland. 60-1300 m.
short-leaved evax List 2.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal March-June Not Present. Coastal bluff scrub and dunes
Hesperevax sparsiffora dunes. 0-215 m. not present in the Study Area.
var. brevifolia
Marin western flax FT, ST, Chaparral, valley and foothill April-July Not Present. Serpentine soils not present in
Hesperofinon congestum List 18.1 grassland on serpentine soils. the Study Area.
5-370 m.
Santa Cruz tarplant FT, SE, Coastal prairie, coastal scrub, June-October Unlikely. Ruderal grassland of unsuitable
Holocarpha macradenia List 1B.1 valley and foothill grassland, quality to support species.
often on clay or sandy soi Is.
10-220 m.
-
-
-
-
A-12
-
PLANT SPECIES AND STATUS. HABITAT BLOOMING POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE
COMMUNITIES PERIOD
Kellogg's horkelia List 18.1 Closed-cone coniferous forest, April-September Not Present. Closed-cone coniferous forest,
Horkelia cuneata ssp. chaparral, coastal scrub and shrubby habitats not present in Study
sericea openings, on sandy or gravelly Area.
soils. 10-200 m.
Point Reyes horkelia List 1 B.2 Coastal dunes, coastal prairie, May-September Not Present. Coastal dunes, prairie and
Horkefia marinensis coastal scrub on sandy soil. scrub habitats not present in the Study Area.
5.350 m.
beach layia FE, SE, Coastal dunes, coastal scrub. March-July Not Present. Coastal dunes and scrub
Layia camosa List 1B.1 0-60 m. habitats not present in the Study Area.
coast yellow leptosiphon List 1 B. 1 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal April-May Not Present. Coastal bluff scrub and prairie
Leptosiphon croceus prairie. 10-150 m. habitats not present in the Study Area.
rose leptosiphon List 1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub. 0-100 m. April-July Not Present. Coastal bluff scrub habitats not
Leptosiphon rosaceus present in the Study Area.
Crystal Springs lessingia List 1 B.2 Cismontane woodland, coastal July-October Not Present. Serpentine soils not present in
Lessingia arachnoidea scrub, valley and foothill the Study Area.
grassland on serpentine soils
and often on roadsides. 60-
200m.
San Francisco lessingia FE, SE, Coastal scrub. 25-90 m. August-November Not Present. Coastal scrub habitat not
Lessingia germanorum List 1B.1 present in the Study Area.
woolly-headed lessingia List 3 Broadleaved upland forest, June-October Unlikely. Small redwood and pine woodland
Lessingia holo/euca coastal scrub, lower montane in Orange Memorial Park with turf grass
coniferous forest, valley and understory. Serpentine soils not present in
foothill grassland on clay or the Study Area.
serpentine soils. 15-305 m.
A-13
-
-,
-
PLANT SPECIES AND STATUS. HABITAT BLOOMING POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE
COMMUNITIES PERIOD
coast lily List 1 B.1 Broadleaved upland forest, May-August Unlikely. Small redwood and pine woodland
Ufium maritimum closed-cone coniferous forest, in Orange Memorial Park with turf grass
coastal prairie, coastal scrub, understory. Marshes and swamps not
marshes and swamps, North present in the Study Area.
Coast coniferous forest. 5-335
m.
San Mateo tree lupine List 3.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub. April-July Not Present. Chaparral and coastal scrub
Lupinus eximius 90-550 m. habitats not present in the Study Area.
Indian Valley bush List 1 B.2 Chaparral, cismontane April-October Not Present. Species occurs at an elevation
mallow woodland, often in burned range above that of the Study Area.
Malacothamnus areas. 150-1700 m.
aboriginum
arcuate bush mallow List 1 8.2 Chaparral, cismontane April-September Not Present. Chaparral and woodland
Malacothamnus arcuatus woodland. 15-355 m. habitats not present in the Study Area.
Davidson's bush mallow List 18.2 Chaparral, cismontane June-January Not Present. Species occurs at an elevation
MaJacothamnus woodland, coastal scrub, range above that of the Study Area.
davidsonii riparian woodland. 185-855
m.
Hall's bush mallow List 1 B.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub. May-September Not Present. Chaparral and coastal scrub
Malacothamnus haffii 10-760 m. habitats not present in the Study Area.
Mt. Diablo cottonweed List 3.2 Broadleaved upland forest, March-May Not Present. Hardwood habitats and rocky
Micropus amphibolus chaparral, cismontane soils not present in the Study Area.
woodland, valley and foothill
grassland on rocky soils.
45-825 m.
-
-
-
-
-
A-14
-
-
-
PLANT SPECIES AND STATUS' HABITAT BLOOMING POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE
COMMUNITIES PERIOD
marsh microseris List 1 B.2 Closed-cone coniferous forest, April-June Unlikely. Ruderal grassland not of suitable
Microseris paludosa cismontane woodland, coastal quality to support species.
scrub, valley and foothill
grassland. 5-300 m.
white-rayed pentachaeta FE, SE, Valley and foothill grassland, March-May Unlikely. Ruderal grassland not of suitable
Pentachaeta beffidiflora List 18.1 often on serpentine soils. quality to support species. Serpentine soils
35-620 m. not present in the Study Area.
Choris's popcorn-flower List 1 B.2 Chaparral, coastal prairie, March-June Not Present. Chaparral, coastal prairie and
Plagiobothrys chorisianus mesic coastal scrub. 15-160 scrub habitats not present in the Study Area.
var. chorisianus m.
San Francisco popcorn- SE, Coastal prairie, valley and March-June Unlikely. Ruderal grassland not of suitable
flower List 1 B. 1 foothill grassland. 60-360 m. quality to support species. Coastal prairie not
Plagiobothrys diffusus present in the Study Area.
Hickman's cinquefoil FE, SE, Coastal bluff scrub, c1osed- April-August Not Present. Closed-cone forest, coastale
Potentiffa hickmanii List 1B.1 cone coniferous forest, bluff scrub and marsh habitats not present in
meadows and seeps, marshes the Study Area.
and swamps. 10-135 m.
adobe sanicle SR, Chaparral, coastal prairie, February-May Unlikely. Ruderal grassland not of suitable
Sanicula maritima List 18.1 meadows and seeps, valley quality to support species. Chaparral, coastal
and foothill grassland, on clay prairie, meadows, and serpentine soils not
or serpentine soils. 30-240 m. present in the Study Area.
San Francisco campion List 1 B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, chaparral, March-June Unlikely. Ruderal grassland not of suitable
Silene verecunda ssp. coastal prairie, coastal scrub, quality to support species. Chaparral, coastal
verecunda valley and foothill grassland on bluff scrub and prairie habitats not present in
sandy soils. 30-645 m. the Study Area.
California seablite FE, Marshes and swamps. July-October Not Present. Marshes and swamps not
Suaeda califomica List 1B.1 0-15 m. present in the Study Area.
A-15
-
-
PLANT SPECIES AND STATUS. HABITAT BLOOMING POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE
COMMUNITIES PERIOD
saline clover list 1 B.2 Marshes and swamps, valley April-June Unlikely. Ruderal grassland not of suitable
Trifolium depauperatum and foothill grassland, vernal quality to support species. Marsh and vernal
vaL hydrophilum pools. 0-300 m. pool habitats not present in the Study Area.
San Francisco owl's- List 1B.2 Coastal prairie, coastal scrub, April-June Unlikely. Ruderal grassland not of suitable
clover valley and foothill grassland, quality to support species. Serpentine soils
Triphysaria fforibunda usually on serpentine soils. not present in the Study Area.
10-160 m.
.Key to status codes:
FE Federal Endangered
FT Federal Threatened
BCC USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern
WBWG The Western Bat Work Group High Priority Species
CFP CDFG Fully Protected Animal
SE State Endangered
ST State Threatened
SR State Rare
CSC California Species of Concern
List 1A CNPS 1A List, Plant presumed extinct in CA
List 1B.1 CNPS 1 B List, Endangered, Threatened, or Rare in CA; seriously endangered in CA
List 1B.2 CNPS 1 B List, Endangered, Threatened, or Rare in CA; fairly endangered in CA
List 2.1 CNPS 2 List, Endangered, Threatened, or Rare in CA, but more common elsewhere; seriously endangered in CA
List 2.2 CNPS 2 List, Endangered, Threatened, or Rare in CA, but more common elsewhere; fairly endangered in CA
List 3 CNPS 3 List, More information is needed, a review list
List 3.2 CNPS 3 List, More information is needed, a review list; fairly endangered in CA
-
-
-
A-16
-
-
...,
APPENDIX 8
STUDY AREA PHOTOGRAPHS
-
.....
"""
. of San Bruno Mountain
Top an~ ~ottoBom. ~~ subtrunk location.
at the HillSIde tJ
Top: Ruderal grassland field at the 1$1 Street
subtrunk location.
Bottom: Redwood and pine stand at Orange
Mernorial Park at the 1 $I Street subtrunk
location.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
2
-
-
-
-
-
Appendix 3
Draft Phase I ESA (Kleinfelder Associates)
-
-
City of South San Francisco
Initial Study/Phase II Wet Weather
Page 60
III ~ ~p~y!e ~n! c~m~n? E R
July 24, 2006
Project No. 71420/PWENV1
Mr. Kourosh Iranpour, P.E.
Associate/Senior Project Manager
Harris & Associates
120 Mason Circle
Concord, California 94520
Subject:
Dear Mr. Iranpour:
As requested, enclosed is
ovided; however, we recommend that the
ensive understanding of the items contained
Respectfully submitted,
KLEINFELDER, INC.
James A. Lehrman, PG, CHG, REA
Environmental Group Manager
John Williams
Staff Geologist
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc}/jmk Page 1 of 1 July 24,2006
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
KLEINFELDER 7133 KolI Center Parkway, Suite 100, Pleasanton, CA 94566-3101 (925) 484-1700 (925) 484-5838 fax
-
III KLEIN FELDER
July 24, 2006
This document was prepared for use only by the client, only for the purposes stated, and within a reasonable time from
issuance. Non-commercial, educational and scientific use of this report by regulatory agencies is regarded as a "fair use"
and not a violation of copyright. Regulatory agencies may make additional copies of this document for internal use.
Copies may also be made available to the public as required by law. The reprint must acknowledge the copyright and
indicate that permission to reprint has been received.
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
July 24, 2006
III KLEIN FELDER
A Report Prepared for:
Mr. Kourosh Iranpour, P.E.
Associate/Senior Project Manager
Harris & Associates
120 Mason Circle
Concord, California 94520
50% DRAFT
LIMITED PHASE I/PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL
SITE ASSESSMENT
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
WET WEATHER PROGRAM PHASE II
SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Kleinfelder Job No: 71420/PWEN 1
Prepared by:
James A. Lehrman, PG, CHG, REA
Environmental Group Manager
KLEINFELDER, INC.
7133 KolI Center Parkway, Suite 100
Pleasanton, California 94566
(925) 484-1700
(925) 484-5838 (Fax)
Date: July 24, 2006
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
July 24, 2006
-
III KLEIN FELDER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Paae
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. I" ..... II... .... ... ... I' I' .... 1...1.....1. ....1. ...... .....1. ... ...... .... ..... ..... 1
2 INTRODUCTION.....I.. ........ ... ..... ,..1.1 ....... ........ ........1.. .... ... ...... 1.1 .... ..... ................. ......1.... 3
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
2.4.
2.5.
2.6.
3
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
4
PUR POSE ... ....... ........ ... ... ....... ..... ....................... ........ ....... ... ....... ... .......... 3
DETAILED SCOPE-OF~SERVICES .......... ..... ........................................4
ADDITIONAL SERVICES ...................... ........... ......................................5
SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS .......... ............ .........................................5
LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS... .................. ....................................5
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITI . . ...... ........ ................................ 6
4.3.
-
-
4.4.
4.5.
4.6.
5 HISTORY OF THE SITE .................................................................................... 37
5.1. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS ....................................................................... 37
5.1.1. Hillside ...................................................................................... 38
5.1 .2. Airport ...................... ............. ............................._...................... 39
5_1.3. Victory...... .... .... .......... ..... ...... ........................ ....... ........ ....... ...... 40
5.1.4. Portola ...................................................................................... 41
5.1.5. First......... .................. ............. ............................. ..... ................. 42
5.1.6. Westborough ............................................................................ 43
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page i of iii
July 24,2006
III KLEIN FELDER
5.2. SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS..................................................... 43
5.2.1. Hillside ......................................................................................44
5.2.2. Airport .. ....... ...... .......................... ........................... ................... 44
5.2.3. Victory.. .......................... ........... ................... ......... .................... 44
5.2.4. Portola ... .................. ...... .......... ................... ......................... ..... 44
5.2.5. Fi rst........................................................................................... 45
5.2.6. Westborough .......... ........... ................... ............. .............. ......... 45
5.3. CITY DIRECTORI ES ........ ................... ......... ....... .................... ..... .......... 45
5.4. HISTORICAL TOPOGRAPHIC MAP REVI . ......................................45
5.4.1. Hillside .................................... ........... ....................................46
5.4.2. Airport ................................. ............ ..__.... .............................. 46
5.4.3. Victory.............................. ........ ........ .................................. 46
5.4.4. Portola ......................... ......... ....... ......... ............................. 46
5.4.5. First.......... ................ ................. ......... ................................. 46
5.4.6. Westborough ........ ........ ......... .............. ......... .................... 47
.. .... ........... ........ .... .... ..... 50
6
7
8
8.2.
8.3.
9 EV ALUA TI ON ..... ... .... ........... ..... .......................... ....... ........... .................. .......... 52
9.1 . P HAS E I................................................................................................... 52
9.1.1. BACKGROUND ........................................................................ 52
9.1.2. DEVIATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERViCES.......................... 52
9.1.3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................... 52
9.2. PHASE 11...... .......................... .................. ......................................-......... 53
9.3. RECOMMENDATIONS.......... .............. ................. ......... ............ .............. 53
10 REFERE NC ES ........................ ..... .... ........ ................ .................... ............. ... ...... 54
71420/PW ENV1/(PLE6R257 .doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page ii of Hi
July 24, 2006
-
III KLEINFELDER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
TABLES
1-1 Boring Locations and Sample Analyses
3-1 Location and Legal Description
3-2 Current/Proposed Uses
3-3 Adjoining Properties
4-1 Records Review & Search Distance
4-2 Records Review & Search Distance Based
4-3 Physical Setting
5-1 Historical Sources
5-2 Historical Aerial Photographs Revie
5-3 Sanborn Maps Reviewed
5-4 Historical Topographic Maps Reviewe
1
2
3
4
Site Location Map
Site Map
Site Photograph
Site Photographs
-
PLATES
-
APPENDICE
-
A en al fessionals
B Regulatory Ag cy t ase Report (on attached compact disc)
C Interview Docum tation
D Historical Research cu entation (on attached compact disc):
Historical Aerial otographs
Sanborn Map Search Results
Historical Topographic Maps
E Laboratory Analytical Results
F Soil Boring Logs
71420/PWENV1/( PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page Hi of Hi
July 24, 2006
-
k.q KLEINFELDER
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A Limited Phase I/Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was performed for
Harris & Associates (Client) for six linear reaches located in South San Francisco, San
Mateo County, California (See Plate 1, Site Location Map), The methodology used in
the preparation of this report was based generally on th merican Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM), Standard Practice for Environ ental 'te Assessments: Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment Process E1527- ,Th cope of services for this
report was developed, however, to provide a p, "n cree 'ng of properties within
the study area that may pose a potential h ardo s maten s co ern to the project.
Kleinfelder did not evaluate potential haza ous ate' issues the egree required
to meet the ASTM standard for property acqu' ition urp
. Hillside - Hillsi
.
ities Boulevard to Baden Avenue,
t ypress Avenue, Cypress Avenue from
nd Armour Avenue from Cypress Avenue to
. First - First St at fr EI amino Real to the eastern terminus of First Street,
angling southeast ng th railroad line, east across the railroad line, generally
north, along parcel line see Site Plans on Plates 2 and 3)
. Victory - Victory Avenue from Spruce Avenue to South Linden Avenue
. Portola - From EI Cortez Avenue northeast to Portola Avenue, continuing along
Portola Avenue to Francisco Drive, Francisco Drive from Portola Avenue to
Sonora Avenue
. Westborough - Del Monte Avenue from Nyla Avenue to Arroyo Drive, Arroyo
Drive from Del Monte Avenue to its northern terminus, continuing northeast to
the intersection of Oak Avenue and Mission Road, Mission Road from Oak
Avenue to Chestnut Avenue, continuing southwest generally following parcel
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 1 of 54
July 24, 2006
-
kq KLEINFELDER
boundaries to Westborough Boulevard between EI Camino Real and Camaritas
Avenue, southwest along Westborough Boulevard to south of Camaritas
Avenue, from Westborough Boulevard to Arroyo Drive south of Camaritas
Avenue. (see Site Plans on Plates 2 and 3)
-
We have performed a Limited Phase I/Phase II ESA based on a modification of the
scope and limitations of American Society for Te ing and Materials (ASTM)
Designation E 1527-05, to meet the data needs for t pro et, as indicated by Harris
and Associates. Based on the results of the Ph e I p ion of our Limited Phase
I/Phase II assessment, Kleinfelder identified ogni ed vironmental Conditions
(RECs) associated with each segment of the roje. or t R s, we then identified
potential chemicals of concern for the pur oses ou Phase sam ing and analysis
activities. The potential chemicals of conce for ct seg nt re:
.
and
-
As part of a separate geotechnical investigation of the project being conducted by
Kleinfelder (report not yet released), we performed soil and groundwater sampling at
specified boring locations. Potential chemicals of concern were identified for each
boring location based on the proximity of documented release sites we identified during
the Phase I data research. The selected analyses for each location are shown in Table
1-1.
In addition to these findings, deviations, historical environmental conditions, and de
minimus findings are discussed in Chapter 8 of this report. This report is subject to the
limitations in Section 2.5.
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 2 of 54
July 24, 2006
III KLEINFELDER
2 INTRODUCTION
The following report is a summary of work performed using the guidelines set forth in
the ASTM Standard E-1527 -05, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments:
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (ASTM Standard). This report also
generally conforms to the ASTM Standard's suggest able of contents. Format
modifications have been made to the ASTM Standar s sug sted table of contents by
Kleinfelder to assist in better reading and under anding e report findings, and to
conform to the project-specific modifications to ST tan d scope-of-work.
2.1. PURPOSE
The prese azardous substances or petroleum
product on a that indicate an existing release, a past
release, or release of any hazardous substances or
petroleum on the property or into the ground, ground
water, or su ce er 0 the property. The term includes hazardous
substances or pe leum oducts even under conditions in compliance with
laws. The term is not nded to include de minimis conditions that generally do
not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally
would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of
appropriate governmental agencies. Conditions determined to be de minimis are
not recognized environmental conditions.
This report describes Kleinfelder's assessment methodology and documents our
assessment findings, subject to the limitations presented in Section 2.5 of this report.
71420/PWENV1 /(PLE6R257 .doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 3 of 54
July 24, 2006
-
k~ KLEINFELDER
2.2. DETAILED SCOPE-OF-SERV1CES
The following sections describe Kleinfelder's work scope:
· Section 2, Introduction, includes a discussion of the purpose/reason for
performing the Limited Phase I/Phase II ESA, additional services requested by
the Client (Le" an evaluation of business environmental risk factors associated
with the subject site), significant assumptions ',e., roperty boundaries if not
marked in the tield), limitations, exceptions nd s cial terms and conditions
(Le., contractual), and user reliance param ers.
.
.
· ite, s marizes the history of the subject site and
rties. T s si history is based on various sources which may
include: a review historic aerial photographs, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps,
historical topographic a ,building department records, and results of previous
site assessments.
· Section 6, Site Reconnaissance, describes Kleintelder's observations during
the site reconnaissance. The methodology used and limiting conditions are
described.
· Section 7, Interviews, is a summary ot telephone and personal interviews
conducted with local government officials, and the Client.
· Section 8, Phase II ESA, describes the field activities and analytical results of
soil and groundwater sampling activities.
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 4 of 54
July 24, 2006
III KLEIN FELDER
. Section 9, Evaluation, is a presentation of our findings and opinions regarding
the information in Sections 3 through 7, and presents our conclusions regarding
the presence of RECs connected with the sit.
. Section 10, References, is a summary of some of the resources used to compile
this report.
Pertinent documentation regarding the subject site is included in appendices of this
report.
2.4.
2.3. ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Groundwater is estimated to flow
This estimation is based on surface
2.5. LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS
Phase I ESAs are non-comprehensive by nature and may not identify all environmental
problems, and will not eliminate all risk. This report is a qualitative assessment.
Kleinfelder offers a range of investigative and engineering services to suit the needs of
our clients, including more quantitative investigations. Although risk can never be
eliminated, more detailed and extensive investigations yield more information, which
may help the Client understand and better manage risks. Since such detailed services
involve greater expense, we ask our clients to participate in identifying the level of
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 5 of 54
July 24, 2006
-
III KLEINFELDER
service, which will provide them with an acceptable level of risk. Please contact the
signatories of this report if you would like to discuss this issue of risk further.
Kleinfelder performed this Limited Phase I/Phase II ESA in general accordance with the
guidelines set forth in the ASTM Standard, and the proposed scope subsequently
approved by our Client. No warranty, either expressed or implied, is made.
Environmental issues not specifically addressed in this re ort were beyond the scope of
our services and not included in our evaluation.
2.6.
No special terms and conditions in addition to those discussed previously (Le., project-
specific modifications to the standard ASTM 1527-05 scope-of-work to meet the project
data needs) were agreed to either by the Client or Kleinfelder in our Proposal Number
01204PROP (document SJ06P035), dated March 9, 2006.
71420/PWENV1/( PLE6R257 .doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 6 of 54
July 24, 2006
k.q KLEINFELDER
3 SITE DESCRIPTION
The site description is presented in this section and describes the condition of the site
at the time of the Limited Phase I/Phase II ESA. The site location is shown on Plate 1.
Tables 3-1 through 3-5 summarize the physical characteristics of the site and adjoining
properties.
3.1. LOCATION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION
out an ncisco, San Mateo Count , California
nshl 2 South and Range 5 West (Source: United
tat eologic Service, San Francisco South,
C Iifornia Quadran Ie, 7.5 Minute Ma
3.2.
SE OF THE PROPERTY
Land use on site and in the general vicinity appeared to be vacant on site; residential to
the west, north and northeast; and recreational/open space to the south and southeast
at the time of Kleinfelder's assessment. Current and proposed uses are described in
Table 3-2.
71420/PWENV1/{PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 7 of 54
July 24,2006
-
III KLEINFELDER
TABLE 3-2
CURRENTIPROPOSEDUSES
B~~~~~i!4~tf1l:;;;~~1ffl~:Z.:- "~.'.:~;. '>-"".', .~. ',' ~. ~- r.,~,.,:, co".:;- "". '..~. C.'-'~,;T'-'-, ':--" __,' ':" ;-';:;;'''j
~~tJi.~_-:.....:..~__.'@Ei@JfJj @(~~lS.WJr~:GLf.:y '~~...~~j
CURRENT USE
PROPOSED USE
Various - includin residential and industrial.
Installation and/or re lacement of sewer trunks.
3.3. CURRENT USES OF ADJOINING PROPERl S
Kleinfelder performed a brief drive-by survey 0
the subject site on July 17, 2006. A sum ry of
presented in Table 3-3.
-
Air ort -,
First
Hillside -
Portola
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jrn k
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 8 of 54
July 24, 2006
k.~ KLEINFELDER
4 RECORDS REVIEW
4.1. STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES
The purpose of the records review is to obtain and review records that would help to
evaluate RECs of potential concern in connection with subject site and bordering
properties.
E 4-1
RCH DISTANCES AND FINDINGS
Total
Number of
Facilities
Listed
0.25 miles
o
1
7
0.25 miles
0.25 miles
0.25 miles
1
0.25 miles
0.25 miles
0.25 miles
o
6
84
7
0.25 miles
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 9 of 54
July 24, 2006
-
III KLEINFELDER
Total
Number of
Facilities
Listed
0.25 miles
0.25 miles
0.25 miles
0.25 miles
Hazardous Material Incident 0.25 iles
o
2
3
76
22
-
3
o
1
118
5, 58, 74
10
15
293
305
-
RECORDS
-
FEDERAL Airport
NPl (National p' rity 0 0 0 0 0
List
CERClIS 0 0 0 0 0
(Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation, and
Liability Act
Information S stem
CERClIS NFRAP 300 0 0 0 1 0 0
(No Further Remedial feet
Action Planned
RCRA (Resource 300 0 0 0 1 0 0
Conservation and feet
Recovery Act)
CORRACTS
( Corrective Actions
Site
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 10 of 54
July 24, 2006
III KLEINFELDER
Total Number of Facilities Listed
FEDERAL West- First Portola Victory Hillside Airport
borouah
RCRA non- 300 0 0 0 0 0 0
CORRACTS TSD feet
(Transfer Storage
and Disposal)
RCRA LQG (Large 300 0 0 1 0 0 0
Quantity Generators) feet ^
RCRA SQG (Small 300 6 1 Y f>7 0 17
Quantity Generators) feet
ERNS (Emergency 300 1 0 / 0 0 0 1
Response Notification feet ~ ~
System) ~^
STATE West - First Portola Victory Hillside Airport
borouah
AWP (Annual Work 300 0 ~~ ~) O~ )0 0
Plan) feet
BEP (Bond 300 ~ O~ O( 0 0 0
Expenditure Plan) feet ~
Calsites 300 0\ ~~ r----. ~ "- ~O 0 0
feet
CORTESE 3~~ K \ r-.~ ~ / 4 3 16
fe
CHMIRS (California r--~' P1L ~' /'iV 1 0 7
Hazardous Material
Incident Report >
System) ~
Notify 65 / 30~ ~O~ ~ 0 0 0 1
Weet
Toxic Pits ~< Ne~ "\, 1)- 0 0 0 0 0
State Landfill '" ~;~ D 0, 0 0 0 0 1
LUST (Leaking ~ lJ 1 1 4 4 26
Underground Storage
Tank)
UST (Underground 300 1,5,6 0,0,2 0,1,0 0,3,4 0,2,3 0,9,13
Storage Tank) & FID feet
(Facility Inventory
Database) & HIST
UST
CLEANERS 300 5 0 0 0 0 1
feet
CA SlIC (Spills, 300 0 0 0 2 2 3
Leaks, Investigation feet
and Cleanup)
HAZNET 300 22 1 4 23 8 50
feet
SAN MATEO CO. 300 15 6 3 26 10 60
BUSINESS LIST feet
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257 .doc)/jm k
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 11 of 54
July 24, 2006
-
III KLEINFELDER
EDR utilizes a geographical information system to plot the locations of reported
incidents. This information is reviewed by Kleinfelder to help establish whether the site
or nearby properties have been included on the noted databases and lists. The EDR
report includes maps, which show the locations of the regulated properties with respect
to the site (Page 2 and 3 of EDR's report), and a summary of pertinent information for
these properties, including the responsible party, the prop' rty address, the distance and
direction from the site, and the databases and lists on hicH e property appears (see
Executive Summary pages 1 through 4 of the EDR port). -
4.2. DATABASE DESCRIPTIONS
records found in the vicinity of the pr .
4.2.1. Federal
CERCLlS NFRAP
is a list of handlers with RCRA Corrective Action
ctivit. T s report shows which nationally-defined corrective
actl co events have occurred for every handler that has had
corrective action activity.
RCRA LOG
RCRAlnfo is EPA's comprehensive information system,
providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database
includes selective information on sites which generate transport,
store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by
RCRA. Large quantity generators generate over 1,000
-
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 12 of 54
July 24, 2006
III KLEINFELDER
kilograms (kg) of hazardous waste, or over 1 kg of acutely
hazardous waste per month.
CHMIRS
The database includes selective information on sites which
generate transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous
waste as defined by RCRA. Small quantity generators generate
between 100 kg and 1,000 kg of h zardous waste per month.
RCRA SOG
ERNS
4.2.2. State and Local
CORTESE
NOTI FY 65
Notify 65 records contain facility notifications about any release
that could impact drinking water and thereby expose the public
to a potential health risk. The data come from the State Water
Resources Control board's Proposition 65 database.
STATE LANDFILL
The Solid Waste Facilities/Landfill Sites records typically
contain an inventory of solid waste disposal facilities or landfills
in a particular state. The data come from the Integrated Waste
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 130154
July 24, 2006
-
kq KLEINFELDER
Management Board's Solid Waste Information System
database.
LUST
UST
The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Reports
contain an inventory of reported leaking underground storage
tank incidents. The data come from the State Water Resources
Control board Leaking Undergro n Storage Tank Information
System.
FID
-
HIST UST
CLEANERS
I d facilities that have EPA 10 numbers.
cilitl with certain SIC codes: power laundries,
mil nd om rcial; garment pressing and cleaner's agents;
line s pply; coin-operated laundries and cleaning; drycleaning
p nts exc t rugs; carpet and upholster cleaning; industrial
laun r s; laundry and garment services.
CA SLlC
SLlC Region comes from the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board.
HAZNET
The data is extracted from the copies of hazardous waste
manifests received each year by the DTSC. The annual volume
of manifests is typically 700,000-1,000,000 annually,
representing approximately 350,000-500,000 shipments. Data
from non-California manifests & continuation sheets are not
included at the present time. Data are from manifests
.....
-
71420/PW ENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 14 of 54
July 24, 2006
III KlEINFElDER
submitted without correction, and therefore many contain some
invalid values for data elements such as generator ID, TSD 10,
waste category, & disposal method. The source is the
Department of toxic Substance Control is the agency.
SAN MATEO CO. BUSINESS LIST Hazardous Materials Business Plan,
Hazardous Waste Generator, Un rground Storage tanks.
4.3. RESULTS OF DATABASE SEARCH
4.3.1. Hillside
ulev d, is on the CORTESE,
bases. It had 3 USTs of
c 01 Street, is on the HAZNET database
Co. Business List
and mixed oil.
Lonati Properties, located at 900 Linden Avenue, is on the CORTESE, LUST, and
San Mateo Co. Business List databases. It had a release discovered in 1987 that
affected groundwater other than drinking water. MTBE was detected at a
concentration of 680 parts per billion in groundwater and 3,500 parts per million in
soil. The current case status is "Post remedial action monitoring."
Linden Auto Repair Shop, located at 900 Linden Avenue, is on the FID database. It
has an active UST of unknown capacity.
South City Beacon, located at 905 Linden Avenue, is on the HAZNET database as a
generator of oil-containing waste.
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 15 of 54
July 24, 2006
-
III KLEINFELDER
South City Texaco, located at 905 Linden Avenue, is on the HAZNET, LUST,
CORTESE, FIO, HIST UST and San Mateo Co. Business List databases. It had
4,000 gallon premium, 6,000 gallon regular, 8,000 gallon unleaded and 200 gallon .
waste oil historical USTs. It had a release detected in 1985 that affected
groundwater other than drinking water. MTBE was detected at a concentration of 69
parts per billion in groundwater and 3.2 parts per million in soil. It achieved closure
in 2003. It has active USTs and is a generator of was oil.
-
-
Encore Auto
List for stora
solvents.
AAA Transmission Spec' lists, ocated at 942 Linden Avenue, is on the San Mateo
Co. Business List for sto e of hazardous materials and generation/recycling of
waste oil and solvents.
Quick & Go, located at 905 Linden Avenue,
generator of waste oil and mixed oil.
Standard Electric, located at 930 Linden
Preliminary Site Assessment is underw .
AZN ET database as a
-
-
nue, is on the San Mateo
a tI as a generator of <27
-
5 Li den Avenue, is on the HAZNET and
enerator of solvent and oil wastes.
venue, is on the San Mateo Co. Business
sand generation/recycling of waste oil and
SBN Property, located at 950 Linden Avenue is on the LUST and SLlC databases. A
Preliminary Site Assessment is underway.
Warach Associates, located at 925 Linden Avenue, is on the HAZNET and San Mateo
Co. Business List databases. It generates empty containers as waste and is the
location of UST of unknown type and capacity.
-
71420/PW ENV1/(PLE6R257 .doc)/jm k
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 16 of 54
July 24, 2006
III KLEINFELDER
Bay Area Bus Repair, located at 935 Linden Avenue, is on the HAZNET and San
Mateo Co. Business List databases. It is a generator of various organic liquid
mixtures, generates waste oil and solvent waste, and is used for tire storage.
Based on the above listed businesses the following potential chemicals of concerns
were identified for soils and groundwater within the Hillside segment of the project:
. Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) gasoline, di
. Volatile organic carbons (VOCs); hexavalent
. Chromium (Hex Chrom);
. Title 22 metals (CAM 17);
. Semivolatile organic carbons (SVOC
. Polychlorinated biphenyls (P
4.3.2. Airport
Equilon Enterprises, 10
generation of organic so s
Tosco Corporation Station #30665, located at 901 Airport Boulevard, is on the
HAZNET database for organic residue and organic liquid mixture wastes.
Union Oil/Unocal, located at 901 Airport Boulevard, is on the FID, LUST, NOTIFY 65,
HAZNET, CORTESE, HIST UST and San Mateo Co. Business List databases. It
has an active LUST case, discovered in 1988 that affected groundwater other than
drinking water. The current case status is "Post remedial action monitoring." It had
2 former USTs and is an active UST location. It stores fuels and or waste,
generates waste oil and stores tires.
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257 .doc)/jm k
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 17 of 54
July 24, 2006
-
III KLEINFELDER
Common Auto Parts Inc, located at 915 Airport Boulevard, is on the FID, HAZNET,
HIST UST and San Mateo Co. Business List databases. It generates organic _
residue, oil containing, and organic solid waste. It stores hazardous materials and
tires. It had 1 former UST and is an active UST location.
-
National Glass, located at 945 Airport Boulevard, is on the FID and San Mateo Co.
Business List databases as an active UST location.
600 Dubuque Street is
San Carlos Auto Wreckers, located at 959 Airport
database. No information is given.
West Coast Clean Care, Inc, located at 967 Ai
San Mateo Co. Business List database
generation of organic residue waste.
733 Airport Boulevard is on the CHMIRS a
an unspecified substance.
Bahay Kubo, located at 751
generation of asbestos-c
Bressie & Company,
HAZNET and LUS
-
-
1991 release of
HAZN ET database for
-
e Avenue, is on the HAZNET database for
RS database. No information is provided.
-
Patel Property, located at 7 ypress Avenue, is on the LUST, SLle, and San Mateo
Co. Business List databases. The LUST case affected groundwater other than
drinking water and is now closed. The SLlC case is closed. The site stores,
generates and recycles fuels, waste oil and/or solvents.
Valencia Bros, located at 720 Cypress Avenue, is on the RCRA-SQG database. No
violations are reported.
Pyramid Van & Storage, located at 479 Airport Boulevard, is on the San Mateo Co.
Business List database for "UGT SERVICES/HR."
-
-
-
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 18 of 54
July 24, 2006
III KLEINFELDER
Shell, located at 515 Airport Boulevard, is on the LUST database. It has a closed
LUST case that affected groundwater other than drinking water. The release was
discovered in 1986 and the case achieved closure in 1995.
Housing Construction, located at 821 Cypress Avenue, is on the LUST, HAZNET and
CORTESE databases. It has a closed LUST case that affected groundwater other
than drinking water. The release was discovered in 1990 and the case achieved
closure in 2000. It is also a generator of waste oil.
Armour/Airport Boulevard is on the CHMI
Aamco Transmissions, located at
a UST of unlisted capacity.
database for a 1988 release of
ubuque Avenue, is on the HAZNET
waste.
EOS Biotechnolog Inc, ca ed a 870 Dubuque Avenue, is on the HAZNET and San
Mateo Co. Business ist aatab ses for unspecified solvent mixture waste, organic
solids with halogens an or nic liquids with halogens and storage of hazardous
materials.
Rockwell Collins, located at 830 Dubuque Avenue, is on the RCRA-SQG database.
No RCRA violations are reported.
Healthdyne Home Infusion Therapy Inc, located at 844 Dubuque Avenue, is on the
RCRA-SQG database. No RCRA violations are reported.
North State Environmental Laboratory, located at, is on the RCRA-SQG and San
Mateo Co. Business List databases. It generates 6-25 tons of hazardous waste per
year. It stores fuels or waste. No RCRA violations are noted
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257 .doc)/jm k
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 19 of 54
July 24, 2006
-
kq KLEINFELDER
Bressie & Co, located at 780 Dubuque Avenue, is on the San Mateo Co. Business List
databases. It stores fuels or waste, generates <27 gallons of waste per year and
has a UST.
Volonte Automotive, located ,at 616 Linden Avenue, is on the LUST, CORTESE and
San Mateo Co. Business List databases. It has a closed LUST case that affected
groundwater other than drinking water. The release was discovered in 1965 and the
case achieved closure in 2001. It is also a generator aste oil/solvent, stores fuel
or waste and has a UST.
-
Wells Fargo Bank, located at 381 Airpo
organic liquid mixture and organic solids.
-
-
-
1 Airport Boulevard, is on the CORTESE
-
Peninsula Auto Bod, loca at 11 Airport Boulevard, is on the HAZNET and San
Mateo Co. Business Li da~a ses for recycling of solvent mixture waste, storage of
fuels or waste and storage tires.
South City Ford Service Center, located at 411 Airport Boulevard, is on the RCRA-
SQG and San Mateo Co. Business List databases.
South San Francisco Printing, located at 215 Miller Avenue, is on the HAZNET
database for photochemicalsJphotoprocessing waste.
Pyramid Printing & Graphics, located at 226/230 Miller Avenue, is on the HAZNET,
and San Mateo Co. Business List databases for photochemicals/photoprocessing
waste and liquids with halogenated organic compounds. It stores and generates
waste from oil, fuel and solvents.
-
-
-
-
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jrnk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 20 of 54
July 24, 2006
k,q KLEIN FELDER
Shell Service Station, located at 248 Airport Boulevard, is on the LUST and San
Mateo Co. Business List databases. It has an active LUST case, discovered in
2004, which affected groundwater other than drinking water. The current case
status is "Leak being confirmed." It stores fuels and or waste, generates waste and
stores tires.
Ken Funk Property, located at 248 Airport Boulevard, is on the LUST database. It has
a closed LUST case that affected groundwater ot than drinking water. The
release was discovered in 1989 and the case achi ed cl ure in 1998.
John Klein/Klein Machine Shop, located at 305
and San Mateo Co. Business List databas
& recycles waste oil/solvents.
UST.
South City Ford, cate Airport Boulevard, is on the HAZNET, LUST,
CORTESE, FID an an KIIateo o. Business List databases. It has a closed LUST
case that affected gro d ter other than drinking water. The release was
discovered in 1991 and the case achieved closure in 2001. It generates waste oils
and various organic liquid wastes. It is an active UST location. It stores hazardous
materials and tires.
Costco Gasoline, located at 479 Airport Boulevard, is on the San Mateo Co. Business
List databases. It stores fuels or waste and has at least one UST.
Lux Avenue/Airport Boulevard is on the CHMIRS database for a 1996 release of
sewage into a storm drain.
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 21 of 54
July 24, 2006
-
III KLEINFELDER
-
Paper Transpo , locate 6 E
active US 10catiS6
Ryder Truck Re I, 10 te t 1 6
No violations are art.
Olympian, located at 18 ran Avenue, is on the HAZNET, LUST, and CORTESE
databases. It has a close ST case that affected groundwater other than drinking
water. The release was discovered in 1990 and the case achieved closure in 1996.
It generates waste oils.
Bonis Body Shop, located at 110 Lux Avenue, is on the HAZNET and San Mateo Co.
Business List databases. It stores hazardous materials and tires and generates &
recycles waste oil/solvents.
Harbor Auto Body, located at 512 Cypress Avenue, is on the HAZNET and San Mateo
Co. Business List databases. It stores hazardous materials and tires and generates
& recycles waste oil/solvents.
Olympic Auto Service, located at 401 Linden Avenue IS the HAZNET, CORTESE
and LUST databases. It has an active LUST case, scovered in 1991, which
affected groundwater other than drinking ater. Tti current case status is
"Remedial action (cleanup) Underway." te hyd
organic solid waste.
-
-
-
-
-
enue, is on the HIST UST database.
enue, is on the FID database. It is an
Grand Avenue, is on RCRA-SQG database.
-
-
East Grand Olympic, located at 190 East Grand Avenue, is on the LUST, CORTESE
and San Mateo Co. Business List databases. It has an active LUST case,
discovered in 1987, which affected groundwater other than drinking water. The
current case status is "Remedial action (cleanup) Underway." It stores fuels, waste
and hazardous materials, generates waste and has at least one active UST.
City of South San Francisco Public Works, located at 201 Grand Avenue, is on the
HAZNET database for generation of asbestos-containing waste.
-
-
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 22 of 54
July 24, 2006
III KlEINFElDER
Mattison & Shidler, located at 205 Grand Avenue, is on SLlC database. The SLlC
case is closed.
Britannie Point Grand LP, located at 210 Grand Avenue, is on the HAZNET database
for contaminated soil from site clean-ups.
City of S San Francisco/Housing & Community, located at 223-225 Grand Avenue,
is on the HAZNET database for inorganic solid and asbestos-containing wastes.
Grant Union 76/Tosco Corporation Station, locate at 2 Airport Boulevard, is on
HAZNET database for waste oils and organic Ii Id wast s.
221 Airport Boulevard is on the CHMIRS data
is on the RCRA-SOG
on t e San Mateo Co. Business List
on the HAZNET database for waste
Avenue, is on the San Mateo Co.
Wright Cleaners, locate at 31 is on the RCRA-SOG, HAZNET,
LUST, SLlC, CLEANERS d San Mateo Co. Business List databases. The LUST
case affected groundwater other than drinking water. Further information was not
provided. The SLlC case is currently in the "Pollution Characterization" stage. It is
a drycleaning facility. It generates halogenated organic compounds, stores
hazardous materials and has a UST. No RCRA violations were reported.
Tyle Color, located at 338 Grand Avenue, is on the RCRA-SOG, HAZNET and San
Mateo Co. Business List databases. It generates metal sludge and waste
oil/solvents. No RCRA violations were reported.
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jrnk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 23 of 54
July 24, 2006
-
kq KLEINFELDER
-
Airport Olympic, located at 100 Baden Avenue, is on the FID and HIST UST
databases. It has 4 former USTs with capacities of 1,000, 6,000, 8,000 and 10,000
gallons. It is an inactive UST location.
Eschelbach Properties, located at 100 Baden Avenue, is on the LUST, CORTESE
and San Mateo Co. Business List databases. It has a closed LUST case that
affected groundwater other than drinking water. The release was discovered in
1990 and the case achieved closure in 2001. It has f USTs.
-
-
-
-
-
is the HAZNET and San
eous organic residues and
us materials.
-
-
2 Baden Avenue, is on the RCRA-
Busine List databases. It stores hazardous
on solvents. No RCRA violations were
-
..
-
Airport Boulevard Service Stn, located at 190 Airport Boulevard, is on the LUST,
CORTESE and San Mateo Co. Business List databases. It has a closed LUST case
that affected groundwater other than drinking water. The release date was 1994
and the case achieved closure in 1997. It has at least one UST.
Borba Mfg, Inc, located at 196 Airport Boulevard, is on the RCRA-SQG database. No
RCRA violations were reported.
Caltrans Grand Avenue Site, located at Highway 101 at Grand Avenue, is on the
RCRA-SQG and HAZNET databases. It disposes of contaminated soil from site
clean-ups. No RCRA violations were reported.
--
-
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 24 of 54
July 24, 2006
-
h..q KLEINFELOER
The following locations/businesses have records in the San Mateo Co. Business List for
storage of tires, storage of hazardous materials and/or generation/recycling of waste
oil/solvents:
Instant Printing
Airport Auto
Nextel Site ID CA-852
United Signs
Don & Jerry Automotive Inc
House of Color
City Grille & Radiator
Jorgu Tool Company
Als Body Shop
A's Auto Shell Repair
Two Guns Press
Forman Leibrock Inc
US Airconditioning
Lincare
101 Trucking
Carlos R A
ESDetail s ~
Borba Manufa urin nc
South City Press
Luxu ry
Tyle Color
Proteolix Inc
Rinat Neuroscience
Grand Auto Service
Pan Ready Foods Inc
Based on the above listed businesses the following potential chemicals of concern were
identified for the Airport segment of the project:
. TPHgdmo,
· VOCs,
· Hex Chrom,
71420/PWENV1 /(PLE6R257 .doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 25 of 54
July 24, 2006
-
III KLEINFELDER
-
· CAM 17,
· SVOCs, and
· PCBs.
-
4.3.3. Victory
Brentway Inc, located at 170 South Spruce Avenue, is on the FID database for one or
more active USTs.
-
Public Storage, located at 160 South Spruce Ave
latex waste; off-specification, aged, or sur
solution.
the HAZNET database for
d unspecified alkaline
-
....
an Mateo Co.
re total organic
-
-
enue, is on the HAZNET
metal sludge and aqueous
th Spruce Avenue, is on the RCRA
, CORRACTS, and CERCLlS NFRAP
mpany (IPC) was a 2.29 acre property in
-
-
-
California Collision Clinic, located at 476A Victory Avenue, is on the RCRA-SQG
database.
Laidlaw Transit Services Inc, located at 450 Victory Avenue, is on the HAZNET
database for organic residue waste.
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 26 of 54
July 24, 2006
-
III KLEINFELDER
Early American Paint & Varnish Co. located at 476 Victory Avenue, is on the RCRA-
SQG, HAZNET, LUST, CORTESE, HIST UST and San Mateo Co. Business List
databases. One RCRA violation in 1985 was reported. The area of violation was
generator-general requirements. It had three 550-gallon USTs. A UST release of
miscellaneous motor vehicle fuels was reported in 1986. The case affected
groundwater other than drinking water. The case achieved closure in 2000. The
site is noted as generating household waste, g erating & recycling waste
oil/solvents, storing tires, motor vehicle fuels or was ,an hazardous materials.
Royalty Auto Collision Center, located at 476-
database for unspecified solvent mixture wa
US Autobody, located at 215 South Mapl
unspecified solvent mixture waste.
e LUST, CORTESE and San
iscellaneous motor vehicle
ater other than drinking
5 .ctory Avenue, Unit G, is on the
320 Victory is
drain.
2004 release of sewage into a storm
VI Y Avenue, is on the HAZNET and San Mateo
It generates oxygenated solvent waste, organic
nts. It also stores tires and hazardous materials.
Giannini Garden Ornament , nc, located at 344 Victory Avenue, is on the HAZNET
database for organic solids waste.
Rollin J Lobaugh Inc, located at 240 Ryan Way, is on the RCRA-SQG, HAZNET, FID,
HIST UST and San Mateo Co. Business List databases. It had one 275 gallon UST
and is an active UST location. It is noted as a generator of waste oil, mixed oil,
halogenated organic compounds and organic solids. It also stores tires and
hazardous materials.
Gold Star Co, located at 233 Ryan Way, is on the HAZNET database for unspecified
solvent mixture waste.
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 27 of 54
July 24, 2006
-
III KLEINFELDER
Frank Anderson, located at 230 Ryan Way, is on the HAZNET database for asbestos-
containing waste.
Steven Engineering Inc, located at 230 and 224 Ryan Way, is on the HAZNET and
San Mateo Co. Business List databases as a generator of organic solids waste.
Coyne Cylinder Company, located at 224 Ryan Way, is on the LUST, CORTESE,
SLlC, FID, HIST UST and San Mateo Co. Business List databases. It had one
former 8000 gallon UST and is an active UST 10 tic It has two active LUST
cases. A UST release of miscellaneous motor v ide fu s on September 26, 1986
was reported in 1992. The case affected g~ undwater ther than drinking water.
The status is "Post remedial action monitor' g. S elea of gasoline occurred
on September 9, 1989. The case affe ed gr ndwater er n drinking water.
The case status is "Pollution characteri tion.
-
-
-
Pro Star Automotive, located at 21
violations are noted.
-
No
-
an ay, is on the HAZNET and San
It nerates organic solids, hydrocarbon
oil/solvents. It also stores hazardous
-
-
-
us Autobody, located at 215 Ryan Way, is on the HAZNET database for solvent
mixture waste.
The following locations/businesses have records in the San Mateo Co. Business List for
storage of tires, storage of hazardous materials and/or generation/recycling of waste
oil/solvents:
-
...,
Trap's Tire & Auto Center
490 Victory Avenue
71420/PWENV1/{PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 28 of 54
July 24, 2006
-
III KlEINFElDER
Modern Auto Tech
Terminal brass & Aluminum Foun
Moerman Clarke Inc
Tech Auto Repair
Autos For Aids, Inc.
Hebrew Academy
Mikes Automotive
Quality Mobile Truck SVC
Central Roofing, I nc
Taylormade Automotive Inc
Auto Axcess Collision
New World Construction
Sunny Construction
Euro Car SVC
G F Automotive
G F Automotive
.
tial chemicals of concern were
Based on the above list
identified for the Victory
.
4_3.4. Portola
Quality Asbestos Control, located at 301 South Spruce Avenue, is on the RCRA SQG
database.
Louis J. Poletti, located at 363-393 EI Camino Real, is on the HAZNET database as a
generator of asbestos-containing waste.
W G Payne Construction Co Inc, located at 363 EI Camino Real, is on the RCRA
SQG database.
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 29 of 54
July 24, 2006
-
tt..q KLEINFELDER
-
Donald M Butera DC, located at 367 EI Camino Real, is on the HAZNET database as
a generator of photochemicals/photoprocessing waste and metal sludge.
South City Dodge, located at 393 EI Camino Real, is on the CORTESE, LUST and
San Mateo Co. Business List databases. It had a diesel release, affecting soils
only, detected in 1991. The case achieved closure in 1992.
Village Lincoln Mercury/Walgreens #3346, located at 393 EI Camino Real, is on the
CORTESE, HAZNET, RCRA LOG, FID and Sa Mateo Co. Business List
databases. It is a generator of photochemic /pho processing waste, is a
generator and recycler of waste oil/solvents, a has n active UST of unknown
capacity.
Gotelli Auto Supply/Gotelli Speed Shop, I cate 32
HAZNET and San Mateo Co. Busine List ata ases. en ates liquids with
halogenated organic compounds and sto s m r vet,. Ie fuels ste.
Based on the above listed business folio . g pot tial chemicals of concern were
ide~tifi:::~~:o~ortola segment 0 the p~
· VOCs,
· Hex Chrom, and
· CAM 17.
-
-
-
4.3.5. First ~
Jim Griffin & Son riti 10 ate at 72 El Camino Real, is on the San Mateo Co.
Business List for st ge mot vehicle fuels or waste.
Daland Body Shop Inc, cat at 890 EI Camino Real, is on the RCRA SaG,
HAZNET and San Mateo Co. Business List databases. It is a generator of
oxygenated solvents, solvent mixture and oil wastes.
Greg Leonards Garage, located at 107 1 st Street, is on the San Mateo Co. Business
List for generation of <27 gallons of waste per year.
Stan the Roof Man, located at 103 1 st Street, is on the HIST UST, CORTESE, LUST
and San Mateo Co. Business List databases. It had a 550 gallon unleaded gasoline
UST. The release was detected in 1992 and affected soils only. The case achieved
closure in 2000_
A 1 Converter, located at 101 1 sl Street, is on the San Mateo Co. Business List as a
generator and recycler of waste oil/solvents.
-
-
-
-
--
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 30 of 54
July 24, 2006
-
k~ KLEINFELDER
All Transmissions, located at 66 A Street, is on the San Mateo Co. Business List for
storage of tires, storage of hazardous materials and as a generator and recycler of
waste oil/solvents.
Shantilal V. Patel, located at 770 EI Camino Real, is on the HIST UST database for 3
USTs of unknown capacity.
Based on the above listed businesses the following poten 'al chemicals of concern were
identified for the First segment of the project:
4.3.6. Westborough
. TPHgdmo,
· VOCs,
. Hex Chrom, and
· CAM 17.
mino Real, is on the San Mateo Co.
aterials.
City South San Francisco, Engineering, located at 33 Arroyo Drive, is on the
HAZNET database for disposal of empty containers.
Grand Auto, located at 1103 EI Camino Real, is on the HAZNET and San Mateo Co.
Business List databases for generation/disposal of organic waste, waste oil and
solvents and for storage of hazardous materials.
Paccar Automotive, Inc, located at 1103 EI Camino Real, is on the HAZNET database
for disposal of organic residue and mixed solvent waste.
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 31 of 54
July 24, 2006
-
III KLEINFELDER
Kragens, located 10
Business List data ses.
waste oil and solvents.
Target No. 1054, located at 1150 EI Camino Real, is on the RCRA SaG and HAZNET
databases for disposal of photochemicals/photoprocessing waste, asbestos- _
containing waste, laboratory waste and of-specification, aged or surplus inorganics.
Redencion Joachico DMD, located at 1133 EI Camino Real, Suite 3, is on HAZNET _
database for disposal of photochemicals/photoprocessing waste and unspecified
organic liquid mixture.
Carriage Cleaners, located at 1121 EI Camino Real, i 0 he CLEANERS, HAZNET,
and San Mateo Co. Business List databases. I IS ide . ied as a drycleaning and
laundry service. It generates photochemicalsl. otoproc sing waste, waste oil and
solvent, and liquids with halogenated organ' c un.
California Water Service Co, located at
Mateo Co. Business List databases.
inactive 2,000-gallon gasoline U
Field Office, located at 80 Chestnu
gallon gasoline UST.
on the HAZNET database for
i on the CLEANERS, and San Mateo
o r vehicle fuels or waste and generates
a no eal, is on the HAZNET, and San Mateo Co.
is th storage location for tires and generates & recycles
-
Southwood Chiropractic, located at 943 EI Camino Real, is on the HAZNET database
for disposal of photochemicals/photoprocessing waste.
Pacific Bell, located at 965 EI Camino Real, is on the RCRA SQG database. No
further information was provided.
South City Car Wash Inc, located at 988 EI Camino Real, is on the San Mateo Co.
Business List for storage of hazardous materials and generation of <27 gallons of
waste per year.
Westborough Chevron, located at 1 Westborough Boulevard, is on the HIST UST,
FID, HAZNET, RCRA SQG and San Mateo Co. Business List databases. The HIST
71420/PWENV1 /(PLE6R257 .doc)/jm k
Copyright 2006. Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 32 of 54
July 24, 2006
kq KLEINFELDER
UST record is for three 10,000 gallon and one 1,000 gallon UST. The FID record
does not specify the number or capacity of active tanks. The Haznet record lists the
business as a generator of an aqueous solution with organic residues. The RCRA
SQG record does not specify type of waste generated. The San Mateo Co.
Business List record is for tire storage, storage of motor vehicle fuels or waste,
generation of <27 gallons of waste per year and the presence of a UST.
Camino Real, is on the HAZNET,
Chestnut Cleaners, located at 26 Chestnut Avenue, is on the CLEANERS, HAZNET,
RCRA SQG and San Mateo Co. Business List databases. It is identified as a
drycleaning and laundry service. It generates & recycles waste oil and solvent, and
generates liquids with halogenated organic compounds. It also stores hazardous
materials.
30 Chestnut Avenue is on the CHMIRS database for a 1996 release of 100 gallons of
milk into the Calma Creek.
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleintelder, Inc.
Page 33 of 54
July 24, 2006
-
k.q KLEINFELDER
Auto Studio, located at 45 Chestnut Avenue, is on the HIST UST, FID, HAZNET,
LUST, and San Mateo Co. Business List databases. The HIST UST database
reports four USTs: 10,000 gallon unleaded, 10,000 gallon regular, 10,000 gallon
premium and waste oil (capacity not reported). A gasoline release, which affected
ground water other than drinking water, was detected in 1991. MTBE analysis was
not performed. Case closure was obtained in 2003. The site reportedly has active
USTs.
-
Acutec Autos, located at 45 Chestnut Avenue,' on t e HAZNET, LUST, and
CORTESE databases. The LUST case affe d grou water other than drinking
water. Further information on the case ot vid. The site generates
aqueous waste with organic residues.
-
were identified for the W
· TPHgdmo,
· VOCs,
· Hex Chrom, and
· CAM 17.
-
Elizabeth Barthe, located at
asbestos-containing waste.
e HAZNET databases for
I Ca ino Real, is on the RCRA SaG,
L' ts. It is a generator of oxygenated
...,
-
-
....
4.3.7. Orphan List
-
Sites not plotted by EDR due to poor or inadequate address information are referred to
as orphan sites. There are 178 unmapped sites in the EDR report. Because they have
incomplete addresses, these properties are not practically reviewable as defined by the
ASTM standard.
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 34 of 54
July 24, 2006
-
III. KlEINFElDER
4.4. OTHER RECORDS REVIEWED/AGENCIES CONTACTED
The following additional sources of environmental records were reviewed during this
Limited Phase I/Phase II. The California State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) makes public records available on the Geotracker database, accessible via
the internet. Kleinfelder reviewed mapped information on the Geotracker database in
order to identify additional sites of environmental concern not identified in the EDR
report. No additional sites were identified using inf r tion from the Geotracker
database.
Data
his information
report was not
4.5. PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE(S)
Table 4-2 presents information about the hysi I se .
was obtained from published maps. A
provided for Kleinfelder to review.
OIL AND GAS
FIELDS
General Information
The subject site is ranged in elevation
located at an approximate elevation of
1 50 feet above mean sea level and
sea level. The topographic relief
shows localized variation, however
the general gradient is toward the
east. Land use in the vicinity of the
site was depicted as developed.
A map of oil and gas fields in South
San Francisco was not included in the
Mun er Ma book.
USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC
QUAD RANG
Information about the regional geology is presented on Table 4-3. This information was
obtained from published data and maps, interviews with public agencies, and/or from
previous investigations conducted by Kleinfelder in the vicinity of the site.
71420/PWENV1/{PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 35 of 54
July 24,2006
-
k.1lfJ KLEINFELDER
4.6. USER PROVIDED INFORMATION
Due to the size and scope of this project, information regarding environmental liens,
usage limitations and title records are not practically reviewable. Additionally, as this
project does not involve the purchase or sale of a piece of property, information
regarding Value Reduction on the sale price is not available or relevant. As such, these
items are not included in this Limited Phase I/Phase II report.
-
The client did not reveal to Kleinfelder any specialize
reasonably ascertainable information.
-
-
-
-
_.
-
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 36 of 54
July 24, 2006
-
k.q KLEINFELDER
5 HISTORY OF THE SITE
The history of the site was researched to identify obvious uses. Historical land use was
researched to the first developed use, or back to 1940, whichever is earlier or readily
available. Table 5-1 summarizes the availability of information reviewed during this
assessment.
TABLE 5-1
HISTORICAL SOU
SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS
Aen photographs were
ailab from EDR of
So 0, Connecticut
Sanbo Fire Insurance
Maps were available for
portions of the site area
from ERD of South port,
Connecticut.
City directories not were
available from EDR of
South ort, Connecticut.
1956, Historical maps were
and available from EDR of
South ort, Connecticut.
Building permits were not
reviewed.
Previous Assessments
were not available to
Kleinfelder for review.
CITY DIRECTORIES
HISTORICAL
REPORT
5.1. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
A review of historical aerial photography may indicate past activities at a site that may
not be documented by other means, or observed during a site visit. The effectiveness
of this technique depends on the scale and quality of the photographs and the available
coverage. Aerial photographs were obtained from several historical photograph
collections through EDR. Aerial photographs covering 60 years were available during
the frame that this report was being prepared. A tabulation of the aerial photographs
reviewed is presented in Table 5-2. Copies of the reviewed aerial photographs are
included in Appendix D.
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 37 of 54
July 24, 2006
-
k-.=J KlEINFELDER
Source Quality
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
TABLE 5-2
HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS REVIEWED
Date
Type
Approximate
Scale
1 "=655'
1946
Black and White
Monosco ic
1956 1"=655'
1965 1 "=555'
1977 1"=555'
1982 1"=690'
1993
1 "=666'
1998
-
-
-
n on indications of land use and no
stances or petroleum products can be
-
The site bounda' s
features were not alw
during the early years, because physical
-
5.1.1. Hillside
1946: In this photograph, little development appears to be present in the vicinity of the
southeastern portion of the section. A school and a residential development are
present at the northwestern end of the section. It appears that the undeveloped
area northeast of the section has been or is in the process of being graded at the
time of the photograph.
1956: The northwest end of the section appears to be substantially the same as in the
1939 photograph. A stream that appeared in the 1946 photograph northwest of
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 38 of 54
July 24, 2006
-
III KLEINFELDER
the school appears to have been culverted. Commercial developments lie on
both sides of the road in the southeast portion of the section.
1965: The section appears to be substantially the same as in the 1956 photograph,
however it appears that grading has taken place north of the commercial
development.
1993: The site appears to be subst
nstructed north of the
rs t be substantially the
1977: The section appears to be substantially the sam
1982: An additional residential neighborhood s
commercial development. Otherwise sectl
same as in the 1977 photograph.
primarily residential in the western
1956: Additional residential area has been added in the northeastern portion of the
section. The Bayshore Freeway has been constructed east of the section. The
southern portion of the section appears to be substantially the same as in the
1946 photograph, with the exception of the freeway.
1965: New commercial properties appear to be under construction east of the freeway
in this photograph. The remainder of the section appears to be substantially the
same as in the 1956 photograph.
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 39 of 54
July 24, 2006
-
k"l KlEINFElDER
1977: The section appears to be substantially the same in this photograph as in the
1965 photograph.
1982: The section appears to be substantially the same in this photograph as in the
1977 photograph.
-
1993: The section appears to be substantially similar in t is photograph as in the 1982
photograph. Commercial buildings east of the eew have been replaced and
a bridge has been built to carry Grand Avenu traffic ver the railroad tracks.
1998: The section appears to be substantia
1993 photograph.
-
-
5.1.3. Victory
1946: In this photograph, the
undeveloped. Victory
of small structures that
[ location of Victory Avenue.
the area where Victory Avenue
1956: South
-
1965: The small structures south of Victory Avenue have been removed and Victory
Avenue has been extended to intersect Spruce Avenue. Industrial structures
appear to have been constructed along the length of Victory Avenue. Empty lots
are located at the southeast corners where Victory Avenue intersects Maple
Avenue, Ryan Way and Spruce Avenue. The area west of Spruce Avenue
remains undeveloped.
71420/PWENV1 /(PLE6R257 .doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 40 of 54
July 24, 2006
III. KLEINFELDER
1977: The empty lots where Victory intersects Ryan and Spruce have been occupied
by additional industrial structures. Otherwise, the section appears to be
substantially the same in this photograph as in the 1965 photograph.
1982: The area west of Spruce Avenue has been developed with industrial/commercial
properties. An empty lot remains at the southwest corner of Victory and Spruce
Avenues. Otherwise, the section appears to be ubstantially the same in this
photograph as in the 1977 photograph.
1993: Commercial/industrial structures have
Spruce and Victory Avenues. Otherwi l th
the same in this photograph as in th 198
e southwest corner of
s to be substantially
1998: The section appears to be s
1993 photograph.
What may be
a residential neighborhood and a school to
1977: EI Camino Real, west of the section, has been widened. A new industrial
structure has been constructed east of the section. Otherwise, the section
appears to be substantially the same in this photograph as in the 1965
photograph.
1982: The section appears to be substantially the same in this photograph as in the
1977 photograph.
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 41 of 54
July 24, 2006
-
III KLEINFELDER
1993: The section appears to be substantially the same in this photograph as in the
1982 photograph.
1998: The section appears to be substantially the same in this photograph as in the
1993 photograph.
5.1.5. First
1946: In this photograph, the western portion of
undeveloped, though construction m
neighborhood. The eastern portion of
adjacent to an agricultural field.
t al fields in the eastern portion
ction appears to be substantially the
tially the same in this photograph as in the
1993: The section appears to be substantially the same in this photograph as in the
1982 photograph.
1998: The section appears to be substantially the same in this photograph as in the
1993 photograph.
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257 .doc)/jm k
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 42 of 54
July 24, 2006
III KLEINFELDER
5.1.6. Westborough
1946: In this photograph, the section appears to be mostly undeveloped. The roads
are unpaved and small structures are sparse in the area. EI Camino Real is
paved. It appears that some grading has taken place in the area. Agricultural
fields lie to the east of the section.
1956: The western portion of the section has be eveloped with residential
neighborhoods, a school and paved roads. e ea rn portion of the section
appears to be largely undeveloped, with t of a structure where the
current shopping center is located. A s al the southern portion
of the section has been diverted or c erte
e same in this photograph as in the
1998: The section appears to e substantially the same in this photograph as in the
1993 photograph.
5.2. SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps provide historical land use information for some
metropolitan areas and small-established towns. Kleinfelder requested a search of
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps by EDR. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps were available
for the subject site from 1910, 1925, 1950, 1953, 1956, and 1970 (see Appendix D).
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 43 of 54
July 24, 2006
-
III KLEINFELDER
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps were not available for all sections for all the years listed
above.
5.2.1. Hillside
-
The Hillside Avenue area developed initially as a residential area with a school.
Sanborn maps from 1950, 1953 and 1956 show a garment and candy factory. The
Sanborn map from 1970 shows the addition of a car w h, as station and a banking
equipment manufacturer. Commercial and industr' I land ses were confined to the
southeastern portion of the section. The northw tern orti of the section remained
residential in each of the Sanborn maps revie d.
5.2.2. Airport
s mainly undeveloped with a
Iy rd in 1910. By 1925, the
omotive repair facilities, a
1950 the section was fully
In 1953, the Victory Ave e s tion was primarily occupied by industrial facilities
including metal fabricating sl1 ps, machine shops and chemical facilities. A steam
laundry facility and a spray painting facility was also present. Similar land uses were
present and expanded on the 1970 Sanborn map.
5.2.4. Portola
Portola Avenue has been residential since the street was constructed. Adjacent to it,
an industrial bakery appears on the 1970 Sanborn map.
71420/PWENV1/( PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 44 of 54
July 24, 2006
It..q KLEINFELDER
5.2.5. First
The First Street section has been primarily residential since 1925 according to the
Sanborn map in this area. A fueling station was there at that time as well. The gas
station was replaced by a construction company yard by 1950. An auto repair shop
appeared in the section by 1956, and the land use in this section has remained largely
unchanged since then.
5.4.
pants by address_ Due to
review of city directories was
hase IIPhase II.
5.2.6. Westborough
The Westborough Boulevard section has be
section since it was constructed. A gas sta' n an
appear on the 1956 Sanborn map. T 197c S
additional residential neighborhoods.
5.3. CITY DIRECTORIES
i~~ftI$1~Uf.lf't~1ii~;!Il.gfi~if.~~ ({I:~ !8' . rill" . e'z:~ ilI\\~ilfJis.!i-'mf! ~~~~.ial~g;~,~;~g;N~
1899 San Mateo 15 minute 1:62,500
1947 San Mateo 15 minute 1:50,000
1956 San Francisco South 7.5 minute 1:24,000
1956 hotorevised for 1968 San Francisco South 7.5 minute 1:24,000
1956 hotorevised for 1973 San Francisco South 7.5 minute 1:24,000
1993 San Francisco South 7.5 minute 1:24,000
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 45 of 54
July 24, 2006
-
III KLEINFELDER
5.4.1. Hillside
The 1899 topographic map shows the Hillside Avenue section as an undeveloped
canyon on San Bruno Mountain in 1899. By 1947, roads had been constructed in the
Hillside section, but there is development is not marked on the 1947 map. The 1956,
1968 and 1973 maps show the area as developed (undifferentiated) with a school and
three commercial buildings. The 1993 map shows the area as developed.
5.4.4. Portola
5.4.2. Airport
The 1899 topographic map shows the Airport
town. The area was served by the Souther acifi
Boulevard (then the Bayshore Highway) ark
area of South San Francisco. The section is how as
1968, 1973 and 1993 topographic
-
5.4.3. Victory
The 1899 and 1947 topographic maps show the Portola section as undeveloped. By
1953 and in the subsequent topographic maps, it is shown as densely developed.
5.4.5. First
The 1988 topographic map shows the First Street section as undeveloped. The roads
in the area are shown on the 1947 map, and the subsequent maps show the area as
densely developed.
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder. Inc.
Page 46 of 54
July 24, 2006
III KLEINFELDER
5.4.6. Westborough
The Westborough section is shown as undeveloped land on the 1899 topographic map.
Roads and a single structure are drawn on the 1947 map of the area. Subsequent
maps show three schools and dense development in the section.
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jm k
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 47 of 54
July 24, 2006
-
III KLEINFELDER
6 SITE RECONNAISSANCE
Kleinfelder's assessment activities included a site reconnaissance. This section
summarizes the findings from the site reconnaissance.
6.1. METHODOLOGY AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
Ms. Mehagan Hopkins and Mr. John William
reconnaissance on July 17, 2006. The site
6.2.
The project consists 0
pn arily along streets. The segments
developed regions as specified in
o hout each of the project segments.
'ty w er, city sewer, and natural gas lines through
v . s businesses of concern located adjacent to
f these businesses are discussed above in Section
In addition to the businesses discussed Section 4.3, Kleinfelder also observed
Peninsula Battery, located at 1139 Airport Boulevard, which appeared to potentially be
a site of environmental concern.
Kleinfelder observed overhead, street level and below grade electrical transformers at
several locations throughout the project areas. One transformer was noted in the open
area of the 1 st Street segment. Within the Airport project segment, Kleinfelder observed
approximately eleven overhead and several street level and below grade transformers.
The overhead transformers were along Cypress Avenue. Street level transformers
were noted within the Victory segment. Transformers were not observed within the
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 48 of 54
July 24, 2006
k~ KLEINFELDER
Portola and Hillside segments. Transformers are of concern as possible sources of
PCB contamination, however, we were not able to discern whether any of the observed
transformers may have released or leaked PCBs to the surroundings.
Kleinfelder noted pooled water in the parking lot of Jack in the Box, located at the
corner of Victory Avenue and Spruce Avenue within the Victory segment. The pooled
water appeared to be the result of cleaning activities occ ring outside the structure, as
evidenced by the presence of soap suds floating on th ate
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 49 of 54
July 24, 2006
-
III KLEINFELDER
7 INTERVIEWS
[TO BE COMPLETED]
~
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 50 of 54
July 24, 2006
k~ KLEINFELDER
8 PHASE II ESA
[TO BE COMPLETED]
8.1. DRILLING AND SAMPLING PROGRAM
8.1 .1. Field Preparation
8.1.2. Soil Boring Procedures
8.2. SAMPLE COLLECTION
8.2.1. Soil Samples
8.2.2. Groundwater Samples
8.3.
8.3.1. Analytical Results
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257 .doc)/jm k
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 51 of 54
July 24, 2006
-
III KLEINFELDER
9 EV ALUA liON
Kleinfelder performed this ESA of the subject site in general conformance with the _
scope and limitations of ASTM Standard Practice E1527-05, as modified for this
project. The following sections describe Kleinfelder's findings and provide general
background information about the site. Findings inclu ECs, historical RECs, and
notation of de minimis quantities, as applicable to the ite. B iness environmental risk
issues are discussed in Section 8.3, Deviations. I summa Kleinfelder's assessment
revealed the following information about the sit
9.1.2. DEVIAT NS AND A ON
An evaluation 0 bU~:iro m t risk associated with the parcel(s} was not
included in Kleinfel ~~Of s rvices. The ESA does not incorporate non-scope
considerations, such as sbestos- ntaining materials testing, radon, lead-based paint
testing, lead in drinking w sting, wetlands, regulatory compliance, cultural and
historical resources, industrial hygiene, health and safety, ecological resources,
endangered species, indoor air quality, and high voltage power lines. Other deviations
are identified in Section 2.5 of this report.
9.1. PHASE I
9.1.1. BACKGROUND
9.1.3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We have performed a Limited Phase I/Phase II ESA modified from the scope of work
required by ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-05 and in conformance with our Proposal
Number 01204PROP (SJ06P035), dated March 9, 2006, for the six proposed sewer
trunk locations in the City of South San Francisco, California. In summary, Kleinfelder's
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 52 of 54
July 24, 2006
k,q KLEINFELDER
assessment revealed evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs)
associated with each of the six sewer segments. The chemicals of potential concern
for each segment are:
. Hillside - Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) gasoline, diesel and motor oil
(gdmo); volatile organic carbons (VOCs); hexavalent chromium (Hex Chrom);
Title 22 metals (CAM 17); semivolatile org ic carbons (SVOCs); and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs);
. Portola - TPHgdmo, VOCs, Hex Chrom, a
. Victory - TPHgdmo, VOCs, Hex Chro , C
. Westborough - TPHgdmo, VOCs, ex C
. First - TPHgdmo, VOCs, Hex Chrom,
. Airport - TPHgdmo, VOCs,
9.2. PHASE II
9.3. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the combined results of the Limited Phase I and Phase II, Kleinfelder
recommends the following:
[TO BE COMPLETED]
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 53 of 54
July 24, 2006
-
k.~ KLEINFELDER
10 REFERENCES
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), June 5, 2006, EDR DataMap@ Corridor
Study@, SSF Wet Weather Phase II, Inquiry Number: 01686767.
California Division of Mines and Geology, San Francisco Sheet (1961). Geologic Atlas
of California, Olaf P. Jenkins Edition.
United States Geologic Survey (USGS), 15-Min
Map, San Francisco South, California, dated 1 3
Additional sources may be referenced sep
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257.doc)/jmk
Copyright 2006, Kleinlelder, Inc.
Page 54 of 54
July 24, 2006
III KLEINFELDER
-
k.~ KLEINFELDER
-
k.~ KLEINFELDER
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
I declare that to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition
of Environmental Professional as defined in Section 312.10 of 40 CFR 312. I have the
specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess the
nature, history, and setting of the subject property. I have developed and performed
the all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the stan rds and practices set forth in
CFR Part 312.
ional performing this environmental
and is available on request.
James A. Lehrman, PG, CHG, REA
Environmental Group Manager
71420/PWENV1/(PLE6R257 .doc)/jm k
Copyright 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc.
March 31, 2006
-
k~ KLEINFELDER
BASE REPORT
CD)
-
III KlEINFELDER
-
III KlEINFELDER
-
III KLEINFELDER
CAL REPORTS
-
kq KLEIN FELDER
-
-
-
-
OFFICE OF
CITY COUNCIL 2005-2006
(650) 829-6652
FAX: (650) 829-6689
JOSEPH A. FERN EKES, MAYOR
RICHARD A. GARBARINO, VICE MAYOR
MARK N. ADDIEGO, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDRO GONZALEZ, COUNCILMEMBER
KARYL MATSUMOTO, COUNCILMEMBER
BARRY M. NAGEL, CITY MANAGER
THE CITY ENGINEER
September 20,2006
Mr. Thomas Zlatunich, Land Agent
Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
PO Box 15005
San Jose CA 95115
Re: Phase II Wet Weather Project CEQA Document
City of South San Francisco
Dear Mr. Zlatunich:
In response to your letter of August 18,2006 regarding the above referenced project, the
City of South San Francisco is fully aware of the natural gas and electrical facilities
owned and operated in various portions of South San Francisco.
All reasonable efforts are being made to contact PG & E during the design process to
ensure that PG&E facilities are not impacted by this or other projects undertaken by the
City, including facilities within Airport Boulevard. The City is also' aware of
requirements for relocating PG &E facilities.
The ~roposed Phase II Wet Weather project does not include the construction of any
habitable structures that will require additional utility service by PG & E.
Your comments regarding the obligations of PG & E to provide a safe and relIable energy
supply to your service area is noted.
I hope the above responses satisfy your concerns about this project.
Exhibit B
ADDRESS; 315 MAPLE AVENUE, SO\JfH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
MAILING; P.O. BOX 711, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083
I~
Pacific Gas and
Electric Company<1!J
Corporate Real Estate
land Services
111 Almaden Blvd., Rm. 814
San Jose, CA 95115
August 18, 2006
Mailing Address
P. O. Box 15005
San Jose, CA 95115.0005
Ray Razavi, City Engineer
Engineering Department
City of South San Francisco
P.O, Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report
Phase II - Wet Weather Project
RECEIVED
AUG 2--1 2006
BY: ENGINEERING DMSION
Mr. Razavi:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for
the Phase II - Wet Weather Project in South San Francisco.
PG&E owns and operates gas and electric distribution facilities which are adjacent to the
proposed project To promote the safe and reliable maintenance and operation of utility
facilities, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPDC) has mandated specific
clearance requirements between utility facilities and surrounding objects or construction
activities. To ensure compliance with these standards, project proponents should
coordinate with PG&E early in the development of their proj~ct plans. Any proposed
plans should provide for unrestricted utility access for the reliable maintenance and
operation ofPG&E's facilities
PG&E operates and maintains an electric underground transmission line and a gas
transmission line in Airport Blvd. (Airport Subtrunk). Because transmission facilities
relocation's require long lead times, and are not always feasible, developers should be
encouraged to consult with PG&E as early in their planning stages as possible. .
Relocations ofPG&E electric transmission and substation facilities (50,000 volts and
above) could also require formal approval from the California Public Utilities
Commission. If required, this approval process could take up to two years to complete.
Proponents with development plans which could affect such electric transmission
facilities should be referred to PG&E for additional information and assistance in the
deyelopment of their project schedules.
We would. also lil\e to .note that continued development consistent with your General
PlanS will have a cumulative impact on PG&E's gas and efectnc systems and may require
on-site and off-site - additions and improvements to the facilities which supply these
services. Because utility facilities are operated as an integrated system, the presence of an
existing gas or electric transmission or distribution facility does not necessarily mean the
facility has capacity to connect new loads.
We would like to recommend that environmental documents for proposed development
projects include adequate evaluation of cumulative impacts to utility systems. This will
assure the project's compliance with CEQA and reduce potential delays to the project
schedule.
PG&E remains committed to working with the City to provide timely, reliable and cost
effective gas and electric service to South San Francisco. Please contact PG&E's Service
Planning Supervisor, at 498.725.2095 if you have any questions regarding our comments.
We would also appreciate being copied on future correspondence regarding this subject as
this project develops.
The California Constitution vests in the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
exclusive power and sole authority with respect to the regulation of privately owned or
investor owned public utilities such as PG&E. This exclusive power extends to all
aspects of the location, design, construction, maintenance and operation of public utility
facilities. Nevertheless, the CPUC has provisions for regulated utilities to work closely
with local governments and give due consideration to their concerns. PG&E must
balance our commitment to provide due consideration to local concerns with our
obligation to provide the public with a safe, reliable, cost-effective energy supply in
compliance with the rules and tariffs of the CPUC.
If you have any questions call me at 408.282.7106.
Sincerely,
~J. UJ
Thomas J. Zlatunich
Land Agent
cc: Service Planning Supervisor / PG&E
Electric Transmission Supervisor / PG&E
Gas Transmission Supervisor / PG&E
u
..
.""'"
,.Q
.""",
~
~
~
tj S
Q) ~
. -. lo-l
o CO
lo-l 0
~ lo-l
lo-l~
Q) CO
~ ~
~ .~
Q)~
~[
~ Q)
Q)~
~~
joooooj ~
joooooj ~
Q) CO
~ ~
~ .~
~ ~
~
o .~
u ~
.~ 0
~~
~ ~
lo-l 0
~ .~
~ ~
~ ~
CI':J . ~
~
~ .~
'S~
o
CI':J
\C
=
=
N
...,
~
N
~
QJ
,.Q
e
QJ
..
~
QJ
00.
c
o
.....
....
~
~
!i:
.....
J,.,
~
>
g ~
...... 0
P-.",lj
eJl 'Ero
c "ta Q) .~
.C .S:!,E 8:0......
..s=0~Q)~
..... "t:l ..... 0 Jr 0
c ~ I-< I-< I-<
O ..c 0 0.. "d 0..
~ 'i:: ~ s:: 0..
::aooP-..=lroro
p ~
..... ,..0
eJl= ;::J .....
c.c P-. ~
.C .r;j g 0 ~
ocCJ)u .Jj
~ ~ 15 '0] ~
orl.l;::Jgtio..
::a~~~~O
I-<
eJlp-@
c ..... ro
~=Jj
C.cs::
..... 0
~ rI.l U
e c
~ 2 ti
- .... Q)
l:l.. rI.l'~
e ~ 0
""",~p':;
Cl.I
l-I
=
r.t.l
~
Cl.I
~
I:
o
....
~
~
CJ)
....
~
~
Q) I-<
s:: "d .~ 0
oS::,> .,
.~ ro ~ ~ ~
ti ~ .. :::; "d 0
;::J (/) 0 (/)
"d ~ ro ...... I-<
...... 0 Q) I-< Q)
~ o..'c;; :: ~.~
..... s:: (/) ro .... :;:::l
(/) O';:j "-',..0
;::J.'p~~"dro
"d U Q) Q) .S 1;)
bO::!.....I-<'>u
~ f:< (/) ro >> ......
.::l t1 ;::J s:: bO ><
~~"d0~.8
o 0 Q) ",lj.::l I
~U>U~s::
o ~...... ;::J ..... 0
....... .::l :Ei, I-< "d s::
Q)"d t1s::..c:
..c: Q) ooj ~ Q) .....
t-< "d::: 0 .t:: ......
. ;::J 0 u 0 ~
,-l 'U .b Q) Q) "d
~ ~ s:: .~ 1-<0 2
.::l 0 ......
~Q)ui68~
~::.8~"d.b
~"ta~~;a~
r:: {i .9 2 ~ ~
o (/) ...... ro ...... ro
.... Q) ro '> ro ..c:
~ ;:; .~ ,> "d (/)
b.O(/)~
.1""f ct1 U ..-..
;;: Q) Q) ro
~ 8 ~
.S ""' ~
I-< ro (/) 0'
Q) 1:i ~ s:: 1:: Lt)
15 '@ 0.. >. :a ......
08 ~"g 0.';;.8 o~
"dg ~ >>ro 0.. Q) (/) .b -9
~ (fj ro:;:::l "d s::.....
I-<~ 1-<0.. ro 00..
..0] 2Q)ujO.:x< 8 uo
s::~ rol-<Q)>.~ s::......
ro..... ~ro.~ "d o:::=:
(/) .b bO (fj '@ 1;) Q) ...... 0
d ::;a '"8 ::@ .S S "d '2 ~ 8 S
o ro'>~''pQ)(fj g. Q)I-<
(/) ~ 0 >> ro u .u 0 ;::J 1-<.....
bO.... ,..0 >. 0.. ;::J 'I;: 0.. Q) :;:::l
.S 2.. ~::o '.b.e >< s:: ~ ~
"""V~ro"d<J:iI-<Q) 0 ~~
;::J~<bl-<ro~Q)O (fj os::
ro~.......Q)Oo""'''''' "d I-<Q)
..c:I-<O~I-<U~(fj Q) 0>
.(fj0......1-<(fj.....>>~ Q) (fj~
(fj.:x< (fj Q) o..(/) ro ,_ 0.. bOo..
Q)U"ta Q).......Q)(fj I-< V (/) ro
.~ ;::J ............. >. ~ ro Q) .S U ,..0 0
iil.bli:l0:;:::lro~6..o04:1 "d:;(fj
...... ...... ...... ~ ro "d ro U ...... u....... s:: Q) >.
~ I""""l ro .r::; "'0 QJ ... 'S ~ ~ C'd J-l ro
ro~81;)0..>bOa1}5(fjQ),...... .~~~
0..Q) Q) ro Q) roo 0 U"d.~..c:""" ro"d
1;) > (fj Q) Q) 0.. 'U'x g S 0.. 19 Q) ro
;::J UO g:: ~ ~ 19 s:: 0 (fj ., 8 ~ 8 8
"d ......roCJ)ro(fj~""" ...... ~
::a
::a-
Q
~
U'
I:
o
....
......
d
-.J
!;:
....
l-o
~
>
bJ)
I: ~
'i: '3
O"Cl
:= ~
I:..c:
o -.J
~OO
....
bJ):=
1:=
.... .1:J
l-o ....
o (I.)
:= I:
I: 0
o C.
~ ~
~
bJ)~
I: ....
....-
...... ....
1:.1:J
~ ....
S ~
~ 0
-c.
6"~
"""~
~
l-o
=
(I.)
d
~
~
=
o
....
......
d
bJ)
....
......
~
(0
'5
C\I
OJ
Ol
<ll
0..
......
o
...... i:::
~ 0
...... .....
CIlt)
o ;j
-:::.b
.g 8
p.... u
u
;..::l
.g
p.... ~
~ 8 Q)
[fJ .~ CIl B
13u~~
;j~150'"
ell~~Q
~
u Q)
;..::lB
.g ~
p.... 0...
~8Q
[fJ CIl
13 '0 ~
;j ~ 15
ell~~
...... Q)
CIl H
~ 'Soo 'Q)' ro bO
U_'"d_>"Hr".
~ 0 ;:l Q) Q) Q) .:::1 H
oQ)_>13......~ 00 C 'f3..a Q)
CIl..r::5~CIl~0 t)Q);$ ro,8ro ro~;:lQ)'"d......
& ~. -.b ~ ~ ~.~ il bO >., H ~ ~ ~ Q) $
<a"2~~ 5~~ '8':82.~ S~.o J; ~......u;>~~~~
U ..... 'Ul S S Ul...... 0... ro ro":i:l . ~ "2 Q);> ;:l ......
'So ~ ...... :lJ " Q) $ -:~ 6 i::: ~ 0 ~ $ .~ .~o Q)u ~ S ~
Ororou............[fJ m.-;:; Oro o...H ....uo
a ;:l 13 Q) 6 ';t:l H .g ~ ~ ~ ~ 1: Q) 0"2 i::: d:: ~ Q) Q) '{il
Q) cr< i::: [fJ 0 0..8 ':;:' e-.'So 15 :::; 8 ~ ........ > >.:Ll ';..::l ~ .0 'r;:
'f3 ro 0 Ci ~ ...... '"d .... v, 0 ~ m "g 0 >., ~ 0... ro :::l 0
H >"'Jj _ ~"2 H :e '"d - ..r:: ~ .~ ro ~:;:: 'Jj 6 ~ ro H
< .0 u ro .-=--...... ~ .5 ~ 2 '"d' ~ -a IIi ti 0... U $ Ou .!:l {i 0...
~ "2 .E ~ ~ :~ >Q i::: ~ 'f3 ~ ~ i::: ~ ..... ro 0 i::: ro H Q)
<e: H tI1 $:; ....... ~ - 0 H :lJ '0' 0 0 gf '"d ~ ~ .5 60 Q)i::: 13
_1 ~ O~ -8 ..r::u -8 0 '"d _ ro i::: H :lJ Lr) - C ..... Q) '"d Q) '"d
q....... ..... .....b Q)O"'~Q)o...U......OroUH HHC"";
QJ Q) u CIl ro CIl i::: .'"d............'"d Q) Q) i:::'f3Q)...... ~ 0...Q)~ CUO ro;:l
H ~ "- H Q) '"d 0 bO...... ..... _..... ......0 0 CIl Q) ro 0
... .......,...-, U c: v .... 'v.r". .. .r-'_,~ HE!>"
Ui Q) ~..8 15 ~ .:::1 ro Q) 13 ~ ":i:l H :lJ @ ~...... '"d CIl a >., - '"d
~ ~ ~ .~ i ] ~ ] ~ ~ ] ~ ~ ~ ~ ] ~ ~ .~ ] ~ l ~ .~
I:: ..r:: ~ 'r;: >., bO g C bO 8 Q:l .......~ .,8 ;:l 0 ~ 0 13 ~ C u .Q)~ U
o CIl ...... 0 <a '(jJ CIl ro C 0... ~ H ~ ~ <a ~ ;j ~ ~ ro Q) ~
~ ~ .8 d:: ~ ~ & .3 j .s .B ~ 8. ~ u 5- [ell ~ 6 -a 13 ~
.~ bh H
~ 0 ,9 ~ ::0-
~ d:: ~
E
<ll
0,
0
C::
Ol
c
t
0
t5 0-
OJ OJ 0
'e a: 0
~ CIJ
0.. '0
OJ <ii c
Ol <ll
.c u::
Cd c
OJ 'B c
5 <ll
'r: (f)
(jj 0 .c
5 ::2 '5
c 0
= 0 (f)
OJ ~ '5
(/) Ol
ctl :;::; C
.c ~ (5
0..
C
Q
.,.
.....
eu
C.J
!i:
.,.
""
~
>
ell
C ~
.C '3
Q"'Cl
;:: ~
c..c
Q C.J
~oo
~
ell .,.
c=
.,. ..c
"" .,.
Q [I.l
;:: c
C Q
Q ~
~ ~
~
ell.....
C;::
.,. -
..... .,.
C..c
~ .,.
6 ~
~ Q
-~
~[I.l
6 ~
......~
~
""
::l
[I.l
eu
~
~
C
Q
.,.
.....
eu
ell
.,.
.....
~
to
a
C')
(lJ
OJ
<1l
0..
~ ~
...... 0
'=:0
.- i=: ell
eIl(l)~
.s S 'u.-
........ (I) ell
o :> (I) :>
..... 0 0... 0
l-< I-< (/) l-<
o o..."d 0...
'J:: S c:: 0...
p........Cdell
u
:=l
.g
P-. ~
~ 0 c::
(/) u .j:j
ii .0 JJ ~
::l ~ t5 0...
~~~o
.....
i=:
(I)
~E
.g ~
P-. 0...
~ 0 (I)
(/)~Cl
ii '0 JJ
::l ~ t5
~~~
(/)
:B 00
.2 ~~~ ~
~o J~ ~]~&
~ .l:J (/)"d
.e"d3~3~~ui
;';::~o...oo...~->"B
'0 ......:> (I) (I) ;::. ell
~ S g ~ E5 .~ ~ ]
~ ~ s...... ..... i=: 0 .....
i6 ~ u g .~ (I) .50 (/)
l-< 0... i=: ::: "d :;::l (I)]
~ (I) .9 ..... '0 .~ ~ Cd
O I-< (/) _ U (I)
0... 0 '" OJ:)"d ...... (/)
~ (I) ~ ii .~ (I) .g ~
rf') ii c:: tJ:';l ~ .~ ~
~ (I) Cd .~ 0... ti o."d
;::l I-< ........ o...l<i .- 0....-
<Il .5 0 ~ ~ ~ ro 5b
ra 0" i=: ..... l-< ..~
(l)CliO(l)(/)eIl~"d
~ M .M ..c:: ~ ...... Jr-.l
~"",,~""'o>':::eIl
1::";-;':'OI::..c....,o
o ..c:.... 0 "d c:: p::)
:= 00 OJ~:o Q) QJI""""I
ra.....Sl:<eIll-<ti8
OJ:) U Cli 0 :> ell ._ ....,
".p .~ o.:.e ell 0... ~ c::
"- 8 c:: 0 ~ ~ 0 0
~ o....~ 0... (I) 0... u U
E
<1l
0,
o
n:
Ol
c
'f:
o
t5 0..
(lJ ClJ 0
;f ~ .~
ID ;ij fa
.c Ol ~
Cil .S u.
(lJ 2 ra
S: 'c (/)
Qi 0 ..c
'> :z: '5
> C 0
.Q (/)
0) cri 0
~ g c
a: ~ G
=
Q
....
......
~
c:J
!I::
....
l.
~
~
OJ)
= ~
.C '3
Q"Q
:.:: ~
=..c
Q c:J
~oo
~
OJ) ....
==
.... .0
S .~
:.:: =
= Q
Q Q.,
~ ~
~
OJ).....
=:.::
....-
...... ....
=.0
~ ....
s ~
~ Q
-Q.,
a~
i-oI~
~
l.
=
[I.l
~
~
~
=
Q
....
......
~
....
~
.......
o
.....
i=:
Q)
S i=:
~ ..8
o 5 ::E
.~ ~ ~
l-l 0 0
o..uu
u
;.::l
.g .....
p... i=:
~ 8 Q)
Cfl .~ ~ ~
~~t)[
JS.t~o
.....
i=:
u Q)
;gE
;:i 1a
p... 0..
~ 0 Q)
CfluO
.fj '0 ~
::s ~ t)
01-<>
Cfl>I,;>
,.,.., ~2 ~o 0 ~ ~
"2 ~"o ~ c: "0--
....... l-l l-l ~ .8 Cd b1:J rJJ u _ ..... Q) 0.. Q) 'g
~"o [I-< [, 13 .5 5 "2:B l-l ~ t) ~ ~ ~ S ..0 Q) ~~
5 ~ ~ ~ b1:J ~ ra ;a ~ ~ i=: ~ a1 ..::..g ....... ~ .5 S"o ~ ..0 ~
S :;:1 0.."0 .5 0.. S .5 ~ ~ b1:J.!:P.S ~.~ ;a S 3 0.. ~ Q) ~ ui.5J ] ~
~ 0 Q) ~ ;:; ~ '(jj t) 0 "0 .5 ~ g ..... "0:... 2 ....... ~ ~ ::s s:; ~ rJJ 0
i=: ~ ::: :;:1 "O:::l ~ "0';: c: ~"o -;:: 2"2 cd cd '(jj 0 0 c: u :8 1il rJJ ~
S ,ra ~"o cd 'Q 2 0 0 JS ra b1:J CS ~ ~ s g ra ] .;: S .5 '13 P.. ~ 1
S ~ .5J "0 ~ .5J ~ 5 ] ~ 0.. ~ .5 u ~.~ :0 .;:: ~ cd ~ Q) ~:B >, 8 ~
8 8 6:'~ ~ @ ~] ~ ~ ~ .~ ] ~ ~ a 1il .g ~ ~] ~ 0:6 :::l a1 ~ 2: 2
.8 .:0 .5 0 ~ 5 e ~ ~ ra Cd ~.5 :s ~ .5 ] ;; Cd g,j 2' 2 ~ ~ cd cd
t) g ~ ~ CIl 8 0 ..... 0.. ~ gp P.. S ~ 8"0' ra' <i ~ .~ ~"o "0 0..; ] .~
..... Q) ~..... Q) Q) ~ ~!: ~ "0 :Pu H 2 c: :-::: i=: ~'C 'c 0.. ~ 0.. ~ ~ ;:;s Cd
~ 0:6 c: S ~ E5 .g ~ 0 ';;:J c: Q) 1il Q) JS i=: ;:i .;:l 2 2 Q) 0 2 ~ i=: ~ 2 ~
Cd u - .;:l i=: Q) Cd _ rJJ "0 0.. Q) ..8 :> cd cd 0:6 l-l rJJ 0 Cfl ..... 0..
~ '0 p:: >, ~ ui ~ 5 ..g 13 ~"8 :S.8 ~ ~ .~ ~ S S '0 2: S P....I:1 ~ g ~
2::~~~s~Q):::locd;':::;E3l-lrJJ-;:: Q).....l-lQ)"O"O cd..I:1 13';;:J-Q
::s ~ Q) '.1:1 ..... 'S: "0 u u 0.. 0 2..... S Q) 2 I-< 2 2 ] rJJ 19 i=: ::s rc 0.. 0
~ Q) S i=: cd :c .~ ....... :B .5 H ....... cd ~ . Q) ;:: cd t) cd cd <J::: ~ i=: .8 "0 .;:l >, J::
QJ ....... Q) 2 0:6 u:-::: ~ :... >,;a rJJ ..... Q ~ b1:J ~ ~ ....... 'S .5 '.1:1 ......; Q) t) Q)"O I-< "0
::E ~ ~ 8.. ~ ~ "5 ~ ~ s ~ ] g.]" ~ g ~ "0 ~ g ~ 5 .~ 5 E ] ~ ~ .8
r:: 0 c: -:::: 0 u ,.,..,..... 0..... I-< Q) I-< ~ rJJ S ;:l ..... ..... "0 Q) - CI1 l-l ::s - cd
o '.1:1 Cd gs ~ :c dJ U ..... 0 0..:> 0.. Q 0.. 0 :... i=: i=: ..... ..... 0.. s:; 0 - u .....
-u~Q)~u.....E~~rJJl-lo..Q) Q)k~OOQ)~C:o>~zQ)..o
iU ;:i ..,:; ~ "0 ::s 19 u <c: ';;:J ~ 0.. cd "0 .~ ~ t:i co..... u u ..0 Q .::l u ;>.;:l 0
b1:J I-< l-l U i=: I-< rJJ 5
:;::tJ2"O::stJcd:.....
..... s:; cd cd 0 s:; - C?
::E 8 ~ .8 bb 8 ..5"~
::0
u
s
Q)
<D
'0
'<t
Q)
OJ
<Il
0..
E
<Il
0>
o
C:
OJ
C
't
o
t5 0-
Q) C1l 0
'e a: &l
0.. ~ '0
(j; <ii C
..c 0) ~
ta C u.
a> ~ fa
5 c (/)
Q) 0 ..c:
5 ~ g
= 0 (/)
Q) .~ a
~ g> ~
&. ~ (5
=
Q
.....
.....
~
CJ
!::
.....
"'"
~
>
Oil
= ~
'C '3
Q"O
;::: ~
=..=
Q CJ
~oo
~
Oil;:::
==
..... ,l:)
"'" .....
..s (I:l
..... =
= Q
Q ~
~ ~
~
Oil~
=;:::
.....-
..... .....
=,l:)
~ .....
8 ~
~ Q
-~
~(I:l
8 ~
-~
~
"'"
=
(I:l
~
~
~
=
Q
.....
.....
~
Oil
.....
.....
~
......
o
~
ill
S ~
~ ..8
o ~ ~
-;:: S ~
.9 S f:<
l-< 0 0
j:l; u u
u
;.:::l
.g
j:l; ~
~ 0 ~
Cfl ~ Jj
0:5 '0 ~ ~
;:s ~ 1:i P..
JS~~O
......
~
U ill
;.:::lB
.g ~
j:l;o...
~ 0 ill
CfluO
~.~ 00
";i:JU~
;:s ~ 1:i
o l-< '>
Cfl~;>
.S
'"d '"d
~: ro~'~
ilIl-<'"d '00
~~ilIS".jj~
~~~;:SI(SilI
~ 0 p.. ilI..a
'"d>.0' p..o
~ ...... l-<. 0......
;:s l-< p.. .......-
ill ill 0 ro
::::4 p..~ ro 00 ;:s
roO";i:J l-<'"d
~ l-< >. 1;; ;:s .:;:
00 P....a ,0.....
>. 0 '"d ~~ '"d
G ~ ill il ~' .S
@ ti ~ 1:i c::
l! be ~ ..... ~ ro
E-< 0 ~ '"d '"d ui
iii l-< ill .S "2 ~ .~
CIJ P....a 1=1 00 b.O ~
l-< S:Q ~. &.S ~
~ ".jj ;:s co 0 00 l-<
~ ~ 8 8 0..E ~
'<:' ~...... P........ P.. Q
~:cro~O~ilI
c::00:5o~o'O
o ~ .~ :c 0 '.c ......
.... ill v, U :c u ~
~U~;:SP";:Sill
b.O ~ ill .b .!:: .b :>
;E:>]~~~~
:::E]~8~80:5
CD
o
l!)
Q)
OJ
<Il
0..
3
ti.S 1:i
.~ ~ S
o 0 ill
0. tl ::;E
b.02~
.@ ~ ~ ~
;:s 0 l-< ~
OuOj:l;
u
.....
.-
..a
;:s ......
j:l; ~
~ 0 ill
Cfl .~ ~ B
0:5~l-<~
g~gfr
Cfl~;>O
l-<
o
......
u
ro
l-<
~
o
U
......
U
ill
'0'
l-<
j:l;
00
1j 0 ~
...... '"d':;: ~ ~ ...... 0
uC:::cSo u'"d'.c
.~ ~ u P.. t5 Sill] ~ '"d
l-< U ro '" ~ ui ~ 'u 5 ro .~ ~
~.~ S 0 0 ~ Cfl ~ ill ill ;.S
0:5 [tl "'":~]0:5 ~~ ~ ~ ~
'OilI2;{l..8g1:i~~l!"a
~0:5~o~CilCfl"""Cil"""E-<~
.9 '0 8 ~ ~ ~ .E .SO {l .~ ~ E
-g ~ ~'...... ;:s"2 >,'1:.~ '!:: ~
"'Ol-<Ol-<......"'~.~'"dilll-<
.......:crooo...... -;>-c::-:;t:i.....
l-< l-< j:l; l-< ~ 1:i '"d r-: .~ ro ~ f:< ~
o 0.- ;:s 0 ill 2 .::1 ti p.. Q 0 '0'
~ p...~ ..8 u ...... ~ ~ ro ;:s ~ ~ l-<
Cil 1:i ill ZO ~ f-<. ill ~ ~ :cuo Cil ;:.
CIJ ..... e ~ Cfl co fj 0 l:: _
~ ~ ~ ";i:J :>.. Cil' ~ 'So tl ro ;:s .S 0:5
tIl~;:;:;:.8 ro u- ~;::S ~.b'"d l-<
~..... '"d '"d..9 ~ >:a .b ill ~ ilI-8
'<:'~~2~~er~'Uou:gtfJ
~ ~ ~ '2 ~ 0 ~ 0 g :.e ...... ~ g
o ...... l-< .~ CQ 1:i f:< 0 U g; 0 .S '.c
::: ~ 0 ~ ~ >..9 ~ ~ ill >. ill .~
tU ill .S ..a '"d ro ...... ..... 0 '"d ~ ..a <<=<
~ ~ i; .- ~ ] fr ~ '.g E .~ ::::4 '0
~ :g'~ ~ ~ cJ5 & ~ .9 .S ~ ~ ~
E
<Il
cr,
\2
0..
OJ
c
'-e
o
-0 D-
Ol Q) 0
'e a: &l
0.. -g '0
0; <Il ?i
~ g> u:
Q) B @
~ 'c (fJ
ill 0 .r:.
:> :::E '5
:> C 0
o (fJ
Q) .~ 13
~ .g .c
1\: ~ (5
=
Q
....
.....
=
~
!i:
....
'"'
CIJ
;,
0.()
= CIJ
'C "3
Q~
:.= CIJ
=-=
Q ~
~\J'j
.G>
0.() ....
==
.... ,.Q
'"' ....
Q v:l
:.= =
= Q
Q ~
~ ~
~
O.()~
=:.=
....-
..... ....
=,.Q
CIJ ....
6 ~
CIJ Q
-~
a~
~~
~
=
v:l
=
CIJ
~
=
Q
....
.....
=
0.()
....
.....
~
to
'0
to
OJ
OJ
a:l
ll..
.......
0
-l-'
>=:
Q)
S 15
~:o
>=: v
0 Q) ;::l
-l-' ~ ~
I-<
0
.....
I-< o 0
p... v v
v
....
:g -l-'
P-. >=:
~ 0 ~
(f) .~ ~ ~
oSC::l-<o...
;::l ro 0
JLt~o
Q)
v
V :.::l'iJ-l-'
..... 0 c:: >=:
.--< P-. ro Q)
.g "':--l-'B
P-. >=: >=: I-<
as ~~fr
oS '0 ~ ~ ~ 0
;::l~t;frfrClJ
~~~ooJ::
~<fl ~
VI-< 'iJ Oven
~ ;::l 0 <fl-;::
'~.2 CO en S 15 '0 al
>=: o...~'.E~~:::l~B
<fl ell -l-' 'cj V . <Ii I-< I-<
.9 .8 CO ClJ ;::l,.J::; >.,..c; >l.o ell
~ t; .~ ~ ~ ~ :E ~ ~ fr
.t: .~ 1:1 .B .8 ~ 'iJ _ (f) 0
g ~ 5 ClJ gs 5 ~ ~ ~ .~
UClJ'iJI-<Q)coc::>=:o>l.o
'"' ..... ;::l ~ I-< ro Q) (f) 'iJ
v ell ,;g ell Q) .~ S c::
.......O"'>=:Q)-l-'S-l-'Q)Q)ro
~ ~ .9 0 ~ ClJ ~ ~ oS ClJ
1-<0000ti-l-'~,",'iJc::>.v
~ Q);::l >=:'iJ..2 Q) ro..c:.::l
<:: tl JZ ~ 'iJ ~:E 'iJ ~
~caol:<2,,-~~Q)~,....'
..c: 1-<.......... - ,..c; 0 C)
~ <fl V ~ Q) 2 a ~ '"' .....
~ ~ '0 c:: ~ .S :E ~ g;.~
ft$ .--< -l-';::l ell Q) 0 ell .....
~P-.5Q)~S:>:c'iJO
~-;::c:..cO<flQ)eIlc::co
.... ~ 0 ~ ..... 'iJ t: ro r-:
l:: ~ Q) -l-' ~ <fl ;::l 0 _ ...
OJ:;V Q)-o...vl-<
.... Q) >=: ~ v '.0 v ~ Q) Q)
1U co ClJ 0 V ~ .S ~ ~
.~ ell S oS '.t:: o...:::l I-< .~ '00
.... c:: S ",....... 0 ell -l-' :> ,....
.... ro 0 ~ ell '"' ..c: ....... Q) ....
:E::EvS.t:o...<flo,",~
E
~
OJ
e
ll..
Ol
c
'€
0
0 0.
OJ OJ 0
'e' cr ()
'0 (/)
ll.. c '0
CD '" c
Ol a:l
.r:. U::
<a .S
2 c
OJ a:l
$ 'c (fJ
Q) 0 .r:.
$ :2 S
c 0
= .2 (fJ
OJ <a '0
(/) g
~ C
0: ::E <3
REVISED EXHIBITS
. Exhibit 3c, VICTORY SUBTRUNK
. Exhibit 3d, WESTBOROUGH SUBTRUNK
. Exhibit 3g, AIRPORT SUBTRUNK: Linden to Lux
. Exhibit 3h, AIRPORT SUBTRUNK: Lux to North Canal
Not to Beale
SOURCE: City of South San Francisco, 09-01-2006.
Exhibit 3c
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
WET WEATHER PROJECT PHASE II
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
VICTORY SUBTRUNK
1
~-.s
..
.
II:
~
z
::::>
a:
?-
m
::::>
~ en
_ J:
;e G
J: ::::>
>< 0
w a:
o
m
I-
en
w
s:
Ow
000
OO<(z
oJ:o
za.~
<(~a:
a:oc:(
U.W-I
z-'o
<(o~
OOb:~
J:a:E:
~w"'"
:JJ:C)
g!;t~
u.w~
o~!:i:
>~C)
~wi=
o~~
Not to scale
/'--....
SOURCE: City of South San Francisco, 09-01-2006.
Exhibit 39
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
WET WEATHER PROJECT PHASE 1\
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AIRPORT SUBTRUNK:
Linden to Lux
"" ~--~-"_.--"-_._--_.~.._~..,~._-
SOURCE: City of South San Francisco, 09-01-2006.
Exhibit 3h
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
WET WEATHER PROJECT PHASE 1\
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AIRPORT SUBTRUNK:
Lux to North Canal