HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-04-16 e-packet
SPECIAL MEETING
CITY COUNCIL
OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
P.o. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, California 94083
Meeting to be held at:
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING
C()MMUNrry ROOM
::33 ARRC)YO DRIVE
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 2008
6:30 P.M.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the
State of California, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Special Meeting
on Wednesday, the 16th day of April 2008, at 6:30 p.m., in the Community Room at the Municipal
Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California.
Purpose of the meeting:
1. Call to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3. Public Conlments - comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting
Agenda.
4. Study Session - Discussion of the findings of the completed cost and
construction feasibility study and provision of direction regarding the
Oyster Point Marina Concept Plan.
5. Approval of the Junipero Serra Boulevard Remediation Replanting
Conceptual Plan.
6. Adjournment.
AGENDA ITEM # 4
DATE: April 16, 2008
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION - OYSTER POINT MARINA CONCEPT
It is recommended that the City Council accept the attached report completed by Kleinfelder titled
"Feasibility Study and Cost Estimate - Proposed Oyster Point Marina Redevelopment" and provide
direction on the Oyster Point Marina Concept Planning effort.
BACKGROUND
In the fall of 2006, the City's consultant ROMA Design Group presented a draft of the Oyster Point
Concept Plan to the City Council. At that meeting, Council questioned the feasibility of constnlcting a
convention center and hotels on the Oyster Point Marina property, which is a closed landfill site over bay
mud. Specifically, the feasibility and order of estimated costs of construction on the site in question.
Council directed staff to solicit consulting services to determine whether or not the high intensity option is
feasible.
In April of 2007, City Council authorized the Planning Division to enter into a contract with Kleinfelder to
complete the subject study. The study is attached for reference. Kleinfelder was directed to focus on the
. high-intensity development concept plan created by ROMA Design Group. Specifically, the task was to
provide preliminary geotechnical and environmental conclusions and recommendations for the design of a
high density conference center and hotel development at Oyster Point. The study also includes a cost
comparison between development at Oyster Point (landfill and bay mud), a Bay Mud site (no landfill), and
a "Traditional Solid Ground" site.
DISCUSSION
Study Conclusions
The study concludes that from an environmental and geotechnical standpoint, Oyster Point can be
redeveloped with the high density option (convention center and hotels) but there is a significant cost
premium associated with this option. The additional costs are related to foundation work that will be
necessary for the project, as well as continuing maintenance costs. These additional costs are likely to
severely impact the economic viability of this type of project in the foreseeable future.
Staff Repoli
Subject: City Council Update Feasibility Study
Page 2 of 3
Cost Estimates
The cost estimates provided in the subject study COlnpare the environmental and geotechnical cost of
planned high density development at Oyster Point to both a Bay Mud site (no landfill), and to a
"Traditional Solid Ground" site.
When compared to a "Traditional Solid Ground" site, the report estimates that the increased cost for both
geotechnical and environmental aspects of the high density development option for Oyster Point would be
about $33M. This is a 15 percent increase in the total construction costs, relative to a "Traditional Solid
Ground" site. When compared to a Bay Mud site, the additional costs are estimated to be $8.5M, or
approximately a four percent increase in total construction costs over a "Traditional Solid Ground" site.
Leaseholds
Most of the land at Oyster Point is controlled by King Ventures, a real estate developer specializing in
hospitality (see attached Leaseholds Map). Several leases expire in 2011, but there is a 25 year renewal
option. The fact that the eastern two-thirds of Oyster Point is encumbered by long term leases severely
limits the redevelopment potential of the Oyster Point Marina area in the short- and medium-term. There
is one viable redevelopment site at this time - Parcel A - the former Hilton Hotel site. This site has access
to Oyster Point Boulevard and Gull Drive, is located on solid ground, and is well positioned for
redevelopment.
At this time, staff believes that the Kleinfelder report has provided information that deems the high
intensity development option economically unfeasible. Staff also believes that due to the long-term leases
that encumber much of Oyster Point (approximately 30 years), and the cost to buyout the leases (rumored
to be $8M to $14M), our planning efforts should be limited at this tune.
Next Steps
Staff is recommending that the Oyster Point Concept Planning effort be put on hold for the time being.
Rather than defining a specific land use concept at this time, staff recommends that the City focus on the
physical upgrades such as the utility relocation and possibly a new road along the north side of Oyster
Point. The utility relocation is required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board to get water, sewer
and electrical utilities out of the landfill, and into dedicated and self-contained conduits. Any and all
physical improvements that are completed should be consistent with the 'Framework Plan' (attached) that
was done as part of the concept planning effort. Further, the design of future engineering projects should
be done with input and direction from the City's concept planning consultant, to ensure that current
improvements do not hinder the City's future redevelopment plans.
CONCLUSION
The Kleinfelder study suggests that the high density redevelopment of Oyster Point is feasible from an
environmental and geotechnical perspective but not likely from a [mancial perspective. Additionally, the
current lease arrangement presents serious timing issues for redevelopment. Therefore, staff recommends
that the concept planning for Oyster Point be put on hold and any necessary (legally required) upgrades
reflect the concept planning (configuration and layout) work already completed for Oyster Point.
Staff Report
Subject: City Council Update Feasibility Study
Page 3 of 3
By:
)"".
lJ//1 ......" /
! (;/ fir>
/'L . /L (/[~tj
Marty Van Duyn
Assistant City Manag' r
I
Attachment: Kleinfelder Report
Leaseholds Map
Framework Plan
BMN/MVD/SK/gb
By:
.--."
~"-'7-" ) f
::<, \\, . (~f\\..
/1 <<\-L......~j "'''',-.
Barry M. Nag.€! ~/
City Manager
KlEINFElDER
Prepared for the City of South San Francisco
FEASIBILITY STUDY AND COST ESTIMATE
PROPOSED OYSTER POINT MARINA
REDEVELOPMENT
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
COPYRIGHT 2007 KLEIN FELDER
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
UNAUTHORIZED USE OR COPYING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS STRICTLY
PROHIBITED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE CLIENT FOR THE SPECIFIC
PROJECT
Date: November 12, 2007
File No.: 84166/Geo/Env
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
KlEINfElDER
'In el1lfJ1ovee owned cornp,JI]}
November 12, 2007
File: 84166/Geo/Env
Mr. Gerry Beaudin
Associate Planner
City of South San Francisco
Department of Economic and Community Development
315 Maple Avenue
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, California 94083
Feasibility and Cost
Marina Redevelopment in South San Francisco, California
Dear Mr. Beaudin:
Kleinfelder is pleased to submit twenty five copies and an electronic copy of the final
report of our feasibility study and cost estimate for the proposed redevelopment of the
Oyster Point Marina in South San Francisco, California. The enclosed study provides
preliminary geotechnical and environmental conclusions and recommendations for the
design and construction of a high density conference center and hotel development
option for this project as outlined in our proposal dated February 13, 2007 (BAR7P002).
We previously issued an initial administrative draft of this study on August 10, 2007 and
a revised administrative draft on October 12, 2007 which addressed comments on the
first document. We received comments on the revised administrative draft, and have
addressed those comments in this current report.
As discussed in our proposal, previous reports prepared by Kleinfelder and others for
the subject site have been used to develop feasibility-level recommendations for the
current project. Based on our review of the previous geotechnical and environmental
studies, we believe the site may be developed as currently proposed. If the project is
pursued, further studies including a field exploratory investigation of the site should be
performed to confirm the feasibility-level recommendations contained in this report.
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on our
review of subsurface explorations performed at the subject site over the last
approximately 30 years and other information prepared by others. Variations between
anticipated and actual subsurface conditions may exist. Final design documents should
not rely exclusively on this report, and construction of this project should not go forth
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
I< LEI N F E L 0 E R 7133 Ko" Center Parkway, Suite 1 00, Pleasanton, CA 94566-3101 (925) 484-1700 (925) 484-5838 fax
Page 1 of 2
November 12, 2007
without the completion of a design-level geotechnical and environmental investigation
that includes soil borings at the project site.
We appreciate the opportunity of providing our services to you on this project and trust
this report meets your needs at this time. If you have any questions concerning the
information presented, please contact us at (925) 484-1700.
Sincerely,
KLEINFELDER WEST, INC.
Liana Serrano
Staff Engineer
.0 , C.E., G.E. #2015
I Engineer
LS/MH/RJO/MFM/jmk
'\ '
J'frtt4;r';
;/,
/"2-%1' /";,t!c~
.' /' tC./ Ll7fit.-~
Mehagan Hopkins
Staff Environmental Professional
Michael F. Majchrzak, P.E., G.E. #555
Principal G~O;;~~~liR~._~~.(;,:~:". in.e er
~ ~ \'\#"-~=-:-"_'_':~',j'>r~',
:'''.' ~ /,.. '" ". '/0 !'\t L f; if .' "', ~;"?,\
. . J:,/.~V1 ./ r ,(\f I Vi/.> --." (/ \
. . f I ~'I- (~':~ ' 7fj~'j \'y:,,,, \.
~r/l..t..j .~' '--,...(.. '\ \ \
( Cl: ,:,...() " r. f\ .
, ' /1,1 r-.l Z
\~-( t::: \rO, Sr.- )>)G,)}
<~J(p ":II ..) t:- :A;":::;;;
(j) (l! . ~~ J' /::;;
~\ 0" ,,/'"
~~~\0<,~ ...~ ~:l1
0\ (-. .......(,.' Ljf<'J I [' f\, \.- .,,/)f,..
..... 0 .0..../,/' l\'r'-/. .0,
~~~,<~ ~~---,-:"~ \ ~
.,,"'..... (:li "'n\(\~\
'l~~;~'1... J r\J \ \
84166 / (PLE7R4 78.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
KLEINFELDER 7133 1<011 Center Parkway, Suite 100, Pleasanton, CA 94566-3101 (9251484-1700 (925) 484-5838 fax
Page 2 of 2
November 12, 2007
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of
their clients, A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi-
neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another
civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each
geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor the client. No
one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without
first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one
- not even you - should apply the report for any purpose or project
except the one originally contemplated.
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical
engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary.
Do not read selected elements only.
fA
A
Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific fac-
tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the
client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general
nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of
the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements,
such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the
geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth-
erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:
not prepared for you,
not prepared for your project,
not prepared for the specific site explored, or
completed before important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical
engineering report include those that affect:
the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a
parking garage to an office building, or fiOm a light industrial plant
to a refrigerated warehouse,
elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the
proposed structure,
composition of the design team, or
project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
changes-even minor ones-and request an assessment of their impact.
Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems
that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which
they were not informed.
A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at
the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer-
ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of
time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site;
or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua-
tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report
to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or
analysis could prevent major problems.
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where
subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi-
neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional
judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the
site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ-sometimes significantly-
from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer
who developed your report to provide construction observation is the
most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated
conditions,
Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your
report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical
neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion, Geotechnical
can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual
subsurface conditions revealed during construction, The geotechnical
engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or
/Jability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform
construction observation.
Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering
reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo-
technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after
submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti-
nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can
also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by
having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction
conferences, and by providing construction observation.
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon
their interpretation or field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or
omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should
never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings.
Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize
that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make
contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what
they provide ror bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con-
tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a
clearly written letter or transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the
report was not prepared ror purposes of bid development and that the
report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical
engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to
conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they
need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac-
tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you
be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you,
while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities
stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that
geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci-
plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that
have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk
of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety 01
explanatory provisions in their reports, Sometimes labeled "limitations"
many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi-
bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities
and risks, Read these provisions closely Ask questions, Your geotechnical
engineer should respond rully and frankly.
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron-
mental study differ significantly rrom those used to perform a geotechnical
study, For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually
relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations;
e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or
regulated contaminants, Unanticipated environmental problems have led
to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoen-
vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man-
agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for
someone else.
Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction,
operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from
growing on indoor surfaces, To be effective, all such strategies should be
devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com-
prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional
mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or
moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num-
ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry.
While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been
addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings
are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this
project is not a mold prevention consultant; the services
with
Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical
engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of
genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer
with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information.
TlI11 lIllst l'lluh llll 'Earth
Copyrig/1t 2004 by,4SFE, Inc, Duplication, rrJproduction. or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, strictly prohibited, except wit/) ASFE:s
specific written permission, Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise .'Jxtracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of /J.SFE, and only (or
pwooses of scholarly research or boo/< review, Only members of ,4SFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of geotecimical engineering report, Any
firm, individual, or other entity t/7at so uses this document without being an ,ASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation,
IlGER06045OM
KlEINFELDER
6.5 GROU N D 1M PROVEM ENTS ...................... .... ................ ................................23
6.5.1 Earthwork.... ......... .... ........ .......... ... ... ... ... ... ............ ... .......... ...... ..... ...........23
6.5.2 Pavements............................................................................................... 24
6.5.3 Site Drainage ... ................. ........ .... ......... ... ....... ......... .......... ........ ......... ....25
6.6 LAN D F ILL RE LA TED DES I G N IMP ACT S ..................................................... 26
6.6.1 Building-Soil Interface .............................................................................. 26
6.6.2 Uti I ities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.6.2.1 Excavation and Backfill.....................................................................27
6.6.2.2 Building Connections... ......................... ................ ...................... ......27
7 E NVI RON M ENTAL FEASISI LITY..................................... ................ ............... ......30
7 .1 GROUNDWATER MONITORING ................................................................... 30
7.1.1 Current Monitoring and Impacts ........ ....... ...... ..... ........... .......... ................ 30
7.1.1.1 Chemical Sampling and Analysis......................................................30
7.1.1.2 Groundwater Elevation Monitoring....................................................31
7.1.2 Possible Changes with Site Development................................................31
RELOCATION OR REMOVAL.......................................................... 32
7.2. 1. 1 Procedures for Refuse Characterization, Removal and Disposal..... 32
7.3 FINAL COVER. ........ ........... ......................................... .......... ....... ............. .....33
7.3.1 Components of the Cover ........................................................................ 33
7.3.2 Modification of Current Cover...................... ......... ............................... ....34
7.3.3 'Landscaping and Irrigation Aspects .........................................................34
7 .4 LEACHATE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ........................................................ 35
7.4.1 Leachate Monitoring.................................................... .............................35
7.4.2 Existing Systems.................. ....................................... .... ............ .............35
7.4.3 Need for Modifications......... .......... ..........................................................36
7.5 LAN D FILL GAS SYSTEMS ...... ............... ...... ........... ... ....... ........ ......... ........... 36
7.5.1 Shielding and Venting .. ........ ..... ............................... ........ ........................ 37
7.5.2 Monitoring................. ........................ ................................................ .......38
7.5.3 Permitting .. ........ .... .... ........ ...... ...... ........................ ...................................39
7.6 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................... 40
7.6.1 Worker Safety......................... ....... .......... ........ ......... ....... ....... ............. .... 40
7.6.2 Excavations.............. ............ .................................. ..................................40
7.6.2. 1 Permitting............... ...... .... ................................. ........ ........................41
7. 7 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE .............................................................41
7.7.1 Erosion..................................................................................................... 42
7.7.2 Drainage.... ............. ................. .... .............. ......... ... ................ .............. ..... 42
7.7.3 Settlement. ........ ...................... ....... ....... ........ ... ................ ................... ..... 42
7.7.4 Landfill Gas Monitoring System ......... .............................. ......... ............... 42
7. 7.4. 1 Sensor Calibration........... ......................... ..... ........... ..... ...................42
7.7.4.2 Sensor Head Replacement........... .............. .......... ...... ... ........ ...... .....43
7.7.4.3 Battery Replacement............... ............................... ......... ....... ..........43
7.7.4.4 General Inspection ....... ........... ... .... ....... ............ ........ ..... .... ...... .........43
7.7.5 Reporting...... ..................................,................. ................ ........................44
7 .8 REGULATORY COORDINATION .................................................................. 44
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page ii of iv
November 12, 2007
KlEINFElDER
8 ESTI MATED COSTS .................. ........................................................................... 45
8.1 SUM MARy............ ......... ..... ........................................... ............................ ..... 45
8.2 GEOTECHNICAL COST ESTIMATES ........................................................... 48
8.2.1 Geotechnical Cost Estimate Summary...... ........ .............. ....... ........... ......48
8.2.2 Pile Foundations ............... .... ........ ........ ..... ...... ...... .......... ..... ............. ... ... 49
8.2.3 Concrete Slab and Pile Caps ..... .......... ....... ........... ....... ...... .... ........... ... ...49
8.2.4 Landfill Related Improvements.................................................................50
8.2.5 Operations and Maintenance................................................................... 50
8.3 ENVIRONMENTAL COST ESTIMATES ......................................................... 50
8.3.1 Environmental Cost Estimate Summary ..................................................50
8.3.2 Construction Cost Basis......................................... .......... ........................51
8.3.3 Monitoring and Reporting.............................. ................. ........ .................. 52
8.3.4 Waste Relocation or Removal .................................................................52
8.3.5 Landfill Gas Mitigation...... ................................................... ..................... 53
8.3.6 Construction Health and Safety...... ........... ...... .... .......... ..... ........ ... ..........53
8.3.7 Operations and Monitoring Plan .... .... .......... ..... ......... ................ ..... ..........53
8.3.8 Monitoring and Reporting............................. .................... ........ ................ 53
8.3.9 Permitting................................................................... ....................... .......54
9 CO N CLU SIONS ....... ..... .......................................... ....... ...................... .......... ........55
10 LI MIT A TION S.... ... ..... .... ........ .................................. ......... .... ....... ........ ...................57
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) I jmk
Copyright 2007. Kleinfelder
Page iii of iv
November 12, 2007
PLATES
Plate 1
Plate 2
Plate 3
Plate 4
Plate 5
Plate 6
Plate 7
TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
KlEINFElDER
FEASIBiliTY STUDY AND COST ESTIMATE
PROPOSED OYSTER POINT MARINA REDEVELOPMENT
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
PLATES, TABLES, AND APPENDICES
Site Vicinity Map
High Intensity Development Concept Plan
Site Plan and Geologic Cross Section Locations
Landfill Cap Thickness Contour Map
Geologic Cross Sections
Bay Mud Thickness Contours
Groundwater Elevations and Analytical Concentrations: December 2006
Summary of CIOMB Closure and Post-Closure Requirements, CCR Title
27, Oyster Point Landfill
Summary of RWOCB Closure and Post-Closure Requirements, CCR Title
27, Oyster Point Landfill
Page iv of iv
November 12, 2007
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
KLEINFELDER
FEASIBiliTY STUDY AND COST ESTIMATE
PROPOSED OYSTER POINT MARINA REDEVELOPMENT
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study is to provide preliminary geotechnical and environmental conclusions and
recommendations for the design and construction of a high density conference center
and hotel development option for this project. In addition, a rough cost estimate for
development between the Oyster Point site and a site that would be classified as
"Traditional Solid Ground" is also provided. The various options being considered for
the redevelopment of Oyster Point include a low intensity open space and recreation
option, a medium intensity option that is comprised of a combination of smaller one-
and two-story buildings and open space, and a high density conference center/hotel
option. This study is focused on the high intensity development option as shown on
Plate 2, High Intensity Development Concept Plan.
Based upon data collected during this investigation, it is our opinion that, from a
geotechnical and environmental standpoint, the site can be developed for construction
although very high initial foundation costs as well as continuing maintenance may
severely impact the economic viability of the project. It is important that the unique and
problematic subsurface conditions of this site be properly considered in design. Based
on the results of our research into this and similar sites and projects, the primary
geotechnical and environmental considerations affecting the project are:
1. Devising a means for mitigating the effects of the extremely large total and
differential settlements associated with the decomposition and compression of
the refuse material on both the planned structures and on the site improvements.
2. Development of a foundation system capable of transferring the building loads to
the weathered bedrock materials underlying the refuse material.
3. Impacts related to landfill gas both during and subsequent to construction
activities.
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 1 of 58
November 12, 2007
KLEINFELDER
4. High initial costs related to waste relocation, construction health & safety,
permitting and installation of equipment, as well as continuing maintenance.
5. Development of the site will likely require the removal of refuse material from the
landfill for purposes related to the installation of the foundation piles, installation
of the appropriate cap and final site grading. These materials should be re-
deposited on site or at an appropriate off-site landfill, and could impact the
construction schedule.
6. The soil cap was found to vary from 1 to 14 feet in thickness, a continuous clay
layer that is normally associated with a landfill cap was not apparent throughout
the site as based on our research. Design and construction must maintain a
minimum 4-foot cap including an erosion protection layer. Several areas are
deficient in thickness and should be upgraded
7. Monitoring of the site as outlined in the Joint Technical Document should
continue following development.
We have concluded that a feasible deep foundation alternative to support structures is
a system of piles driven into the clays, sands or weathered bedrock materials
underlying the Bay Mud. Shallow mat foundations, such as those used for the restroom
buildings at the site, may be used for small or lightly loaded structures.
Also of primary concern is the mitigation of the problems associated with the
differential settlement within the landfill surface and also between the pile
supported building and the surrounding soil. Differential settlements are expected to
disrupt pavement utilities, and subgrade supported structures even with mitigation
measures to reduce differential settlement at the surface incorporated into the design.
The design will also have to incorporate provisions to allow for utilities and subgrade
supported structures to interface with the pile supported building.
Our cost estimate was initially based on comparing the cost of the planned
development at Oyster Point to a 'Traditional Solid Ground" site. Because many similar
types of projects have been developed along the fringe of the San Francisco Bay over
Bay mud, we are also provided a comparison with development at Oyster Point as
compared to a Bay mud site. A "Traditional Solid Ground" site would typically be
located away from the bay, and the development would be constructed on a shallow
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 2 of 58
November 12, 2007
KlEINFElDER
foundation system consisting of isolated and continuous footings that would be about 4
to 5 feet thick. There would be only minor concerns about settlement of the floor slab
and site improvements. A Bay mud site would require the use of a deep foundation
system (such as driven piles) to support the planned buildings. The system would
extend below the existing Bay mud at the site. For our comparison, we have assumed
that the thickness of the Bay mud would be equivalent to that encountered at Oyster
Point; therefore the same site but without the landfill. There would be some site
settlement, which would depend on the amount of fill, but not to the extent as the
combination of Bay mud and landfill material at Oyster Point would produce. Both the
"Traditional Solid Ground" site, and the Bay mud site were assumed not to have
environmental issues. In summary, the increased cost for both geotechnical and
environmental aspects of development at Oyster Point, as compared to a "Traditional
Solid Ground" site is estimated to be about $33,000,000. This increased cost is
equivalent to about a 15 percent increase in costs as compared to a "Traditional Solid
Ground" site. For comparison to another site underlain by Bay mud only (no landfill), the
increase in cost for developing at Oyster Point is estimated to be about $8,500,000
more. This increased cost is equivalent to about a 4 percent increase as compared to a
"Traditional Solid Ground" site. These numbers can be summarized as follows:
Traditional site -> Oyster Point = $33,000,000 more (or about 150/0 increase)
Bay mud site -> Oyster Point = $8,500,000 more (or about 40/0 increase)
The basis of this cost estimated is presented in Section 8, "Estimated Costs" of this
report.
The basis for our assessment of Oyster Point and a more detailed discussion of our
evaluation and conclusions are presented below in the following sections of this report.
Additional field exploration and evaluation of the site is needed before more detailed
design recommendations can be provided. Among other items, a stability evaluation of
the existing levees is needed.
84166 I (PLE7R478.doc) I jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 3 of 58
November 12, 2007
KlEINFElDER
2 INTRODUCTION
This feasibility level study presents preliminary conclusions, recommendations and cost
estimates for the proposed redevelopment of the Oyster Point Marina in South San
Francisco, California. A Site Vicinity Map showing the location of the site is presented
on Plate 1.
Our preliminary conclusions and recommendations presented in this document are
based on a review of published environmental and geotechnical documents previously
prepared for the subject property by Kleinfelder and others. The previous reports
include subsurface data obtained between 1970 and 2000. Actual site conditions may
vary from those anticipated in this report.
2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Various options are being considered for the redevelopment of Oyster Point, including a
low intensity open space and recreation option, a medium intensity option that is
comprised of a combination of smaller one- and two-story buildings and open space,
and a high density conference center/hotel option. Currently, we have been requested
to provide a feasibility assessment and order of magnitude cost analysis for the high
intensity development option. This report was prepared only for the high intensity
development option. This option is shown on Plate 2, High Intensity Development
Concept Plan.
2.2 SITE DESCRIPTION
The Oyster Point Marina is located at the eastern end of Oyster Point Boulevard in the
City of South San Francisco. San Francisco Bay surrounds the site on the north, east,
and south sides, with Oyster Point Boulevard and Gull Drive on the west side. This
area encompasses approximately 57 acres, and is a former landfill site. The Harbor
District currently operates the municipal marina and a park at the site, and manages
property leases for other facilities, including public restrooms, office complexes; the
Oyster Point Marina Inn, a marine boat sales company, and the Oyster Point Yacht
Club (see Site Plane, Plate 3). The site contains paved parking lots and drive aisles. A
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007. Kleinfelder
Page 4 of 58
November 12, 2007
KlEINFElDER
3 REVIEW OF PROJECT DOCUMENTS
In order to develop information for our feasibility study we reviewed documents
provided by the City and also available in Kleinfelder project files pertaining to previous
projects at Oyster Point. Our literature review included the following documents:
· Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed Expansion of Oyster Point Marina,
South San Francisco, California. Woodward-Clyde Consultants. October 1976.
· Environmental Field Investigation Report. Oyster Point Landfill South San
Francisco, California. Kleinfelder, Inc. January 7, 1999.
. Joint Technical Document - Post-Closure Management of the Oyster Point Landfill,
South San Francisco, Volumes 1 and 2. Gabewell with PES Environmental, Inc.
March 2000.
. Assembly of Supplemental Geotechnical Design Criteria for the Proposed Hilton
Hotel at Oyster Point in South San Francisco, California. Kleinfelder, Inc. May 5,
2000.
. Final Engineering Report For Site Development Application Proposed Hilton Hotel
Site Oyster Point Landfill South San Francisco, California. Kleinfelder, Inc. August
30, 2000.
. Final Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan Oyster Point Landfill South San
Francisco, California. Gabewell, Inc. with Harding Lawson Associates. September
2000.
. Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Monitoring Plan, Oyster Point Landfill South
San Francisco, California. Gabewell, Inc. with Harding Lawson Associates.
September 2000.
. Maximum Allowable Concentration Limits Oyster Point Landfill South San Francisco,
California. Gabewell, Inc. with PES Environmental, Inc. July 2004.
. Workplan for Supplemental Perimeter Landfill Gas Investigation and, if Necessary,
Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives, Former Oyster Point Landfill South San
Francisco, California. Terra Engineers, Inc. August 8, 2006
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 8 of 58
November 12, 2007
KLEINFELDER
· Annual Reporl 2006, Former Oyster Point Landfill City of South San Francisco,
South San Francisco, California. Terra Engineers, Inc. with PES Environmental, Inc.
January 30,2007.
· Quarlerly Reporl of Landfill Gas Monitoring Results - February 2007. Terra
Engineers, Inc. February 24,2007.
· Response to Comments on Perimeter Landfill Gas Concentrations and Revised
Work Plan - Gull Drive Area Former Oyster Point Landfill, South San Francisco,
California. Terra Engineers, Inc. March 29, 2007.
. Response to Comments of Revised Work Plan - Gull Drive Area Former Oyster
Point Landfill, South San Francisco, California. Terra Engineers, Inc. April 21, 2007.
Pertinent data from the above documents was utilized in our study.
84166 / (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, KleinfeJder
Page 9 of 58
November 12, 2007
KLEINFELDER
4 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY
4.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The San Francisco Bay Area lies within the Coast Range geomorphic province, a series
of discontinuous northwest trending mountain ranges, ridges, and intervening valleys
characterized by complex folding and faulting. The general area of Oyster Point is
located on the reclaimed baylands along the westerly shores of San Francisco Bay.
The bay is underlain by a depressed rock block which is Cenozoic in age, and is
wedged between two uplifted blocks featuring the East Bay Hills on the east and the
Coastal Range of the San Francisco Peninsula on the west. This series of blocks is
associated with the complex zone of the San Andreas fault system. The San Andreas
fault is located in the Coastal Ranges along the western edge of the depressed block,
and the Hayward fault (located at the base of the East Bay Hills) forms the east
delineation of the depressed block.
During the geologic period known as the Pleistocene Epoch, when the sea level was
lowered approximately 300 feet in the Bay Area due to glacial activity, ravines and
canyons were created by erosion in the elevated rock blocks. Alluvial debris was
washed onto the depressed bedrock areas forming the alluvial cones, alluvial slopes,
and a central plane. This central plane was an extension of Santa Clara Valley with an
outlet through the Golden Gate gap to an ocean shoreline, which were miles from the
present shore.
As the melting of the continental ice sheets raised ocean levels, the valley, which is now
San Francisco Bay, was progressively flooded by salt water. During this process,
sandy alluvial deltas were built up upon the valley topography in shallow water, while in
deeper water the fine-grained soils were deposited as mud. Eventually, the bay water
level rose to sufficient height to submerge the alluvial cones at the margin of the valley,
together with the intervening low ground and ravine outlets. Bay mud deposits the
accumulated to a uniform level, burying the submerged ravines, cones, and deltas to
vary depths depending upon the elevation of the original topography. The bay deposits
can be summarized as follows:
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 10 of 58
November 12, 2007
KLEINFELDER
II Bay mud; unconsolidated and soft, consisting of silty, slightly sandy clays and
sandy silts often with organic inclusions.
ED Alluvial sands and clays underlying the bay mud.
II Lower bay clay; consolidated of similar composition as the bay mud.
II Sandy soils; medium to fine, compact and angular, underlying the lower bay clay
and directly overlying bedrock.
II Bedrock; locally weathered and decomposed, consisting of sandstone, shale,
and in places, serpentine and other intrusive rock. Available date indicates that
the depth of the rock in the vicinity of Oyster Point ranges from about 10 to 100
feet.
4.2 LOCAL GEOLOGY
Oyster Point is located within the historic margins of the San Francisco Bay, which is
directly east of the site. According to available geological information (Bonilla, 1971),
Oyster Point is underlain by artificial fill, Bay mud, and sandstone units of the
Franciscan formation. Available information pertaining to historical shorelines and know
fill areas (Nichols & Wright, 1971) indicates that historically the Oyster Point Marina
area was developed by filling a low tideland area. The fill appears to have been placed
circa 1958 at the west end of Oyster Point, and after 1958 at the east end.
4.3 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY
Geologic and geomorphic structures within the San Francisco Bay Area are dominated
by the San Andreas fault (SAF), a right-lateral strike-slip fault that extends from the Gulf
of California in Mexico, to Cape Mendocino, on the Coast of Humboldt County in
northern California. It forms a portion of the boundary between two independent
tectonic plates on the surface of the earth. To the west of the SAF is the Pacific plate,
which moves north relative to the North American plate, located east of the fault. In the
San Francisco Bay Area, movement across this plate boundary is concentrated on the
SAF; however, it is also distributed, to a lesser extent across a number of other faults
that include the Hayward, Calaveras, and Concord among others. Together, these
faults are referred to as the SAF system. Movement along the SAF system has been
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 11 of 58
November 12, 2007
KlEINFElDER
ongoing for about the last 25 million years. The northwest trend of the faults within this
fault system is largely responsible for the strong northwest structural orientation of
geologic and geomorphic features in the San Francisco Bay Area.
The site is situated within the San Francisco Bay Area, which is characterized by
numerous active faults and moderate to high seismic activity. Based on the information
provided in Hart and Bryant (1997) and CGS (2002) the site is not located within a
State-designated, Earthquake Fault Rupture Hazard Zone where site-specific studies
addressing the potential for surface fault rupture are required and no known active
faults traverse the site.
Presented below is a table showing the name, distance, direction, and magnitude of the
closest faults to Oyster Point.
Fault Name
San Andreas - 1906 Rupture
San Andreas - Peninsula
San Gregorio
Hayward - North
Hayward - Total
Hayward - South
Monte Vista
Calaveras (North of Calaveras
Reservoir)
Concord - Green Valley
Healdsburg - Rodgers Creek
Hayward - South East Extension
Distance
(km)
7.3
7.3
15.2
22.6
22.6
23.4
27.5
36.9
43.5
47.5
48.0
Direction
Southwest
Southwest
West
Northeast
Northeast
East
Southeast
Northeast
Northeast
North
Southeast
Maximum
Moment
Magnitude
7.9
7.0
7.3
6.9
7.1
6.9
6.5
6.8
6.9
7.0
6.5
Based on the map of known active faults (ICBO, 1998), the San Andreas fault is the
closet fault and is located approximately 7.3 kilometers southwest of Oyster Point. A
major seismic event on these or other nearby faults may cause substantial ground
shaking at the site
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 12 of 58
November 12, 2007
KlEINFElDER
5 SITE VISIT
Our site visit was performed on July 3, 2007, and consisted of observations of visual
indications of settlement and other site conditions. The observations noted by our
engineers included:
lIiI Evidence of significant differential settlement within the roadways, particularly
along Marina Boulevard.
lIiI Significant differential settlement was not observed within the parking or
landscape areas.
lIiI Evidence of settlement of the ground surface at the base of existing pile
supported structures. The Harbor Master building was observed to have settled
approximately two feet from the base of the pile caps. Settlement of areas
surrounding buildings was also observed at the base of the Oyster Point Yacht
Club and Oyster Point Inn buildings. It is likely that the observed displacement
was a result of settlement of the waste and underlying Bay Mud.
lIiI Existing restroom buildings, that appear to be supported by shallow foundations
such as reinforced mat slabs, show no evidence of distress due to settlement
and appear to be out of level by only small amounts.
lIiI Visible waste material was not observed.
lIiI Evidence of displacement was observed between pile-supported fishing piers
and their access ramps.
lIiI Surface water drainage systems seemed to be functional, with limited shallow
bonding observed in a few parking lot areas at the time of our visit.
· The foundation type for the marine boat sales building is unknown, however it is
a multi-level building with an adjacent retaining wall about 12 feet high. No
distress was observed on either the building or the wall.
In general our site visit found the site to be in relatively good condition. Buildings and
other structures appeared to be functional and landscaping did not show obvious signs
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 13 of 58
November 12, 2007
KlEINFElDER
of distress which can sometimes be associated with significant landfill gas leakage
through a final cover.
84166 / (PLE7R4 78.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 14 of 58
November 12, 2007
KlEINFElDER
6 GEOTECHNICAL FEASiBiliTY
6.1 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The results of our research into the site indicate that the majority of the site is underlain
by landfilled solid wastes. The thickness of the landfill varies from about 4 to 42 feet,
and generally increases toward the center of the site. The landfill refuse material
encountered in the exploratory borings drilled previously at the site consisted of a
variety of materials including wood, paper, plastic, cardboard, tin, rags, bricks, glass,
and various organic debris mixed with varying amounts of soil. The bottom of the
landfill is generally above elevation +10 feet (MSLD) in the western portion of the site,
and as deep (in previous borings) as -20 feet in the eastern portion.
A soil cap varying in thickness from about 1 to 14 feet overlies the landfill areas. The
soil cap consists primarily of stiff to very stiff silty and sandy clays, and medium dense
clayey sands, with occasional gravelly clay and silty sand layers. An Atterberg Limits
test performed on a sample of the soil cap was indicative of a low to medium plasticity
soil.
The waste materials are underlain by very soft to soft clays and silty clays with organics
and shells (locally known as Bay Mud). The exception to this is at the western margin
of the site where the waste fill is underlain by bedrock consisting of weathered
claystone, sandstone, and siltstone. The Bay Mud is underlain by bedrock in the
western portion of the site or by very stiff to hard clays and dense sands under the
remainder of the landfill. Geologic cross sections that show the subsurface are
presented on Plate 5. Contours of Bay mud are shown on Plate 6. As shown on Plate
6, most of the site is underlain by 50 to 90 feet of Bay Mud.
Groundwater elevations range from about 5 feet to 20 feet above Mean Low Low Water
(MLLW), as found by a groundwater survey performed on February 7, 2000 (JTD,
2000). The higher groundwater elevations are found toward the western margin of the
site where the topography is higher. The majority of the project site has a groundwater
elevation from about 5 to 8 feet above MLLW.
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007. Kleinfelder
Page 15 of 58
November 12, 2007
KlEINFElDER
The above is a general description of the soil, waste and groundwater conditions
documented within the boring logs encountered in our research. Soil and groundwater
conditions can deviate from those conditions encountered at the boring locations. In
addition, the subsurface conditions may have changed as a result of settlement,
decomposition of waste and/or erosion, and therefore the above may not reflect the
current subsurface conditions at the site.
6.2 SETTLEMENT DISCUSSION
One of the major problems in designing a structure over a landfill is the significant
settlements associated with the highly compressible refuse material. Significant surface
settlements can be expected, and, due to the heterogeneity of the landfill refuse, the
potential for differential settlements is expected to be high. The considerable
settlements in a landfill mass can be attributed to three mechanisms by which these
settlements occur: consolidation, compaction, filtering, and shrinkage.
Consolidation of refuse material is defined as the shrinkage of saturated refuse that is
subjected to a surcharge load. When subjected to a surcharge load, water is expelled
from the voids within the refuse, which in turn causes settlement. This type of
settlement is similar to settlement of saturated soft clayey soils and therefore can be
somewhat analyzed as a soil. When the landfill material is not saturated, consolidation
can occur from expelling of air, rather than water, and the crushing of the material itself,
both of which are the result of loading. This type of consolidation is very difficult to
model. Compaction is the settlement resulting from mechanically induced loads such
as heavy equipment and traffic. This mechanism of settlement only applies to non-
saturated refuse. Both consolidation and compaction of refuse are load-induced
settlements. The third mechanism of settlement, known as shrinkage, is somewhat
independent of the load. Shrinkage is defined as the settlement resulting from the
biological conversion of refuse with organic solids into methane and carbon dioxide, or,
in short, decomposition. According to Sowers (1968), there is a fourth mechanism of
settlements in landfills, which is the filtering of finer materials into the void spaces
between larger particles.
Portions of the landfill wastes are below the site groundwater levels, and the remainder
extends above the ground water levels. Therefore, consolidation settlements may be
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 16 of 58
November 12, 2007
KlEINFElDER
accruing due to the expulsion of both water and air from the waste mass. The
magnitude of this type of settlement is difficult to estimate. Since no new fill has been
placed in over 30 years, it is speculated that much this type of settlement has already
occurred. Compaction settlement is of some concern, especially in the proposed
building areas. However, the magnitude of settlement due to compaction of the refuse
is small compared to the magnitude of settlement due to shrinkage. Therefore, we
anticipate the major portion of the settlement to be the result of shrinkage or
decomposition of the refuse.
The rate and magnitude of settlements resulting from the decomposition of the refuse is
dependent on several factors including refuse fill thickness, composition of the refuse,
and age of the refuse fill. Our review of literature indicates settlements between 10 to
30 percent of the initial refuse fill height have been experienced in landfills similar to the
project site. The large variance in the magnitude of settlements is a result of the
different composition of the landfills studied.
According to literature reviewed, a large portion of the settlements occur within the first
two years following the placement of the refuse with a relatively steady rate occurring
after that for an indefinite period of time. Therefore, it is our opinion that settlements of
the landfill are closer to iOta 15 percent of the initial refuse fill thickness rather than 30
percent. The thickness of the refuse fill at the subject landfill varies between 1.5 and 40
feet at the deepest portion. Considering the age of the landfill and the elapsed time
since closure of the landfill, the anticipated settlements are to fall between 3 to 4 feet
over the next 15 years, for the thickest portion of the landfill. Since the settlement of
the landfill is time dependent and it is uncertain when the decomposition of the refuse
ceases to occur, it is prudent to assume that the decomposition process occurs
indefinitely.
Differential settlements within the refuse portion of the site are extremely difficult to
predict due to the significant variety of refuse material and its substantial thickness.
Differential settlements have been measured at other landfill sites, with refuse thickness
of approximately 25 to 30 feet, to be on the order of 25 percent of the total settlement.
This percent was taken over a horizontal distance of 100 feet for a period of 12 years.
Due to the uncertainties associated with settlement at the site and the substantial
thickness of the refuse, differential settlements could easily exceed 50 percent of the
total settlement over a distance of 100 feet in the next 15 years. Consideration must
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 17 of 58
November 12, 2007
KLEINFELDER
also be given to differential settlement between the refuse and non-refuse portions
(including pile supported structures) of the site. Since the non-refuse areas are not
expected to undergo significant settlement, the differential settlement will be equal to
approximately the total settlement of the refuse at the interface.
Placement of additional fill at the site will result in additional settlement. The magnitude
of the settlement will depend on the thickness of the fill, the lateral extent and the
current thickness of the soil cap. For estimating purposes, settlements on the order of
3 to 5 inches for every foot of new fill should be anticipated. This estimate may need to
be reevaluated when grading plans are finalized.
Consolidation of the Bay Mud underlying the refuse in response to loads from the
overlying waste and cover soils is another significant source of settlements at the site.
Consolidations tests from the western portion of the landfill only were available to
Kleinfelder at this time. These tests indicated that the Bay Mud has not completed
consolidating in response to the overlying fill materials and is thus still settling. This is
also likely the case at the more easterly sections of the landfill where Bay Mud
thicknesses are greater.
6.3 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS
The seismicity of the region surrounding the site is discussed in detail in Section 4
"Geology and Seismicity" of this report. From that discussion it is important to note that
the site is in a region of high seismic activity and is expected to be subjected to major
shaking during the design life of the store. As a result, structures to be constructed on
the site should be designed in accordance with applicable seismic provisions contained
in the 2001 California Building Code (eBC).
6.3.1 Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction is a condition where saturated, granular soils undergo a substantial
loss of strength and deformation due to pore pressure increase resulting from cyclic
stress application induced by earthquakes. In the process, the soil acquires mobility
sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements if the soil mass is not
confined. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are saturated, loose, clean, uniformly
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 18 of 58
November 12, 2007
KlEINFElDER
graded, and fine-grained sand deposits. If liquefaction occurs, foundations resting on
or within the liquefiable layer may undergo settlements. This will result in reduction of
foundation stiffness and capacities.
Based on the subsurface data obtained from the previous drilled borings performed at
Oyster Point (as discussed in this report), the existing landfill materials, residual soils,
Bay mud, and Franciscan Complex bedrock have a low potential for liquefaction.
Therefore, damage due to liquefaction at Oyster Point is considered low. It should be
noted that the landfill was constructed using soil levees. These levees are reported to
be constructed of Bay mud, which has low potential for liquefaction. During future
investigations at the site, it is recommended that the type of material used in the
existing exterior levees consists of material that has low potential for liquefaction.
6.3.2 Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is a consequence of the liquefaction, which results lateral movement
towards a slope. Because liquefaction is considered to be low at this site, lateral
spreading is also considered to be low. Again, the perimeter levees should be
evaluated to confirm that they consist of materials with low liquefaction potential.
6.3.3 Seismic Densification
During an earthquake, there is a potential for soils to undergo densification, which could
result in settlements. Typically, granular soils are the type of soils that are subject to
densification during significant earthquakes. Landfill material typically behaves as a
granular material. Therefore, there is potential that landfill material, if subject to a
significant earthquake could result in some settlement. However, based on the
longevity of the landfill, the amount of settlement due to seismic densification is not
anticipated to be greater than the future settlements anticipated as a result of the
consolidation of the landfill material and underlying Bay mud. Therefore, additional
measures are not needed to address seismic densification.
6.3.4 Seismic Design Criteria
The site is located in a seismically active region and the proposed new structure can be
expected to be subjected to moderate to strong seismic shaking during its design life.
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 19 of 58
November 12, 2007
KLEINFELOER
Potential seismic hazards include ground shaking, localized liquefaction, ground rupture
due to faulting, and seismic settlement. Of these, ground shaking is the only seismic
hazard that may impact the site based on our investigation.
Because this site is located in the seismically active San Francisco Bay Area, we
recommend that, as a minimum, the proposed development be designed in accordance
with the requirements of the latest edition of the California Building Code (CBC) for
Seismic Zone 4. We recommend that a soil profile factor of SE be used with the CBC
design procedure (Table 16-J). With this soil profile, it is recommended that a site
response spectrum be performed. For estimating purposes, we are providing the near
source seismic coefficients for acceleration and velocity, Nay Nv, Cay and Cv (CBC
Tables 16-S and 16-T). The site is located approximately 7.9 km from the trace of the
San Andres fault, a Type A Fault as designated by the 2001 CBC (ICBO, 1998). A
summary of the seismic design parameters for this fault is presented below.
Design Fault San Andres fault
Fault Type A
Seismic Zone 4 (z = 0.4)
Soil Profile Factor (Table 16-J) SE
Near-Source Distance 7.9 km
Na (Table 16-S) 1.08
Nv (Table 16- T) 1.37
Ca (Table 16-Q) 0.44 x (Na) 0.39
Cv (Table 16-R) 0.64 x (Nv) 1.31
6.4 FOUNDATION SYSTEMS
6.4.1 Pile Foundations
6.4.1.1 General
Based on the results of our geotechnical evaluation, it is our opinion that a feasible
foundation alternative to support the convention center and hotel structures is a system
of precast, prestressed concrete piles driven approximately 30 feet into the stiff to hard
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 20 of 58
November 12, 2007
KlEINFElDER
clays, dense sands or weathered bedrock underlying the landfill and Bay Mud (where
encountered). Both the structural loads and building floor slabs should be supported on
piles. It is recommended that, not to the exclusion of other pile sizes, 12- or 14-inch
square precast prestressed concrete piles be used. Steel piles are not recommended
due to the corrosive nature of the landfill material. However, an alternative pile system
is to drive closed end pipe piles, with the interior of the pile filled with concrete after
driving. Whereas, this alternative is generally more expensive than precast concrete
piles, due to the variability in the lengths of the piles due to variability in the depth and
hardness of the underlying clays, sands or bedrock, this alternative may be feasible.
It is recommended that the piles be predrilled through the fill and landfill materials, if
possible, to protect the piles from damage due to unknown materials, to reduce pushing
refuse material deeper, as well as to mitigate pile alignment problems. The drill should
only loosen and break up obstructions in-place which may cause damage to the pile.
Due to environmental concerns, the auger should not be pulled out with refuse. The
diameter of the predrilled hole should not exceed the pile width/diameter. Piles placed
into oversized predrilled holes should be grouted to regain required lateral capacities.
The landfill and underlying Bay mud are still undergoing settlement as discussed in
Section 6.2 "Settlement Discussion". Since the piles will extend through the landfill and
Bay mud into the low compressible clays, sands and bedrock beneath the Bay mud, the
settlement of the landfill and Bay mud will exert a downward load (typically called
"downdrag") on the piles. As a result, either the capacity of the pile will need to be
reduced by this downdrag load, or that the impact of the downdrag load on the pile is
reduced. For the anticipated geologic cross-section at Oyster Point the amount of
downdrag could reduce the capacity of the pile by 65 to 80 percent of the design
allowable capacity of the pile. For a 14 inch pre-cast, pre-stressed pile driven to about
150 feet below the current ground surface, the design load would typically be about 250
kips (1 kip = 1,000 pounds). The downdrag load would then reduce this capacity.
Another option is to coat the pile with bitumen. This is an asphalt derived material that
would significantly reduce the downdrag loading on the pile.
Lateral loads imposed on the building foundations can be resisted by a combination of
the resistance of the pile-soil system to deflect, and the passive resistance acting
against the face of pile caps and grade beams. The strength of the material in the
upper 15 feet of the site typically dictates the resistance capability of the pile-soil
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 21 of 58
November 12, 2007
KlEINFElOER
system. For Oyster Point, the capacity of the resistance of the pile-soil system to lateral
loads would be typical for most projects developed around the fringe of the San
Francisco Bay.
6.4.1.2 Indicator Piles
Prior to specifying the lengths of the production piles, it is advisable to drive indicator
piles at the structure sites in order to observe the driving characteristic of the piles and
the ability of the driving equipment when a driven pile is used. The driving criteria and
pile length of production piles will also be estimated from the information obtained from
driving of the indicator piles. The contractor should use the same equipment to drive
both the indicator and production piles. Indicator pile lengths and locations should be
selected by the Geotechnical Engineer, in conjunction with the Structural Engineer and
Contractor after the foundation plan has been finalized.
The indicator pile program will serve to establish the following:
· Estimates of production pile lengths;
· Driveability of production piles;
· Performance of pile driving equipment;
· Variation in driving resistance relative to depth and location of piles.
6.4. 1.3 Production Piles
Production piles should be installed with the same equipment used for the indicator
piles and under the observation of the geotechnical engineer. The need for predrilling
should be assessed during the indicator pile program. If voids or gaps are found
around the installed piles, those voids or gaps should be backfilled with cement grout.
Because of the variability of the depth to and hardness of the clays, sands and bedrock,
even with a pile indicator program, it is anticipated that many piles will not be driven to
design "top of pile" elevation, and will result in significant cutoffs, both in number and in
length. Including additional reinforcing steel in the upper portions of the pile should be
avoided, or significantly lengthened, to address the anticipated cutoffs.
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 22 of 58
November 12, 2007
KlEINFElOER
6.4.1.4 Settlements
Future settlements of loaded piles will be due to the elastic compression of the pile and
the subgrade response of the clays, sands and weathered bedrock which supports the
piles. It is estimated that the total settlement of the pile supported foundations will be
on the order of Y2 inch to 1-inch, with differential settlements between columns not
exceeding about one-half that amount. The majority of these settlements should occur
during construction of the buildings as the loads are applied.
6.4.2 Shallow Foundations
Although we do not anticipate any lightly loaded single story buildings to be
constructed, we anticipate that the building loads for any such buildings may be feasibly
supported on reinforced mat slab foundations similar to those that support the existing
restroom buildings at the project site.
6.5 GROUND IMPROVEMENTS
Several techniques are sometimes used at landfills in an effort to reduce settlements.
These may include dynamic deep compaction or preloading with soil fills. Although
these techniques can reduce settlements in waste materials, they do not eliminate
them, as they do not prevent decomposition. These techniques would not likely
improve the Bay Mud properties significantly in much of the site. Accordingly, we do
not feel they are particularly feasible at Oyster Point.
6.5.1 Earthwork
Grading, excavation, and earthwork at the site will generally consist of stripping and
clearing the site of surface vegetation and debris, preparation of the subgrades for
concrete slabs, exterior flatwork and pavements, and excavations for pile caps and
underground utilities. The amount of grading is unknown at this time, but it is
anticipated that cuts and fills will be minimal in order to avoid penetrating the soil cap
over the existing landfill, and to reduce the amount of long term settlement,
respectively.
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 23 of 58
November 12, 2007
KlEINFElDER
Areas to be graded should be stripped of existing surface vegetation, organic topsoil,
and debris. An average stripping depth of a couple of inches is estimated for most of
the site. These materials should not be reused for engineered fill and should be
removed from the site, or used in landscape areas, as appropriate.
Due to the generally heterogeneous nature of most landfills, it is anticipated that there
will a large amount of differential settlement within the soil cap of the site. This
differential settlement can disrupt drainage patterns and cause damage to pavements
and soil supported structures. Although it is our opinion that there is no feasible way to
prevent this differential settlement from occurring, we feel that it can be reduced by
placing a geogrid under the baserock underneath the pavements and exterior flatwork.
Although the geogrid will not prevent differential settlement below these areas, it will
greatly increase the ability of the subgrade soil to bridge over minor deficiencies In
subgrade support.
In addition to the placement of geogrid, the upper 12 inches of subgrade soils under all
pavements and exterior slabs-on-grade areas will likely require scarification, moisture
conditioning and recompaction.
Grading operations during the wet season or in areas where the soils are saturated may
require provisions for drying of soil prior to compaction. If the project necessitates fill
placement and compaction in wet conditions, we could provide alternatives for drying
the soil. Conversely, additional moisture may be required during the dry months.
Water trucks should be available in sufficient number to provide adequate water during
compaction.
6.5.2 Pavements
Pavements for this project are anticipated to consist of asphalt concrete roads, access
driveways and parking areas. We assume vehicle loading for this project will be
variable and consist of passenger vehicles as well as occasional trucks.
Parking areas should be sloped and drainage gradients maintained to carry all surface
water off the site. Surface water ponding should not be allowed anywhere on the site
during or after construction. Due to the expected differential settlements, it is
84166 / (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 24 of 58
November 12, 2007
KlEINFElDER
anticipated that this will require a continuous maintenance program to repair low areas
that inhibit drainage.
Where concrete curbs are used to isolate landscaping in or adjacent to the pavement
areas, we recommend the curbs extend a minimum of 2 inches below the baserock and
into the subgrade to provide a barrier against drying of, or migration of landscape water,
into the pavement section.
It was our observation during our site reconnaissance that the existing roadways
experienced significant differential settlement. As previously described above, we
recommend that a geogrid stabilization fabric be used beneath the baserock to lessen
the effects of settlement on future roadways.
In addition, we recommend that all pavements conform to the following criteria:
e All trench backfills, including utility and sprinkler lines, should be properly placed
and adequately compacted to provide a stable subgrade.
e An adequate drainage system should be provided to prevent surface water or
subsurface seepage from saturating the subgrade soil.
e The aggregate base and asphalt concrete materials should conform to ASTM
test procedures and work should be performed in accordance with Caltrans
Standard Specifications, latest edition.
6.5.3 Site Drainage
Proper site drainage is important for the long-term performance of the planned
structures. The site should be graded at a minimum of 3 percent promote surface
water runoff and prevent ponding. In addition, all roof gutters should be connected
directly into the storm drainage system. As previously discussed, differential settlement
is expected to disrupt drainage patterns over time. We anticipate long term
maintenance will be required to maintain adequate drainage.
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 25 of 58
November 12, 2007
KlEINFELDER
6.6 LANDFILL
DESIGN IMPACTS
As stated in the "Settlements" section of this report, significant settlements are
expected to occur in the landfill waste material and Bay Mud during the life of the
project. As a result of these settlements there will be significant differential settlements
between the pile supported structures and the surrounding structures and ground
surface supported on the landfill. In order to maintain the integrity and aesthetics of the
structures, walkways, and utilities that cross the interface between the settling land and
the buildings, special considerations will need to be incorporated into the design and
maintenance plans prepared for these components of the project.
Structures not supported on piles should not be structurally tied into pile supported
buildings, except as noted below, and should be designed to allow free vertical
movement between the structure and the building. If maintaining the relative vertical
position between structures is necessary, both of the structures should be supported on
piles and structurally tied together.
We recommend the use of articulated ramps on walkways and building entrances at the
interface between the pile and soil supported areas. Articulated ramps will provide a
smooth walkway over moderate differential settlements with some amount of
maintenance. As the magnitude of the differential settlement increases, however,
these ramps may need to be rebuilt or realigned to account for the larger elevation
differential. Similar ramps should also be used on driveways leading into pile supported
parking lots.
It is recommended that wall skirts that extend below the ground surface be constructed
around the perimeter of the proposed buildings. These skirts should extend to a depth
of at least 5 feet. The purpose of the skirt is to hide the void which will develop beneath
the buildings due to the ground settlement.
Utility lines leading into the proposed buildings will also need to be designed to
accommodate the anticipated differential settlement. This is discussed below in the
"Utilities" section of this report.
84166 I (PLE7R478.doc) I jmk
Copyright 2007. Kleinfelder
Page 26 of 58
November 12, 2007
KlEINFElDER
6.6.2 Utilities
6.6.2.1 Excavation and Backfill
Excavation for pile caps, grade beams, curtain walls, and utility trenches can be readily
made with either a backhoe or trencher. It is expected that excavations in the soil cap
material less than 4 feet in height will stand near vertical for a period of several days
with some minor sloughing being expected from some of the cleaner sand deposits.
Where excavations are extended deeper than about 4 feet, the excavation may
become unstable and should be evaluated to monitor stability prior to personnel
entering the trenches. Shoring or sloping of any deep trench wall may be necessary to
protect workmen and to provide stability. All trenches should conform to the current
CAL-OSHA requirements for work safety.
Excavations extending into the refuse fill are expected to encounter potentially
hazardous conditions including poisonous and explosive gases. Special precautions
should be taken to monitor the safety conditions and to provide for the safety of workers
in the area. Additionally, if excavations encounter water, this water may have to
undergo specialized handling, treatment and/or disposal if it is contaminated.
Special care should be taken in the control of utility trench backfilling in the pavement
areas. Poor compaction may cause excessive settlements resulting in damage to the
pavement structural section.
6.6.2.2 Building Connections
Underground utilities should be located, designed, and constructed to reduce distress
due to differential settlement. Consideration may be given to locating the utilities in a
common trench where located in landfill areas to reduce the amount of special
mitigation measures. It is expected that, even with special design to mitigate the
expected differential settlement, extra maintenance and repair will be necessary on the
utility lines located in the landfill cap.
If possible, the utilities should be constructed in the soil landfill cap to avoid contact of
the utility lines and construction workers with the refuse material. If construction of
utilities in the refuse material is necessary, proper design and construction precautions
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 27 of 58
November 12, 2007
KlEINFElDER
should be taken to protect the system and the workers from the corrosive and
hazardous conditions of the refuse. In addition, a minimum of 6 inches in thickness of
granular fill should be placed beneath the utility lines to provide a proper bed for the
pipes over the refuse.
Following installation of utilities either in the refuse or in the overlying cap, methane gas
may collect within the trench backfill. To help mitigate this, either a system to disperse
methane should be installed in the trenches or the trenches should be sealed. Typical
types of sealing procedures include providing a low permeability clay cover of 1 foot
over the top of the pipe, or the utility trench be wrapped with a relatively impervious
geomembrane. Underground manholes should be shielded from methane intrusion by
placement of a membrane around the outside of the structure. To reduce gas migration
off-site within the utility trenches, all trenches crossing the transition zone between the
landfill and non-landfill portions of the property should be sealed with a clay plug
surrounding the pipe or other approved methods. In addition, plugs should also be
provided at the perimeters of buildings to reduce migration of gas through the utility
trenches to beneath the building.
It is recommended that utility lines be constructed of flexible pipe such as welded
polyethylene to accommodate differential settlement within the refuse material and
landfill cap. At the border of the landfill, where differential settlements between the
refuse material and soil are expected to be large, the utility lines should be designed to
allow for rotation. As with buried utilities on a conventional site, proper bedding and
backfilling should be completed. On a landfill site these aspects become even more
important as a result of the generally higher levels of settlement that occur.
It is also prudent to increase the flow gradient in sewers and storm drains so that
differential settlements will not disrupt the flow. An alternative would be to provide a
pumping system that does not rely on gravitational flow.
It is anticipated that the most crucial sections of the utility lines will occur at the interface
between the soil supported utility line and the pile supported buildings. At this interface
differential settlements of several are not unlikely. Vaulted systems should be
designed and maintained at this interface that provides a flexible and/or expandable
connection to the proposed buildings. In addition the utility lines beneath buildings
should be suspended from hangers fastened to structural floor slabs.
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 28 of 58
November 12, 2007
KlEINFElDER
· Erosion Resistant Laver: A compacted soil layer consisting of not less than one
foot of soil, containing no refuse materials, will be placed on top of the low-
hydraulic-conductivity layer. The actual thickness of the erosion resistant layer
varies in accordance with final subgrades.
The cover system to be used in the landscape and paved areas will be the same as the
structure areas with the exception that the erosion resistant layer will likely be increased
in thickness. The variation in thickness is dependent upon the intended use. The
thickness of the temporary erosion resistant layer during construction in landscaped
and paved areas should be not less than 2 feet above the low-hydraulic-conductivity
layer to protect this layer prior to final grading and planting or paving.
The final thickness of the erosion resistant layer in landscaped areas will vary in
accordance with the landscape plan, but should not be less than 2 feet. The erosion-
resistant layer section above the low-hydraulic-conductivity layer and beneath paved
areas should not be less than 18 inches of compacted soil.
7.3.2 Modification of Current Cover
According to previous investigations performed at the site, the cap varied in thickness
from 1 foot in the center of the site to 14 feet at locations along the perimeter.
Kleinfelder has not found evidence documenting changes in the cover thickness
subsequent these investigations. Development of the site will require bringing the
landfill cover into compliance with regulatory requirements for closure.
7.3.3 Landscaping and Irrigation Aspects
Landscaping of the site should be selected to stabilize the soil, preventing erosion, and
to reduce the need for extensive irrigation. Excessive water could infiltrate the landfill
cap and produce leachate which would require treatment. To prevent this, low-water
vegetation should be selected to reduce irrigation water. In addition the thickness of
the erosion resistant layer should be varied as follows:
· A 24-inch vegetative soil layer in landscaped areas featuring grass and shallow
rooted scrubs, and
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 34 of 58
November 12, 2007
KlEINFElDER
· A 4-foot soil layer in areas intended for small trees and larger scrubs with deeper
root structures.
If larger trees are selected for planting the depth of the erosion resistant layer should be
increased to prevent intrusion of the tree roots into the lower layers of the cover.
7.4 LEACHATE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
7.4.1 Leachate Monitoring
As discussed above, semi-annual monitoring of groundwater and leachate currently
occurs on site per the RWQCB order No. 00-046 and the JTD. Ten of the 18
monitoring wells on site were installed and screened within the waste on site. Eight of
these wells were sampled and analyzed for benzene, ethylbenzene, xylenes,
chlorobenzene and naphthalene on December 1, 2006. Results were compared to
MACLs, as defined in Section 7.1.
Well GW-12a, located near the west end of the site adjacent to Marina Boulevard, had
benzene detected at a concentration higher than the MACL. Well GW-10a, located
near the center of the site, had naphthalene detected at a concentration higher than the
MACL. Well 3a, located near the east end of the site, had ethyl benzene, xylenes, and
chlorobenzene detected at concentrations higher than their respective MACLs. The
remaining five wells were above the LOD for at least one of the analyzed constituents,
but were below the MACLs.
As discussed in Section 7.1.1.1, chemicals of concern were not detected in perimeter
groundwater wells at concentrations at or above the MACLs. This suggests that
elevated chemical concentrations are generally confined to the refuse containing areas
of the landfill.
7.4.2 Existing Systems
The landfill is unlined and lacks a leachate collection and removal system. Leachate is
currently contained by Bay Mud underlying the site, various trenches and the final
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 35 of 58
November 12, 2007
KLEINFELDER
cover. Routine inspections of the cover to check for structural integrity and for leachate
seeps are included in post-closure monitoring.
7.4.3 Need for Modifications
There is no current need to modify the treatment of leachate on site, however measures
should be included in the design to limit increased percolation of rain fall, runoff and
irrigation water into the waste areas. These measures should include directing all roof
runoff directly to storm drains, modification of the existing cover to bring it into
compliance with regulatory requirements for closure, and reduction of the need for
irrigation water usage.
7.5 LANDFILL GAS SYSTEMS
Section 21160 of Title 27 of the CCR requires that closed landfills implement and
maintain landfill gas control. In addition, the proposed post-closure land use plan shall
be submitted for approval to the California Integrated Waste Management Board
(CIWMB), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), BAAQMD, and County of
San Mateo Division of Environmental Health. We recommend that a preliminary plan
be developed and submitted as early as possible for their conceptual approval.
According to Kleinfelder's 1999 Environmental Investigation Survey Report, methane
and other landfill gases are present at levels above the LEL throughout the landfill.
Section 21160 of Title 27 of the CCR requires that closed landfills implement and
maintain landfill gas control. In addition, the proposed post-closure land use plan,
describing the new development and modifications to the landfill shall be submitted for
approval to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), BAAQMD, and County of San Mateo Division
of Environmental Health. We recommend that a preliminary plan be developed and
submitted as early as possible for their conceptual approval. This document will be a
supplement to the information currently presented in the JTD.
In addition to methane, other landfill gases that could present a potential health risk
have been identified. One significant compound identified in several gas probes was
benzene. It is a known carcinogen and does post a health risk, if not appropriately
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 36 of 58
November 12, 2007
KlEINFElDER
mitigated. The highest concentration of benzene identified was in the area of the liquid
waste sump at the eastern edge of the site. VVe recommend that construction in this
area be minimized to reduce the potential for explosive and toxic gases and reduce cost
for excavating and disposing of hazardous materials. We also recommend that several
environmental borings be performed to evaluate the limits of the liquid waste sump and
identify cost impacts on the development. In addition, LFG venting trenches have been
recently installed along Gull Drive and Oyster Point Boulevard. Review of the
installation details and the post-installation soil vapor sampling events should be
reviewed as they become available.
The existing landfill presently does not have a landfill gas recovery system. It should be
noted that Terra Engineers has recently installed two passive recovery trenches and
additional soil vapor monitoring wells along Gull Drive and along Oyster Point
Boulevard. Mr. Bob Kirby of Terra Engineers reported that the system along Gull Drive
has contributed to a decrease in the detected levels of methane in soil gas to below 50/0
by volume, which is the lower explosive limit (LEL) for methane. Mr. Kirby also
indicated that the trench installed in September along Oyster Point Boulevard is
currently passively vented. Weekly monitoring near this trench indicates that methane
levels are still above the 50/0 LEL, although the levels are decreasing. If the levels
stabilize above 50/0 it is planned to add an air turbine to the top of the vent pipe. If this
does not decrease methane levels to below 50/0 then a blower will be added to the
system to actively withdraw soil gas.
Proposed development structures will be equipped with methane detection systems and
structure venting systems. A general design for high intensity development is
presented below.
7.5.1 Shielding and Venting
A landfill gas venting system should be placed under the bottom slabs of each structure
to collect and vent the build up of gases diffusing through the landfill cap. The landfill
gas venting system typically consists of the following elements from the bottom up:
.. Non-woven geotextile fabric;
.. 12 inches minimum of washed crushed gravel free of fines, with perforated
flexible polyethylene or rigid PVC pipe;
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 37 of 58
November 12, 2007
KlEINFELDER
. Non-woven geotextile fabric;
· Reinforced concrete slab (first floor);
· 50-mil HOPE geosynthetic membrane or spray-on membrane such as Liquid
Boot;
· Non-woven geotextile fabric; and
· Thin protective concrete topping slab.
Potential migration of LFG into the building space should be mitigated by the collection
and venting system, and secondly by the HOPE membrane. Subsurface landfill gasses
should be vented by a network of perforated piping placed beneath the building slabs
within the continuous gravel layer. The exhaust gases should be manifolded to a
series of riser piping that is to be vented above structure roofs. Vent points should be
located away from building air intake points. Monitoring should be performed in both
the subsurface space (below slab) and interior first floor spacer. If monitoring indicates
a buildup of LFG, an electrical blower should be installed to extract LFG below the slab.
The LFG riser discharge at the roof should have a pre-installed electrical service booth
to allow easy system retrofitting with an electrical blower.
7.5.2 Monitoring
Methane sensors should be installed in structures in the subsurface (for monitoring
only) and first floor levels. Subsurface monitors are typically placed at approximately
one per 10,000 square feet of floor area. The subsurface monitors will be used to
evaluate the build of gases and efficiency of operation. Sensors are connected to
controllers to allow the activation of blowers to exhaust the gases if the passive
ventilation is not sufficient. The first floor sensors will be installed in each room with a
minimum coverage of one per 5,000 square feet. Sensors will be connected to a
centralized alarm system similar to the fire system for monitoring and control.
Monitoring, calibration, maintenance and response protocols should be provided in the
post-closure maintenance plan. Typical action levels are set as follows:
84166 I (PLE7R478.doc) I jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 38 of 58
November 12, 2007
KLEINFELDER
MONITOR
ACTION LEVEL (%LEL 1)
Caution 20
Warning 30
Alarm 40
Caution 10
W arning2 202
Alarm2 402
Subsurface (secondary level)
First Floor (primary level)
Note: 1. LEL - Lower Explosive Limit
2. Warning and alarm levels established by SMCEHA
The LEL is defined for methane gas as 5 percent methane by volume in air. In
accordance with CCR Title 27 Division 2, Sections 20919.5(a)(1) and 20921 (a)(1), the
allowable level of methane gas in site structures is 25 percent of the LEL, or 1.25
percent methane by volume in air. The proposed LFG monitoring system provides
redundancies and early warnings to prevent gas infiltration. Only the warning and alarm
signals from the primary monitoring system should activate the City fire department to
respond. The other signals emanating from the secondary monitoring system are for
in-house system monitoring performance.
7.5.3 Permitting
The BAAQMD does not currently require permitting for passive soil vapor intrusion
systems, which includes the LFG system as described above. However permits are
required for active systems, which are defined, in part, as systems with an attached
motorized blower. In the event that monitoring of emissions indicates the need for
addition of a blower to the system, a permit for the retrofit activities would be required at
that time. In addition, permitting will be required if the emissions of individual
contaminants exceeds the trigger levels as defined in BAAQMD regulation 2 rule 5.
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 39 of 58
November 12, 2007
KlEINFElDER
7.6 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
7.6.1 Worker Safety
Prior to construction a site specific health and safety plan should be developed to
protect worker safety during construction activities. At a minimum it should include
information related to the health effects of the chemicals of concern at the site,
directions and contact information for at least one urgent care center, plans for personal
and perimeter air monitoring and contingency plans for respiratory protection and other
forms of personal protective equipment based on detected levels of chemicals of
concern.
7.6.2 Excavations
Excavation into the landfill in some portions of the site is anticipated to allow
construction of both the final cap, as described in Section 7.3, and the site structures.
Excavation of existing landfill cover and refuse will be required to allow construction of
the approved cap beneath areas requiring deeper building components, such as pile
caps.
Two options are available for landfill waste disposal: off-site at an approved landfill
facility, or on-site as part of the building fill material. Off-site disposal will require pre-
characterization of the refuse for acceptance at an approved waste disposal facility.
Waste manifests will need to be prepared to document transportation and disposal.
On-site disposal will require proper placement, compaction, and capping of the refuse
material. In either case, segregation of Class 2 and Class 3 from Class 1 material for
disposal purposes should be performed on-site to the extent possible. No Class 1
material can be relocated on-site.
During excavation the waste should be visually inspected for indications of hazardous
materials such as liquids, sludges, chemical containers including paint cans or other
visible indications of chemical wastes. Waste with visible evidence of potentially
hazardous chemicals should be segregated for further characterization. Disposal
facilities should be identified prior to excavation activities and criteria should be
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 40 of 58
November 12, 2007
KLEINFELDER
established for pre-acceptance of waste to facilitate timely removal of the waste. A
discussion of waste removal procedures is included in Section 7.2.
Although, it is desirable to keep excavations to a shallow depth to reduce impacts on
the existing landfill cap and the amount of waste excavated, if excavations should
encounter water including landfill leachate, these liquids will likely have to receive
special handling, treatment and/or disposal. Typically this includes on-site tankage to
hold pumped liquids prior to testing of the chemical quality. Some treatment may also
be necessary prior to discharge of the liquids either to a sanitary sewer, if allowed or to
other suitable treatment or disposal facility. Because most of the excavations should be
above the level of groundwater or leachate, we have not included these costs on our
cost estimates included herein.
7.6.2. 1 Permitting
BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 34 section 118 documents a limited exemption for
construction activities at landfill sites. This section specifies that when the construction
activities are related to "installing, expanding, replacing, or repairing components of the
landfill gas, leachate, or gas condensate collection and removal systems." However
according to Mr. Robert Cave of the Air Toxics Department, excavations for the
purposes of grading and construction will be regulated under this section. As such it
will be necessary to provide BAAQMD with construction plans and other documentation
as detailed under this regulation for the purposes of obtaining a letter of exemption from
BAAQMD.
7.7 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Operation and maintenance activities at the site during the post-closure maintenance
period consist of inspections and observations of site features to protect the landfill cap,
prevent utility damage, and maintain the landfill gas barrier and venting systems. The
primary activities will be with respect to erosion, drainage facilities, and ongoing landfill
settlement. Additionally, the landfill gas (LFG) monitoring system will require calibration
and inspection approximately every 3 months (quarterly). A description of the
components requiring inspection and the observations required is described below.
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007. Kleinfelder
Page 41 of 58
November 12, 2007
KLEINFELDER
7.7.1 Erosion
All landscaped areas shall be visually inspected for excessive erosion once during the
dry season and monthly during the wet season. Inspections shall be documented and
records shall be kept of such inspections. Inspection records shall include
recommendations of any necessary repairs.
7.7.2 Drainage
All site drainage features (downspouts, catch basins, storm drains, etc.) shall be
visually inspected for proper drainage once during the dry season and monthly during
the wet season. Inspections shall be documented and records shall be kept of such
inspections. Inspection records shall include recommendations of any necessary
repairs.
7.7.3 Settlement
The entire site shall be inspected biannually for signs of settlement. I nspections shall
be documented and records shall be kept of such inspections. Inspection records shall
include recommendations of any necessary repairs.
7.7.4 Landfill Gas Monitoring System
Periodic maintenance of the LFG monitoring system is necessary for proper operation.
The LFG monitoring system consists of a control panel(s) and combustible gas (Le.
methane) transmitters (sensors). The sensors are located in various locations
throughout the structures. Some of the sensors are installed to monitor the subsurface
concentration of LFG and the remaining sensors are installed within structures to
monitor the aboveground concentration of LFG.
7.7.4. 1 Sensor Calibration
Calibration shall occur at intervals according to manufacturer recommendations, or at a
minimum of every 90 days. The calibration essentially consists of applying gases of
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 42 of 58
November 12, 2007
KLEINFELDER
known concentrations, noting the systems response and adjusting the sensors
accordingly.
7. 7.4.2 Sensor Head Replacement
Typical sensor head life is 1 to 3 years depending upon the environment in which the
sensor is placed and the concentration of combustible gas exposed to the sensor. The
sensor should be replaced when the sensor can not be successfully calibrated or is
operating improperly. The sensor head shall be replaced in accordance with the
manufacturer's recommendations. The replacement period for the sensors maybe
reduced due to the presence of other volatile organic compounds in the LFG.
7.7.4.3 Battery Replacement
If the control panel is equipped with a battery for memory retention, the battery shall be
replaced as per the manufacturer's recommendation.
7.7.4.4 Generallnspection
During the calibration event, the following additional items will be performed:
., The control panel and sensors shall be visually inspected to determine if dust is
building up. If necessary the dust should be removed as per manufacturer's
recommendations;
., Wiring that can be visually inspected shall be checked for damage and or
corrosion;
., The sensors shall be inspected periodically for moisture or water accumulation;
., The subsurface enclosures shall be inspected for proper seal around the top
portion and on the seal of the impermeable membrane; and
., The portion of the impermeable membrane that is visible from the inside of the
subsurface enclosure shall be inspected for any voids, tears or abnormalities.
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 43 of 58
November 12, 2007
KlEINFElDER
If any of the above mentioned items are in need of repair, the repairs shall be
performed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.
7.7.5 Reporting
A report shall be prepared documenting calibration and inspection activities. The report
shall include the details of all necessary repairs required or performed. These reports
shall be maintained at the landfill during the entire post-closure period.
7.8 REGULATORY COORDINATION
Successful landfill post-closure development projects are aided by early and continuing
communication with regulatory agencies. It is recommended to meet with and provide
written submittals to agencies from the early conceptual design and feasibility stage
through the permitting state, and on through construction documents and actual
construction. Agency staffs appreciate open communication and the potential to
provide input along the way as a project develops. This mode also facilitates approval
of permitting and construction documents as agency staffs are familiar with projects and
their features. Environmental consultants for the project should be selected who are
familiar with the specifics of the review process and the level of detail needed for
submittals. They should also work closely with City staff to communicate effectively
with the regulatory agencies and prepare clear and concise submittals for agency
review.
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 44 of 58
November 12, 2007
KlEINFElDER
8 ESTIMATED COSTS
8.1 SUMMARY
The information used to develop this cost estimate is based on a conceptual model
consisting of a high density conference center/hotel option as shown on Plate 2 High
Intensity Development Concept Plan. This type of estimate is sometimes referred to as
a "conceptual" or "preliminary" estimate. Such estimates are usually made without
detailed engineering data, examples of which include estimates from cost capacity
curves, scaling of cost information or quotes, ratio estimates based on purchased
equipment, or other baselines. These types of estimates are normally considered to be
+50/-30 percent accurate.
The high intensity plan includes buildings as follows:
II A 9-story hotel with a footprint of about 18,000 square feet
II A 17 -story hotel with a footprint of about 18,000 square feet
III A single high story convention center with a footprint of about 150,000 square
feet
III A two-level parking structure with a footprint of about 42,500 square feet.
Therefore, our estimate is based on about 240,000 square feet of building footprint.
The purpose of our cost estimate evaluation was to compare the increase costs to
develop the proposed concept at Oyster Point, as compared to a 'Traditional Solid
Ground" site. In performing this evaluation, there are two components that impact the
increase in cost to develop at Oyster Point. One is the landfill, and the other is the Bay
mud beneath the landfill. There are many similar types of developments in the San
Francisco Bay Area that are underlain by just Bay mud. Therefore, we have provided a
cost estimate difference for both a Bay mud condition and a 'Traditional Solid Ground"
site.
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 45 of 58
November 12, 2007
KlEINFELDER
A "Traditional Solid Ground" site would typically be located away from the bay, and the
development would be constructed on a shallow foundation system consisting of
isolated and continuous footings that would be about 4 to 5 feet thick bearing on strong
soil or rock. There would be only minor concerns about settlement of the floor slab and
site improvements. A Bay mud site would require the use of a deep foundation system
(such as driven piles) to support the planned buildings. The system would extend
below the existing Bay mud at the site. For our comparison, we have assumed that the
thickness of the Bay mud would be equivalent to that encountered at Oyster Point;
therefore the same site but without the landfill. There would be some site settlement,
which would depend on the amount of fill, but not to the extent as the combination of
Bay mud and landfill material at Oyster Point would produce. Environmental issues
where not included in the cost for the "Traditional Solid Ground" and Bay mud sites.
In summary, the increased environmental and geotechnical cost of development at
Oyster Point, as compared to a "Traditional Solid Ground" site is estimated to be about
$33,000,000. This increased cost is equivalent to about a 15 percent increase in costs
as compared to a "Traditional Solid Ground" site. For comparison to another site
underlain by Bay mud only (no landfill), the increase in geotechnical and environmental
costs for developing at Oyster Point is estimated to be about $8,500,000 more. This
increased cost is equivalent to about a 4 percent increase as compared to a Bay mud
site. These numbers can be summarized as follows:
Traditional site -> Oyster Point = $33,000,000 more (or about 150/0 increase)
Bay mud site -> Oyster Point = $8,500,000 more (or about 40/0 increase)
The table below presents a summary of the difference between the three site conditions
for the various subgroups that include Geotechnical Construction Only, Environmental
Construction Only, Geotechnical Related Operations per year and the Environmental
Related Operations per year. A more detailed discussion of the basis of this cost
estimated is presented following the table below.
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 46 of 58
November 12, 2007
KLEINFELDER
TABLE OF ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL COSTS
OYSTER POINT DEVELOPMENT
Total Cost Increase
Increased Cost Increased Cost Estimate between
Between Traditional Between Traditional Tradition Solid
Solid Ground and Solid Ground and Ground and Oyster
Area of Impact Bav Mud Site Landfill Site Point
Geotechnical $24,000,000 $29,000,000 $29,000,000
Construction
Only
Environmental None anticipate $3,200,000 to $3,200,000 to
Construction depending on $3,500,000 - Increase $3,500,000 -
Only previous use of a bout 1 .50/0 of total I ncrease of about
construction costs 1.501<> of total
construction costs
Geotechnical Estimated at $2,500 Estimate at $7,500 Estimated at $10,000
Related per year per year per year
Operations per
year
Environmental None anticipated $20,000 to $30,000 $20,000 to $30,000
Related depending on per year per year
Operations per previous use
year
In summary, the increased cost of development at Oyster Point including both
geotechnical and environmental related construction and operations costs, as
compared to a Traditional Solid Ground site is estimated to be about $33,000,000. This
increased cost is equivalent to about a 15 percent increase in costs as compared to a
Traditional Solid Ground site. For comparison to another site underlain by Bay mud only
(no landfill), the increase in cost for developing at Oyster Point is estimated to be about
$8,500,000 more as compared to a Bay mud site. This increased cost is equivalent to
about a 4 percent increase as compared to a Bay mud site.
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfetder
Page 47 of 58
November 12, 2007
KlEINFElDER
The above percentages are based on an overall cost of the development to be
approximately $200 million. The basis of this construction cost estimate for the
buildings and grading is as follows:
~ Hotels and convention center at $300 per square foot for construction costs;
there is an estimated square footage of 620,000 square feet
~ Parking structure at $65 per square foot for construction costs; there is an
estimate square footage of 85,000 square feet
~ Site grading at $3.50 per square foot; there is an estimate of 1.5 square foot of
development
8.2 GEOTECHNICAL COST ESTIMATES
8.2.1 Geotechnical Cost Estimate Summary
Additional costs for developing Bay mud and landfill sites based upon geotechnical
concerns, as compared to a traditional solid ground site are generally related to the use
of a deep foundation system, whether the floor slab needs to be structural supported,
and whether special requirements are needed in the site work. In addition, because of
the differential settlement of the site adjacent to the planned structures, there will also
be additional maintenance costs. These costs are estimated as follows:
~ Pile Foundation
$5,000,000
~ Structural Slab
$19,000,000
~ Landfill Fill Related Improvements
$5,000,000
~ Monitoring
$10,000 per year
We have provided a discussion of the basis of these estimated costs and a more detail
description of the involvement that will be required in the following subsections of this
report.
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 48 of 58
November 12, 2007
KLEINFELDER
8.2.2 Pile Foundations
Typical costs for a 12 to 14-inch driven pile is between $40 and $60 per foot of depth.
Assuming an embedment depth into the bedrock of about 30 feet, the assumed pile
length will be about 150 feet. Therefore, for every 190 kips (1 kip = 1 ,000 pounds) of
load, the cost for a pile foundation will be $6,000 to $9,000. The total weight of the
structures is estimated to be 150 pounds per square foot of floor space. There is about
700,000 square feet of floor. Therefore the total weight of the structures is 105 million
pounds. That would require about 550 piles. Based on using 14-inch pre-cast
prestressed concrete piles, the estimated cost is about $5 million.
Slab
Because the buildings and parking structure will be supported on driven piles and
because the anticipated settlement of the site, the floor slabs for the buildings will also
need to be pile supported. The ground level for the parking structure can consist of
asphalt paving that can settle with the underlying soils. However, for this cost estimate,
we have assumed that the ground level slab for the parking structure will be supported
on pile. To support the floor slabs on piles, the floor slabs will need to be thickened in
order to span between piles. The increase cost of the floor slabs is about $0.50 per
square foot per inch of thickening. We anticipate a thicken floor slab of 9 inches, as
compared to a typical slab of 5 inches in thickness. There is about 240,000 square feet
of slab. At 4 additional inches, the increase in cost would be about $480,000.
To support the slabs, it is estimated that piles would be required at about 8 feet on
center. With 240,000 square feet of slab, the number of piles would need to be 3,750.
Subtracting the piles needed to support the building loads, the additional piles need to
support the floor slab would be 3,200. The additional estimated cost for these piles
would be about $19 million (based on 12-inch piles).
The cost of the pile caps are estimated to be slightly above the cost of a spread footing
foundation system that would be used in a traditional solid ground building. The
increase is about 20 percent between the pile caps and the spread footing foundation.
Using an allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 pounds per square foot for footings on a
traditional solid ground site, the total bearing area (based on the weight of the building
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 49 of 58
November 12, 2007
KlEINFELDER
at 105 million pounds) would be about 2,600 square feet of footing. Using a footing
thickness of 4 feet, the total cubic feet of footing would be 10,400, or about 390 cubic
yards. At about $450 per yard to construct the footings, the cost would be about
$180,000. The 20 percent increase for pile caps would be about $36,000.
8.2.4 Landfill Related Improvements
Costs for required improvements to the landfill cap will vary depending upon the
thickness and nature of soil material required to be placed. Low permeability soil
materials may cost $2 to $3 per square foot in place. Soil fill used for an erosion layer
will be more typical of soil fill used at conventional construction sites. For a nominal
thickness of one to two feet this cost should be less than $1 per square foot.
The costs for placing geogrid material such as Tensar BX1300 Geogrid beneath street
areas is anticipated to be about $22 per square yard, including 12-inch overexcavation
of subgrade, placement of the geogrid, and replacement and recompaction of the
overexcavated material.
8.2.5 Operations and Maintenance
Based on our experience, we anticipate that the operations and maintenance costs
associated with structures and infrastructure constructed over landfills to be 150/0 to
250/0 higher than they would otherwise be at non-landfill sites.
8.3 ENVIRONMENTAL COST ESTIMATES
8.3.1 Environmental Cost Estimate Summary
Additional costs for developing the site based upon environmental concerns are
generally related to additional construction costs, permitting modifications, and
additional monitoring and reporting costs. These costs, which are related specifically to
the presence of the landfill, are estimated as follows:
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 50 of 58
November 12, 2007
KlEINFElDER
9 CONCLUSIONS
Based upon data collected during this investigation, it is our opinion that, from a
geotechnical standpoint, the site can be developed for construction although very high
initial foundation costs as well as continuing maintenance may severely impact the
economic viability of the project. It is important that the unique and problematic
subsurface conditions of this site be properly considered in design. Based on the
results of our research into this and similar sites and projects, the primary geotechnical
considerations affecting the project are: 1) devising a means for mitigating the effects
of the extremely large total and differential settlements associated with the
decomposition and compression of the refuse material, and 2) development of a
foundation system capable of transferring the building loads to the weathered bedrock
materials underlying the refuse material.
In our study we have considered several deep foundation alternatives including driven
piles and drilled piers or caissons. The drilled pier alternative was considered to be
impractical due to the high construction cost and special handling costs associated with
the large amount of refuse material that would be accumulated during the drilling. Thus,
we have concluded that a feasible deep foundation alternative to support structures is a
system of piles driven into the clays, sands or weathered bedrock materials underlying
the Bay Mud.
Shallow mat foundations, such as those used for the restroom buildings at the site, may
be used for small or lightly loaded structures.
Also of primary concern is the mitigation of the problems associated with the
differential settlement within the landfill surface and also between the pile
supported building and the surrounding soil. Differential settlements are expected to
disrupt pavement utilities, and subgrade supported structures even with mitigation
measures to reduce differential settlement at the surface incorporated into the design.
The design will also have to incorporate provisions to allow for utilities and subgrade
supported structures to interface with the pile supported building.
As previously discussed, the soil cap was found to vary from 1 to 14 feet in thickness.
In addition, a continuous clay layer that is normally associated with a landfill cap was
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 55 of 58
November 12, 2007
KLEINFELDER
· review of previous geotechnical and environmental investigations at the site,
. the observations of our engineers, and
. our experience at this site and in the area.
The literature review does not provide a warranty as to the conditions which may exist
at the entire site. The extent and nature of subsurface soil and groundwater variations
may not become evident until construction begins. In addition, the subsurface profile
may have changed since the performance of the exploratory borings due to settlement.
It is possible that variations in soil conditions could exist between or beyond the points
of exploration or that groundwater elevations may change, both of which may require
additional studies, consultation and possible design revisions. If conditions are
encountered in the field during construction which differ from those described in this
report, our firm should be contacted immediately to provide any necessary revisions to
these recommendations.
It is the client's responsibility to see that all parties to the project including the designer,
contractor, subcontractors, etc., are made aware of this report in its entirety including
the Additional Services and Limitations sections.
This report may be used only by the client and only for the purposes stated, within a
reasonable time from its issuance. Land use, site conditions (both on site and off site)
or other factors may change over time, and additional work may be required with the
passage of time. Any party other than the client who wishes to use this report shall
notify Kleinfelder of such intended use by executing the "Application for Authorization to
Use" which follows this document as an Appendix. Based on the intended use of the
report, Kleinfelder may require that additional work be performed and that an updated
report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these requirements by the client or
anyone else will release Kleinfelder from any liability resulting from the use of this report
by any unauthorized party.
84166/ (PLE7R478.doc) / jmk
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Page 58 of 58
November 12, 2007
u
=?
w
I-
C) ti5
.~
~ ~
W :::l
I- 0
::i >-
D.. :5
in
~
C)
CCI
.s
6
w
(!)
C) :>
.~ z
<.ci w
w W
I- lD
::i ~
D.. co
00
in I-
~ U
g' w
.s a
Ol ~'
.~ D..
Ifi .....'
W is
I- 0
::i <(
D.. u1
in .....
~ U)
g' c
.s E
Ol :::l
.~ g
..; 0
W >>
~ :2
..J W
D.. :::l
.!!!
:g Ui
Ol Ol
CCI :..._=
.5 Q)
Ol (J)
.~!;::"C
MXl:
WT""CCI
~~,~
D..~E
in~~
~~o
CCI-O
E~-:-::
-;xu
.~.;..: Li.i
N);:::!
WcolJ..
1-019
~<(<(
D..Q)U
inz-
~(J)
CCI';":
.5~
x
00 ..
~ff:a
<W~
~~~
09
w:;;
:Co
U~
<.:J
!=dl
<E:
Son
Francisco
San
Francisco
Bay
...l
<(
:::J
I-
a.
w
U
z
Ol 0
.9; U
r-.: .:.:
W :::J
~ 0
a. >-
in ~
<lJ
g' 6
..5 W
Ol C>
.9; >-
cO ffi
W to
~ <.0
..J T""
a. ~
in U5
<lJ I-
Ol U
113 W
..5 a
Ol tt:
.9; a.
iO T""I
W C
~ 0
0.. ~
in T""I
@, In
113 c:
..5 E
Ol :::I
.9; (.)
...t 0
W 0
I- >-
<( :a:
..J Qi
0.. :::I
in .!!l
<lJ In
g' Ol
E :a
-; Q)
a. '" oo
."':'T"" "C
MXc:
~~113
<(...,.I.~
..J.....c:
0..<lJ<lJ
">.E
:g ti5 ~
g'~g
Ett:-::":
-;xu
.~.;..:w
~'X:!
I-OOl.L
.....010
::J<(<(
a.Q)U
inz.,
~oo
113<+-:
..5&
x
UJ ....."
Wooo
C>l.Ltt:
<(wo..
:a:tt:",
-xo
cot:::
wwo
:c:co
UU~
<(<(.:J
i:l=d>
<(<.eo.
~"
~
/
REFERENCE:
PLATE
DRAWN BY:
LGS
REVISED BY:
7133 Center Suite 100
Pleasanton, CA 94566
(925) 484-1700 (925)
WW'N.kleinfelder,com
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
RJD
I APPROVED BY:
I
ADMINISTRA TIVE DRAFT
OYSTER. POiNT REDEVELOPMENT
FRANCSICO, CAUFORNIA
FILE NAME: PLATES Au
by
PLOTTED:
Aug 2007, 8:51am, lsue
(f)
u
o
-I
l-
t.)
W
O'l (,J)
.9:; X
~ .:-:
I:! ;:)
::; ~
Il. <(
iJj -l
<Il
~ <5
..5 w
O'l C>
.9:; >-
l.O ffi
w to
j ~
Il. ~
iJj (j)
<Il I-
O'l U
co w
..5 a
O'l 1:1::
.9; Il.
,,0 .....1
I:! 5
::; 0
Il. C3
iJj I
<Il .....
C) 2
co c
..5 <Il
C) ~
.9; (,)
~ 0
w 0
I- >>
::; ~
Il. ::J
iJj .!!2
<Il Uj
0') O'l
co ._5
..5
0') Cii
a. I'-- en
.-;0..... "C
(")XC
w.....co
1-.....
::;<(I~
1l.<Il<ll
">.E
(/)-::J
<Il en (,)
0')..0
coE~9
1:1::..
~XU
.9;';":w
fjx:::!
I-OOLL
.A" 0 IC
::i<(<
Il. <IlU
iJj~
~en
co.;..:
..5~
X
(f) .....,
W(,J)o
C>LLI:I::
<Wll.
:21:1::1'--
-Xo
oor:::
wwo
55~
<(<(.:.i
I=I=~
<(<(a..
APPROXIMATE AREA
OF EXCAVATION
SUIIIIP2
APPROXlMA TE AREA Of
INDUSTRIAL UQUID WASTE
DISPOSAL, 1966 THROUGH
by
Drainage Channel
Present Shoreiine
Section LocaUon"
WEST BASIN
EAST BASI.Y
/
Pier
B
SUMP;
APPROXIMATE AREA Of'
SCALE (feet)
SAN FJJAJVCISCO BAY
REFERENCE:
PES Inc.
Cross " Joint Technical
Document dated March 2000.
PLATE
BY:
LGS
REVISED 8Y:
CHECKED 8Y:
DATE:
RJD
I APPROVED BY:
I
PLOTTED:
Aug 2007, 8:51am, lsue
f.fJ
f.fJ
W
Z
:::c:
u
:c
I-
a..
Cl <(
.9; U
r--:
W
I-
:3
a..
in
Q)
~ <5
.s W
Cl c:>
.9; :>
to ffi
W (i5
~ (0
..J ....
a.. ~
in en
Q) I-
Cl U
1tI W
.s a
Cl Il::
.9; a..
Lri ....1
W i5
~ c
a.. <3
in 1
Q) ....
Cl 2
1tI C
.s Q)
Cl ~
.9; 0
-.:t 0
W C
I- :>.
<( :lE
..J (j)
a.. ::l
in .!!.!
Q) u;
Cl Cl
1tI '_=
.s
0> (j)
c."f.fJ
.-:-.... "C
(V') Xc
w....ltI
I- ....1(1)
:3<(1:
0..Q)Q)
..>.E
g: en i3
0>"0
ltI1i)g
Ell::..
-;,xu
.9;~w
~)(:::!
I-oou-
.....010
:::i<(<(
a.. Q) U
in~
~f.fJ
1tI-+':
.s~
x
en .....,
Wf.fJo
c:>u-Il::
<(wo..
:lE1l::"
-xo
ocr:::
wwo
:r::r:~
~~:J
j::j::~
<(<(a..
.:..:
:::::l
o
>-
:3
PVEST BASIN
EAST BASIl'{
SA1V FRANCISCO BA Y
\
\
\
\
LGS
BY:
REVISED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
Df,3]naga Channel
Cap Thfcl<ness Contour in Feet
Present Shoreline
ApproxirnatEt Exient of Landfill Cap
- q -- ApproxJrnate Trace of Gas Bamer Tn:ncn
.J'v/'~/',../'".,- Cement-Bentonite Trench
" i " i I ; I I " I Bey Mud leachate Cut-off Trench
A.pproximate Drainage OlJtfaR LOC3tion
1iI",,""~:;;1I' UmilsofWaste
APPROXIMATE SCALE (feet)
REFERENCE:
PES inc. uClosure
If Joint Technical Document
dated March 2000.
PLA TE
Center
Pleasanton,
PLOITED:
2007, 8:52am, lsue
m
I-
U
W
O'l m
.9; x
r--:
w
I-
::5
a.
~
;:)
o
5
100
BO
50
40
20
o
-20
in
ll)
~ 6
..E w
O'l C)
.9; >-
to m
w <0
I- (Q
<( r
...J -.:t
a. co
in (j)
ll) I-
O'l U
l\1 W
..E a
O'l 0:::
.9; a.
i.O ....1
~ 5
::5 c
a. j
in rl
~ u;
l\1 1:
..E ll)
O'l ~ '
.9; u
..t 0
w C
I- >.
<( ~
...J (j)
a. :::J
in .!!.!
ll) U;
O'l 01
l\1 ._=
..E
01 Q)
Q.I"--m
.'":'''1''" "0
M)(c:::
w....l\1
1-"1""
::5<(I~
n.ll)ll)
..>.E
~(j)~
01..0
l\1'd;g
Eo::: ..
~xu
.9;';":w
~><=
I-COLL
...,.olC
::i<(<(
e.ll)(J
in~
~(/)
l\1";":
.5~
x
m.....,
wmo
C;>LLo:::
<(we.
~o:::"
-xo
;::
o
o
~
,.:..i
m
0::
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
o
-20
SECTION C-C'
NotM:
1) Rllfar 10 P I ate 2 for !oc:atIcn and or!&rltaoon ot !6CliQ(1.!l
2) Verllcai E~on:: 100! 40" ,2,5x
3) Th& r1.Jbbish flU is overlain ~ a soil cap o1vsl'jlr,g :J1lcj,OO$$, qwfir, and comj;X)1liOcn,
4) ~ng stJ~ .v~ lak8n!'rom tne "hydrograp~jc map of Oyster
Palrrt: Msrln&w ~red by Towill, Inc. for Brlan4Cangu..Fooit; &!~
dalA!ld March 11, 197&,
5) ~ idooJlz~ 0011 proffletl ara cormructed 'oy direct ioterpdation 00tw00n. t6frt
borl.ng8 drilled at varloua spadngs, The IIr~ ~nl} me various soli and rock ~
wera done for $Chemsttc lIlu$lJtlot; ~i onlY, The- proffle$ should not be
~ as a<:curafa rep~ of llCtu~ ffakj coodltionlS..
6) No Wlnte foond In fllJ rot ~la GW~Sa and GW.9a.
PES Inc.
Cross 11 Joint Technical
Document dated March 2000.
BY:
REVISED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
20
0-
-20
160
140
120
tOO
80
60
40
~
160
j40
j2D
W'iJ.fit'ilc
100
80
60
40
20
MUG
[)
-20
SECTION ,A.-A'
160
140
120
i 100
l..i...
80
60
4-0
20
0
-20
100
80
60
40
20
o
-20
180
140
120
SECTION 8-8'
[}
100
:LOG
+00
300
500
BeG
N-ote: Scales are approximate
PLATE
RJD
BY:
PLOTTED:
2007,8:53am, lsue
UJ
UJ
W
Z
~
u
:c
I-
o
:J
:a:
>-
0') <(
,9; m
r--: ~
W :J
~ 0
a. j
in
<U
~ 0
..5 W
0') C)
,9; :>
<D ffi
W (i5
~ (0
-J .....
a. ~
in Ui
<u I-
0') U
III W
..5 C3
0') IX:
,9; a.
Lri .....1
~ 5
~ 0
a. j
in r I
~ U;
III C
..5 <u
0') ~
.9; (J
..t 0
W 0
I- >.
~ ~
e.. ::s
in .!!!
<u U;
0') 0')
III C
..5 E
~"'"~
'"":'r "C
('I')><c
Wrcu
1-.....
<(......I!!
-J.....c
e.. <u <u
">.E
Ul-::s
<U (J) (J
0').. 0
cu1i)g
E IX: ..
-;xu
.9;';":w
~><::!
I-C:Ou.
...... 010
:::i<(<(
e..<uu
;n~
~UJ
Ill';":
..5~
X
UJ .....,
wUJo
e>u.IX:
<(we..
:!:IX:","
-xo
o or:::
wwo
::J:::J:~
~~:i
I=l=~
<<0...
Shor\JHna
SAN FRANCISCOJ1Al'
APPROXIMATE SCALE
Inc. uThickness
U Joint Technical
Document dated March 2000.
PLATE
BY;
LGS
REViSED BY;
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
RJD
BY:
Al.lg 2007, 8;55am, lsue
0)
.9:;
~
W
~
a.
in
(I)
0)
ro
.E
.~ ro
<P .~
W >-
~ ~
..J ro
a. "C
in c:
(I) ro
0) >
ro (I)
.E Qj
0) 3:
.9:; C>
U'i
W
I-
::)
a.
in
(I)
0)
ro <5
.E w
0) C)
.9:; :>
..t z
w W
I- Ui
<( U
..J :i:
a. e..
~ ~
0) C>
ro <0
.E (Q
"(""
0) -.:t
c."'CX)
~><2
w"(""(.)
~"(""~*'
....l<(lo...
e.. (I) e..
..~
:gent::
0)..0
E~~
_ 0:: .
0) X ..J
C. .. .
......"(""w
fj><~
I-CX)U-
A 010
::J<(<(
e.. (I) U
in~
~en
ro";":
.E~
X
en.....,
wenO
C>U-o::
<(We..
:EO::",
-XO
CCr:::
WWO
5l5~
<( <C,J
l=!=~ @
<(<(ll.
.:-:
::>
o
>-
<(
..J
GW-13a
Compound Concentration
(l.l9/L)
Benzene 32
Ethylbenzene <0.7
Xylenes <0.7
Chlorobenzene 120
Naphthalene <7.1
GW-12a
Compound Concentration
(J.lg/L)
Benzene 77
Ethylbenzene 0.6
Xylenes 1.6
Chlorobenzene 100
Naphthalene 7.9
GW-8c
Compound Concentration
(J.lg/L)
Benzene NA
Ethylbenzene NA
Xylenes NA
Chlorobenzene NA
Naphthalene NA
GW-9a
Compound Concentration
(J.lg/L)
Benzene NA
Ethylbenzene NA
Xylenes NA
Chlorobenzene NA
Naphthalene NA
MW.5 GW-17a
Compound Concentration Compound Concentration Compound
(jJg/L) (l.l9/L)
Benzene NA Benzene 0.5 Benzene
Ethylbenzene NA Ethylbenzene <0.5 Ethylbenzene
Xylenes NA Xylenes <0.5 Xylenes
Chlorobenzene NA Chlorobenzene 8.8 Chlorobenzene
Naphthalene NA Naphthalene <5.0 Naphthalene
" ,
,
GW-11 a
Compound
1~'iIlu <Il~...
- 'n,- ,,"'-
Compound
Concentration
(j.lg/L)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Concentration
(l1g/L)
1.9
1.5
2.9
4.4
<5.0
Concentration
(j.lg/L)
,-~"" ..,...
_ww __
Concentration
(lJg/L)
Compound
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Chlorobenzene
Naphthalene
1.1
<0.5
1.0
39
<5.0
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Chlorobenzene
Naphthalene
I
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Chlorobenzene
Naphthalene
/ GW-4a
Compound
<0.5
<0.5
0.7
<0.5
<5.0
/
. {
Concentration
(l.l9/L)
., " . ...
"
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Chlorobenzene
Naphthalene
.'
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<5.0
~f"
~~.
.::
).
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION AT
WELL (feet)
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION
CONTOUR (feet)
~lf!'
. ,
" 'x,
" ..' ,:~:, '.C', ............:'..,..,. . _. :
'.,~ , '"' ' "..
'"',," , , ~~i~l'
1liJi2l
"
",~ '~
":';;~~1'~:<.,.,.,. " '.
"""~'.~'~
":; ./
'~"-'r;~:"-
<X
NOT DETECTED at or above the
indicated laboratory reporting limit
'::""/::.',:,,::~ .:,'
"",:::::2Y ::-6'__
NA
NOT ANALYZED
-
-,--~- ",'
"
BOLD
V ALUE IS ABOVE MACLs
--
,':::2.'::2'..
',' -"=" -= -7
;:"
'L '.. GW-3a
:' -<c: Compound Concentration
(J..Ig/L)
Benzene 70
Ethylbenzene 510
Xylenes 2350
Chlorobenzene 340
Naphthalene 140
GW-5a
Compound Concentration
(J..Ig/L)
Benzene <0.5
Ethylbenzene <0.5
Xylenes <0.5
Chlorobenzene <0.5
Naphthalene <5.0
APPROXIMATE SCALE (feet)
" - "..
,C'.::!,".::.'.":.\.
--." -,
7/
''', ,C:::,,'
~ ... ., ":Jt,.~w~;: I.
- ~'"",-
-"::.-.... ",,'
~//;
I~~
~
~y
_~\(~?8,!
:. ,.. J- '''. .::.::::\c ~ .'
'." ',' ' -,,::'-::' .
.- ".....~."
,"."
..
,"",
--,,":
t' ,,,:,'J,
-<r:,
-
.v.....
..
..
,".", ,':1 ":":';1'-:
"
29 0
1l
I
GW-7a GW-10a GW-15a GW-6a GW-1 a
Compound Concentration Compound Concentration Compound Concentration Compound Concentration Compound Concentration
(J.lg/L) (J.lg/L) (J.lg/L) (J..I9/L) ( J..Ig/L)
Benzene <0.5 Benzene 20 Benzene 3.7 Benzene 40 Benzene 52
Ethylbenzene <0.5 Ethylbenzene <4.2 Ethylbenzene <0.5 Ethylbenzene 41 Ethylbenzene 18
Xylenes <0.5 Xylenes <4.2 Xylenes <0.5 Xylenes 10.5 Xylenes 248
Chlorobenzene <0.5 Chlorobenzene 63 Chlorobenzene 20 Chlorobenzene 36 Chlorobenzene 83
Naphthalene <5.0 Naphthalene 520 Naphthalene <5.0 Naphthalene 5.4 Naphthalene 96
REFERENCES:
PES Environmental, Inc., "Monitoring Well and
Point of Compliance Sampling Locations,"
dated March 2000.
PES Environmental, Inc., "Potentiometric
Surface Map, December 16, 2006," dated
January 2007.
DRAWN BY:
LGS
- - ill 7& ~ill_.!II_
iI."IllK!Il.ul!IINlUWWA IIUINl~
ANIU lUl :1111l rr" --II'l>!iI-;nid~"
,1!' I ~ __ __ __D. _~w. II .._..""_"
n ii= ~:: "''''' ~ Ie D :;iilliill~
- ,u.... ____
PLATE
REVISED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
7133 Koll Center Parkway, Suite
Pleasanton, CA
RJD
I APPROVED BY
'l~TIVE DRAFT
U I" 1 C:I"\ POINT ~.~.1\.?!!,! 1\ REDEVEL"", ""'_I' l
SOUTH SAN FRANCSICO, CAL, '"" "..r
EROJECT NO, 84166 I FILE NAME: PLATES"Auj;107.dwj;1
(925)i1Q1L~~"<Q
,","""'1M
. , ..
;,
2007
PLOTTED: 10 Aug 2007, 1:21pm, Isue
84166 / (PLE7R478-Table 1.doc)
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
November 12, 2007
KLEINFELDER
jmk
.
.
Page
Probe depth will correspond
encountered waste in areas
groundwater levels permit.
Monitoring probes will be dri
of 5
ed by_a
to the depth to first
where leachate or
icensed
Perimeter
Monitoring Network
.
.
Installation of gas monitoring wells or probes
along the perimeter of the site at a frequency of
no less than 1,000 feet.
Increased frequency of monitoring points where
structural features indicate increased potential for
gas migration such as utility corridors leaving the
site
20925
Monitoring
The landfill gas monitoring program must be
designed by a registered civil engineer to assess
gas migration and potential accumulation in
structures
.
ncluded as part of the overal
prepare"'!
gas
LFGMP
sign
system
the
and
20923
.
.
.
20921
Gas Monitoring and
Control During
Closure and Post
Closure
COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS
Allows for specific exemptions from prescriptive
requirements.
Implementation of a gas monitoring network and
monitoring program during closure and post- closure.
Requires substructural gas ventilation systems for all
future construction that meet the following:
. Methane <1.25% in structures;
. Methane migration from the landfill <5%;
CIl Toxic gases maintained below risk-based
thresholds; and
Monitoring/Control for 30 years, or until written
authorization to discontinue is issued by the EA.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
80 milliner under al
4" perforated pipe
liner.
diffused gases.
10,000 sf
structures
n 12" gravel base under
SEe
20918
TITLE
Exemptions
DEVELOPMENT ACTION
Table 1
Summary of CIWMB Closure and Post-Closure ReqUirements
Oyster Point Landfi
CCR Title 27
84166 / (PLE7R478-Table
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
November 12, 2007
KLEINFELDER
.doc)
jmk
It
.
Page 2 of 5
Submit monitoring reports within 90 days of
sampling.
Implementation of reporting and control
measures in accordance with Section 20937 if
sampling indicates exceedance of trl9..ger levels
.
20934
Reporting
Monitoring
Frequency
.
/II
.
Continuous structural gas monitoring for LEL
Quarterly monitoring of Methane and trace gases.
Increased frequency of monitoring if results
indicate potential landfill gas migration
.
.
Continuous monitoring for methane
provided in subsurface and first floor for
the LEL and at early warning levels.
Contingency Plan for alarm conditions
developed in PCMP.
Monitoring reports will be submitted
quarterly basis.
Annual Reports will be performed for
and monitoring modifications.
system
on
wil
will be
25 % of
a
be
20933
..
20932
Monitored
Parameters
.
Monitoring landfill gas for the lower explosive
(LEL) and periodically, for trace gases
im
it
.
.
.
4&
Trace gases to
overall LFGMP
Post Closure Maintenance Plan (PCMP) will be
developed for calibration, monitoring and
maintenance requirements.
Contingency Plan for alarm conditions will be
developed in PCMP.
Quarterly Monitoring and Calibration of the
structural monitoring system will be performed.
Continuous monitoring for methane will be
provided in subsurface and first floor for 25% of
the LEL.
1 subsurface
(monitor only).
1 first floor methane monitor per room with
minimum 5,000 sf coverage (monitoring and
alarm).
Alarm set for
alert.
be included as
part
of
the
.
..
411
Calibration and maintenance
monitoring systems.
Quarterly monitoring of
unoccupied structures
.
audible and emergency services
COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS
drilling contractor and logged by a geologist
engineer in accordance with ASTM 02488.
Maintenance of probe location maps
construction details.
Installation of a bentonite seal from
the monitored zone.
Structure
Monitoring
Installation of
systems with
structures.
of
automatic continuous monitoring
audible alarms in all occupied
structural
.
20931
.
4&
methane
monitor
per
0.000
sf
..
.
the surface to
and
or
SEC
TITLE
DEVELOPMENT ACTION
Table 1
Summary of CIWMB Closure and Post-Closure ReqUirements. CCR Title 27
Oyster Point Landfi
84166 / (PLE7R478-Table 1.doc)
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
November 12, 2007
KlEINFElDER
jmk
Page 3 of 5
SB.ecifies re..9.uirements for removal of structures
21137
Structure Removal
ID
Signage and public notification of landfill closure and
alternative waste disposal facilities. The site must be
secured and components of monitoring and control or
recovery systems shall be protected from
unauthorized access.
.
ID
.
Site security will be provide 24 hours per day by
hotel security personnel.
Monitoring points will be secured in locked
rooms or out of reach from public.
Ventilation equipment will be secured on roof
top level or in locked accessory building.
No structures from orl9.inal landfill 02erations
21132
21135
Landfill Emergency
Response Plan
Review
Site Security
ID
Submittal of the Emergency Response Plan
SMCHSA and RWQCB review.
for
ID
.
ID
21130
Emergency
Response
(II
ID
Provide
occupied spaces
Implement a remediation
days; and
Place incident in operational
corrective actions.
ERP to be submitted with PCMP
Verify results;
Submit a letter to the SMCHSA and RWQCB
within 10 days to describe the nature and extent
of the exceedance and interim corrective actions
to be taken; and
Construct an appropriate long-term gas control
system modification designed by a civil engineer.
Development of an emergency response plan to
identify potential occurrences which might
threaten the public health or environment and
present emergency response procedures,
sequences and schedules notifications,
responsible parties and reporting requirements.
The ERP will be amended as necessary as
conditions change or if events indicate potential
emergency situations not provided for in the plan.
III
record
with
Emergency response
developed in the PCMP
minimum requirements:
· Notify emergency services agency;
· Extinguish open ignition sources;
III Evacuate the building or parking structure
· fresh air to vent or exhaust
.
plan
within 60
.
procedures will be
to include the following
SEC
20937
TITLE
Control
iIII
III
COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS
If regulatory levels are exceeded during
monitoring, actions to be taken include:
III Protect human health and safety and
environment;
Notify the SMCHSA and RWQCB within 5 days of
detection of the exceedance;
<II
the
gas
.
DEVELOPMENT ACTION
Contingency Plan for
emergency response
PCMP
alarm
will be
conditions and
developed in
Table 1
Summary of CIWMB Closure and Post-Closure ReqUirements. CCR Title 27
Oyster Point Landfil
84166 / (PLE7R478-Table
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
November 12, 2007
KlEINFElDER
.doc)
jmk
Page 4 of 5
Design and implementation of landfill gas and
leachate control measures to prevent public
contract, control vectors, nuisance and odors.
.
.
Post Closure Maintenance Plan (PCMP) wil
developed for calibration, monitoring
maintenance requirements.
Contingency Plan for alarm
developed in PCMP.
Des!9.n details for
the
2ile
installation
conditions
wil
and
be
21160
Landfill Gas Control
and Leachate
Drainage and
Erosion Control
49
Inclusion of drainage and erosion control plans in
conjunction with the final grading plan to ensure
the integrity of post-closure land uses, roads and
structures and prevent damage to gas monitoring
and control systems, safety hazards or exposure
of wastes.
e
.
.
Surface drainage to direct flow
drain system for paved areas
3% minimum slope for landscaped
areas.
Drainage and soi
erosion plan
be
and
to be submitted
soil
and
21150
.
.
49
Final slopes will be less than 1
be stable through specific
analyses.
Any slope failure wil
and RWQCB
be
reported
to the SMCHSA
.
.
connection
Maximum slope 1
horizontal.
Skirt wall calculations
to
new
storm
21145
Slope Stab
ity
.75 or shown to
slope stability
Development of a final grading plan to indicate
the final topography and document slope and
thickness of the cap and provide the basis for
settlement monitoring.
49
.
.
.
3% minimum
Settlement
PCMP.
Details of
foot
slope for surface drainage
analysis per the overall
vertica
per
2
landfil
feet
21142
Final Grading
.
ED
e
asphalt
course;
12" vegetative soil cover; and
4' minimum landscaped area
2" sand
footings.
Erosional
. 12"
e 2"
layer consist one of the following
reinforced concrete slab;
surface with 4"
asphalt
base
e
COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS
associated with landfilling operations.
The final cover will provide with a minimum of
maintenance, waste containment and will control
vectors, fire, odor, litter and landfill gas closure
consistent with post-closure land use.
The final cover will consist of a foundation. low
permeability and erosion resistant layers.
e
.
e
e
.
4&
that
24"
6" gravel layer.
4" perforated PVC pipe
40 mil HOPE
liner.
under concrete
Slabs
pile caps
or
21140
Final Cover
e
DEVELOPMENT ACTION
might require removal are present.
foundation layer.
SEe
TITLE
Table 1
Summary of CIWMB Closure and Post-Closure ReqUirements. CCR Title 27
Oyster Point Landfi
84166 / (PLE7R478-Table
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
Change of
Ownership During
Closure or Post-
closure
Maintenance
.doc)
jmk
.
CD
21200
21190
Post-closure Land
Use
.
Restriction of post-closure land use to:
CD Protect public health and safety;
CD Prevent public contact with waste
gas and leachate; and
· Prevent landfill gas explosions.
Any change of ownership will include full
disclosure of the known conditions of the landfill,
post-closure operational standards and
conditions or agreements associated with
compliance.
The SMCHSA will be notified
any ownershi12- chanQe.
Page 5 of 5
within
30 days
of
.
November 12, 2007
KLEIN FELDER
There are no plans to change landfi
from the City.
Land is leased
Francisco
ownership
Control of future land use by deed
recorded with the County Recorder.
Preparation of a post-closure maintenance plan
to document procedures for reducing impacts to
public health and safety and maintain
environmental control systems. It will address:
· Site security;
II Gas monitoring and control;
CD Leachate monitoring and control; and
Cap monitoring and maintenance.
andfil
.
II
It
21180
21170
from
Closure activities
Gas monitoring and control;
Cap monitoring and maintenance;
Inspection and repair of the landfill;
Procedures and schedules for inspection
for leachate seepage, erosion, vegetation
inspection, settlement; and drainage
monitoring;
.. Emergency Response Plan; and
~ Contingency Plan.
Modification to site restricted by
agreement.
Design Plans and Specification are
with this Table for Post Closure Use
this Table
Surface sealing of cap penetrations is proposed
using cement/bentonite grout.
Modification to site restricted
agreement.
The site specific PCMP will address
It Site security;
· Cost Estimate for Post
CD
.
.
.
the City
of
South
included
ease
San
Post-closure
Maintenance
Recording
.
CD
restriction
.
by
ease
G
DEVELOPMENT ACTION
excavation areas are included with
SEC.
TITLE
COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS
Table 1
Summary of CIWMB Closure and Post-Closure ReqUirements
Oyster Point Landfi
CCR Title 27
84166/ (PLE7R4 78- Table 2.doc)
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
November 12, 2007
KLEINfELDER
21090
21090
21090
21 84"0
Closure and
Post-Closure
Maintenance
Requirements
for Solid Waste
Landfills
Closure and
Post-Closure
Maintenance
Requirements
for Solid Waste
Landfills
Closure and
jmk
Page
of 2
CQA
Grading to prevent ponding, erosion &
(3% min. positive slope).
required to present procedures to
.
.
.
.
..
Site specific CQA Plan to be subm
Surface drainage to direct flow to new storm drain system
paved areas.
3% minimum slope for landscaped and soil areas,
Attached drawings provide drainage plan
Soil erosion plan to be submitted
itted with construction
Discharge of liquids
will address:
.. leachate/ gas condensate;
lit dust control; and
lit irrigation
run-on
for
COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS
final cover consisting of the following:
1 :1.75 maximum slope or slope stability
analyses;
2-foot minimum foundation layer to control
settlement;
1-foot minimum low K layer (10-6 em/see)
layer; and
1-foot minimum
resistant layer.
Post-Closure
Maintenance
Cost
Estimates
to covers
Cover maintenance plan & cost
includes:
\II periodic leak search;
· periodic inspection of cover, erosion, low k
damage, drainage, damage & settlement;
Prompt cover repair; and
Vegetation maintenance.
erosion
.
.
\II
is
vegetated
restricted and
estimate
that
2" sand under concrete slabs, pile caps or footings.
Erosional layer consist one of the following:
· 12" reinforced concrete slab;
It 2" asphalt surface with 4" asphalt base course;
· 12" vegetative soil cover; and
· 4' minimum landscaped area
~ Maximum slope 1 foot vertical per 2 feet horizontal.
The site specific PCMP will address:
.. Site security;
CD Cost Estimate for Post Closure activities;
· Gas monitoring and control;
\II Cap monitoring and maintenance;
· Inspection and repair of the landfill;
· Procedures and schedules for inspection for leachate
seepage, erosion, vegetation inspection, settlement; and
drainage monitoring; and
· Emergency Response Plan
III Contingency Plan.
Construction Quality Assurance
address discharge of liquids
(CQA)
Plan
and
PCMP
wil
SEC.
21090
TITLE
Closure and Post-
Closure Maintenance
Requirements for Solid
Waste Landfills
.
A
\II
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
DEVELOPMEMT ACTION
24" foundation layer.
6" gravel layer.
4" perforated PVC pipe
40 mil HOPE liner.
Table 2
Summary of SWRCB Closure and Post-Closure ReqUirements
Oyster Point Landfi
CCR Title 27
84166/ (PLE7R478-Table 2.doc)
Copyright 2007, Kleinfelder
November 12, 2007
KlEINFElDER
21
21160
090
jmk
Closure and Post-
Closure Maintenance
Requirements for Solid
Waste Landfills
Landfill Gas Control
and Leachate Contact
TITLE
Post-Closure
Maintenance
Requirements
for Solid Waste
Landfills
Closure and Post-
Closure Maintenance
Plan Requirements
Closure and Post-
Closure Maintenance
Standards for Disposal
Sites and Landfills
Gas Monitoring and
Control During Closure
and Post-Closure
Recording detailed maps
Leachate monitoring & control
Page 2 of 2
III
e
e
.
.
III
lit
III
.
III
CD
lit
..
lit
40 mil HOPE liner under all structures
4" perforated pipe in 6' gravel base under liner.
Roof top ventilators to exhaust diffused gases.
1 subsurface methane monitor per 10,000 sf (monitor only).
1 first floor methane monitor per room with minimum 5,000 sf
coverage (monitoring and alarm) set at 25% of the LEL.
Post Closure Maintenance Plan (PCMP) will be developed for
calibration, monitoring and maintenance requirements.
Contingency Plan for alarm conditions will be developed in
PCMP.
Health and Safety Plan, and Construction Quality Assurance
(CQA) Plan will be developed for excavation areas.
Continuous monitoring for methane will be provided in
subsurface and first floor for 25% of the LEL.
Trace gases to be included as part of the overall LFGMP.
Design details for the pile installation and excavation areas are
included with this Table.
Surface sealing of cap penetrations is proposed
cemenUbentonite grout.
As built drawings will be prepared and submitted
days of completing work.
Long term settlement analysis per the overalllandfil
PCMP
within 60
using
20921
Gas monitoring & control
Survey to establish initial topography, set
monuments & prepare iso-settlement maps
every 5 years.
21090
21769
Precipitation & Drainage Plan to describe
means of minimizing infiltration recharge.
.
.
Settlement analysis per the overal
Attached drawings provide drainage plan
andfi
PCMP
COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS
document that construction meets
requirements.
documents
SEC
DEVELOPMEMT ACTION
Table 2
Summary of SWRCB Closure and Post-Closure Requirements. CCR Title 27
Oyster Point Landfi
'"
'\.
~
5
f\
I w,reh"}
-v/
\\
, \
\ '
) rOffice' !
Tower
/
~/
I
k----..--------- -- --- --.--
Warehouses
----'----
e;Yc;;;!>;;[i;-;o;;l~~ri5iOn - -- ---- __I
i
I
---
~-
--~-
100
C)
200
400 feet
AUG UST 2006
LEASEHOLDS
a
~~
~,
Parcel 3
1.2 acres
FRAMEWORft PLAN
-- , ~,
__
0 100 200 400 feet
9 AUGUST 2006
~
_
_.
O
~
.
0
0
~~
0
N
rt
~D
~•J
O
7
r
~~
a~
T
\V
~^
~ _.
CD
_.
CD
~. ~
~ ~
C~ r-E-
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ o
o
~ ~
~~
c~ ~
~, ~.
~~
~ ~
~ ~
~~
~ ~
•
r~ 1~
~ ~'~/
` / ~_~
O
.~
~ IV
~ ~~
~ ~~
C7 '~I
~-+
~+ `
-' I~
~ ~-
~G
- in
c~. ~~
~, ~c
c~ ~~
- ~~
~ ~-.
~ ,_
-~ ~~
~~
o ~~
~~
~ ~o
o ~.
N
~ ~
_ ~
CAD ~
CD ~+
~ ~
I
CD
~_-
O
O
D
~.
_.
0
•~
V•
CD
~+
CD
~~
0
n
O
n
CD
r+
•
^~
A
N
O
O
0
D
0
CD
(~~
-o G~
~ o
~ ~
v
n
0
c
a
•
^~
•~
•V^•
V/
~~
O
f1
CD
n
O
O
n~
I
\/~
P1
0
rF
^~
" •
V•
^~
!/'~`
\ •
V
O
/f1
V~
~~
J
O
Y.V
C
~^
0
~•
~..F.
•~
V•
~.
~!/'~
CD
CD
O
(D
r+
O
O
^
m
~~
m
m
c
a
C7
0
n
c
o'
P1 Y.V
~.y.
C
^~
f1
C
Q
~"~`
^~
A
~.L
r~
~^
^~
f1
0
~:
~_
V
•
n
O
.~
~•
0
~1
V / O
_.
~w
c~ ~
~~
o-
0
~~wJ
~.
e-i-
0
V J
^-
~.L
V J
0
V J
_.
I
^W•
A
~^
~.L
^~
~.i
'~ 1
~/
I
V J
~^_•~
Y~
~1
a'
N
Q
•
O
r~
O
•~
V•
n
O
CD
m
~~
m
n
m
C7
0
m
3~
v
m
v,....».e.,..
°~ ~b ~~-. . _.
~~_
~~ ~~~ ~u .
o .n r- ~;
t. _ ~ --~
w
c ,~ t
;~ ~~,
_. [A~~ ~~
'''' ~ ~ r
. ~_---
T ~ FF ~^~. _--.~,
~`'
~. ~ , ~ ,_
~"~` - ~ ; ~, , p ~ ~ ~
~, ~ ,,
~ ~ e { ~ ~~ ~ ,i f ~ ~~~
~ '
1 ~ ~...
a fS ~ ~ 1 ~ F .. ..
o ~ ~Y~~~~
~~ ~
,~ ~,~~
jj
-~ , ~ I, X 6 ~ : 1 ... ..
~'~ ~ ~ '~
~ ~~ i~ ~ "~
fE
~~~Np~
~~ ~ . _- n
r , , ~' ~ _ ~ .. ~ e
~ ~ -:
~,,
~~ ~ ` f',~
I ' + ~ _ ' e.w.s tl
T i ~ II
~ l~ ~t~ ~~~~ 111 (~ i 6 f t t
r ~ ,~
l t ! C ~ ~
1
f Z ~
~ f~ ~ { .~ .._ . . s
i , !.
~~ ( ~, ~ ~ ~~~ .. 1 -
t
~ RA
i
by ~ d
~ `~~
,ti r ~~a ~ ~~ ~ ~
9~ ~,
__.. ~°
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ +
r
m
v
m
0
Q
O
O ~
~ ~
~ Q
O
O
-t,
CD
_.
O
C
CD
CD
~+
W
CD
O
~'
CD
CD
~~
_.
CD
~-t-
_.
_.
CD
O
C7
O
O
_.
CD
O
N
~1
O
C7
O
3
~C
C_n
n~
C~
CD
Cn
~-~-
C~
O
n
CD
~-~-
~_
_~
~~
C~
CD
O
O
O
~.
Z
N
X
m
~ ~~
Y~
i
.~..a¢,,,._
~i'
~E ~ ~~~~~
(~ ~ ',
+• ,- i ',
~~ ,
~ ~ b r
jG ~•
~ ~ ~ ~
i~ ~
~,~ ~, ~~
1 ~ ~
r t
wnaa~- ! ~ ; ! -
f
ly
`qt
~ ~ 3
• $
' r A
,~~
x.
x 4 ~ _~.
S r~,
1 «...
~; ~ ,
~~x
~~
~(
~~' ~ "~
~~
~~
.~
II''i
~ i
3 I .
~..
~.+
~ t
v
m
0
o `'
n
~ _~.. ~'
_ ~
v o
~
~.~~+~ .~
_ __ ~
'~ ~~ is
~
..
_ ; -_ -
AT'~: April 16, 2008
T~ e 1-Ionorable Mayor and City Council
F s Sharon Ranals, Recreation and Community Services Director
SST C'T® APPRC)VAL OF TI-IE JUNIPERO SE BOULEVARD REMEDIATION
REPLANTING CONCEPTUAL PLAN
~ ~l~i ATI:
It is reeo mended that the City Council revie~~ and approve the Junipero ~"erra boulevard
R.ernediation replanting Conceptual l~°lan ~vvhieh vas reviewed and reeorn ended. by the l~arits
and reereation Commission at their regular meeting of January 24, 200.
I~~CK~r~~.Tl~I~:
Junipera Serra Boulevard was one of several roads built along the Peninsula before the age of
freeways. It became a state highway (Route 23 7) in 19 ~ 6, receiving the State Route 117 designation
in 1964, only to be deleted from the state highway system the following year. Today tl~e road is under
the ~L1rlsdlctloll Of t11e Clty, alld is a Ina111 thol-OUgllfare for local traffic. The boulevard extends 1.7
miles from Avalon Drive at the south, to Flickey Boulevard at the north. There are approximately 271
trees planted in the median islands, including Monterey Pine, Stone Pine, and Incense Cedar, many of
which were planted. decades ago.
The condition of the median, including pavement and curb disruption caused by tree roots, has
deteriorated over the years. The boulevard is greatly in need of upgrade. Unfortunately, a disease
ltiiown as "Pine Pitch Cal~lcer" has billed and is infecting Monterey Pine trees not only in the City of
South Sa11 Francisco, but throughout the state of Califonlia from Mendocino to San Diego. At
present there is no Known cure for this disease. The disease has most impacted the not Ahern end of
the boulevard, and is progressing toward the south.
In an effort to address the decline of numerous trees an the boulevard, and the general deterioration of
the median, City Council approved an allocation of $50,000 per year, tentatively for tl-~ee consecutive
years, toward the problem. The extent of the needed improvement is so extensive, and the area so
significant, staff ha.s detern~ined a comprehensive master plan for the area is needed. Tl-~e goals are to
address long term maintenance issues; create a cohesive appearance that also allows far il~terest in
Staff Report
Subject: Approval of the Junipero Serra Boulevard Remediation Replanting Conceptual Plan
April 16,2008
Page 2
variation of plant material; provide accent and color; specify hardy plants and trees that are tolerant of
drought, vvind, and fog; and to utilize South San Francisco's Centennial Tree, the Coast Live
Redwood.
In the current budget year, a portion of the Junipero Serra funding was used to contract with Callander
Associates to work closely with staff to prepare are-forestation Inaster plan to meet desired goals and
deternline a cost estimate. As evidenced with Centelmial Way, the preparation of a Inaster plan that
includes cOlnmunity input and cost estinlates can be very helpful in applying for grant funding. The
Parks and Recreation Comnlission reviewed and approved the Junipero Serra Renlediation
Replanting Conceptual Plan at their regular Ineeting of January 24, 2008. The Connnission
recOlwnended the plan be reviewed and approved by City Council.
The cost estimate to implement the plan, including design, engineering, construction drawings,
delnolition and relnoval, drainage improvelnents, irrigation, soil analysis and anlendment, trees and
plant material is $948,000. With no funding source yet identified, a strategy of phasing the project is
recommended, with implen1entation to take place over a period of years as funding becomes
available. Inlplelnentation would likely proceed from north to south, addressing areas of greatest
need. If a $50,000 allocation is approved in the 2008-09 budget, these funds could be used toward
Phase I, or possibly as a match to leverage grant funds. Callander and staff will continue to seek
funding sources.
CONCLUSION:
Junipero Serra is not only a critical artery for traffic, but a beautiful, forested avenue that contributes
to the lUlique character and history of South San Francisco. The necessity of addressing the aesthetic
decline brought on by disease, creates an opportunity to redefine the boulevard with a nlore cohesive
landscape that includes careful selection and placenlent of a palette of trees and shrubs that are
appropriate as well as beautiful and sustainable. Mark Slitcher of Callander Associates \vill attend
the City Council Study Session to present the details of the re- forestation plan.
~<:)
I ( e:;:<'"
Approv~d: ,;
Sharon Ranals
Director of Recreation and
Comlnunity Services
Attachments:
Junipero Sena Boulevard Conceptual Plan Infonnation Packet
Power Point Presentation
prepared for the
City of South San Francisco
Summary Estimate of Probable Project Costs
Junipero Serra Boulevard Tree Replanting
Summary Preliminary Plan
prepared on: 1/17/08
prepared by: KD/NR/MS
Item #
Description
Qty
Unit
Cost
Item Total
Subtotal
Bonding, and Traffic
K
· Estimate of Construction
-. . -----------..--..-....--.- ---"'--..~-----"""_..__.- --
amounts, are on
and is offered only as reference data. Callander Associates has no control over construction quantities, costs and related
affecting costs, and advises the client that significant variation may occur between this estimate of probable construction costs
Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
07075SurnmaryPreliminaryPlanl-17.08.xls
· copyrighted 2008 Calland.r Associates
Landscape Architecture. Inc.
Page 1 of 1
EXISTING CONDITIONS LEGEND
CONCRETE PAVING
. COLORED CONCRETE PAVING
@ TREE
SHRUBS/GROUNDCOVER TO BE
REMOVED
--0-- FENCE TO REMAIN
TRAFFIC/REGULA TORY SIGNAGE
el BRICK
III STORM DRAIN INLET
[g) ELEC TRICAL BOX
* LIGHT POLE
)':{ TRAFFIC SIGNAL
OIl POLE
MONUMENT SIGN TO REMAIN
@
IRRIGATION BOX
~ ZONE
~ID NUMBER
(SEE EXISTING TREE LIST FOR
NORE INFORMATION)
G
PHOTO REFERENCE
(SEE CORRESPONDING NUMBER
IN PHOTO LOG)
ID~,
,..2..t.'.,,! .
.'28'..... .
2'1
.so- .,_. ,
31
32
33
34
35
36
31
3e
3'l
ZONE I - HIC.KEY TO KING
eavs SPECIES
45
46
41
4e
. 4<1 j
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
51
5e
5'1
60
bl
b2
b3
b4
b5
bb
b1
be
b'l
10
11
12
13
14
I
I
I
i
i
o
OTHER UTILITY
.,.,......
I
ID~,
eavs SPECIES
ZONE I - HIC.KEY TO KING
15 PINE
'iE::.- ~: ~NI:.:.... ,..,
11 CEDAR
.,e.:" . .. -c-roAR -..
'..'.; ... ,...... ..,.......
'II
. ""'2 j
'13 j
'14
'IS
."'6
-'ri"
.....9b
_
'1'1
101
-10:2"
.Ios.
-104.
...'105..
lOb
101
_IC:::B.. ._
10'1
110
III
112
113
114
115
116
111
Ill>
11'1
120'
121
122
123
124 i
125 :
126
121
12B
12"1
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
131
13B
13'l
140
141
142
143
14-4
145
146
141
14e>
14<1
150
..piNE'
PINE
PINE
CEDAR
CEDAR
CEDAR
PINE
PINE
CEDAR
PINE
CEDAR
CEDAR
CEDAR
CEDAR
PINE
CEDAR
CEDAR
. CEDAR
CEDAR
CEDAR
CEDAR
CEDAR
PINE
PINE
CEDAR
CEDAR
PINE
CEDAR
CEDAR
CEDAR
CEDAR
PINE
CEDAR
PINE
CEDAR
CEDAR
PINE
CEDAR
CEDAR
PINE
PINE
PINE
PINE
PINE
PINE
5TONE PINE
c.YPRESS
PINE
CEDAR
, PINE
PINE
PINE
PINE
PINE
30'
25'
30'
IB'
15'
20"
25'
30'
5'
20'
15'
IB'
4'
15'
35'
2'
B'
10'
10'
10'
12'
14'
25'
35'
12'
14'
21'
IB'
22'
12'
II'
35'
5'
35'
4'
ti~~
..so~
HEI5HT
CIRCUM-F TREE CONDITION
ERENa: ALIVE DECLININos
I
......,.,-,.-
30
22'
40'
35'
35'
;20'
35'
DEAD
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
...+..-. ,.. -., -.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
=:==+2=.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ZONE:2 - KING TO V4E5T60ROUGH
CIRCUM-F TREE CONDITION
ID~, eavs SPECIES HEI5HT ERENC.E
ALIVE DECLININos DEAD
0'1 .......,... CEDAR _ )._ 5~-;:. :3' I j
1.'-."';;:.'.' ...PINE--" 3'-T ' -:;~... i--" . :
I.,....,...."..,., ".......... PINE i 40; 5'-10'"
.,....,...",... 0"_ ._ 1..." 'i..........,......,. -..,..,....,
...."C:: i 4' 2" ,................,
1"'05.' r 55' 5'-10" I -,........,...
I"'?.t.' , . _, PINE i 55' 1'-1" .,
di CEDAR ,. i 20' 2'-2" I ... . -T.
i.'?'::'" CEDAR I 4' 2" I ,......._....,--
I.....,...,..,......, PINE ; 40' 10'. ..--. . i-.- ..+--.....
1._".""..,,_, ,....._, .. PINE 40' 1'-5" ------
'''.'..'C.'.'.' CEDAR 1 I I .--_.
. ...... CEDAR 15' 2' I
1-...i5......- ..., PINE 40' 12' .. - " - __-i.__ ..._....
.,....'.~.,., CEDAR IB' 1'-5" I
15 . CEDAR IB' 1'-10'" I
16 PINE 40' 10" I 'm_. ___
11 PINE ---- 50' '1'-10" I
IB PINE 30' 5'-10" I
1'1 CEDAR 15' I
20' CEDAR 3' I .. .......
21 i PINE I
22: CEDAR i ... -,.,-, ---._--
2:3 i CEDAR i
24 i PINE -'-'-' I
~~:::j:=~_.- ~:~: .:~" i --.. I
I
2e PINE I
2'1 PINE I
30 PINE ----..- I
31 PINE 40' 3'-6. I
32 PINE 40' 4' I
33 PINE 45' 5'-3" I
34 I PINE 40' 6'-6" I
35 PINE 50" 'I'-S. I
36 CEDAR 15' 1'-6" I _.
31 CEDAR IB' 2'-1' I
3e PINE 50' '1'-10'" -"-'
3'l PINE 25' 4'-11" I
40 PINE 25' 1'-11"
41 PINE 30' 6'-6'
42 PINE 40' 11'-10'"
43 PINE 25' 10"
44 CEDAR 10" 1'-2"
45 CEDAR 2'-3. I
4b CEDAR B" I 1'-.-. ~~~~=:
41 PINE '1'-<1.
4B CEDAR 1'-4. I
4<1 PINE '1'-1. I ....
50' CEDAR 2'-<1. I
51 CEDAR 3'-2. I
5 PINE b'-2. i I
5 PINE 35' 1'-6. I
5 PINE 20' 1'-2. I
5! CEDAR 12' 1'-11" I
5/ CEDAR 22' :3'-1. I
51 CEDAR 16' 2'-2. I
5B PINE 40' II' I
5'1 PINE :;) 20" 1'-4. I
60' PIN! 50' 1'-5. I .....---=t~~.=
61 PINE 30' 6'-5. I
62 PINE 20' 6'-10' I
63 PINE 25' 3'-1 I
64 PINE 20' 6'-10'" I
65 PINE 20' 1'-11 I
66 PINE 20' 1'-2" I
61 PINE 20" 4' I
ID~,
33
34
35
36
31
3e
3'1
40
41
42
4:3
44
45
46,
-"41. r ....
4B
4<1
50'
51
52
53
54
eEMJ5 SPECIES
ZONE :3 - V4E5TBORO\JGH TO AVALON
DEAD
TREE CONDITION
HEI5HT C:: ALIVE DECLINlNos
., .':i<::>'
20" ......
15'
40'
40'
15'
20"
20"
B'
15'
10"
20"
40'
40'
i 15'
i 15'
i 15'
i 15'
40'
IB'
10"
20' i
12' j
12'
10"
30'
30'
0"
0"
15'
1'-11
'-2"
3'-2.
1'-1"
1'-11"
1'-4.
1'-6"
2'-5.
2'-4.
'I.
2'-0"
'I.
2'-B"
6'-B.
,2.
Ie
5 0'"
4 10.
5 ,3.
1'-2"
B"
1'-2.
1'-11"
B'-2"
5'-<1.
4'-11"
b'-O.
5'-2"
........
..,...........
.. .....-.....""....'.......-.......
.. ~:: :~~~~..:..3:..::=~..
::,:::,:: ::::l::::::
i
.,..... i. _,._._
......,.-... .
.._. .......... . ---. ........
... .,_......
,_.,_..,_.................,... .,....,...........
,-,.,..,.., ..._,_........ ...-.- ........
., . -.., .....,. ....--.-,-
I ,_... ..-.....-...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
".. ,...............-.
TREE CONDITION
HEI5HT C=: ALIVE DECLININ6 DEAD
,J~""j ~~~ ~ ,...~:;.+ :~~: I.. :.._i."..:_.,..,_
05 i EU<:;AL YPTU5 ' .:25' 1 2'-10. ' -I. : . i..-.,
;_~:.l.. :::::::: .~:~:+::::: ..: ; ...._...
. 06 ~., " 'piNE"'- ;-"20" i 4'-5" i I .. ,.,.....--
-.di. -.... PINE i "..25'.. 4'-11" .- r 1_.._.. ...'--
I'..OB. PINE i 25' 3'-B. I _ . . ........
1.0;1. ..,. PINE r 30'- 4'-10. -",i.-.. 'I
'i"O ... PINE '30~ 4'-b" .-...,;.. i
I.......i"'.'.' PINE i ,. 30' 3'-1" I.......,...
l..m..~:.H..., ~..._...m___ PINE -- .. SO' 4'-10. -~ __ ~_m......_ ~ ~~~......~.__~...m......~.....:
I.......,..,...., ,........,. ... PINE '~.... 25' 3'-10" I
PINE 25' 3'-3" ...,.....-. ._..i--'....'... ...,..-..
...,..'15..... ..,.., PINE 25' 5'-0'. .., ,,_. . t.'.....'...'( ........... I.......'......,..
16 PINE ,_.... '''-.''''2''5'-'.. i'.-37:e;~.."'..~ I ....,...
".h PINE -, 25' 5'-3" .'i'............ ,-...............-.
'-.ii PINE 25' 2'-<1. .......,..,.'1...,.,..., ,.-..,....,....
1'1 PINE 25' 3'-2. ........., ,.. I
20' PINE 25' 4'-10. I
21 PINE 25' 4'-5. I
22 PINE,.:~:.. 3'-0"_..;.... ,11."._"_' ...._,.......,..,
I ~:: C::R -'~ ~:=~~.. .. i.'" ,. ._"_m.._
... PINE IB' 5'-5"." ..,.... ...... ...(....... .,......,...,...,.,...
PINE" -,. .....".....'iei..... ._..'4~~2;..'......_,.., ...........,., _. ...,.. .1"'.-..1 ..,...
PINE 20' 3'-0"" . I'" , .. ., ...,..,.
PINE 20'" $'-~ I - -- -
~f~.. ~._... ~~, :,~ ~.....:~~-~.~
PINE .""'.-25; 1'-' ." ".:, 1"_" . :..:
PINE 25' 2'-. I
1..lIl:i~~
PINE 25' 5'-10" I
PINE 30' 4'-10. I
CEDAR 4' 0"-3. ~~~~~~[~~~~:~fl~~:~j~~~~ ';_.
PINE 30' 1'-10"
PINE 20' 3'-6. ' .- .
~j~ :t!=:=~. .:..~.
PINE 4'-4" I .
PINE 3'-2. I
PINE 5'-4. I
CEDAR 2'-6" I
CEDAR 0'-3"
PINE .. 6'-0'
PINE ..,. 6'-B"
PINE 4'-5.
PINE 4'-0" I
PINE 4'-10".... ,I _..,.. ....._.....""'.'...
PINE 2'-'1. I _.
;:: :~:.. ~--'-
;ffi :~It~~,~.=_.~...:~-s~
PINE . I
C~~ .....--r.- I
PINE 20'. : 3'-<1.
PINE ;U;' ; 1'-10"
2B' '1'-
30' 6'-
...~ . - IS' 4'-
15' 2'- ,. ...,.
IB' 3'- 1
, , 15' 3'.
.,....,.'20' .. ......5;::0;'
..~~. == =!-i~jr-
'.,. 22' i :3'-0.
20' i 6'-0"
~inliil
33' i b'-2"
i 4'-1.
4'-B"
.:2":io;- .- .,...
2'-5"
1'-0"
b'-6.
b'-5"
b'-II"
2'-1"
2'-4"
3'-0'
5'-3"
'1'-5"
0'-3.
5'-B.
1'-11"
2'-,~.
O"-~.
2'- ,.
'I'.
1'-1 ,.
2'-~.
2'.;.
3'.'"
3'-4~
2'-2"
1'-1.
t;'-o"
'1'-3"
2'-1"
2'-0"
10'-0"
2'-0"
2'-10.
2'-0.
2'-0.
B'-4.
0"-4" I
'1'-2" i
0'-3. ;
0'-3.
5'-1"
2'-0.
2'-0.
5'-4.
4'-0"
411"
5'-6.
5'-0.
4'-1'
5'-2.
4'-1.
01' 5, PINE 20" 5'-10., I
..~~:=.. =.. :~~~~~~:~::=f~: -::{~~~.:i:~;:~, _
""04-' IN. CEDAR ,....,.....-.--....- ._-
..05. ;-.... .5,-PINE. T ....,-..,......-
Ob .IN, CEDAR 10" .. ...::~.=:....~:
_ OJ.:..,.. .... 5, PINE ' ...40' _ . .,;..__......_....
O'B IN, CEDAR.. ,.L Ie)'
0<1. '.. 5, PINE 4<5;
..10. IN, CEDAR ' ..-'i"O~
....il 5, PINE ... :.... 40
,.......i2., IN, CEDAR . .--"".12'
~:::::::;_.. 5, PINE
, IN, CEDAR
_ .i.5 . ...,..,_ 5, PINE ..., ~.....,
..I~.... _...~N, CEDAR
11 5, PINE
It; IN, CEDAR
1'1 IN, CEDAR
::~. IN, CEDAR
-', IN. CEDAR
22 IN, CEDAR
-~~~....__ IN. C.EDAR --
24; 5, PINE
.. ~r 1 IN5~::R m
'21" ,;..... IN, CEDAR
. -:it; IN, CEDAR
......29. IN, CEDAR
IN, C.EDAR
5, PINE
5, PINE
IN. CEDAR
IN, CEDAR
IN, CEDAR
IN, CEDAR
IN, CEDAR
IN, CEDAR
IN, CEDAR
5, PINE
5, PINE
IN. CEDAR
5, PINE
5. PINE
S, PINE
5, PINE
IN, CEDAR
5, PINE
:t~~
5, PINE
5. PINE
5, PINE
5, PINE
Callander Associates
~~
u.bon l:los\in
Lnl FInq
1'lItc....d-"FInq
~FInq
311 Sewtndl /we..
Son _ CA!l44OI
T 650.37S.1313
FfiS0.34.t.'!290
Ca.Uc..1J06
RevIIrlcna
(> Copyright 2008
Callander Aasoclatoa
l.4ndocopo ^"""""""', Inc.
CJ
Z z
<( t=
z
....J <(
...J
a... a..
w
C1J a:
w
Z w
0 a:
I-
i= 0
a:
0 <(
>
Z W
...J al
0 ::>
0 "E
0 m ~
Iii
<( 0
a: 0
a: ()
Z W en
"0
en c
i= al
0 u:
C1J a: c
W al
X a.. en
Z -S
:::l
W ::> 0
-, en
Date 01/15/08
Sc8e None
Dmwn KD
By
CIlecIced
Project No. 07.075
Cadd RIll ExCond1lona
Shoet No.
1 I
of 6 I
KEYMAP
/Hlc.KEY BLVD,
// ;'
HESmoRO""" BLVD~" ~.
MEDIAN 2 MEOIAl'l:; ,\, ~..__- ,
MEDIAN I
liKING DRIVE
J\
~
r\.JI
o 10' 20' 40'
FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 1
Callander Associates
~-
Ubon Dosign
UncI flomns
Pat end """""'" flomns
&Mramonlzj flomns
311__
Son ,....", CA 9+401
T 6SO.37S.13 13
F 650,3.4.4.3290
Revlsloos
r
"Copyright 2008
Callander Associates
~ Arl:l>l1odura, In<.
(!)
Z z
i=
<( z
....J <(
-1
C- o...
w
en a:
w
Z w
a:
0 I-
i= Cl
a:
0 <(
>
Z W
-1 as
0 :J "2
0 ~
0 CO
(ij
<( 0
C!) a: 0
a: 0
l/)
Z W '0
C/) c:
i= as
0 It
en a: c:
W as
X 0... (/)
Z ..c:
'5
W :J 0
-, (/)
0aIAl
ScllIe
Drawn
By
CMcked
Project No. 07,075
Cadd FIe ExCondlIons
01/15/08
A1J Shown
KD
Sheet No.
2
of
o
w
Z
:J
:x:
o
~
KEYMAP
FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 1
BLVD,
.(KING DRIVE
1\
~
MEDIAN I
MEDIAN 2
\Ii
.
Callander A<isodates
~-
~=
Pat.ond_""""""a
E'<Mrtrm:r1lloI""""""a
311_.....
s..._CA!l<<01
T65O.31S..1313
F 650.3+4.3290
Cl.Lk.fol308
AevlIIona
o Copyrlght 2008
Callander Associates
I.&nd#eepo ~, Inc.
(!J
Z z
<( t=
z
...J <(
...J
C- o...
w
CIJ a:
w
Z w
0 a:
I-
i= Cl
a:
0 <(
>
Z W
...J al
0 :::> "E
0 ~
0 m
(ij
<( 0
C) a: 0
a: ()
Z w (I)
"0
C/') c:
i= al
0 u:
CIJ a: c:
W al
X a.. U)
Z ..s
W :::> :::I
0
J U)
Date 01/15/08
ScllIo M Shown
Drawn KD
By
Checked
Project No. 07.075
Cadd FIll ExCondtlona
s-t No.
3
of 6
KEYMAP
FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 1
/HIGKEY BLVD,
/// ;
,I KINo DRIVE
,j:
~
MEDIAN I
HE50SO"""," BL YO ~ \
MEDIAN 2 MEDIAN '3 ,\'
rwI
o 10' 20' 40'
Callander Associates
~-
u.bon o..v>
lJnl~
Plld<ond_~
-~
311 5<M:r1Ih.....
s.. "'- CA 9<<01
T 6Sa315.1313
F 65Q3.4.4.3290
Ca.Uc..1308
RevloIcna
(l Copyright 2008
Callander Assoclates
~ Arcl1l""'''.lnc.
(!J
Z z
i=
< z
...J <(
-I
a... a..
w
(/J a:
w
Z w
0 a:
I-
i= 0
a:
(5 <(
>
Z W
-I <<l
0 ::::) "E
0 ~
0 m
(ij
<( 0
a: 0
a: 0
Z w lJ)
'0
C/) c::
i= <<l
0 U:
(/J a: c::
W <<l
X a.. (f)
Z .s::::.
'5
W ::::) 0
...., (f)
Date 01/15/08
SclIto All Shown
Drawn KD
By
Checked
ProJect No. 01.075
Cadd Aa ExCond1lona
Shoot No.
4
of 8
KEYMAP
r\.JI
o 10' 20' 40'
WE5WO=- BLVD ~\
MEDIAN 2 MEDIAN:; ,\
BLVD,
I/KINO DRIVE
J
~
MEDIAN I
FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 1
Callander Associates">
~-
U:ban o.q"
::t~"""'*'a
~ PIomIng
311__
San MoIoo, CA 94'10 1
T650.375..1313
F 650.3+4.3200
Ca.llc.+'308
RevlsIcns
o Copyrlght 2008
~rAr~t:.
(!J
Z z
i=
<( z
-I <(
...J
a... a..
w
(IJ a:
w
Z w
a:
0 t-
i= 0
a:
0 <(
>
Z W
...J as
0 => "2
0 ~
0 m tij
<( 0
C) a: 0
a: ()
w It)
Z "0
en c
i= as
0 u:
(IJ a: c
W as
X a.. ((J
Z .c:
'5
W => 0
...., ((J
-
Dale
Scllie
Dravm
By
Checked
Praject No. 07.075
Cadd Fie ExCondtlcns
01/15/08
As Shown
KD
s-t No.
5
of
KEYMAP
BLVD,
,(KING DRIVE
}\
~
MEDIAN I
MEDIAN 2
r\.JI
o 10' 20' 40'
FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 1
Callander Associates
~-
Ulbon DmiIPl
::t~~
--~
311__
s.. "'-'. CA 9<<01
T 650.37S.1313
F 65O.J.4.4.J29O
Ca.lk..'306
RevlIlona
o Copyright 2008
Calland.... Assoclates
Lendecepo ~ Inc.
(!J
Z z
i=
<( z
.....J <(
..J
0- 0...
W
(/J a:
w
Z w
a:
0 I-
i= 0
a:
0 <(
>
Z W
..J <<1
0 ::> "E
0 ~
() m tii
<( 0
Cl a: 0
a: 0
w CI)
Z '0
C/) c:
i= <<1
0 U:
(/J a: c:
W <<1
X 0... (/J
Z .t::.
"5
W ::> 0
""") (/J
Date
01/15/08
As Shown
Sc8Ie
Onlwn
By
Clleckod
Project No. 07.075
Clldd FIll ExCondlIona
KD
SMeI No.
6
of
CD
~
~
EXISTINiS CONCRETE PAVINiS TO ..- L1iSHT POLE --0-- FENCE TO REMAIN
REMAIN
}:l: TRAFFIC SliSNAL
. EXISTINiS COLORED CONCRETE G POLE
PAVINiS TO REMAIN
MONUMENT SIGN TO REMAIN
EXISITNiS BRICK TO REMAIN
TRAFFIC/REGULA TORY SliSNAGE
I!iiiil STORN DRAIN INLET (Q) IRRliSATION BOX
[gJ ELECTRICAL BOX 0 OTHER UTILITY
DESCRIPTION I
BOTANICAL NAME
COHMON NAME
SPACINiS
- CONIFEROUS EYEReREEN #1
CHAMAECYPARIS LAHSONIANA
GUPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLANDII
THUJA PLlCATA
CONIFEROUS EYEReREEN #2
SEQUOIA SEHPERVIRENS
FALSE CYPRESS
N,C,N,
Y-<ESTERN RED CEDAR
30'-0" O,C,
30'-0" O,C,
30'-0" O,C,
REDl^lOOD
30'-0" O,C"
!".__.~.~^~"'---.-
-BROADLEAF EYERiSREEN
CUPANIOPSIS ANACARDIOIDES
TRISTANIA CONFERTA
EUGAL YPTUS FICIFOLlA
AGGENT TREE
ARBUTUS UNEDO
MELALEUCA L1NARIIFOLlA
METROSIDEROS EXCELSUS
SHRUB/GROUNDCOVER
CISTUS X PURPUREUS
COLEONEMA 'SUNSET iSOLD'
CEANOTHUS SPP,
COPROSMA X KIRKII
ESCALLONIA RUBRA
LEPTOSPERMUM SCOPARIUM
PITTOSPORUM TOBIRA
'l^lHEELER'S Dl^lARF'
V ARIES
VARIES
VARIES
VARIES
VARIES
VARIES
VARIES
CARROT l^lOOD
BRISBANE BOX
RED FLOY-<ERING GUM
30'-0" O,C,
30'-0" O,C,
30'-0" O,C,
KEYMAP
STAl^lBERRY TREE
FLAXLEAF PAPERBARK
NEl^l ZEALAND CHRISTMAS TREE
25'-0" O,C,
25'-0" O,C,
25'-0" O,C,
BLVD,
,(KINiS DRIVE
j
MEDIAN 2
ROCKROSE
BREATH OF HEAVEN
l^lILD LILAC
CREEPINiS COPROSMA
ESCALLONIA
NEl^l ZEALAND TEA TREE
TOBIRA
MEDIAN I
Callander Associates
lllndsalpeAzd1l1ooure
Umon 0e0sn
l1lndPlcnnl~
PIlII:llI1d_Plonnhg
E'nvinJrrnernllPlcnnlna
311 Se.onlh ^""
5<'ln Mateo, CA 94401
T650375.1313
F 650.344.3290
Cn.Uc.fl306
Ravislona
o Copyright 2008
Callander Aaaoclatea
landoctlpe Archltocturo, Inc.
In
ill
Z
:J
:I:
I::!
~
Cj
z
i=
z
<dC
...I
I!l.
W
a:
W
w
a:
I-
0
a:
<dC
>
W
...I (\1
:::>
0 "c:
aJ ~
Iii
<dC 0
a: ci
a: 0
w Ul
"0
UJ l:::
(\1
0 u:
a: l:::
W (\1
ill. (f)
Z .c:
:J
:::> 0
-, (f)
Data
Scale
Drawn
By
Checl<ed
Sheat No.
1
of
KEYMAP
FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 1
BLVD,
liKING DRIVE
Jl
MEDIAN I
MEDIAN 2
Ii
Callander Associates
lJlndsa>pe Altlmectum
UfhllnlJeslgn
lJlndl'lonlin8
PeritMd_Plonnin8
ErM~ I'Ionnlng
311 Se\-'enthk.oe.
San Mateo, CA 94401
T650.375.1313
F 650.3443290
Cc.Lk.+1306
<D Copyright 2008
Callander Associates
LlUldDcaprJi ArCh/190MB, Inc.
CJ
z
i=
z
~
...J
Ill.
W
a:
W
w
a:
l-
e
a:
~
>
W
u.. ...J
w :::::> lIS
z '2
:J 0
i CD g
(ij
~ ()
a: 0
a: 0
w <II
'0
(IJ c::
lIS
0 u::
a: c::
W lIS
Ill. en
Z .r::
'5
:::'l 0
"'") en
Date
Sesle
Drawn
By
Checked
Project No,
Cadd Fie
Sheet No.
2
of
Ci
z
~
z
<<(
...J
0-
W
or:
w
w
a:
I-
IJJ 0
> a:
:J: a: <<(
w a >
z 0 W
:J
:J: >- ....I
~ 0 ::l l"G
cr: 0 'i::
cr: ~
<( CO
iij
<<( 0
a: 0'
a: 0
W en
'0
(J) l::
l"G
0 U:
a: l::
w l"G
0- m
Z -:E
::l ::l
0
""") 00
KEYMAP
BLVD,
,r KING DRIVE
j
MEDIAN I
MEDIAN 2
FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 1
Callander Associates
l.llndsaipe_
UrbimlJeslsn
l.llndPlanring
Pmlll1d""""","",PlMn"s
ErM~PIanring
311 Se.<nlh ^""
""" """'" CA!l4401
T6S0J7S.1313
F650..3443290
Ca.Uc.+1306
Revislona
<Cl Copyright 2008
Callander AaBoclateB
LandnCl1pli Arch!tocturQ. Inc.
Date 01115108
Scllle As Shown
Drawn KD
By
Checked
Sheet No.
3
of
KEYMAP
FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 1
MEDIAN I
,(KING DRIVE
j
NEDIAN 2
Callander Associates
l.andsc>pe-
Urban~
lllnclPlm1rdng
Potkllnc! ~ Plannmg
ErniI1lM1t1llliPIMr/ng
311 5<Mlnlh /we.
Son """'" CA 94401
T650.315.1313
F 650.3443290
Ca.Uc.fl300
Revislons
<0 Copyright 2008
Callendar Associates
LandGeapo Archllooture. Inc.
CJ
z
i=
z
<(
-II
a..
W
a::
w
w
r:c
I-
0
a::
<(
>
W
-II <1l
:::> 'i::
0 g
00
iU
<( 0
r:c ci
r:c 0
w III
'0
(J) t:
<1l
0 U:
a: t:
W <1l
a.. en
Z oS
:::> ::J
0
""") en
01/15/08
As Shown
KD
07.075
DraftPreim
Sheet No.
4
01
'I
'I
JUNIPERO SERRA BLVD.
KIEYMAP
BLVD,
",.ma="," BL VD ~ \
MEDIAN :2 1 MeDIAN:3 \
AVALON DR'VE) ,
,(KING DRIVE
j
MEDIAN I
LU
>
0:
o
z
o
..J
~
<(
FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 1
Callander Associates
lor><lsc>pe_
U!ban DeOgn
lond~
Pllri:ll<ld_PlannIng
_PIonnIng
311 SlM:nth ^"'-
San I&teo, CA 94401
T 650.375.1313
F 650.3443290
CAlk.+l300
Revisions
o Copyright 2008
Callander Associates
lnndllcnpo AtchllDctura, Inc.
CJ
z
i=
z
<
..J
iO..
W
a:
W
w
a:
I-
o
a:
<
>
W
...l tll
:::> "E
~ g
"iii
< 0
a: 0
a: 0
w "~
C/) t::
tll
o It
a: t::
W tll
iO.. (J)
Z ~
:::> 0
.., (J)
01/15/08
As Shown
KD
Sheal No.
5
of
Thuja plicata
Melaleuca
Tristania
Sequoia
Metrosideros
January 15; 2008
Coleonema
Arbutus unedo
Cistus
Ceanothus
Escallonia
Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Cupressocyparis leylandii
Chamaecyparis lawsoniana
Coprosma X kirkii
Cupaniopsis anacardioides
Arbutus unedo
Pittosporum tobira
Leptospermum scoparium
Eucalyptus ficifolia
January 15; 2008
Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
<It
Ceanothus spp.
Existing Entry Sign
Coprosma X kirkii
Coleonema 'Sunset Gold'
Existing concrete
paving
uary 15~
Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Coleonema 'Sunset Gold'
Ceanothus spp.
'Sunset Gold'
15~
Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
I
iii
B
e
\
Callander Associates
"'dIapri~ K
on
nipero Serra Boulevard Tree Reforestat
April
16,2008
City Council
;KINiS DRIVE
HICKEY BLVD
l^lE5TBOROUiSH BLVD.~
MEDIAN 2 MEDIAN 5
Junipero Serra Boulevard Tree Reforestati
City Council April 16, 2008
c
9
Ii
sa
.
)
Callander Associates
I · IIpII ... --"-_ 1nc:.
Junipero Serra Boulevard Tree Reforestation
16,2008
April
City Council
Callander Associates
.........~Rs 'tnc.
South San
Junipero Serra Boulevard Tree Reforestation
City Council April 16, 2008
Callander Associates
lIII~~ Inc.
Existing Conditi
. Zone 1: Hickey to King, 150 trees
Mature trees are predominantly Monterey .
. I
. Infill trees are Incense Cedar
Junipero Serra Boulevard Tree Reforestation
City Council Apri/16.2008
J pero Serra Boulevard Tree Reforestation
-
City Council April 16, 2008
nipero Serra Boulevard Tree Reforestation
April 16, 2008
City Council
unipero Serra Boulevard Tree Reforestation
City Council Apri/16,2008
ti
III
I
Existing Cond
67 trees
y Monterey
King to Westborough,
trees are predominantl
trees are ncense Cedar
Zone 2:
Mature
n fi II
.
som
e
..
.
Callander Associates
lIIII~~ 1nc.
Junipero Serra Boulevard Tree Reforestation
Council 16,2008
nipero Serra Boulevard Tree Reforestation
City Council April 16, 2008
Junipero Serra Boulevard Tree Reforestation
City Council April 16,2008
unipero Serra Boulevard Tree Reforestation
City Council April 16, 2008
ti
III
I
xisting Cond
trees
54
Westborough to Avalon,
trees are Stone Pine
trees are ncense Cedar
Zone 3:
Mature
n fi II
.
.
.
Callander Associates
lIIII~~ 1nc.
Junipero Serra Boulevard Tree Reforestation
Apri/16.2008
eforestation
Tree
J nipero Serra Bouleva
City Council April
Junipero Serra Boulevard Tree Reforestation
City Council April 16,2008
unipero Serra Boulevard Tree Reforestati
City Council Apri/16,2008
1
tio
nipero Serra Boulevard Tree Reforesta
April
-
16,2008
City Council
yea
iod
Junipero Serra Boulevard Tree Reforestation
- -
City April
16,2008
Council
unipero Serra Boulevard Tree Reforestation
City Council April 16, 2008
BLVD. ,(KINE> DRIVE l^IE5TSOROC\SH BL YO. ~
MEOIAN I MEt? \,
H
!~'" IAN .:;z ~\~l't ~ \ \\
Ir'~-,l~ ~ i'""
1\
~~~~~~~~nf~!li
unipero Serra Boulevard Tree Reforestation
City Council Apri/16,2008
BLVD. l^IE5TSOROC\SH 6L YO. ~ \
MEOIAN I
MEt?IAN .:;z ~\~l't ~ \
lill~!II!!!1~!II!~~~\~~!
Junipero Serra Boulevard Tree Reforestation
City Council April 16,2008
BLVD. DRIVE l^IE5ll3OROl.\5H BL YO. ~
MEOIAN I MEt? \\
IAN .:;z ~\~l't ~ \ ~\
~
i:i~n::>o:Ji:i.~o:.Ii:i.~~;,c.;;.,;,:
~"__"&__U'__""__._
;;:}:;;~:;~~g:;:~t1' /~~~
Junipero Serra Boulevard Tree Reforestation
City Council Apri/16,2008
BLVD. DRIVE l^IE5T6OROl1GH BL YO. ~
MEOIAN I
MEt?IAN .:;z ~\~l't ~ \ \\
i;nU':;'=HI.:i~UI$~'i;;;;
'''.''--''-'-_.&'--<'''"~~-
;;;~:;c:;':;~;;:~:;l;~8;:~W'
Junipero Serra Boulevard Tree Reforestation
City Council April 16,2008
I/H1CKEY BLYO. MEOIAN I ,(KINE> DRIVE l^IE5TSOROC\SH BL YO. ~
/1 ,Il MEt?IAN .:;z ~\~l't ~ ,,\\
- L~ 1" , ,~
~
I( '-'">~'--~~_.
I'
~i~~i~j~i
pero Serra Bouleva Tree Reforestati
-
April 16, 2008
jllESTI9OROll6H BLVD. \
..- \\\
~\~l't ~ -\
MEt?IAN .:;z
,(KINE> DRIVE
~~
~
I
MEOIAN I
rH1GKEY BLVD.
/1/
.,-/ !
Tree Reforestati
unipero Serra Bouleva
Apri/16,2008
BLVD. ,(KINE> DRIVE jllESTI9OROll6H
MEOIAN I
,Il MEt?IAN .:;z
i- I ,.
I ( , ----..=,::::;
1
:~~~~rii=ilm~mmmg~~r:
Junipero Serra BOUlevard Tree Reforestation
City Council April 16, 2008
BLVD. I'RIVE l^IE5ll3OROl.\5H BL YO. ~
MEOIAN I
AN ~ ~\~l't ~ \ \\
fiarnlitia
iUaSiiHJ;;r
Junipero Serra Bouleva Tree Reforestatiol
-
Council Apri/16,2008
oUlevard Tree Reforestati
April
Council
Boulevard Tree Reforestati
April
evard Tree Reforestati
nipero Serra Boulevard Tree Reforestati
City Council April 16, 2008