Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 96-2002RESOLUTION 96-2002 CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City has identified a need for upgrades and improvements to the City's sewer systerq in the East of 101 Area ("Project"); and WHEREAS, in July 2002, an Initial Study analyzing the potential environmental impacts of implemer ting the Project and a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared by the City in order to assure compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration includes an assessment of potential environmental impacts as set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines a'~d recommends a number of mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to less- than-significant levels; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA, the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together wit'a any comments received during the public review, must be considered and approved prior to any approval of the Project; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for public comment for thirty days starting on July 19, 2002 and ending August 19, 2002; and WHEREAS, comments were received from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, C/CAG (San Mateo County Association of Government/Airport Land Use Commission), State Office of Planning and Research, and the State Water Resources Control Board; and WHEREAS, based upon comments recommends minor revisions as shown in the hereto as Exhibit A; and received during the thirty-day period, staff draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, attached WHEREAS, the improvements identified in the 2002 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration will undergo additional separate environmental review once the improvements have been sufficiently engineered to identify their scope and potential impacts; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA, it is necessary to adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes necessary to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that: Based on all evidence in the record, including the initial study and comments received, the Council makes the following findings in support of the Mitigated Negative Declaration: mo That there is no substantial evidence the Project will have a significant effect on the environment. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. 2. The Council approves and adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration with minor c aanges to mitigation measures as provided in Exhibit A. 3. The Council adopts a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Sewer Improvement Program, attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Director of Public Works shall keep a copy of all the documents and other materials, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based, on file at 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco City Hall. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of October 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Joseph A. Fernekes, Raymond L. Green and Karyl Matsumoto, Mayor Pro Tem Pedro Gonzalez and Mayor Eugene R. Mullin NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. ATTEST: City Clerk Mitigated Negative Declaration South San Francisco Sewer Improvement Program ........ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2002 Mitigation Measure Air Quality: Mitigation Measure 1 The project contractor shall adhere to appropriate methods recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to minimize air borne pollution, including but not limited to frequent watering of open trenches, covering of excavated dirt and related actions. Dust control measures shall be included on contractor project specifications. Implementing Responsibility I m°nit°ring [ m°nit°ring Responsibility Schedule Project Contractor South San Francisco Public Works Department During project construction Biological Resources: Mitigation Measure 2 a) Prior to commencement of the Colma South San Creek bank stabilization portion of the project, a qualified biologist shall prepare a Construction Management Plan to ensure that any impacts to wetlands and special- status plant and animal species are minimized to the fullest extent possible. The Plan shall include fencing of sensitive areas not part of the project, limitations on work below the spring high tide elevation, Francisco Public Works Department South San Francisco Public Works Department Prior to construction adjacent to Colma Creek Mitigated Negative Declaration, South San Francisco Sewer Improvement Program, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, October 2002 Page 1 Verification Mitigation Measure and use of erosion control techniques to '~nimize erosion into the Creek. hnplementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility b) Prior to commencement of any tunneling under Colma Creek, a preconstruction survey shall be completed by a qualified biologist to ensure no sensitive plant or animal species or habitats will be disturbed by tunnel construction activities. If deemed necessary by the biologist, a Construction Management Plan shall be prepared for this portion of the project that shall include, but not be limited to, placement of construction fencing, restrictions on times of construction, restrictions on placement of trench spoils, restrictions on construction staging areas and similar rearm'es that would ensure any biological resources impacts would be less- than-significant. South San Francisco Public Works Department South San Francisco Public Works Department Necessary permits shall also be obtained from appropriate regulatory agencies. Biological Resources: Mitigation Measure 3 The proposed wet weather pond is located South San in an area identified in the General Plan for Francisco Public Sensitive Biological Resources. Consistent Works Department with General Plan policies, the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, South San Francisco Sewer Improvement Program, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, October 2002 South San Francisco Public Works Department Page 2 Monitoring Schedule Prior to construction adjacent to Colma Creek Prior to construction of the wet weather holding pond Verification Mitigation Measure wet weather pond should be designed to allow for the establishment of emergent native vegetation, such as cattail and bulrush around the perimeter. Ideally, the no~lherly and easterly side slopes should not exceed 3:1, to allow for the establishment of a wider band of emergent vegetation. Any planting or removal of native vegetation in the proposed wet weather pond shall be scheduled during the non-nesting season (after August 31 and before October 15) to avoid potential disturbance to nesting birds. Cultural Resources: Mitigation Measure 4 An Archeological Resource Program shall be prepared by a qualified archeologist prior to start of any construction which shall include: a) Provision for submittal of Section 106- level analysis for each project component as they are designed and submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board for State Revolving Loan funding. b) Language added on individual project improvement plans and specifications to the effect that if archeological materials or artifacts are identified, work on that portion of the project shall cease until a resource protection plan conforming to CEQA Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Schedule South San Francisco Public Works Department South San Francisco Public Works Department Mitigated Negative Declaration, South San Francisco Sewer Improvement Program, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, October 2002 Prior to commencement of construction , Page 3 Mitigation Measure Verification Section 15064.5 is prepared by a qualified archeologist and/or-paleontologist and approved by the San Francisco Public Works Director or an authorized representative. Project work may be resumed in compliance with such plan. If human remains are encountered, the County Coroner shall be contacted immediately and the provisions of State law candied out. Geology and Soils: Mitigation Measure 5 Contractor specifications for this project shall require the preparation and implementation of an erosion control plan for all portions of the project that would involve trenching, excavation or stockpiling of dirt. The plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and be consistent with applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board guidelines and standards. Ianplementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Schedule Project contractor South San Francisco Public Works Department Prior to commencement of grading Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Mitigation Measure 6 Prior to commencement of each phase of South San construction, the City shall complete a Francisco Public hazardous materials characterization study Works Department for all underground portion of the project, employing a protocal approved by appropriate regulatory agencies with jurisdiction. If hazardous materials are Mitigated Negative Declaration, South San Francisco Sewer Improvement Program, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, October 2002 South San Francisco Public Works Department Prior to commencement of construction Page 4 Mitigation Measure Implementing Responsibility Francisco Public Works Department South San Francisco Public Works Department encountered, either in the soil or _ groundwater, a soil and/or groundwater remediation plan shall be prepared and implemented indicating methods of removal and disposal of the material, including methods to minimize release of hazardous materials into the atmosphere. The Plan shall include a worker safety program. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Mitigation Measure 7 An asbestos survey of pump station South San structures shall be preformed consistent with National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollution guidelines. If warranted, a remediation plan to remove asbestos shall be prepared and implemented. A lead-based paint survey shall be conducted and, if lead-based paint is encountered, the requirements as outlined in Cal OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, CCR Section 1532.1 shall be followed by the City. Land Use and Plmming: Mitigation Measure 8 The City shall undertake an advance notification program to property owners and residents that could be affected by the proposed construction program indicating, at minimum, a description of proposed Monitoring Responsibility South San Francisco Public Works Department Monitoring Schedule South San Francisco Public Works Department Prior to commencement of construction on all pump stations Mitigated Negative Declaration, South San Francisco Sewer Improvement Program, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, October 2002 Prior to commencement of construction Verification Page 5 Mitigation Measure Implementing Responsibility Francisco Public Works Department work, hours of operation, construction phasing and an individual to be notified in the event of emergencies. Noise: Mitigation Measure 9 For the Winston Manor project component, Project contractor construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 am to 6 pm, Monday- Saturday. No construction shall occur on Sunday on local, State or federal holidays. Exceptions may be granted on an emergency basis by the South San Francisco City Engineer. Construction activities shall be deemed to include vehicle warm-up and maintenance and delivery of construction materials. These limitations shall be included in all construction plans and specifications for the project. Transportation/Traffic: Mitigation Measure 10 A Traffic Construction Management Plan South San shall be prepared prior to commencement of construction, identifying specific methods to be unde~laken to ensure that peak hour traffic can flow freely and that access to abutting properties is maintained for emergency vehicles. This shall include vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle modes of transportation. The Management Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the South Monitoring Responsibility Mitigated Negative Declaration, South San Francisco Sewer Improvement Program, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, October 2002 Monitoring Schedule South San Francisco Public Works Department During construction of Winston Manor portion of project South San Francisco Public Works Department Prior to commencement of construction Page 6 Verification Mitigation Measure San Francisco Police and Fi~e ....... Departments. Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Schedule Verification Mitigated Negative Declaration, South San Francisco Sewer Improvement Program, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, October 2002 Page 7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Lead Agency City of South San Francisco Prepared By Jerry Haag, Urban Planner July 2002 Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................................... 2 Applicant/Contact Person ................................................................... 2 Project Location and Context ................................................................ 2 Project Description ............................................................................. 3 Enviro_-unental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................. 13 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ..................................................... 15 Attachment to Initial Study .................................................................. 26 1. Aesthetics ....................................................................... 26 2. Agricultural Resources ...................................................... 27 3. Air Quality ..................................................................... 27 4. Biological Resources ......................................................... 3 ! 5. Cultural Resources ........................................................... 35 6. Geology and Softs ............................................................. 44 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................... 47 ~. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................49 9. Land Use and Planning ..................................................... 52 10. Mineral Resources ............................................................ 54 11. Noise ............................................................................. 54 12. Population and Housing .................................................... 56 13. Public Services ................................................................. 58 14. Recreation ...................................................................... 59 15. Transportation/Traffic ...................................................... 60 16. Utilities and Service Systems .............................................. 61 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance .....................................63 Initial Study Preparers ......................................................................... 64 Agencies and Organizations Consulted ................................................... 64 Refere .~ces ........................................................................................ 64 City of South San Francisco Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study Introduction This Iritial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and assesses the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project described below. The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. Appl!cant/Contact Person City o! South San Francisco Public Works Department 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco CA 94083 Attn: Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer Project Location and Context The project is sited in the eastern portion of South San Francisco within San Mateo County. The proposed project includes a number of related construction improvements located east and west of US 101 and south of Oyster Point Boulevard. Many of the proposed improvements are located within existing roadway rights-of-way. Other improvements are proposed at the City of South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP), located at the easterly terminus of Belle Air Road east of Airport Boulevard. Exhib:_t 1 depicts the regional setting of South San Francisco and Exhibit 2 shows the location of the project in context with nearby major streets and highways, San Francisco Bay and other features. Land '.~ses near the project area include (Colma Creek), an inland water way that generally flows from west to east, which flows into San Francisco Bay; San Francisco Bay to the east, US 101, a north-south freeway that extends through the project area, a large commercial facility along Airport Boulevard (Costco Wholesale) and a combination of light industrial and warehouse uses interspersed through the area. City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program Page 2 July 2002 Project Description Project history and background The (WQCP) was built in the 1950's to serve a small residential population of South San Francisco as well as a number of large industrial uses located on the east side of US 101. The WQCP also serves the City of San Bruno and portions of Daly City and the City of Colma. All of the above cities are members of the North Bayside System Unit, which is the joint powers authority for disposal of treated effluent into San Francisco Bay. The WQCP is presently operating under a Cease and Desist Order issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board in 1997. The Order notes that Plant equipment is dated and no longer complies with current discharge requirements. The Order also notes that the wastewater collection system (sewer system) receives high inflows during the rainy season of each year. This is due to older, leaky pipes and varior, s cross-connections between storm drains and the sewer system. Because of this, syster_a is inadequate to convey sewage during the rainy season. The Order establishes milestones to be met by the plant operator to comply with state and federal discharge requirements into San Francisco Bay. The City completed construction of WQCP improvements in May, 2002. The project upgraded treabxtent processes and provided peak wet weather flow facilities. The dry weather capacity of the upgraded plant is 13.0 mgd. The completed project did not, however, include upgrade of deficiencies associated with the local sewage collection system. In adcition, several portions of the City's sewer system in the East of 101 geographic area of the City have been identified as older and in need of replacement. This includes older pumping stations and underground sewer lines. Several major employers in the east o_-' 101 area have expressed a desire to expand current facilities, consistent with land use ar.d development intensities allowed under the recently-adopted General Plan, but have not been able to do so because of the inadequate sewer service in this portion of the community. Proposed improvements The current project is intended to fulfill two objectives: · Upgrade the South San Francisco wastewater collection and treatment system to accommodate wet weather flows consistent with the RWQCB Order; · Upgrade other sewer improvements within the East of 101 portion of South San Francisco for public health and safety protection. The p-.oposed project is not intended to increase the overall wastewater treatment and/or disposal capacity of the City's wastewater treatment plant. Localized City of South San Francisco Page 3 Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program July 2002 wastewater collection facilities will be increased in size to replace existing failing facilities and to accommodate proposed expansion of local business in accord with the South San Francisco General Plan. Wet weather project components With regard to wet weather upgrades to the Wastewater Collection System, proposed improvements include: -Jpgrade the existing San Mateo Pump station, located northwest of San Mateo Avenue and Colma Creek. The new station will be able to convey a peak wet weather flow of 30.0 mgd. New submersible pumps will be installed in the existing building. A new above grade building would be constructed for the electrical controls and a generator. The San Mateo Pump Station presently has a pumping capacity of 14.4 mgd. Property acquisition from San Mateo County is also proposed to accommodate this portion of the project (see/ti on Exhibit 3). Adding a new 36-inch diameter sewer force main and replacement gravity sewer mains ranging in size from 8-inches to 12-inches in diameter within the right-of- way of Lowrie Avenue from the San Mateo Pump Station in a southerly direction to Shaw Avenue, a distance of approximately 4,400 feet. Replacement sewer lines would also be placed in San Mateo Avenue and within an easement between the two streets. Along Shaw Road, the new sewer line would extend to the Shaw Road-Pumping Station. For approximately one-half of this distance, the replacement pipe would be installed by "pipe-bursting," whereby the new pipe would be installed within an existing older pipe with minimal need for excavation or trenching. The remaining portion of the new pipe would be installed with'traditional trenching methods. As part of this project component, the new pipe would be installed under Colma Creek as part of the San Mateo County Creek Channelization Project (see #2 on Exhibit 3). A replacement pump station would be constructed on the site of the Shaw Road Pump Station, which is located on the north side of Shaw Road approximately 500 feet west of the US 101.The existing pump station would be demolished and the replacement pump station built adjacent to the existing facility. The replacement pump station would have a capacity of 25 mgd. Acquisition of a 15 foot wide strip of property on the east side of the site is also proposed to accommodate these improvements (see #3 on Exhibit 3). East of the Shaw Road pumping station, a new 42-inch diameter force main would be built paralleling an existing 30-inch main. The new main would be routed below the right-of-way of US 101 and then extend to the WQCP for treatment (see #4 on Exhibit 3). Reconstruction of approximately 800 linear feet of the south side of the Colma Creek bank with an articulated concrete mat for bank stabilization purposes. The reconstructed area would be approximately 30 feet wide, for a total of City of South San Francisco Initial S-.udy/Sewer Improvement Program Page 4 July 2002 approximately 24,000 square feet of concrete mat. As part of the project, the slope of the bank would be reduced from approximately 1:1.5 to a 1:2 slope for seismic stability purposes. Revegetation of the creek bank would also be undertaken. Work on this portion of the project is to be scheduled so as to avoid interference with breeding, nesting or migration periods of wildlife and birds (see//8 on Exhibit 3). This portion of the project is being undertaken to ensure that the upland portion of the City's WQCP near the slope area is fully stabilized and will not fail. Conversion of existing sludge drying beds to a wet weather holding pond at the easterly end of the Water Quality Control Plant. The pond, which covers an area of approximately 3.0 acres would be excavated and would be used for temporary storage of treated effluent during wet weather periods. Temporary storage is needed because of significantly increased sewage flows during wet weather periods, greater than can be accommodated by the effluent pump station and out-fall pipeline. Stored effluent would be discharged via the outfall pipeline after peak rainfall has subsided. Included in this element would be a new vacuum truck unloading station. This is needed to replace a current dumping station site located within the area of the new storage pond that is proposed to be eliminated (see//5 on Exhibit 3). East of 101 project components A second portion of the project includes improvements to the City's sewer system withir, and immediately adjacent to the East of 101 area. The purpose of this effort is to replace older, leaking facilities with modem sanitary sewer lines and related improvements to protect the public health, safety and welfare. A summary of these improvements include: Construction of a 12-inch diameter relief gravity sewer within the Airport Boulevard right-of-way, from Chapman Avenue south to Armour Avenue. The purpose of this sewer line is to upsize the existing 8-inch diameter line to handle anticipated wet weather (see #6 on Exhibit 3). Construction of a replacement 6-inch diameter sewer within the Winston Manor area. The line begins at the intersection of Hickey Boulevard and Cameritas Way and continues to a manhole just west of E1 Camino Real. The existing sewer has been damaged by tree root intrusion. The City is exploring the possibility of trenchless methods to replace this line (see # 7 on Exhibit 3). Upgrades to Pump Station No. 2, located on the south side of Oyster Point Boulevard just west of Gateway Boulevard. The upgrade would include replacement of existing pumps to increase the capacity of the station to 2,400 gpm to better convey wet weather flows as well as variable speed controls for the pumps and a new emergency generator (see item//9 on Exhibit 3). City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program Page 5 July 2002 ,Construction of a 10-inch diameter new sewer within the right-of-way of Gateway Boulevard from Oyster Point Boulevard approximately 850 feet south of the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard (see #10 on Exhibit 3). Upgrades to Pump Station No. 4, located on the east side of Harbor Way. Upgrades are proposed to include replacement of two existing pumps to accommodate anticipated future sewage flows of 9,000 gpm. Other improvements would include installation of variable speed controls and other electrical system upgrades, installation of a stand-by generator, a crane/davit structure and installation of a monster grinder at the influent channel (see item #11 on Exhibit 3). · Construction of approximately 2,800 feet of a new 21-inch diameter sewer line between Pump Station No. 4 and the WQCP (see # 12 on Exhibit 3). Upgrade to Pump Station No. 7 located at the southerly terminus of Littlefield Avenue. The upgrade would include replacing two existing pumps within the facility with three new pumps to increase wet weather pumping capacity as well adding variable motor speed controls and an emergency generator (see #13 on Exhibit 3). Upgrade to Pump Station No. 8 located on the north side of Forbes Boulevard west of Allerton Avenue. Two existing pumps would be replaced with three new ipumps to accommodate wet weather flows. Other programmed improvements include installation of variable speed motor controls and an emergency generator (see #14 on Exhibit 3). · Construction of s new 15-inch diameter sewer within the right-of-way of Grand Avenue, from Forbes Avenue to Allerton Avenue (see #15 on Exhibit 3). Upgrade to Pump Station 10, located on the south side of Forbes Boulevard east of Allerton Way. The upgrade would include two new submersible pumps, upgrades to the dry pit entrance and a standby generator (see #16 on Exhibit 3). Construction of two new pipelines within the existing fight-of-way of Oyster Point Boulevard. The Oyster Point Trunk begins approximately 240 feet south of Oyster Point Boulevard in Eccles Avenue and continues westward to Pump Station No. 2. This improvement consists of a new 18-inch pipe to replace the existing 12-inch sewer that continues on the Gateway Boulevard from Pump Station No. 2. The portion that continues eastward along Oyster Point Boulevard from Gateway Boulevard consists of a new 15-inch pipe that replaces the existing 10-inch and 12-inch diameter sewer. A new 12-inch pipe is needed to replace the existing 880 feet of 8-inch pipe, which continues along Oyster Point Boulevard and then jogs southerly along Eccles Avenue (see # 17 on Exhibit 3). City of South San Francisco Initial S~udy/Sewer Improvement Program Page 6 July 2002 Construction of a new 18-inch diameter sewer line within the right-of-way of Allerton Avenue between East Grand Avenue and Forbes Blvd (2,200 feet), and approximately 600 ft. of an 18-inch diameter pipe in East Grand Avenue between Allerton Avenue and Littlefield Avenue (see # 18 on Exhibit 3). Construction of a new 27-inch pipe to replace the existing 18-inch pipe along East Grand Avenue to 150 feet east of Roebling Avenue. The portion that continues southeast along East Grand consists of a new 24-inch pipe to replace the existing 18-inch, then 15-inch to Littlefield Avenue. Finally, a new 21-inch pipe along East Grand Avenue from Little field to Allerton Way (parallel to the downstream portion of the Allerton Trunk is needed to replace the existing 15-inch pipe (see #19 on Exhibit 3). Construction of approximately 200 feet of a 12-inch diameter sewer pipe in DNA Way south of Forbes Boulevard and 600 feet of 10-inch diameter sewer west of DNA Way to 90 feet east of Kaufrnan (see #20 on Exhibit 3). Upgrade to Pump Station 1, located at the terminus of Oyster Point Boulevard. The upgrade program would include replacing two existing pumps with two new pumps and a new standby generator (see #21 on Exhibit 3). Upgrade to Pump Station 3, located along Swift Avenue. Proposed upgrades would include replacement of centrifugal pumps with dry well submersible pumps with variable speed controls. A standby generator is also proposed as is a crane/davit for pump removal as well as raising the existing vent stack and upgrading electrical controls (see #22 on Exhibit 3). Construction of approximately 3,200 feet of a new 15-inch diameter sewer pipe within Swift Avenue and along an existing railroad spur line. Poor soil conditions along this alignment of the sewer have caused sags along the Swift Subtrtmk, resulting in reduced capacity (see #23 on Exhibit 3). Construction of approximately 2,400 feet of new 8-inch and 10-inch diameter sewer pipe within Littlefield Avenue (see #24 on Exhibit 3). Upgrade to Pump Station 6, located on the south side of Utah Avenue at Colma Creek. The upgrade would include a new motor control center, a new motor control system, an exterior chain link fence and other miscellaneous improvements. Due to settling of the structure over time, the pump station may need to be reconstructed. This would include reconstruction on the same building footprint as the present structure (see #25 on Exhibit 3). Construction of approximately 1,000 feet of new 8-inch diameter sewer pipe within Harbor Way between Utah Avenue and 80 feet north of Mitchell (see #26 on Exhibit 3). City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program Page 7 July 2002 Construction of approximately 2,100 feet of new 15-inch diameter sewer pipe within Executive Drive north of East Grand Avenue and in east Grand Avenue between Executive Drive and Gateway Boulevard to correct historic root intrusion problems (see #27 on Exhibit 3). Two new influent pumps and three new effluent pumps would be installed at the WCQP. These pumps would accommodate peak wet weather flows. These elements are not shown on Exhibit 3. Phasing of improvements The proposed project is anticipated to be phased over a number of years, beginning construction late in 2002, assuming all necessary approvals are granted and funding is approved, with the last phase of construction ending in 2004. Proposed funding Funding of the wet weather improvement portion of the project is proposed to be through the California State Water Resources Control Board's State Revolving Loan Fund. Improvements to the sewer system in the East of 101 area would be locally funded through user charges and impact fees set by the City of South San Francisco. State of Califo_-nia Revolving Loan Funds would also be used. City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program Page 8 July 2002 San ~ ~ ,: ,:.:, : . .~., / Concord Valley I '~ ..,. Walnut San Francisco South Francisco San Mateo ~laywa rd Fremont P easanton Llvermore Half Moon Bay Redwoo~ City Palo Alto 17 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SEWER UPGRADE PROGRAM INITIAL STUDY N Exhibit 1 REGIONAL LOCATION 0 2 4 6 8 10 miles Francisco , Montara Area shown in Exhibit 3 -~ o Brisbane So. San Francisco / .... ~.~- ........ : Millbrae ~:~ Hillsborough San Francisco Bay o Foster btateo ~ CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SEWER UPGRADE PROGRAM INITIAL STUDY N 0 Exhibit 2 SITE CONTEXT I 2 3 4 5 miles #7 1V4 mi. (see inset) SOURCE: Carollo Engineers, March 2002. CITY OF SOU-H SAN FRANCISCO SEWER UPGRADE PROGRAM INITIAL STUDY LOCATION #7 INSET (same scale) ",~;; ':.?, .~ . -' ;:.:- ~.',~', '::~;,~, :;'~ ~' /.,>. ~ ', ? ',.<~ ,;~,;, , ~, ,~ ,~ Exhibit 3 PROJECT LOCATION (27 sites) ~ Sewer, Forcemain, or Riprap (see text) ~ Pump Station ~ Effluent Storage Pond NOT TO SCALE o I/2 3/4 I mile 1. Proj, .ct description: Sewer improvement program to include upgrades to the South San Francisco sewer system to accommodate peak wet weather sewer flows at the wastewater treatment plant and replacements and upgrades to other existing sewer facilities to correct substandard facilities in the east of 101 portion of the community. 2. Lead. agency: City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Street South San Francisco CA 94803 3. Cont:act person: Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer (650) 829- 6664 4. Project location: 5. project sponsor: Generally located south of Oyster Point Boulevard, east of the US 101 Freeway, north of San Bruno canal City of South San Francisco 6. Gen .-ral Plan designation: 7. Zon[ng: 8. Pub Varies, Light Industrial and Public Uses Varies, primarily Light Industrial and Public Uses ic agency required approvals: Approval of Negative Declaration (City of South San Francisco) Approval of Improvement Plans (City of South San Francisco) Approval of a 404 Nationwide Permit for Colma Creek Bank Stabilization (Army Corps of Engineers) Approval by San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board for Colma Creek Bank Stabilization Permit by Bay Conservation and Development Commission for Colma Creek Bank Stabilization Encroachment permit for work in US 101 right-of-way (Caltrans) City of South San Francisco Initial S;udy/Sewer Improvement Program Page 12 July 2002 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. esthetics - Agricultural x Quality Air Resources Biological x Cultural Resources x Geology/Soils Resources X X Hazards and x Hydrology/Water x Land Use/ Hazardous Quality Planning Materials Mineral Resources x Noise - x iPublic Services - Recreation x x Utilities / Service - Mandatory Systems Findings of t Significance Population/ Housing Transportation/ Circulation Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency): On th~ basis of this initial evaluation: __ I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and the previous Negative Declaration certified for this project by the City o_-' South San Francisco adequately addresses potential impacts. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared. __ I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitiggtion, measures based on earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets, if the effect is a 'potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An E.~vironmental Impact Report is required, but must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed. City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program Page 13 July 2002 I fin~ that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, incl~iding revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project. City of S¢~uth San Francisco Initial StLidy/Sewer Improvement Program Date: For: Page 14 July 2002 EvalUation of Environmental Impacts 1) A~ brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rUpture zone). A "no impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action, including off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction aS well as operational impacts. 3) 4) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that ah effect is significant. If there are one or more "potentially significant impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. "Less Than Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" implies the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "potentially significant effect" to a i"less than significant impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. City of', Initial S ~outh San Francisco Iudy/Sewer Improvement Program Page 15 July 2002 Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing o~ sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist) Note: A full discussion of each item is found following the checklist. I. Aesthetics. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic v:_sta? (Source: 10) b) Su'>stantially damage scenic resources, ir cluding but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 10) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: 10) d) Create a new source of substantial light or g_are which would adversely affect day or n:_ghttime views in the area? (Source: 10) II. Agr'_cuitural Resources Would the project: a) Cdnvert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as showing on the maps prepared pursuant to tl:_e Farmland Mapping and Monitoring P':ogram of the California Resources Agency, to a non-agricultural use? (Source: 1. 10) b) Cc nflict with existing zoning for agriculture u:;e, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 1. 10) c) Im,olve other changes in the existing el ~vironment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of f~,xmland to a non-agricultural use? (Source: 1, 10) III. Air Quality (Where available, the s:_gnificance criteria established by the aPlicable air quality management district y be relied on to make the following determinations). Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 2) b) V.'olate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source: 2) Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation X X X X X X X X X City of louth San Francisco Initial S :udy/Sewer Improvement Program Page 16 July 2002 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative th :esholds for ozone precursors? (2) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Source:2, 10) e) Create objectionable odors? (Source: 2,9) IV. Biological Resources. Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the Caiifomia Department of Fish and Game o~ the U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 2, 3, 4) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ri-.~arian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 2, 3, 4) c) Have a substantial adverse impact on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal p0ol, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, eling, hydrological interruption or other ans? (SOurce: 2, 3, 4) d) Inlerfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery s:'tes? (Source: 2, 3, 4) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree Protection ordinances? (Source: 2, 3, 4) City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation X X X Less than Significant Impact X No Impact X X X X Page 17 July 2002 f) Cor.flict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 1) V. Cultural Resources. Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Sec. 15064.5? (Source:5) b) Ca'~se a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 6) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature? (Source: 6) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? (Source: 6) VI. Geology and Soils. Would the project a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Ru-~ture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist or based on other known evidence o_-' a known fault (Source: 2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (2) iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (2,) iv) Landslides? (2, 10) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (2, 10) c) Be. located on a geologic unit or soil that is u~stable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in o_~- and off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or similar hazards (Source: 2) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 13-1-B of the Uniform Building Code ('_ 994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Source: 2, 9) City of l;outh San Francisco Initial S :udy/Sewer Improvement Program Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation X X X Less than Significant Impact X X No Impact X X X X X X X Page 18 July 2002 e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste? (Source: 11) VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the er vironment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials (Source: 7) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the er vironment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the re ease of hazardous into the environment? (Source:7) c) Err.it hazardous emissions or handle h~ardous materials, substances, or waste w:thin one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source: 7) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5 ar.d, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source: 7) e) Fo_-' a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such plan has not been adopted, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 2) f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 2) g) Irc_pair implementation of or physically ir terfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation p_an? (Source: 2, 10) City of South San Francisco Initial S;udy/Sewer Improvement Program Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation X X Less than Significant Impact X X X No Impact X X X Page 19 July 2002 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving w'_ldland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 10) IX. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source: 2,10) b) Su'>stantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (Source: 2, 10) c) Su3stantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the aeration of the course of a stream or fiver, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? (Source: 8, 10) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas, including through tie alteration of a course or stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Source: 8, 1 ~) e) Create or contribute runoff water which Would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Source: 8, 10) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Source: 10) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary Or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? (Source: 2) City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact X No Impact X X X X X X X Page 20 July 2002 h) PlaCe within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which impede or redirect flood flows? (Source: 2) i) ExPose people or structures to a significant ri~k of loss, injury, and death involving fl4oding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (2) j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? IX. Latd Use and Planning. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Source: 1, 2, 10) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental ef.'ect? (Source: 1, 2) c) conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (1, 2, 7) X. Mineral Resources. Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Source: 1, 2, 10 b) ReSult in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site d~lineated on a local general Plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Source: 1, 2) XI. No'_se. WouM the proposal result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise le~vels in excess of standards established in tile general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (~ource: 2) b) Exposure of persons or to generation of eXcessive groundbome vibration or gloundbome noise levels? (Source: 2, 10) c) A ,ubstantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the project? (Source: 21 10) City oI South San Francisco Initial S~udy/Sewer Improvement Program Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation X X Less than Significant Impact X No Impact X X X X X X X X Page 21 July 2002 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase ir ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? (Source:2) e) Fo_- a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working n the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 2) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 2) XII. Population and Housing. Would the project a) Induce substantial population growth in an atea, either directly or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 11) b) DiSplace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of resplacement housing elsewhere? (11) c) DiSplace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the replacement of housing elsewhere? (Source: 10) XIII. Public Services. WouM the proposal: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse paysical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of Which could cause significant environmental irhpacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? (Sources: 1, 2, 9) iFire protection iPolice protection iSchools iParks i Other public facilities. City of South San Francisco Initial S~udy/Sewer Improvement Program Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation X Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X X Page 22 July 2002 XIV. 1~ ~ecreation: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated (Source: 2) b) DOes the project include recreational facilities ot require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source: 2) XV. T :ansportation and Traffic. Would the project: a) C~use an .increase in traffic which is s~bstant~al in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion at intersections)? (2, 10) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for ~_esignated roads or highways? (2) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, i~cluding either an increase in traffic levels Or a change in location that results in Substantial safety risks? (10) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm equipment? (8, 10) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (10) f) R~Sult in inadequate parking capacity? (8) g) COnflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (such as bus turnouts and b:_cycle facilities) (1) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation X X X Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X City of!South San Francisco Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program / Page 23 July 2002 XVI. Utilities and Service Systems. WouM the project a) ExCeed wastewater treatment requirements of tl~e applicable Regional Water Quality C~ntrol Board7 (2) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects7 (2, 10) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion o~ existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental e~fects? (9 d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing water entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (2) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing c ~mmitments? (9) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (2) g) COmply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (2) XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade t'~e quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife s?ecies, cause a fish or wildlife population to c~rop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or e[iminate important examples of the major I: eriods of California history or prehistory? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact X No Impact X X X X X X X City of[South San Francisco Initial ~tudy/Sewer Improvement Program Page 24 July 2002 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, ~e effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or ir.directly? Source~ used to determine potential environmental impacts X 1. Sbuth San Francisco General Plan 2. Sbuth San Francisco General Plan Existing Conditions Report 3 Biological Resources Reconaisance for Colma Creek Bank Stabilization (LSA Associates) 4. Biological resources Reconaisance for Wet Weather Pond (Environmental Collaborative) 5. Architectural History Reconnaissance (Carey & Co.) 6. Archeological Reconnaissance (Holman & Associates) 7. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Treadwell & Rollo) 8. Improvement Plans for Proposed Project (Carollo Engineers) 9. Discussion with City staff or service provider 10. Site Visit 11. Other Source XVIIi Earlier Analyses Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negatiye declaration. Reference Section 15063 (c)(3)(d). a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for revieW. Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this Initial Study refer to environmental information contained in the General Plan and General Plan ELR (1999) (SCH#97122030), available for review at the South San Francisco Planning Department, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, during normal business hours. City of .~outh San Francisco Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program Page 25 July 2002 Attachment to Initial Study Discussion of Checklist 1. Aes hetics Envirm rrnental Setting The pre ect is set in a largely urbanized portion of the community, characterized by commercial land uses (along Airport Boulevard), light industrial uses (along Lowrie Avenu~ and Shaw Road), research and development and office uses (in the east of 101 area) and the City's Water Quality Control Plant, located at the terminus of Belle Air Road. With the exception of Colma Creek and San Francisco Bay, no significant or unusual aesthetic features are found within the project site, including unusual rock outcroppings or major scenic vistas. As a largely developed area, a number of light sources exist within the project area, primar!ly street and freeway lights, building and yard lights associated with existing development. City pump stations have one outdoor light each. Projecti Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? NI. The proposed project igenerally includes subsurface work and reconstruction of existing above ground Sewer pump stations in their present locations. Limited work would be done to a ortion of the southerly bank of Colma Creek adjacent to the Wastewater reatment Plant, however, this bank stabilization is proposed to blend in with existing bank conditions. No impacts or changes to scenic vistas would occur Should the proposal be implemented. b) !Substantially damage scenic resources, including state scenic highway? NI. No changes !to scenic resources are proposed, since much of the proposed work is intended to he subsurface so no impacts are anticipated with regard to this topic. c) iSubstantiaIly degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? NI. The project larea has been previously developed for a mix of commercial, office, research and idevelopment and similar uses, including a wastewater treatment plant. Proposed iconstruction would generally be below ground or within existing buildings. iThere would therefore be no impacts to the existing visual character or quality of Ithe project area. d) !Create light or glare? NI. A number of light sources presently exist within the ~project area. Approval and implementation of the proposed project would have i no impact on new sources of light and glare, since new construction would be below grade or inside buildings. No light sources are proposed for the Colma i Creek bank stabilization portion of the project or the wet weather holding pond, City of South San Francisco Initial Sludy/Sewer Improvement Program Page 26 July 2002 the two major above ground component of the proposal. No impacts are m'tticipated with regard to light and glare. 2. A§~icultural Resources Enviro_-u-nental Setting The project area has been developed for a number of years for primarily light industrial and commercial purposes. A portion of the project area includes the existing South San FranciSco Water Quality Control Plant, which has been locatedon the south side of Colma iCreek adjacent to San Francisco Bay since the 1950's. Although underlying soils may sqpport agriculture, no crops have not been cultivated in many years nor have any portior~s of the project area been used for animal grazing. No Williamson Act conserVation agreements have been signed for properties affected by this project, since the great majority of the land is owned by public agencies. No agricultural zoning had been adopted for any portion of the project area by the City of South San Francisco. Project Impacts a-c) Convert Prime Farmland, conflict with agricultural zoning or agriculture land use or [ o , ~onvert przme farmland to a non-agrzcultural use? NI. The project area lies in a highly urbanized area of South San Francisco and there would be no impact with regard to agricultural uses, zoning or Williamson Act agreements. 3. Air, Quality EnvirO~'nental Setting South San Francisco lies in the Bay Area's peninsula climatological subregion, which extends from northwest San Jose to the Golden Gate. The Santa Cruz Mountains extend up the icenter of the peninsula, with elevations exceeding 200 feet above sea level at the southerly end of the basin and decreasing to approximately 500 near South San Francisco. The San Bruno Gap in the mountain system extends from Fort Funston on the ocean ~o the San Francisco International Airport. Because the gap is oriented in the same direction as prevailing winds, marine air flows easily in the direction of San Francisco Bay. ~ Average annual wind speeds range from five to ten miles per hour and often carry air pollutants from South San Francisco to the east before they can accumulate The federal Clean Air Act requires the U.S. Environmental protection Agency (EPA) to identif~ air quality standards. California has also adopted more stringent ambient air quali~ standards for some pollutants. Table 1 summarizes current state and national standa~rds. Ciht el South San Francisco Initial $1 ud¥/$ewer ImproYement Program Page 27 July 2002 Table 1: Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Federal Time Primary Standard 1-Hour 0.12 ppm 8-Hour 0.08 ppm 8-Hour 9.0 ppm 1-Hour 35.0 ppm Annual 0.05 ppm 1 -Hour -- Annual 0.03 ppm 24-Hour 0.14 ppm 1 -Hour -- Annual 50 ug/m3 24-Hour 150 ug/m3 Annual 15 ug/m3 24-Hour 65 ug/m3 30-Day Avg. -- Month Avg. 1.5 ug/m3 Ozone CarbOn Monoxide Nitrogen Dioxide Sulfu~ Dioxide PM~0 PM2s Lead l ppm = parts per million ug/m3 = Micrograms per Cubic Meter Source: BAAQMD State Standard 0.09 ppm 9.0 ppm 20.0 ppm 0.25 ppm 0.05 ppm 0.5 ppm 30ug/m3 50 ug/m3 1.5 ug/m3 Under amendment to the federal Clean Air Act, the EPA has classified air basins as "attainment" or "non-attainment" areas for each type of pollutant, based on achievement of set standards. In 1988, the State of California adopted the Cahfornia Clean Air Act, which is patterned after federal legislation. South San Francisco lies within the non-county San Francisco Bay Area Basin. Table 2 summ~trizes the current attainment/non-attainment designations for the Bay Area. Table 2: Air Quality Attainment Status l~ollutant Applicable Area National State Ozone[ Region-wide Attainment Non-attainment CarboO Monoxide Urbanized Area Non-attainment Attainment ' Remainder of Basin Attainment Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide Region-wide Attainment Attainment Sulfur Dioxide Region-wide Attainment Attainment PM-101 Region-wide Unclassified Non-attainment Source:lSouth San Francisco General Plan EIR. 1999, ESA Associates. City of gouth San Francisco Initial S~udy/Sewer Improvement Program Page 28 July 2002 South San Francisco lies within the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAA(~MD), which operates a network of air pollution monitoring stations, none of which are located in South San Francisco. The nearest station is located in San Francisco, approximately seven miles north of South San Francisco. With the exception of PM-10, no violations of state or federal standards were recorded between 1992 and 1996. In 1994, 93 violation days for PM-10 were recorded. This is the highest number of violation days w!thin the five-year period. The BA~QMD also records citizen complaints regarding air pollution emissions and odors. While no specific complaints have been logged regarding the Wastewater Treatment Plant, several general complaints have been noted in the general area of the plant, i · Project iImpacts a) W~uld the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? NI. The proposed project would not conflict with the local Clean Air Plan adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, since no development would occur that would generate either additional auto trips or land uses that would result in greater automobile trips. No impacts are therefore anticipated. Since none of the p~oposed sewer improvements would indirectly induce additional population or employment growth by increasing dry weather sewage treatment capacity, no impacts would result regarding secondary impacts as well. b) W~uld the project violate any air quality standards? LS/M. Construction proposed sewer improvements would involve grading and excavation for utility trenching and related activities. Unless proper measures are undertaken to minimize air borne pollutants, potentially significant impacts may result with regard to short- tei'rn constr, uction air emissions. The following measure is recommended to reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure 1. The project contractor shall adhere to appropriate methods recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to minimize air borne pollution, including but not limited to frequent watering of open trenches, covering of excavated dirt and related actions. Dust control measures shall be included on contractor project specifications. Since proposed project funding would include State Revolving Loan funds that rely on funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the project is stlbject to the conformity requirements of the federal Clean Air Act and its amendments. The conformity provisions of the Act are designed to ensure that St~ndards.fe eral agencies contribute to efforts to achieve the National Ambient Air Quality The General Conformity rules require conformity determinations for projects if they are anticipated to generate more emissions than the minimum thresholds and City of S ~uth San Francisco Page 29 Initial Stl,dy/Sewer Improvement Program July 2002 a~ not specifically exempted by the regulation, The San Francisco Bay area is cc~rrently a federal non-attainment area for ozone, and the General Conformity r~les establish the following "de minimus" thresholds. 100 tons per year for VOCs 100 tons per year for NOx The City of South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant (WCQP) is a stationary source of air pollutants operating under a permit from the BAAQMD. CUrrent annual emissions of ozone precursors Reactive Organic Gasses (ROG) and l~itrogen Oxides (NOx) from this facility are shown on the following table. The proposed project would not increase overall wastewater treatment capacity and would therefore not change stationary emissions. However, during the approximate 2-year construction of project components, additional emissions would be generated by construction equipment and vehicles. The precise s~heduling of construction activities is currently unknown, so construction phase emissions have been estimated in conjunction with the project design engineer. It isi therefore assumed that, at any one time, construction of the project components may be occurring at three separate sites using the following construction equipment: 1 each, grader, backhoe, trencher, front'end loader, concrete saw, paver, roller. Emissions from simultaneous construction at the three sites were then estimated u~ing emission factors, load factors and engine horsepower estimated developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District in their CEQA Air Quality h~andbook. Work days were assumed to be 8 hours and construction was assumed tO occur on 250 days per year. Annual emissions from construction activities are shown on Table 3, below. Operational and construction emissions are individually and cumulatively S~ ~bstantially below the "de minimus' thresholds for ozone precursors established the region by the Federal Clean Air Act conformity rules. The proposed project 'ould not interfere with attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality tandards and would not require a conformity determination. Table 3. Annual Operational and Construction Emissions in Tons/Year ROG NOx Operation 4.5 3.1 Construction 6.1 19.9 De Minimus Threshold 100 100 Source: Donald Ballanti, 2002 City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program Page 30 July 2002 c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? NI. The proposed project would not generate additional automobile trips or land uses that would induce additional auto trips within South San Francisco. The project would also n6t involve any manufacturing or processing that would generate air pollutants. NO impacts are therefore anticipated. d,e) EJ~pose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odOrs ? NI. No residential uses, schools, hospitals or nursing homes exist within or adjacent to the project area, so no sensitive receptors would be affected by the p~oposed project. Although limited additional odors could be generated as a result of! project construction, no sensitive receptors exist in the area to be affected. There would therefore be no impact with regard to these topics. 4. Biological Resources Enviro_-amental Setting The majority of project components are located within upland, urbanized areas of South San Francisco. In many instances, proposed work includes trenching within existing paved _-oadways or replacing and/or upgrading existing sewer pumping stations within urbanized areas. Two exceptions exist to this general statement. First, one of the project components would involve excavating an existing sludge drying bed on the eastern site of the City's Water Quality Control Plant to provide for short-term storage of treated effluent during wet weather conditions. Second, stabilization of approximately 600 linear feet of the southe_-ly bank of Colma Creek is proposed. The remainder of the project components are not located in areas containing special- status plants or wildlife, nor located within or adjacent to wetland areas. A biological resources reconnaissance of the Colma Creek bank stabilization portion of the project was completed in May, 2001 by LSA Associates. The proposed and the adaptive reuse of the existing sludge drying bed as a wet weather containment pond was reviewed by Environmental Collaborative in March, 2002. The results of both reconn~aissance-level analyses are summarized below and are included as a appendix to this Irfftial Study. Plant life No special-status plant species were observed by LSA Associates within or adjacent to the Cob'ha Creek bank. A total of 24 special status plants were considered potentially presen' in the vicinity. This list is attached to the full LSA report in the Appendix. Eighteen of these species were eliminated for consideration due to absence of supporting habitat within the project area (e.g. those species requiring chaparral, woodland or coastal scrub habitats). Four species (Marsh Sandwort, Point Reyes birds- beak, Hairless popcorn flower and California sea bite) could potentially occur in the City of South San Francisco Page 31 Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program July 2002 wetland habitat along the northerly portion of the project site and could therefore not be eliminated from consideration. No special-status plants were noted within the sludge drying bed as part of the EnvirOnmental Collaborative report. Anima! life No special-status wildlife species were observed on or in the vicinity of the project site during LSA's site visit. A total of 24 special-status wildlife species were considered potent'ally present, which are set forth in the full LSA reconnaissance report (see Apper.dix). Five of these (Bay checkerspotted butterfly, Mission blue butterfly, San Bruno elfin butterfly, Callippe silverspotted butterfly and Bank swallow) were eliminated from consideration because of the absence of suitable habitat. Colma Creek provides foraging habitat for non special-status birds: short-eared owl, Western snowy plover~ California brown pelican, double-breasted cormorant, and California least tern.; howe~er, suitable nesting habitat for these species were not observed during the site visit. Two special-status fish species, steelhead and Chinook salmon, could occur in this portio~t of the Creek, but the drainage area does not provide suitable spawning habitat for either species. Western pond turtles are occasionally found in brackish habitats similar to the project area, but this species typically prefers habitats with more suitable basking and retreat sites. Conditions upstream may be more suitable for pond turtles and individuals could migrate through this portion of the creek as they move to and from more suitable habitat. Habitat conditions on this portion of the project site and in the vicinity are considered marginally suitable for the remaining seven special-status specie~ (salt marsh common yellowthroat, Alameda song sparrow, California black rail, salt marsh harvest mouse and salt marsh wandering shrew) could potentially occur on the sit~. However, based on the type and quality of available habitat, as well as the proximity of the site to other suitable habitat, these species have been determined to have a low probability of occurrence. The Efivironmental Collaborative report notes that WQCP creates conditions attractive to a ntlmber of birds, including gulls and blackbirds. The sludge drying bed has also been r~portedly used for nesting in the past by Canadian geese and other waterfowl and several active nests were observed during the latest site visit. Active nests are of geese and many other birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treat Act, which prohibits the taking, hunting, killing, selling or purchasing of migratory birds, their nests Or eggs. However, due to the on-going operation of the WQCP and absence of essential habitat features, it is unlikely that the site supports any special-status animal species. A small population of the State and Federally-endangered California clapper rail was reported from salt marsh habitat in San Bruno Point in 1975 (from the Califo~'da Natural Date Base, 1997), but it is unlikely that the small areas of pickleweed in the iproject vicinity are sufficient in size to support a local population of this subspecies. Wetlands City of ~South San Francisco Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program Page 32 July 2002 The portion of the project involving bank stabilization to Colma Creek contains tidal wetlan~l habitat. This wetland area is subject to tidal action and is composed of a nearly pure stand of cordgrass. This portion of the project would be subject to Corps of Engineers jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Regula',ory framework Biological resources are protected by the following primary local, state and federal regulazions: · '~Federal Endangered Spedes Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has i urisdiction over formally-listed threatened and endangered terrestrial and ifreshwater species. The act protects listed animal species from harm or take. iPlant species are also legally protected. · IClean Water Act: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible under section 404 of the Clean Water Act to regulate discharge of fill material into waters of the [United States, which include streams that are tributaries to navigable waters and itheir tributaries. · iRivers and Harbors Act: Certain structures and/or work in or affecting navigable iwaters of the U.S. are regulated under the authority of the U.S. Army Corps of iEngineers. The creation of any obstruction to the navigable capacity without i specific approval is prohibited. · i Migratory Bird Treaty Act: This Act prohibits the taking, hunting, killing, selling, [purchasing of migratory birds, eggs or nests. · !California Endangered Species Act: The California Department of Fish and Game ]has jurisdiction over state lrsted threatened, rare (plants) and endangered plant !and animal species. Also, species proposed for listing under the state act are !protected by its provisions. CDFG maintains a list pf species of special concems, defined as species that appear vulnerable to extinction due to declining I populations, limited ranges and continuing threats. · i Section 401 Water Quality Certification: All Corps permits, including Nationwide i Permits, require water quality certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water i Act. This is administered by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control i Board. The Regional Board has adopted a policy requiring mitigation for loss of : streambed, wetland or jurisdictional area. McAteer-Petris Act: The Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) was established under this legislation to prevent unnecessary filling of San Francisco Bay and to increase public access to the bayfront shoreline. City of South San Francisco Initial S~tudy/Sewer Improvement Program Page 33 July 2002 The Ci,-Y of South San Francisco has filed a Preconstruction Notice with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to obtain a Nationwide Permitl3 under the Clan Water Act for the Colma,Creek bank stabilization portion of the pro}ect. Projectl Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species? LS/M. The great majority of the project components are located within urbanized, upland areas where there would be no impact to special-status plant br animal species. The proposed bank stabilization of Colma Creek is located in an area that does not support high-value habitats so there would be less-than- ~Significant long-term impacts with regard to special-status resources. There ~vould however, be short-term impacts with regard to erosion and localized :listurbance during the construction phase of the bank reconstruction. The Following mitigation measure is therefore recommended to reduce any potential ~hort-term impacts to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure 2: Prior to commencement of the Co]ma Creek bank stabihzation portion of the project, a qualified biologist shall prepare a Construction Management Plan to ensure that any impacts to wetlands and special-status plant and animal species are minimized to the fullest extent possible. The Plan shall include fencing of sensitive areas not part of the project, limitations on work below the spring high tide elevation, and use of erosion control techniques to minimize erosion into the Creek. Necessary permits shall also be obtained from appropriate regulatory agencies. The following mitigation measure is recommended to minimize impacts of adapting the sludge drying pond portion of the project to migratory birds: Mitigation Measure 3: The proposed wet weather pond should be designed to allow for the establishment of emergent vegetation, such as cattail and bulrush around the perimeter. Ideally, the northerly and easterly side slopes should not exceed 3:1, to allow for the establishment of a wider band of emergent vegetation. Any clearing of established vegetation shall be scheduled during the non-nesting season (after August 31 and before October 15) to avoid potential disturbance to nesting birds. b, c) d) City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program !Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands ? !LS/M. There could be short-term disturbance of wetland and wetland habitat on }the south side of Colma Creek. This potential impact would be reduced to a less- i than-significant level through adherence to Mitigation Measure 2. I Interfere with movement ofnativefish or wildlife species? LS. The project area is !largely developed with light industrial, office, commercial and other urban uses I so that no imlvact would result to fish or wildlife species. Although fish and other !wildlife species could be impacted by the proposed Colma Creek bank Page 34 July 2002 Stabilization portion of the project, adherence to Mitigation Measure 2 would leduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans ? NI. The site is not located within the boundaries of any Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. No impacts would therefore result. 5. Cultural Resources Enviro~rnental Setting Historiqal overview (This section of the Initial Study is based on a Historic Resources Evaluation of the projectI area prepared by Carey & Company to fulfill requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. A copy of this report is contained in the Appendix.) The development of South San Francisco began in the 19th century when cattle ranchers from California Central Valley purchased large expanses of open land as a place to hold and graze livestock before sending them to meatpacking houses in San Francisco's Hunters Point area. In 1890, several major meatpackers banded together to lay out residential and industrial neighborhoods. Other industries were attracted to the area assisted by the extension of the Southern Pacific mail rail line through the town. AlthoUgh sustaining some damage during the 1906 earthquake, the solid bedrock under Point San Bruno protected many structures. The City incorporated in 1908. By the 1920's many of the meatpackers had moved out of the community and were replaced by steel manufacturers, including Bethlehem Steel and U. S. Steel. During WWII, several major defense industries located in South San Francisco, especially ship building. After the war, the growth and expansion of San Francisco International Airport increased the demand for industrial properties. In the 1970's and 1980's, development of the large Cabot,[ Cabot & Forbes business park in the east of 101 area provided a home to large office Users. Most recently, major biotechnology users have developed major research and development campuses in the community. ArcheOlogical overview (This section of the Initial Study is summarized from an Initial Archeological Resources Evaluation of the project area prepared by Holman & Company to fulfill requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. A copy of this report is contained in the Appendix.) City of ~outh San Francisco Page 35 Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program July 2002 The geomorphological setting of the project area is pertinent as the matrix in which archaeological resources would occur. Most of South San Francisco is within the Colma Creek!watershed, which has been the subject of extensive geomorphological study. Howe~Zer, the area east of Highway 101 are largely in areas of San Francisco Bay and its margins historically 'filled for development, areas highly sensitive for prehistoric archaeological deposits and which also contain historic features and resources under the fill The Colrna Creek corridor has been subject to extensive alluvial filling during the Holocene, burying the formerly steeper valley under several meters of alluvial deposits, primarily Colrna Formation sand. The watercourse of Colma Creek meandered over time l~ut remained basically along the geomorphic dividing line between the Franciscan Complex Cretaceous and Jurassic rocks of San Bruno Mountain to the east and the PleistOcene Colma Formation to the north and west. Exposures of Franciscan bedrock on the slopes of San Bruno Mountain include dark grey to yellow brown interbedded sands:ones and shales (Bonilla 1998). The Colma Formation is mostly "fine-to-medium sand deposited in near-shore marine and continental settings. The deposit contains few interbeds of sandy silt, clay to sandy clay and gravel .... The age is estimated between 500,0£0 to one million years" (Witter 2001:3). Though both sides of the drainage contri'vute to sediment load and bank development along the creek, the highly erosive Colma Formation supplies much more bulk; in turn, those sand deposits are easily cut and transported by water flow. Natural filling was accentuated and added to by a program of historic filling in the mid to late nineteenth century, involving purposely altering the watercourse to bring sand to specific areas. This filling extended to near the Bay margin and deposited considerable depths of recent fill. The o_-dy proposed Project element in the upper Colma Creek drainage, the proposed "Winston Manor Sewer" rehabilitation, is in a location subject to this natural alluvial filling and so could contain prehistoric archaeological deposits from near the surface to probably well below the depth of potential Project impacts. Downstream, the dozen Project elements nearest Colma Creek are in the immediate flood plain and margins of the Bay subject to filling by the meandering creek. These downstream areas have been subject to both natural and artificial filling. The more northerly of the eastern elements, arour.d Point San Bruno, are also mostly in both natural and artificial fill, the artificial fill lying on top of coarse alluvial sands and gravels from washed down from the slopes of San Bruno Mountain. A prehistoric shell midden site on the former banks of Colma Creek, at Chestnut Aven'ae and Mission Road, was discovered under a minimum 150 cm, and more than 600 cm below surface in some locations of recent fill, the majority of which is interpreted as quite recent and likely to have resulted from both natural and purposeful filling. This location is approximately half way between the Winston Manor Sewer and the other Project elements beginning on the west side of Highway 101 and extending out ir.to twentieth century fill around Point San Bruno. It is likely that Holocene fill, both natural and artificial, is deeper at the more easterly extent of the project area locations subject to direct filling by Colma Creek. With the exception of the Project City ofiSouth San Francisco Page 36 Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program July 2002 elemenzs nearest the highest, erosion-resistant knobs of serpentinite and sheared Franciscan Formation rocks on Point San Bruno, all other portions of the project area are in mapped artificial fill up to 30 m deep. This artificial geomorphic setting makes research into the filling progression and episodes along the Bay margin and around Point S~an Bruno essential in assessing Project potential to encounter both prehistoric and historic archaeological resources. Prehistoric/Ethnohistoric/Archaeological ThougL it is likely the San Francisco Peninsula has been inhabited by humans for something approaching 10,000 years, data confirming such a long tenure is lacking in San Mateo and San Francisco counties. While Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties have furnished carbon dates in that age range, the oldest published dates for the Peninsula appear to be about 5000 years for undoubted habitation sites. The oldest published date for San!Mateo County remains that from a site near the outlet of Colma Creek to the Bay at SMA~-40, at just over 5100 years before present. Nearly equally old are the oldest component of the University Village Site (SMA-77) at the southeast of the county, and the "BART Man" in San Francisco. Hints of possibly older occupation on the San Mateo coast have been published, but are unsupported by technical dating techniques. It is safe to say that the Peninsula, including the Colma Creek drainage, was probably occupied by Native Americans at least 5000 years ago, but by different people than would later own the area. Ethnohistorically, the Colma Creek drainage was occupied by the Urebure tribelet, an Ohlone group, the Native Americans who owned the San Francisco Bay region, Santa Cruz Mountains, East Bay Hills, and the Monterey Bay area at the 1769 Spanish invasion. Archaeological evidence indicates the ancestral Ohlones arrived in the San Francisko/Monterey Bay region-depending on location-somewhere around A.D. 500, possibly from the lower Sacramento Valley/Delta, displacing an earlier population. Natural resources of their home areas provided for nearly all the needs of the aboriginal Ohlone populations. The prehistoric Ohlones were "hunters and gatherers," who adapted to and managed their abundant local environment so well that some places were continuously occupied for literally thousands of years. Compared to modem standards, population density always remained relatively low, but the Ohlone area, especially around Monterey and San Francisco Bays, was one of the most densely lived in areas of prehistoric California. The Ohlones had perfected living in and managing a myriad of slightly differing environments. Some environments were rich enough to support large permanent villages of "collectors;" others had less abundant resources and suTported a more mobile "forager" way of life. Littoral (shoreline) and riparian environments, such as along and at either end of Colma Creek and along San Francisco Bay, were obviously more productive and were therefore most sought out, most intensively utilized and occupied, and most jealously defined and guarded. Uplands and redwood areas were less productive and less intensively used and occupied than the ocean and bay coasts. As throughout Central California, the acorn was the dietary staple of the Ohlones, but a huge number of floral and faunal resources were utilized. Like otk~er native Califomians, the Ohlones managed their environment to improve it City of S,outh San Francisco Page 37 Initial St Jdy/Sewer Improvement Program July 2002 for their use. For example, they burned grass and brush lands annually to improve forage for deer and rabbits, keep the land open and safer from predators and their neighbors, and improve productivity of many resources. The basic unit of Ohlone society was the "tribelet," a small independent land-holding group of usually related families occupying a specific territory and speaking the same language or dialect. An incredible diversity of languages had evolved in Central California, evidence of centuries of in-place divergence of very small social groups. Early l~nguists encountered some groups of only 50-100 people speaking dialects sometimes but not generally unintelligible to their neighbors. Inter-tribelet relationships were socially and economcally necessary however, to supply both marriage partners and goods and services not available locally. Trade and marriage patterns were usually but noz always dictated by proximity; traditional enemies were usually also defined by proxirr.ity. Regional festivals and religious dances would bring groups together during periods of suspended hostilities. Traditional trade patterns thousands of years old operated when the Spanish invaded, supplying the Ohlones with products from sources sometimes hundreds of kilometers distant, and allowing export of products unique to their region. Obsidian was obtained from the North Coast Ranges and Sierran sources, in patterns that changed through time. By 1769, the Ohlones had been buying finished obsidian arrowheads of specific forms, manufactured by North Coast Range tribes, for hundreds of years. Shell beads and ornaments, a major export from the Ohlone regions, were made primarily from the shells of abalone (Haliotis), Purple Olive snail (Olivella), and Washington clam (Saxidoraus), all ocean coast species. Shell beads and ornaments evolved through many different and definable types through the millennia, allowing chronological typing of these common artifacts to serve as keys to the age and relative cultural position of archaeological complexes. These beads were traded for thousands of years, and have been found in prehistoric sites throughout California and many kilometers east, into the Great Basin, showing that prehistoric peoples on the Peninsula were tied into an "international" system of trade. At the time of the Spanish invasion, some Central Californians had developed a system of exchange currency ("money") based on clam shell disk beads; the extent to which the Ohlones related to that system is unknown. Absolqte and relative dating of archaeological sites, the linguistic diversity, and demonstrably ancient trade patterns all indicate that the Ohlones and other Central California groups had reached a state of demographic and social stability unimaginable to mod ern city dwellers in a state in which the same family groups occupied the same location continuously for hundreds or even thousands of years with few if any changes in popplation size or profile. This long-term stability is reflected in the homogeneity of archaeological sites spanning wide geographic and temporal ranges. By the time of European incursion, a unique native settlement pattern was in place along the Peninsula, in which the same tribelet group would own a strip across the Penins':tla from ocean to Bay, based on drainages. These watercourses formed natural travelWays across the spine of the Peninsula. Like other watercourses from the southern City of Sjouth San Francisco Page 38 Initial St Jdy/Sewer Improvement Program July 2002 Santa Clara Valley to the northern end of the Peninsula, Colma Creek has a series of archaeological sites along its banks, connected to prehistoric cultural sites along the margins of the Bay. The Colma Creek (known as "San Bruno Creek" by the Spanish) drainage was probably held by a single group, the Urebure, that extended from the slopes of San Bruno Mountain to about San Mateo Creek, and used the creek corridor to travel ~om village sites on the Bay, the Pacific, and in between. Around the begirming of the twentieth century, N.C. Nelson recorded more than 400 major shell midden sites around San Francisco Bay, some of which had already been leveled or destroyed (Nelson 1909). Nelson's 1909 "Map of San Francisco Bay Region Showing Distribution of Shell Heaps" shows sites//378 and//377/379 ? in the vicinity of the proposed project. Nelson shows #378 south of Oyster Point on the north shore of San Bruno Point, and #377/379? on the south side of Point San Bruno. Nelson's rough and sometimes inaccurate mapping, plus historic changes in the Bay shore and local topography, filling, massive construction projects in and around South San Francisco such a~ steel and meat packing plants, the Southern Pacific Railroad, and the Bayshore Freeway, and Nelson's generalized location descriptions, make a positive identification of a site on the south shore of Point San Bruno or near the mouth of Colma Creek difficult. Prehistorically, the upper Project Area (near Hickey Boulevard) would have been an area of windswept sand dunes fringed by oak grassland alongside the more thickly- vegetazed Colma Creek riparian corridor. The Bay shore was very marshy, marshes extended up to approximately the Orange Park region in modem South San Francisco, with extensive mudflats and wetlands that offered very abundant resources but made access to the Bay difficult, so ideal habitation locations were at spots where hard ground met the Bay, surrounded by the marshes. The open exposure, easy slope, availability of fresh water, and location along one of only two easy routes along the Peninsula made this location attractive to the Ohlone Indians long before the European invasion. Several villages were located in the territory of the Urebure tribelet when the Spanish arrived, including occupations along Colma (San Bruno) Creek and on the margin of the Bay. ~ major site is located at the foot of San Bruno Mountain, just north of Point San Bruno (SMA-40), two habitation middens are recorded on the creek between the northwest and east of the Project (SMA-299 and -355), and another on the ocean at the western end of the route up Colma Creek (SMA-72); all were probably in use by the Urebure when the Spanish arrived. SMA-72 and SMA-355 are Late Period sites) and SMA-~_0 has a late component. Further, Brown (1973) reports that prior to 1835 the San Brunoi Mountain south slope area was known as a location of "Indian huts," perhaps a resettlh~g of an old village site after secularization of the missions and dispersal of many of the missionized Irtdi ~.ans, but no village or place name is recorded. The C01ma Creek corridor and mouth, and surrounding Bay margin were a focus of abori~nal settlement and use, making the Project APEs archaeologically sensitive for prehistoric deposits. While the creek occasionally runs dry, the area still afforded sources of freshwater year round. Historic accounts affirm the area of the upper creek City of South San Francisco Page 39 Initial S tudy/Sewer Improvement Program July 2002 was "characterized by small lakes and an abundance of springs" (Svanivik and Burger 1995: 16), and the earliest maps show a lake and springs near Hickey Boulevard. Remnants of these lakes are still shown on E1 Camino plans in 1925 and exist today. The creek crainage below, in South San Francisco, was extensively filled and any such lakes covered, along with prehistoric sites. Bay margin filling and historic development have also covered or destroyed prehistoric shell middens on the former marshland margin of the Bay, which once extended far up Colma Creek. Farther from the current, or historic shoreline, prehistoric sites are still possible; it has been hypothesized that sites along the Bay shore older than about 5000 years lie buried under sediment or under the Bay itself due to rising sea level. Archeo'.ogical records search Archaeological research for the proposed project was initiated with a search of relevant records, maps, and archives maintained by the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at Sonoma State University. Due to the indeterminate scope of the Project when the records search was sent irt, a very wide area was addressed in the record search, essentially the entire Colma Creek drainage, and all of South San Francisco east of Junipero Serra Boulevard. The records search was conducted by the Center staff, revealing that numerous small areas of the Project Area had been surveyed for cultural resources previously, only a few of which proved finally to be directly applicable to the Project as now understood. Few cultural resources or historic properties are recorded within 500 m of the proposed project elements, none east of Highway 101. The CHRIS Records Search File Number for the Project Area is 00-560. A copy of this report will be submitted for inclusion in the permanent archives of the CHRIS. The records search revealed only three prehistoric archaeological sites in the vicinity of the proposed project, the aforementioned SMA-40, SMA-299, and SMA-355. SMA-40 is a large shell midden mound on the southeast slope of San Bruno Mountain west of Highway 101, a major cultural resource, a little over 500 m from the nearest Project work, at Gateway Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard. SMA-299 is a diffuse shell midden once found on both banks of Colma Creek, now mostly destroyed. SMA-355 is a buried Late Period shell midden on the north bank of Colma Creek at Chestnut Average. Both these last two sites are well over a kilometer from the nearest project work. ~ The proposed Winston Manor project component, north of Hickey Boulevard from Camaritas Avenue to E1 Camino Real/State Route 82, is removed to the northwest from all the other Project elements. A single archaeological reconnaissance was recorded along F~I Camino through the vicinity of Hickey Boulevard, and another crossed Hickey west of this project component. Neither reconnaissance reported historic properties. An historic property, "the Frank Lagomarsino vegetable farm" is recorded within 500 m of the east end of Hickey Boulevard, but is well outside any possible impacts for this ProjecI. City of South San Francisco Initial $-udy/Sewer Improvement Program Page 40 July 2002 Project elements near and east of Highway 101 are mostly outside any recorded archaeological reconnaissances, and no excavations are reported anywhere near any Project elements. Several areas of Project work have been previously surface surveyed, but nome of these have recorded historic properties. The banks of channelized Colma Creek, where project components 5, 8, 12, and 25 are proposed was surveyed by Rice (1995). The area surrounding and including the WQCP was surface surveyed in 1976, including the remnants of "Belle Air Island" (Roop 1976); this also included component 5 and 8, and the eastern end of component 4. Anastasio et al. did a reconnaissance along part of what became Gateway Boulevard, southward of any Project work, but this same lineal surface survey did cross component 6, the Airport Boulevard Sewer (Anastasio et al. 1988). Finally, a survey along the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way that partially became Executive Drive encompassed the portion of Executive where project component 27 will be installed (Biosystems Analysis, Inc. 1989). The records search turned up one recorded site within 500 m of any of the eastern Projec~ components. SMA-811H is an historic refuse scatter eroding out of a railbed embarkrnent just north of CoLrna Creek and Project component 1, the San Mateo Pump Statior. (McGinnis 2000). This scatter includes glass, ceramics, crockery, marbles, oyster shell a_-~d miscellaneous other materials; estimated date of the deposit is 1890 to 1918. The site map seems to indicate SMA-811I-I might be quite close to the existing San Mateo Pump Station. No historic properties are recorded east of Highway 101. Projec: Impacts a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? NI. Based on the historical search prepared by Carey & Co., no historical resources were identified within an Area of Potential Effect as eligible for the National Register of Historic !Places or the California Register of Historical Resources. This is based on a site visit, review of appropriate archival data and consultation with local agencies. , No impacts are therefore anticipated with regard to significant historical resources. b) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeologicaI resource? LS/M. As noted in the Environmental Setting section above, the various broad categories of project components have differing potential to effect archaeological resources. Project components that would not involve excavations nor significant surface disturbances, even in areas with demonstrated archaeological sensitivity, would not potentially affect historic properties. Work with excavations that would not penetrate undisturbed subsurface strata, or that would not penetrate recent fills into older fills, or that would only penetrate into strata known to have been cut into sterile soft, similarly do not have potential to affect historic properties. Project components requiring excavations that would or could penetrate into native or undisturbed strata, or into historic land surfaces that might contain historic archaeological deposits, or into historic fill that could contain potentially significant historic materials, would have the potential to affect historic properties. This would result in a potentially significant impact. City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program Page 41 July 2002 Finally, project excavations that would only re-disturb strata known to have been previously, recently, disturbed, cannot be seen as having potential to affect historic properties. Though this process is necessarily complex for a project involving 28 separate components, detailed examination of the Environmental Setting and potential impacts will illustrate that many proposed elements will not have potential to affect historic properties. By the process of eliminating from consideration those Project Components that do not have potential to effect historic properties, the number of elements of concern in the Section 106 context is substantially reduced. i As described in the Environmental Setting above, every element of the project is [in a location with archaeological sensitivity, either for prehistoric or historic resources, or both. Basically, all elements are in the Colma Creek drainage or along the historic margins of the Bay and marshlands, clearly in areas of high [sensitivity for prehistoric archaeological deposits. Even components in what were in the 1850s open Bay waters are in an archaeologically sensitive zone due to rising Bay waters over the last several thousand years. There is therefore a potential to encounter archaeological resources potentially meeting NRHP criteria. Impacts related to Pump Stations. Ten of the proposed project elements involve upgrades to existing pump stations. Given that the majority of work on these pump stations are proposed to be located above ground, no impacts would generally result, since no subsurface work is proposed. Project work at three of the stations (items #3, Shaw Road Pump Station #25, Pump Station 6 and #22, Pump Station 22, all shown on Exhibit 3) may have impacts to sensitive archeological resources since the possibility of subsurface excavation exists. Impacts related to the effluent pond and Colma Creek bank stabilization. Due to , the location and construction of these two project components are not anticipated to have a significant impact on sensitive archeological resources. Impacts related to pipelines. Sixteen of the proposed 28 project components are proposed to include trenching and excavation. Due to the potential sensitivity of these elements on sensitive archeological resources, several of these components and their respective impacts are identified below. · Lowrie Avenue Force Main (item #2): Although "pipe bursting" is proposed for approximately 1/2 of the 4400 feet of replacement 36-inch diameter sewer line, precise construction details are not known and excavation would be needed to allow access for pipe connections. Therefore, this project component is anticipated to have a potentially significant impact. · Shaw Road Force Main (item #4), which includes approximately 2800 feet of new 42-inch diameter force sewer main. This component would involve significant trenching including sufficient room to allow tunneling under US 101. Given the suspected presence of sensitive archeological resources in the City of South San Francisco Page 42 Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program July 2002 City of South San Francisco Initial S;udy/Sewer Improvement Program area and unknowns regarding the precise location of the proposed sewer line, a potentially significant impact is anticipated. · Airport Boulevard Sewer (item# 6), would involve relatively deep excavations (approximately 15 feet) below existing grades for a distance of approximately 1100 feet. Since precise construction details are not yet available, it is anticipated that there is a potential for uncovering sensitive archeological resources. · Winston Manor Sewer (item #7) involves the proposed rehabilitation of approximately 285 feet of an existing 6-inch diameter sewer. If a trenchless construction method is to be used for rehabilitation, the precise location of any excavation will need to be identified in order to assess impacts. · Pump Station 2 Force Main (item #10) involves placing a 10-inch force parallel to an existing 10-inch line within Gateway Boulevard. Numerous activities have occurred in this area over the years and there is a possibility of ~ encountering significant resources during the proposed construction process. · Oyster Point Blvd. Trunk Sewer (item #17), encompasses proposed replacement of existing pipelines with larger pipes running approximately [ 240 feet south of Oyster Point Boulevard on Eccles Avenue north to Oyster Point Boulevard, then westward to Gateway Boulevard and south on Gateway to Pump Station 2. Based on historic maps and records, the westerly portion of the project area contained the historic right-of-way for Butler Road and there is a possibility of encountering sensitive archeological resources during excavation operations. · East Grand Trunk Sewer (item #19). This project component includes replacing existing sewer lines along East Grand Avenue from Allerton Avenue to Harbor Way and the proposed right-of-way crosses several different types and ages of fill. Proposed work on this component has the potential to encounter historic resources in the section from Harbor Way to approximately 150 feet east of Roebling Road, if the proposed construction i technique is trenching. If the pipebursting technique is to be used, proposed · access pits could still impact resources. Littlefield South Subtrunk (item # 24), includes replacement of 8- and 10-inch [ diameter pipes with the same size pipes along a stretch of approximately 2,400 feet of southerly Littlefield Avenue east of Pump Station 7. Much of the project area is pre-1958 fill over Bay mud with an estimated 15 to 20 feet of fill. If existing trenches are re-excavated to replace existing pipes, no impacts to previously undisturbed historic fill or surfaces are anticipated, with the exception of work pits. Until precise construction plans are prepared, it is anticipated that potentially significant impacts could occur to sensitive archeological resources. · Harbor Way Subtrunk (item #26), which includes replacing an existing 8-inch diameter sewer along Harbor Way with a new 10-inch diameter pipe from Utah Avenue to approximately 80 feet north of Mitchell Avenue, a distance of approximately 1000 feet. The proposed route of this element is within pre- 1958 fill over Bay mud. Since the new pipe would replace a smaller pipe in a larger trench, it has the potential to impact archeological resources. Page 43 July 2002 c) d) Other proposed pipeline components, including the Pump Station 2 Force Main (item ~9), Pump Station 4 Force Main (item #12), Pump Station 8 Force Main (item # 15), Allerton Avenue Trunk Sewer (item # 18), DNA Way Subtrunk (item # 20) and the Littlefield North Subtmnk are anticipated to have no impacts to archeological resources. Based on the preliminary information above, detailed construction information on each project component is not always available due to the phased nature of this project. Therefore, the following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce potentially significant archeological impacts to a less-than-significant '_evel: Mitigation Measure 4: An Archeological Resources Program shall be prepared by a qualified archeologist prior to start of any construction which shall include: a) b) Provision for submittal of Section 106-level analyses for each project component as they are designed and submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board for State Revolving Loan funding. Language added on individual project improvement plans and specifications to the effect that if archeological materials or artifacts are identified, work on that portion of the project shall cease until a resource protection plan conforming to CEQA Section 15064.5 is prepared by a qualified archeologist and/or paleontologist and approved by the South San Francisco Public Works Director or an authorized representative. Project work may be resumed in compliance with such plan. If human remains are encountered, the County Coroner shall be contacted immediately and the provisions of State law carried out. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geological feature? LS/M. Any potential impacts to palenotological impacts will be addressed as part of Mitigation Measure 4. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? NI. No formal cemeteries have been identified in either the archeological or architectural historical resources survey, so no impacts would result. 6. Geology and Soils Environmental Setting Geology and soils The 1999 General Plan Existing Conditions Report identifies three general geological zones within South San Francisco. The Lowland Zone is primarily located east of the City of South San Francisco Page 44 Initial S:udy/Sewer Improvement Program July 2002 101 Freeway and consists of gently sloping areas with areas of man-made fill over Bay mud. Slope is generally less than three percent. The Upland Zone is located in the middle portion of the community with topographic elevations ranging from 30 to 200 feet above sea level. This zone also includes the alluvial plain of CoLma Creek. The Hillside Zone consists of the westerly portion of the community and is characterized by steeply sloping hillsides. The entire lowland zone consists of artificial fill underlain by Bay mud. Bay mud in this area consists of younger mud of the Holocene age, which is organic rich clay with silty clay w_'th occasional beds of peat. Development hazards associated with this formation include shrink-swell potential, differential settlement, corrositivity and earthquake wave amplification. The Upland Zone consists of Colma Formation soils with the following characteristics: loose, _:riable, well-sorted sand with subordinate gravel, silt and clay deposits. It generally provides for good foundations and provides for earthquake stability when not disturbed by artificial cuts. The Merced Formation is comprised of poorly consolidated to semi-consolidated sand and silt deposits. It is subject to landslide hazarc in areas of artificial cuts and generally provides for good seismic stability. The Colma Creek substrate is made of fine-grained alluvial deposits with unconsolidated, moderately sorted fine sand, silt and clayey silty debris deposited by Colma Creek during historic periods. A site-specific geotechnical investigation of the City's Water Quality Control Plant was under:.aken by the firm of Harza Engineering Company in April, 1997. The southerly portion of the plant, which is where the recently completed expansion occurred, is characterized by man-made fill material over alluvial deposits. Alluvial deposits generally consist of sands, silts and clays. The westerly portion of the plant, where the facili .ty headworks are located, consists of reclaimed land where fill material has been placed._ over San Francisco Bay mud deposits. Bay muds are, in turn, underlain by alluvial deposits. The entire site is then underlain by bedrock found at various depths throughout the site. With one exception, the project area contains no known unique geologic features, based on a site visitation. The one exception is Colma Creek that forms the northerly boundary of the City's Water Quality Control Plant. Seismic hazards In terms of seismic hazards, the City of South San Francisco, and the Bay area as a whole, is located in one of the most seismically active regions in the United States. Several major faults and fault zones traverse the region, including the San Andreas, approximately 3.5 to 5 kilometers (km) from the site, the San Gregorio fault, the Hayward fault, the Calaveras fault, the Coyote Point fault and the Hunters Point fault. The c[osest fault zone to the project area is the Coyote Point fault zone, which lies north of the project area. The zone consists of a complex two mile wide zone of faulting with City of South San Francisco Page 45 Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program July 2002 three prominent strands in the vicinity of the project area. Because the California Department of Mines and Geology has not evaluated the Coyote ?oint and Hunters Point fault zones, neither have been included within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. The 1990 Working Group on the California earthquake Probabilities estimated a 67% probab'lity of a major earthquake (7.0+ magnitude) by the year 2020. There are no know active faults within the project area. Project Impacts a) F~xpose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, ~njury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or landslides? NI. There would be no direct or indirect impacts to people or structures due to a seismic event with the proposed project, since no habitable structures would be constructed. Construction would be limited to underground facilities (new and replacement sewer pipes) and replacement and/or reconstruction of sewer pump stations. No impacts to humans or structures are daerefore anticipated. b) ;s the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? LS/M. Portions of -.he project would include trenching for replacement of sewer lines. Although '_imited, a possibility exists that stockpiling of trench spoils could erode into nearby streets, drainage facilities and ultimately into San Francisco Bay. This would be a significant impact. The following mitigation measure is therefore recommended to reduce erosion impacts to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 5: Contract specifications for this project shall require the preparation and implementation of an erosion control plan for all portions of the project that would involve trenching, excavation or stockpiling of dirt. The plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and be consistent with applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board guidelines and standards. c-d) e) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? LS. The General Plan Background Report indicates that much of the project area consists of artificial fill over Bay yaud, which is susceptible to liquefaction and lateral spreading, especially during ~ seismic event. According to the project design engineer, the presence of potential liquefaction and other soil and geotechnical hazards has been taken into account in the project plans, so less-than-significant impacts are anticipated with regard to liquefaction and lateral spreading. Since the project site is generally flat, no impacts are anticipated with regard to landslides. ~ave soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? NI. The proposed project involves upgrades to the City's sewer system, so there would be no impacts with regard to septic systems. City of South San Francisco Initial Sl udy/Sewer Improvement Program Page 46 July 2002 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Enviro .xrnental Setting The General Plan Existing Conditions Report (1999) identifies a number of major hazardous waste sources in South San Francisco within the east of 101 areas, including the Ko'_l site (a closed landfill), the Gateway site (former steel fabrication site), the Bay West Cove site (former steel mill and shipyard) and the Wildberg Brothers site (metal smelting). The Report also identified 114 sites in South San Francisco on the Cortese list that coutain leaking underground storage tanks. Of these 114 sites, two are included within the proposed project area (City Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Shaw Road pump station). As part of this Initial Study, a Phase One Environmental Site Assessment was conducted of the project site by the firm of Treadwell & Rollo. The text of the Phase One Analysis is contained in the Appendix. No visual evidence of any significant staining, spillage, and/or ponded liquids or uncon-.ained solids was noted during the visual reconnaissance of the various project compcnents. According to SMCHSA files, Pump Station No. 4, located at 249 Harbor Way (item #11, Exhibit 3), currently has MTBE contamination in the groundwater that originated from a leaking UST located at Fire Station # 4, which is adjacent to the pump statior. The MTBE concentrations are decreasing with time. There are several other facilities close to the subject Sites that appear on various agency lists, as discussed in Section 6.2 of the full text of the Phase One Analysis. Historical land use dating back to 1938 has been predominantly heavy industrial and commercial uses. Historical aerial photographs, Sanborn fire insurance maps, and our review of regulatory hazardous material files obtained for this project suggest that adverse environmental conditions likely exist within the project area. In gen~_ral, the 27 various sites comprising the project area, and the properties adjacent to the project area, excluding Site 7, were historically used for heavy industrial purposes. Soil and groundwater contamination, including heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, and solvents, are likely present. The areas near Sites 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 15, 17, 23 and 27 have petroleum hydrocarbon contamination in the soil and/or groundwater from leaks or spills from nearby facilities. Construction activities for the sewer upgrade project at these Sites will likely require excavation of petroleum-contaminated soil. Projec: Impacts a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? LS/M. Although there would be no impacts with regard to transport or use of hazardous materials, based on the Phase One ESA, excavation of soil to accommodate new sewer pipelines could uncover City of South San Francisco Page 47 Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program July 2002 b) c) contaminated soils. This material would need to be removed in order to complete that portion of the project which could result in a potentially significant impact. T~.e mitigation measure is recommended to reduce the possibility of release of hazardous material into the atmosphere or disposal of hazardous material off of the project site. Mitigation Measure 6: Prior to commencement of each phase of construction, the City shall complete a hazardous materials characterization study for all underground portion of the project, employing a protocol approved by appropriate regulatory agencies with jurisdiction. If hazardous materials are encountered, either in the soil or groundwater, a soil and/or groundwater remediation plan shall be prepared and implemented indicating methods of removal and disposal of the material, including methods to minimize release of hazardous materials into the atmosphere. The Plan shall include a worker safety program. Demolition and upgrading of existing pump stations may also uncover asbestos, lead based paints and other materials that are identified as hazardous materials. T~Le following mitigation measure shall be implemented for work at each of the pttrnp stations: Mitigation Measure 7. An asbestos survey of pump station structures shall be performed consistent with National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollution guidelines. If warranted, a remediation plan to remove asbestos shall be prepared and implemented. A lead based paint survey shah be conducted and, if lead-based paint is encountered, the requirements as outlined in Cai OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, CCR Section 1532.1 shall be followed by the City. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? LS/M. Based on the Phase One ESA, excavation of soil to accommodate new sewer pipelines could uncover contaminated soil and/or groundwater. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 6 will reduce this impact to a '.ess-than-significant level. Emit hazardous materials or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? NI. No public schools exist or are planned within a one-quarter mile radius of any of the project sites. The closest schools include Martin Elementary School, located at 25 School Street approximately 0.75 miles northwest of Site 6 and Alta Loma Junior High School, located approximately 0.7 mile southeast of Site 27. No impacts would tl'.erefore result. d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? LS. Site 11 is identified in the Phase One S:_te Assessment as being listed containing MTBE, based on a listing by the San City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program Page 48 July 2002 g) h) Mateo County Health Services Agency. According to the Phase One Site Assessment, levels of MTBE are reported as declining, so a less-than-significant impact would result. Is the site located within an airport land use plan ora public airport or private airstrip? LS. The project area is located north of San Francisco International Airport and within a z'light path of the airport. However, the height of the existing building and proposed improvements would not interfere with flight operations or safety concerns. No impacts are therefore anticipated regarding airport safety issues. Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? NI. The proposed project would not involve any change to existing roads or development patterns. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated with regard to interference with emergency evacuation E:cpose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? NI. The project area lies in a substantially urbanized area with minimal risk of wildland fires. No impacts are therefore anticipated. 8. Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Setting The main surface body of water within South San Francisco is Colma Creek, a perennial stream with a watershed of approximately 16 square miles. Colma Creek extends in a southeastern direction through the center of the community. The two primary tributaries of Colrna Creek include Twelve Mile Creek and Spruce Creek. Both of these smalle_- creeks have been almost all channelized and/or tmdergrounded. Colma Creek provides the main transport of stormwater runoff and other runoff from South San Francisco into the Bay. East of the 101 Freeway, Colma Creek is contained in concre :e and rip-rap channels. San Francisco Bay, another major body of water, forms the easterly boundary of South San Francisco. Surface water quality All flows into Colma Creek originate as stormwater, irrigation runoff or are from similar sources. As an urban stream, Colma Creek is expected to have high levels of heavy metals as well as other pollutants typical of urban bodies of water. South San Francisco has joined the other cities and San Mateo County to create the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program. The purpose of this program is to administer a Joint Municipal NPDES Permit for stormwater quality management. Each participant has adopted a Stormwater Management Plan to ensure City of South San Francisco Page 49 Initial S-.udy/Sewer Improvement Program July 2002 that Best Management Practices are enforced to protect surface water quality, during both construction and operational stages of a project. Groundwater Low topographic elevations and the Colma Creek floodplain in the East of 101 area provide conditions conducive to high groundwater. In some instances, groundwater has been encountered a few feet below surface elevations. During the rainy season, water often stands above ground surface in drainage ditches for several months. Flooding and tsunami hazards Periodic flooding occurs along most of the right-of-way of Colma Creek in South San Francisco. Portions of the project located southwest of Colma Creek and along the northe_-ly edges of the Water Quality Control Plant are presently subject to flooding during 100-year flood events. Other oortions of the project site located adjacent to San Francisco Bay are anticipated to be subTect to tsunami action during severe seismic action. This ir~ormation is based on Figure 10-2 contained in the 1999 General Plan Existing Condi.-ions Report. Projec-. Impacts a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? NI. Approval of portions of the requested project would serve to meet Regional Water Quality Control Board Cease-and-Desist Orders to remediate discharge of untreated e_-'fluent into San Francisco Bay during peak wet-weather conditions. The other portion of the project, upgrading of failing sewer lines, would also assist in meeting discharge requirements by repairing leaking lines, thereby reducing inflow and infiltration into the system. No impacts are anticipated with regard to exceeding water quality discharge requirements. b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering o/water table? NI. No impacts are anticipated with regard to depletion of groundwater resources, since none of the project components would require use of water resources. Similarly, no impacts are anticipated with regard to overcovering groundwater recharge areas s~ce no new impervious surfaces would be created as part of project hrtplementation. I: is anticipated that trenching for a number of project elements may require d, ewatering to remove groundwater intruding into excavations. If dewatering is r.ecessary, standard specifications included on project plans would be employed to safely dewater trenches. Necessary permits would be obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control Board to ensure water quality standards are met. c) $ubstantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial siltation or erosion would occur? LS. Limited placement of additional impervious City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program Page 50 July 2002 d) e) g) h, i) j) surfaces is anticipated with the proposed project, which would include a plastic liner within the proposed wet-weather holding pond and a proposed small paved parking area at the Shaw Road Pump Station. These improvements are anticipated tc me minor and existing surface storrnwater drainage patterns would not be significantly changed. Less-than-significant impacts would occur. Substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the project site? Ix-I. No impacts or changes to drainage patterns are anticipated since no additions to existing amounts of impervious surfaces are proposed. Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add substantial amounts of polluted runoff?. NI. No increases in the quantity, direction or w.qocity of existing drainage patterns are proposed since no changes to existing development patterns or in the amount of impervious surfaces are proposed. No in,pacts would therefore result with regard to drainage systems. Substantially degrade water quality? NI. The objectives of the proposed project are to improve surface water quality by replacing failing existing sewer lines and p-.oviding a wet weather holding pond for treated effluent. There would therefore be no impact with regard to degradation of water quality. Place housing within a lO0-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate Map? NI. The proposed project does not include a housing component, so there would be no impact with regarding to placement of housing within a 100-year flood plain. Place within a lO0-year flood hazard boundary structures that impeded or redirect flood flow, including dam failures? NI. All proposed structures would include replacement of existing above-ground small structures, such as pump houses, or would be located below ground. No impacts are anticipated with regard to impedance of flood waters or flows. Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? LS. A small portion of the project area located adjacent to San Francisco Bay is anticipated to be subject to future tsunami action. This area is depicted on Figure 10.2 of the General Plan Existing Conditions Report. Specific project items that could be affected by a tsunami would be Pump Station 8 (item 14 on Exhibit 3), the easterly portion of the Forbes Avenue 15-in. sewer line (item 15 on Exhibit 3) and new sewer lines in Littlefield Avenue (item 24 on Exhibit 3). Since two of three facilities would be underground, a less-than-significant impact would be expected with regard to tsunami action. No hnpacts are anticipated with regard to mudflow, since the project area is not located on or near a hillside area. City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program Page 51 July 2002 9. Lar.d Use and Planning Environmental Setting Existing land uses East of the 101 freeway, the project area has been developed with offices, research and development and commercial land uses. One exception to this land use pattern is that the City of South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plan has been built immediately south of Colma Creek at the terminus of Belle Air Road. West cf the 101 freeway (US 101), land uses consist of light industrial buildings along Lowrie Avenue and Shaw Road and commercial uses along Airport Boulevard. Land uses near the Winston Manor project component consist of residential uses. ReguIa*wry framework Land r. ses within South San Francisco are regulated by the South San Francisco General Plan, which was recently updated in 1999. The General Plan includes the Land Use Element, Transportation Element, Parks, Public Facilities and Services Element, Economic Development Element, Open Space and Conservation Element, Health and Safety Element and Noise Element. Wastewater Guiding Policies adopted as part of the Parks, Public Facilities and Services General Plan Element include: · 5.3.G-4: Promote the orderly and efficient operation and expansion of the wastewater treatment system to meet projected needs. · 5.3.G-5: Promote equitable sharing of the costs associated with providing wastewater service to new development. · 5.3-G-6: Maintain environmental appropriate wastewater practices Wastewater Implementing Policies include: · 5.3-I-4: Ensure coordinated capital improvements with respect to the extent and timing of growth. · 5.3.I-5: Ensure that future residents and businesses equitably share costs associated with providing wastewater service to new development in South San Francisco. · 5.3-I-6: Monitor industrial discharges to ensure that wastewater quality continues to meet various federal, State and regional standards: treatment costs should remain affordable · 5.4-I-7: Encourage new projects in East of 101 area at are likely to generate large quantities of wastewater to lower treatment needs through recycling, pre- treatment or other means as necessary. General Plan land use designations in the vicinity of the project area include a mix of light ir.dustrial, commercial and research and development uses. City of South San Francisco Page 52 Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program July 2002 The Ci:y of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance regulates land uses on private property in the community. Since project elements associated with this project are typically located within public rights-of-way or public properties, the Zoning Ordinance does not have authority for this project. Since a portion of the project is located within 1000 feet of the Mean High Tide level of Colma Creek, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) exercises jurisdiction over the proposed Colma Creek bank stabilization portion of the project. The Ci ~ of South San Francisco received an earlier Permit from the BCDC to undertake improvements to the Water Quality Control Plant (Permit No. 8-98, dated July 29, 1998) and work is proceeding by the City to fulfill conditions of permit approval. Since the proposed Colma Creek bank stabilization project is located within the immediate vicinity of the Water Quality Control Plant, the City intends to request an amendment to PerMit No. 8-98 to include the bank stabilization portion of the project within the scope of the Permit. Project Impacts a) P'aysically divide an established community? LS/M. Approval and construction of the p_-oposed project would involve work within public rights-of-way or on properties currently owned by the City of South San Francisco. Short-term construction could result in a hardship for local businesses by restricting access during business hours. This could be a potentially significant impact and the following mitigation n'.easure is recommended to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure 8: The City shall undertake an advance notification program to property owners and residents that could be affected by the proposed construction program indicating, at minimum, a description of ?roposed work, hours of operation, construction phasing and an individual to be ~otified in the event of emergencies. b) Gmflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? NI. The proposed sewer improvement programs would be consistent with the Guiding and Implementing Policies of the Parks, Public Facilities and Services Element of the South San Francisco General Plan as identified in the Environmental Setting section. No impacts would therefore result. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NI. No such plan has been adopted within the City of South San Francisco. There would therefore be no impact to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan for the proposed project. City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program Page 53 July 2002 10. Mineral Resources Environmental Setting The project area contains no known mineral resources. This is based on the Existing Conditions Report prepared as part of the 1999 General Plan Update process. Project Impacts a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? NI. T_'te City of South San Francisco General Plan (1999) does not indicate that significant deposits of minerals exist in the project area, so no impacts would occur. 11. Noise Environmental Setting The City defines "noise" as a sound or series of sounds that are intrusive, irritating, objectionable and/or disruptive to daily life. Noise is primarily a concerns with regard to noise sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, churches and hospitals. Altho~zgh noise is controlled around commercial, industrial and recreation uses, comm-mity noise levels rarely exceed maximum recommended levels for these uses. The Noise Element of the General Plan EIR identifies the following primary sources on noise L~a South San Francisco: aircraft noise from San Francisco International Airport, traffic noise from freeways and arterial roadways in the community, railroad noise and industrial noise. The Noise Element identifies the following maximum noise exposure levels by land use type. Table 4. City of South San Francisco Noise Exposure Levels Residenzial Commercial Industrial Land Use Noise Exposure Level Less than 65: Satisfactory 66 to 70: Conditionally Acceptable 70+: Unacceptable Less than 70:Satisfactory 70 to 80: Conditionally Acceptable 80+Airport-related development only Up to 75: Satisfactory 75 to 85: Conditionally Acceptable 85+ Airport related development only Up to 75: Satisfactory 75+ Avoid uses involving concentrations of people or animals Source: South San Francisco General Plan Noise Element, 1999 Noise level references reflect Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL) decibels City of South San Francisco Initial StJdy/Sewer Improvement Program Page 54 July 2002 Based on discussions with City of South San Francisco staff, there have been no complaints recorded by the City for current operations of pump stations. Project Impacts a) Would the project expose persons or generation o/noise levels in excess o/standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standard: NI. Approximately one- half of the project components are proposed to be located underground so there would be no permanent noise generation. Other portions of the project would include replacement and/or upgrading of existing sewer pump stations that are electrically powered and are located in non-residential areas. Two other project components would include construction of a wet weather holding pond at the City's Water Quality Control Plant and bank stabilization of Colma Creek adjacent to the Plant. Neither of these project components are expected to exceed permanent noise exposure levels adopted as part of the City's Noise Element. No impacts would therefore result. b) Exposure o/people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? LS/M. TEe majority of project components are proposed to be located within industrial ar d commercial areas, so there would be no impacts related to vibration during project construction. Construction of the Winston Manor project item in the westerly portion of South San Francisco is located in a primarily residential area ar d proposed replacement of the sewer pipe could generate a temporary source of ground borne vibration. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 9, below, would limit construction times of this project to normal construction times. With adherence to th~s mitigation measure, there would be less-than-significant impacts relative to vi'~ration impacts. c) Substantial increases in permanent in ambient noise levels? NI. There would be no changes and no impacts with regard to potential permanent noise impacts since no noise-generating uses are associated with the proposed project. d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? LS/M. Construction of the project could result in short-term noise and vibration due to trenching, grading and similar activities. Tl'.ere would also be increased noise levels from trucks and other construction ve~icles needed for the project. In the short-term, these activities could exceed City noise exposure standards. For the majority of the sites and project components the potential for increased noise and vibration would be less-than-significant, since the su_-rounding areas have been developed for light industrial, office or similar non- residential land uses. In one instance, the proposed Winston Manor sewer replacement (item #7 on Exhibit 3), the surrounding area is residential and short- term impacts could be potentially significant. The following measure is therefore recommended to reduce short term construction noise to acceptable levels. City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program Page 55 July 2002 Mitigation Measure 9: For the Winston Manor project component, construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday-Saturday. No construction shall occur on Sunday or on local, State or federal holidays. Exceptions may be granted on an emergency basis by the South San Francisco City Engineer. Construction activities shall be deemed to include vehicle warm- 'ap and maintenance and delivery of construction materials. These limitations shall be included in all construction plans and specifications for the project. The above mitigation measure would also serve to limit any groundboume vibrations to a less-than-significant level. For a project located within an airport land use plan, would the project expose people to excessive noise levels? NI. The project does not include construction of buildings or facilities that would house people. No impacts are therefore anticipated in terms of this topic. 12. Population and Housing Environmental Setting Population South San Francisco is San Mateo County's fourth largest City. Population growth in the City has been cyclical over the last few years, generally fueled first by heavy industrial uses in the early and mid-part of the last century. More recently, biotechnology and related high tech and office uses have spurred residential growth. The one major project that is in the process of completion is the Terrabay project on the south slopes of San Bruno Mountain. Other infill residential projects have been built along t~e E1 Camino corridor and other areas. Since the supply of large vacant parcels of land in the community is nearly exhausted, future _-esidential growth is anticipated to be limited. Additional population growth must come from redevelopment projects. The foEowing table includes historical population projections for the Bay Area, San Mateo County and South San Francisco, based on the Association of Bay Area Goverrment's Projections 2002 publication. The City's General Plan (1999) anticipates a maximum build-out population of 67,400 for the community. No time horizon for build-out is assumed for the General Plan. City of S3uth San Francisco Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program Page 56 July 2002 Table 5. Regional, County and City Population 2000 Population 2010 Population 2020Population Region 6,783,760 7,513,800 8,014,100 Sa.it Mateo Co. South San Francisco Source: (1) 707,161 754,600 795,100 54,312 63,800 66,900 ABAG Projections 2002 Employment Employment trends in South San Francisco have been changing from a heavy industrial center, dominated by steel mills, meat packing, ship building and similar "blue collar" indust-:_ies to high tech and research jobs. Due to the proximity to regional transportation facilities and to San Francisco, continued employment growth is anticipated for the next 20+ years. The following table summarizes projected employment growth in South San Francisco. Table 6. Regional, County and City Employment 2000Jobs 2010Jobs 2020Jobs Region 3,753,670 4,225,030 4,709,960 San Mateo Co. South San Francisco Source: (1) 395,890 433,820 480,990 53,190 58,020 62,880 ABAG Projections 2002 Projec; Impacts a) Ii,duce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? NI. Approval of the proposed project would not increase population growth in South San Francisco, since the purposes of the project are to meet wastewater discharge requirements and to replace older, failing sewer facilities. No new and undeveloped areas of the community would receive sewer service that is not City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program Page 57 July 2002 b,c) al_-eady receiving such service. The existing dry weather treatment capacity of the Water Quality Control Plant would not be expanded. No impacts are therefore ar.ticipated with regard'to population inducement. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? NI. The proposed project would not change existing land use patterns or uses. No impacts would therefore occur with regard to population displacement. 13. Public Services Enviro_-unental Settin~ The following provide essential services to the community: Fire Protection. Fire protection services are handled by the City of South San Francisco Fire Depai-tment. The Department provides fire suppression, fire prevention, education, building inspection services and hazardous material control. Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by the City of South San Francisco Police Depai~tment, which maintains a 24-hour security patrol throughout the community. · Schools. The South San Francisco Unified School District provides K-12 educational services to the community. · Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities are the responsibility of the City of South San Francisco. Solid Waste: Solid waste service is offered by South San Francisco Scavenger Company. After collection, waste is brought to the Line Transfer Station in the east of 101 area and ultimately disposed of at the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill located near Half Moon Bay. The Ox Mountain facility has a permit to accept fill material until 2016. Upon expiration of that permit, the facility is proposed for expansion. Project Impacts a) Fire protection? NI. Approval of the proposed project would have no impact to fire p_-otection since many of the proposed facilities would be underground. Sewage p'amp stations would continue to be located above ground, but many are proposed to be upgraded with new electrical controls and related equipment that would not result in fire hazards. City of South San Francisco Initial Sludy/Sewer Improvement Program Page 58 July 2002 b) c) d) e) Police protection? NI. Since all of the project elements would be closed to the public, either undergrounded or fenced and locked, no impacts to police services are anticipated. Sc'aools ? NI. There would be no impact to school service should the proposed project be approved since no new residential development would occur, nor would the project indirectly induce new residential development. Other governmental service, including maintenance of public facilities ? NI. There would be no impact to maintenance services provided by the City, since older, out-of-date facilities would be replaced by new facilities: Solid waste generation? NI. No impacts regarding generation of solid waste is ar.ticipated since no new residential, commercial, industrial or similar land uses would be constructed. 14. Recreation Enviro~unental Setting South San Francisco maintains 319.7 acres of parks and open space, equivalent to 5.4 acres per 1,000 residents. This includes 70 acres of developed parkland, 168.5 acres of open space and 81.2 acres of school lands. The City also provides a range of recreation programs available in 6 community recreation buildings, some of which provide specialized services. Some of the project elements, especially those located in the easterly portion of South San Francisco, are located near the San Francisco Bay Trail. The Bay Trail was initiated by the adoption of SB 100 in 1987 that promotes a continuous trail linkage around the Bay. As par. of previous construction at the Water Quality Control Plant (WCQP), the City of South San Francisco is presently working with the Association of Bay Area Governments (coordinator of Bay Trail implementation) to route the Trail along the north side of Colma Creek, north of the WQCP, so as not to interfere with operations of the WQCP. Project Impacts a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? NI. No City parks or open space lands are located near the project area, so no impacts are anticipated should the proposed project be approved and implemented. Similarly, no impacts would result to the Bay Trail, since the Trail is proposed to be located on the north side of Colma Creek where no proposed project elements are proposed. City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program Page 59 July 2002 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational facilities? NI. Since no residential development is proposed as part of the project, no recreational services are required to be acquired or constructed and no impacts would result. 15. Transportation/Traffic Environmental Setting The community is served by a range of surface transportation facilities, including freeways (US 101 and 1-280), arterial roadways intended to serve through traffic (El Camino Real, Sisters Cities Boulevard, Junipero Serra Boulevard and East Grand Avenue, collector roadways (Commercial, Del Monte Avenues) and local streets. The City also has made provision for a bicycle pathway through the community consisting of Class I, II and HI facilities and public transit (SAMTrans). The Bay Area Rapid Transit System (BART) recently opened a station in South San Francisco along E1 Camino Real. There is a Caltrain station near downtown South San Francisco. National and in-.ernational air service is available at San Francisco International Airport, located immediately south of the community. A portion of one of the project elements, the proposed Shaw Road Force Main (item 4 on Exl~.ibit 3) includes boring under the 101 freeway to accommodate this new line. An encroachment permit would be obtained from Caltrans prior to commencement of any boring activities. Project Impacts a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and street capacity? NI. The proposed project does not include facilities that would generate vehicular traffic. No impacts regarding traffic increases are therefore anticipated. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the County CMA for designated roads)? NI. Since no vehicular-generating development is p_-oposed as part of the project there would be no impact to CMA routes. c) Change in air traffic patterns? NI. The proposed project would have no impact on air traffic patterns, since it involves an upgrade to the City's wastewater collection system. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? LS/M. No permanent changes are proposed to the street system. However, temporary construction activities for trenching and excavating could partially block local streets during construction periods. This could result in a potentially significant impact due to disruption of local traffic patterns, especially during peak hour traffic periods. City of South San Francisco Initial S' udy/Sewer Improvement Program Page 60 July 2002 e) f) g) T_ae following mitigation measure is therefore recommended to reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure 10. A Traffic Construction Management Plan shall be prepared prior to commencement of construction, identifying specific methods to be undertaken to ensure that peak hour traffic can flow freely and that access to abutting properties is maintained for emergency vehicles. This shall include vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle modes of transportation. The Management Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the South San Francisco Police and Fire Departments Result in inadequate emergency access? LS/M. Short-term access to properties may be restricted near project construction zones. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 10, above, would ensure that access would remain adequate to emergency service providers. Inadequate parking capacity? NI. No impacts to existing parking patterns are required sL-~ce no development is proposed as part of the project. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? LS/M. Construction of the proposed project could restrict access for bicychsts and pedestrians near portions of the project area, especially where trenching and excavating is required to replace existing sewer pipes. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 10 would ensure that potential barriers to pedestrians and bicyclists would be reduced to a less-than- significant level. 16. Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Setting The project area is served by the following service providers: Water supply: California Water Service. This private water company obtains water via an agreement with the San Francisco Water Department and from groundwater resources. In addition to South San Francisco, the water company serves customers in San Carlos and San Mateo. The Water company prepares a range of water use projections based on fluctuations in 'population and employment demands. The company has indicated an adequate water supply for the highest projected demand for future uses. City of South San Francisco Initial S1 udy/Sewer Improvement Program Sewage collection and treatment: City of South San Francisco. The City's sanitary sewer collection system has an interconnecting work of gravity sewers, force mains and pump stations which function together to bring wastewater from individual properties to the Water Quality Control Plant. A number of the sewer lines, especially in the east of 101 area, are older and experience infiltration and inflow (i/i) during wet weather conditions which cause the capacity of pump Page 61 July 2002 stations and the Water Quality Control Plant to be exceeded. Older pump stations have also experienced reliability problems. Wastewater treatment is accomplished at the City's Water Quality Control Plant, located at the easterly terminus of Belle Air road just south of Colma Creek. The Plant also provides service for the city of San Bruno, San Francisco International Airport and portions of other communities. The Plant has been recently upgraded and expanded to accommodated growing employment uses in the Plant's service area and to meet Regional Water Quality Control Board discharge requirements. Storm drainage: City of South San Francisco maintains a series of drainage pipes and culverts through the City to accommodate stormwater runoff. East of the 280 freeway, stormwater flows into Colma Creek for ultimate disposal in San Francisco Bay. Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Co. provides electrical and natural gas service to the City of South San Francisco through a series of overhead and underground electrical lines. Existing pump stations receive electrical power from PG&E. · Communications: Pacific Bell provides a range of telephone and telecommunication service to homes and businesses in the community. Projec-. Impacts a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB ? NI. The proposed project is being undertaken to meet such discharge requirements. No impacts are therefore ar.ticipated. b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities ? NI. The proposed project does include new dry weather facilities as part of the Water Qaality Control Plan, however, these are proposed to be constructed to comply w-th Regional Water Quality Control Board discharge requirements and would not expand dry weather treatment capacity. No impacts are anticipated. c) Require new storm drainage facilities ? NI. Existing drainage patterns would not be ~ ~anged and no new drainage facilities would be needed. No impact would therefore result. d) Are sufficient water supplies available? Nil. Based on information provided in the General Plan Existing Conditions Report, the water purveyor to the City has ir.dicated that an ample water supply exists to serve future land uses. In this instance, the proposed project would not require any new source of water, so no impact to water service is anticipated. City of South San Francisco Initial S~ udy/Sewer Improvement Program Page 62 July 2002 e) e,f) g) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? LS. See response to "a,' a'~ove. Solid waste disposal? LS. Small quantities of solid waste would be generated by the iraplementation of the proposed project, which would be construction debris. This amount of solid waste is anticipated to be less-than-significant and can be accommodated in the local sanitary landfill. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? NI. T_~e existing service provider will ensure adherence to federal, state and local solid waste regulations should the proposed reorganization be approved. No impacts are ar~ticipated in this regard. 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No. The preceding analysis indicates that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact on overall environmental quality, including biological resources or cultural resources. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the eSfects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). No the proposed project involves elements to upgrade the City's sewer facilities to assist ir. meeting wastewater discharge requirements. The project has been designed to replace existing facilities and to allow limited new growth consistent with the City's adopted General Plan, so there would be no cumulative impacts associated with project approval. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. No such impacts have been d"scovered in the course of preparing this Initial Study. City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program Page 63 July 2002 Initial S~dy Preparers Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager Miley Holman, Holman Associates, archeology Matthew Clark, Holman Associates, archeology H. Bill Sugaya, Carey & Co, architectural history Connor Turnbull, Carey & Co., architectural history Phillip Smith, Treadwell & Rollo, hazardous materials Donald Ballanti, air quality James Martin, Environments Collaborative, biology Jane Maxwell, report graphics Agencies and Organizations Consulted The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study: City of South San Francisco Barbara Hawkins, P.E., City Engineer Ramesh Bhagat, P.E., project engineer Michael Lappen, Senior Planner Carolto Engineer (design engineer) Michael Britten, P.E., Principal-in-Charge David Antonson, P.E., Project Manager Bay Conservation and Development Commission Leslie Lackos References South San Francisco GeneralPlan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues, Dyett & Bhatia, 1997 South San Francisco General Plan, Dyett & Bhatia, 1999 South San Francisco General Plan EIR, EIP Associates, 1999 City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program Page 64 July 2002 City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program Appendix 2 Archeological Resources Evaluation (Holman & Associates) Page 66 July 2002 Appendix 1 Biological Reconnaissance Studies -Colma Creek Bank Stabilization (LSA Associates -Wet Weather Pond (Environmental Collaborative) City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program Page 65 July 2002 LSA J. SA ASSOCI&TE$ ~ ~To ~ICI~MOHD~ CALIFORNIA 94801 5to.236.65~o 51o.z36,~4~0 i~OC~CLIN Mr. Ken Loer ITSI, Inc. 2855 Mitchell Drive, Suite 111 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Subject: Results of Reconnaissance-Level BiologicaLSmdy for the colma Creek Bank Protection Project, South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant, San Mateo County Per your request, LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) presents this letter repOrt describing the results · of our reconnaissance-level biological survey of.the above-referenced project site located in the City of South San Francisco. The field survey was conducted to evaluate the potential presence of special-shams species and sensitive habitats on the project site and in the immediate vicinity. This information was used to assess potential impacts on biological resources resulting from project construction, as well as to identify potential constraints associat~l with project implementation- ! This leV. er report includes: 1) a brief description of existing conditions on the pwject rite; 2) · - a summary of state and federal regulations the project must comply with; 3) an analysis of sensitive habitats and special-status plant and wildlife species potentially present on the site; and 4) ~. review of the proposed project and regulatory considerations/requirements. EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site is located at the downstream end of Colma Creek where the creek channel borders the South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant OVQCP). Colma Creek is directly tributary to San Francisco Bay. The portion of Colma Creek in the vicinity of the WQCP is clearly subject to tidal influence as evidenced by the presence of salt tolerant plant species such as pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) and cordgrass (Spartina sp.) along the 5/22/01 (P:h'TS 130~ IORPT.WPD) channel banks, as well as the presence of barnacles and other marine invertebrates on exposed rubble in the area. The linear project site encompasses approximately 600 feet of creek bank extending along the northern side of the WQCP. The project site is bordered by WQCP facilities to the south, Colma Creek immediately to the north, and a small tributary/tidal wetland area to the west. In general, much of the creek bank in the vicinity of the WQCP is steep, eroded, and significantly degraded. Became of the close proximity of WQCP facilities to Colma Creek and the potential for these facilities to be undermined by future bank erosion, creek bank improvements have been proposed in this area to provide long-term protection for the water treatment facilities. The eastern (downstream) portion of the site consists of old rabble and other debris that are relicts of the original fill material used in the area. The creek bank is steep (nearly vertical in places) and transitions from mderal upland vegetation at the top of bank to exposed rabble and other debris, down to mudflat conditions in the channel bottom. A narrow band of mixed marsh vegetation consisting of gumplant (Grindelia stricta), pieldeweed, and eordgrass is scattered among the rabble along the approximate high tide line; the bank is otherwise devoid of vegetation below the high tide line. The ehatmel bank at the western (upstream) end of the project site is less eroded and the topographic transition to the open creek channel is more gradual than at the downstream end. A small tidal marsh area borders the western end of the project site where a tributary drainage feeds into Colma Creek. This marsh habitat is dominated by a nearly pure stand of eordgrass which extends from the tributary drainage downstream in a narrow band along the bank of Colma Creel Ihis wetland vegetation transitions to a relatively steeper unvegetated channel bank approximately 250 feet downstream from the tributary drainage. The upper bank along the length of the project site · is primarily dominated by non-native mderal vegetation, annual grasses, and scattered patches oficeplant ( Carpobrotus sp.). , · REGULATORY CONTEXT. Applicable Federal Laws and Regulations ~: Endangered Species Act · The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service CLISFWS) has jurisdiction over formally-listed threatened and endangered terrestrial, and freshwater species. In addition, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has jurisdiction over marine and anadramous fish species Under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). This act protects listed animal species from harm or "take," which is broadly defined as to "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, woUnd, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in such conduct." An activity can be defined as a"take" even if it is unintentional or accidental. Listed plant species are provided less protection. Plants are legally protected from take under the federal act if on federal land or from federal actions, such as issuing a wetland fill permit. 5/22/01~:~*TS 130~31ORPT.WPD) 9. An endar_gered species is one that is considered in danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range. A threatened species is one that is- likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. The USFWS also maintains a list of species proposed for listing. Proposed species are those, for which a proposed role to list as endangered or · threatened has been published in the Federal Register. In addition to endangered, threatened, and proposed species, the USFWS maintains a list of candidate species. Candidate'(formerly category 1 candidate) species are those for which the USFWS has on file sufficient information to support issuance of a proposed listing role. Former category 2 candidates are now considered by .the USFWS to be species of concern and are r.o longer biannually monitored because they lack sufficient information on status and threats. Any activities that could result in take of a federally listed species will require an ESA Section 10 take permit from the USFWS before allowing take activities to commence. Should mother.federal agency, such as th~ Corps under the Clean Water Act, acting as the lead ageucy be involved with permitting the project, Section.7 of the ESA requires the federal lead age ~cy to consult with the USFWS before allowing any activities that may take listed 'species. Clean ~ater Act 'The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is responsible under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to regulate the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States. Waters of the United States and their lateral limits are defmed in 33 CFR Part 328.3(a) and include streams that are tributaries to navigable waters and theft adjacent wetlands. The lateral limits ' Ofjuris~iction for a non-tidal stream are measured at the line of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) (33 CFR Part 328.3(e)) or thc limit of adjacent wetlands (33 CFR Part 328.3Co)). Any permanent extension of the limits of an existing water of the United States, whether natural or man-made, results in a similar extension of Corps jurisdiction (33 CFR Part 328.5). Waters of the United States fall into two broad categories, wetlands and other waters. Other waters ~clude waterbedies and watercourses such as rivers, streams, lakes, springs, ponds, coastal waters, and estuaries. Wetlands include marshes, wet meadow, seep areas, floodplains, basins, and other areas, experiencing extended seasonal soil saturation. Seasonally or intermittently inundated features, such as seasonal pools, ephemeral streams, and tidal marshes, are categorized as wetlands if they have hydric soils and support wetland plant communities. Seasonally inundated waterbodies or watercourses that do not exhibit wetland characteristics are classified as other waters of the United States. Waters and wetlands that cannot trace a continuous hydrological connection to a navigable water of the United States are not tributary to waters of the United States. These are termed "isolated wetlands." Isolated wetlands are jurisdictional when their destruction or 5/22/Ol(P:~rs' 30XBIORPT. WPD) ~SA ASSOCIAT£S~ degradation can affect interstate or foreign commerce (33 CFR Part 328.3(a)). The Corps may or may not take jurisdiction over isolated wetlands depending on circumstances. In general, a Corps permit must be obtained before placing fill or grading in wetlands or other waters of the United States. The Corps will be required to consult with the USFWS and/or NMFS under section 7 of the ESA if Clean Water Act permitting will result in take of federally listed species. Rivers and Harbors Act Certain structures and/or work in or affecting navigable waters of the U.S. are regulated under the authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act 03 USC 403). Under this Act, the creation of any obstruction to the navigable capacity of any waters of the U.S. is prohibited without the specific approval of the Corps. Additionally, excavation, fill, or any modification in any way of the course, location, conditions, or capacity of the navigable watenvay or assOciated waterways is also subject to the regulatory authorization of this Act. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703) prohibits the taking, hunting, killing, selling, purchasing, etc. of migratory birds, parts of migratory birds, or their eggs and nests. The act calls for the protection of birds identified in treaties with Great Britain, Japan, Mexico, and Russia. In addition, it contains a clause that prohibits baiting or poisomg of these birds. As used in this act, the term "take" is defined as meaning, "to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, kill, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, or kill, unless the context otherwise requires." Most native bird species on thc Colma Creek site are covered by this act. Applicable State Laws and Regulations California Endangered Species Act The California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG) has jurisdiction over state-listed .threatened, rare (plants), and endangered plant and animal species under the California Endangered Species Act. In addition, species proposed for listing under the state act are protected by its provisions. CDFG also maintains a list of species of special concern, defined as species that appear to be vulnerable to extinction because of declining populations, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats. Species of special concern are not afforded legal protection under the California Endangered Species Act.' California fully protected and protected species may not be taken or possessed without a permit.from the Fish and Game Commission and/or the CDFG. These take permits do not allow "incidental take" and are more restrictive than the take allowed under Section 2081 for the California Endangered Species Act. Information on fully protected species can be found 5F22/01(P:~ITS130~BIORPT.WPD) 4 in the Fish and Game Code (birds at Section 3511, mammals at Section 4700, reptiles and amphibians at Section 5050, and fish at Section 5515). Information on protected (as opposed to fully-cmtected) amphibians can be found in Chapter 5, Section 41; protected (as opposed to fully protected) reptiles at Chapter 5, Section 42. Califorr:ia Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies to "projects" proposed to be undertaken or requiring approval by State and local government agencies. Projects are defined as having the potential t'o have physical impact on the environment. Under Section 15380 of CEQA, a species not included on any formal list "shall nevertheless be considered rare or endangered if the species can be shown by a local agency to meet the criteria" for listing. With sufficient documentation, a species could be shown to meet the definition of rare or endangered under CEQA and be considered a "de facto" endangered species. Section 401 Water Quality Certification All CorPs permits, including Nationwide Permits, require water quality certification, under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. This regulatory program is administered by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). An application for water quality certification must be submitted to RWQCB. This package typically consists of the federal 404 materials and the project CEQA document. RWQCB has adopted a policy requirhlg mitigation for any loss of wetland, streambed, or jurisdictional area. California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 'Under i ?ish and Game Code Section 1600, CDFG also administers the issuance of Streambed Alteration Agreements. Streambed Alteration Agreements are required any time project activities would~~.~.~, divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, ckarmel, or bank of liny river, stream, or lake designated as'such by CDFG. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act This Act (16U.S.C. 1801-1882) is the primary law addressing fisheries resources and fishing 'activitr. es in federal waters (i.e., those waters extending from the edge of the state waters to the 200-mile limit). The goals of the Act are to provide for the conservation and management of marine fishery resources, to prevent overfishing, to rebuild overfished stocks, insure conservation, and facilitate long-term protection of essential habitats. Under this Act, fishet2r management plans are prepared for those commercial and recreational fisheries which are de:ermined to require active federal management. Implementation of regulations associated with such plans, as well as overall enforcement of this Act is the responsibility of the N,_tional Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) within NOAA of the Department of Commerce. $/22/01 (P:klTS 130~IORPT. WPD) LSA ASSOCIAT~S~ McAteer-Petris Act The Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) was established to prevent the unnecessary filling of San Francisco Bay and to increase public access to and along the Bay shoreline. The Commission is responsible for overseeing two state laws, the McAteer-Petris Act and the Suisun Marsh Preservation Act, .as well as two plans, the San Francisco Bay Plan and the Suisun Marsh Protection Plan. In addition, the Commission is authorized to control both filling and dredging of the Bay, and Bay-related shoreline development. It is necessary to obtain BCDC approval prior to undertaking activities such as: 1) filling or placing solid material, building pile-supported or cantilevered structures, disposing of material or permanently mooring vessels in the Bay or in certain tributaries of the Bay; 2) shoreline activities and projects, including grading, on land within 100 feet of the Bay Shoreline; and 3) any filling, new construction, major remodeling, substantial change in use, and many land subdivision in the Bay, along the shoreline, in salt ponds, duck hunting preserves, or other managed wetlands adjacent to the Bay. METHODOLOGY Prior to conducting field work, LSA searched the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) to locate records ofspecial=statua species or habitats in'the project area. Using 'data in the CNDDB, a list of potentially occurring special-status species and habitats was developed. This list was supplemented by LSA's extensive project experience with protected plants and wildlife in the South San Francisco area, as well as information contained in a recent biological analysis prepared by LSA for a cogeneration project at the San Francisco International Airport that included this portion of Colma Creek in the study area. LSA conducted a reconnaissance-level site visit on April 26, 2001. Results of this formal field _z~sessment were supplemented by information provided by Mr. Ken Navarro (WQCP Superintendent) during the site visit. The project site was investigated for special-status habitats and evidence of occupation by special-status species or habitats that would support them. All wildlife and plant species observed during the survey were recorded in field notes. RESULTS Sensitive Habitats Wetlands The tidal wetland habitat extending along the upstream reach of the project site was the only sensitive habitat obsen, ed during LSA's site visit. This wetland area is subject to tidal action and is composed of a nearly pure stand of cordgrass. No other sensitive habitats were observed on the project site or in the project vicinity during the site visit. Both Colma Creek 5/22/01 (P:~TS ! 30'~BIOEPT.WPD) 6 LSA A$$OC]A'I~$~ INC. and the ~ssociated wetland habitat at the western end of the project site would be subject to Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Special-status Plants No spec'.al-status plant species were observed on or in the vicinity of the project site during the site visit. Table A (attached) includes a total of 24 special-status plants considered potentiaAy present in the project vicinity. Table A is a subset of a larger list of regionally occurrir_g plants that require habitat features not present on the site or in the nearby vicinity (e.g., se_-pentine soils). Eighteen of the species in Table A were eliminated fi'om conside_--ation because the habitats that support them were absent fi:om the proposed project site (e.g., these species require chaparral, woodland, or coastal scrub habitats). Four species (Marsh Sandwort, Point Reyes birds-beak, Hairless popcorn flower, and California sea blite) could potentially occur in the wetland habitat along' the northern portion of the project site and therefore could not be eliminated fi:om consideration. Special-statu. s Wildlife No special-status wildlife.species were observed on or in the vicinity of the the project site during -he site visit. Table B (attached) includes a total of 24 special-status wildlife species considered potentially present in the project vicinity. Five of the species on the list (Bay checkcrspot butterfly, Mission blue butterfly, San Bruno elfin butterfly, Callippe silverspot butterfly, and Bank swallow) were eliminated fi:om consideration because of the absence of suitable habitat (e.g., butterfly requires presence of host plant for egg laying). Colma Creek suppor~a potential foraging habitat for nine special-status bird species (Short-eared owl, Western snowy plover, Northem harrier, White-tailed kite, American peregrine falcon, Long-billed curlew, California brown pelican, Double-crested cormorant~ and California least tern) it the vicinity of the WQCP; however, suitable nesting habitat for these species was not observed at the time of LSA's site visit. Two special-status fish species (Steelhead and Chinook salmon) could occur incidentally in this portion of Colma Creek, but this drainage does not provide suitable spawning habitat for either species. Western pond turtles are occasionally found in brackish habitats 'similar to that found in this reach of Colma Creek, but this species typically prefers habitat with more suitable basking and retreat sites. Conditions upstream may be suitable for pond turtles and individuals could migrate through this portion of the creek as they move to and from more suitable habitat. Habitat conditions on the project site and in the vicinity are considered marginally suitable for the remaining seven special-status species. These species (Salt marsh common yellowthroat, Alameda song sparrow, Califomia black rail, California clapper rail, Salt marsh harvest mouse, and Salt marsh wandering shrew) could potentially occur on the site. However, based on the type and quality of available habitat, as well as the proximity of the site to other suitable habitat, these species have been determined to have a low probability of occurrence. 5/22/01 (P:~IT~ 130~BIORPT.WPD) LSA AS$O C~ATE$ ~ REGULATORY PERMITTING CONSIDERATIONS Co~ps of Engineers Based on LSA's wetlands permitting experience in the Bay Area, the entire reach of Colma Creek in the project area and the associated wetland habitat at the northern end of the project site is most likely subject to Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. The limit of Corps jurisdiction in the project area · extends up to the high tide line or the limit of wetland vegetation. Because work is anticipated in Corps jurisdiction, a permit from the Corps will be necessary. Based on an assessment of preliminary project information provided to LSA by ITSI, the project may qualify for authorization under Nationwide Permit (NWP) 13 - Bank Stabilization. In order for the project to qualify for NWP 13, the following criteria must be met: No material is placed in excess of the minimum needed for erosion protection; No material is placed in any special aquatic site, including wetlands; No material is of the type or is placed in any location, or in any manner, so as to impair surface water flow into or out of any wetland area; No material is placed in a manner that will be eroded by normal or expected high flows; and The activity is part ora single and complete project. If the bank stabilization activity is greater than 500 feet ia length, or the activity exceeds an average of one cubic yard of material per running foot placed along the bank below the plane of the ordinary high.~ water mark or the high tide line, the Corps requires the submittal of a formal Pre-construction Notification (PCI~. A PCN submittal for N-WP authorization typically takes 3 to 6 months for the Corps to process. If the Corps determines that the project does not qualify for authorization under NWP 13, Individual Permit authorization would be required, which is generally more complex, time consuming, and costly when compared to the NWP process. The Individual Permit process involves a public review component, as well as the preparation of a 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis. Processing time for an Individual Permit application typically requires 6 months to one year. Potential Mitigation Requirements The Corps NWP General Condition 19 requires compensatory mitigation to ensure that adverse impacts to the aquatic environment are minimal. Restoration, creation or enhancement of other aquatic resources may be required in order to offset the authorized impacts to a'level that is less than significant. The mitigation must be available and capable ofbeingdone considering costs, existing technology, and logistics in light of the overall 5/22/010a:kITS i 30kBIORPT.WPD) 8 ~SA A$SOCIAT£$~ INC. project l:urposes. It may be possible to avoid compensatory mitigation if fill is avoided that permanently displaces the limit of the high tide line (i.e., the bank protection improvements do not cause the high tide line to shift toward the centerline of the creek). However, it should be noted that RWQCB often requires compensatory mit. igation even when not requested by the Corps. San Frtzneiseo Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board For any NWP or Individual Permit to be valid, water quality certification from the RWQCB is necessary. The processing time for a certification request typically requires approximately two months after submittal of.the necessary application components. U. S. Fish and W'ddlife Service- As described above and in Tables A and B, the site provides potential habitat for several federally protected species. If after reviewing the PCN, the Corps determines that the project may result in adverse impacts to listed species.(i.e., take), formal consultation under Section 7 of the ESA will be required. The Corps will initiate formal consultation with USFWS. Under the ESA, formal consultation is limited to a 135 day time period (although the USFWS does not always adhere to this time frame). Based'on the project information provided to date, LSA has determined that with the implementati°n of specific construction mitigation measures (i.e., timing of the project, biological monitoring, etc.), potential impacts to federally protected species resulting from project implementation could be effectively · avoide~. Bay Conservation and Development Commission Because the project site lies within the jurisdiction of BCDC, authorization from BCDC will be required. Based on prior discussions with ITSI, an amendment to an existing BCDC permit '~ssued for recent improvements/expansion activities at the WQCP will be obtained. CONCLUSION Over'aL, the proposed project will: 1) reduce on-going bank erosion; 2) function to enhance water c_uality conditions in Colma Creek; and 3) protect the WQCP facilities from future damage resulting from erosion. The project site does not support any high-value sensitive habitats and based on our analysis, it appears that the proposed project will not result in significant impacts to plant and wildlife species provided appropriate construction measures are developed and implemented. Based on preliminary project information provided by ITSI, project impacts will primarily consist of short-term, localized disturbance associated with construction activity (i.e., noise, ground vibration, etc.). Long-term impacts from the project are expected to be negligible, consisting of the permanent loss of a small amount of degraded channel bank. In summary, the proposed project should not result in significant adverse impacts to biological resources. 5/22/01(P:~TS 130LBIORPT.WPD) 9 Please contact me or Ross Dobberteen, Principal-in-Charge, if you have questions or require additional information regarding this project. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Sean M. O'Brien ProjeCt Manager Biologist Attachment: Table A - Special-status plant species Table B - Special-stares wildlife species ce: Peter l_amge, ITSI sr~o~o~:x~Ts~3oxmom~r.wvv) 10 LS& ASSOCIATES, INC. Table A - Special-Status Plant Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Vicinity Status* Potential / Species (Federal/State/ Habitat Occurrence in CNPS) Project Area Montara Manzanita FSC/__/1B Chaparral and coastal None A. montaraensis scrub Pacific Manzanita Coastal scrub, None A. pacifica sandstone ridges Marsh Sandwort Marshes and swamps .Arenaria paludicola Alkali Milk-Vetch Astraga:us tener' Var. tener San Francisco Bay Spineflower Chorizanthe cuspidata var ' cuspida:a Robust Spineflower C. robusta var. robusta Fountain Thistle Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale Compact Cobwebby Thistle C. occidentale var compactum Presidio Clarkia Clarki~ franciscana Round-Headed Chinese Houses Collinsia corymbosa Pt. Re) es Bird's-Beak Cordylanthus maritimus s~p palustris Fragrant Fritillary F. liliacea San Francisco Gumplant · Grindelia hirsula var martima Diablo Helianthella Helianthella castanea Kellog's Horkelia Horkelia cuneata ssp sericea Beach Layia Layia carnosa FSC/SE/ FE/SE/1 B Potential / /lB FSC/__/1B Vernal pools and None annual grasslands Coastal bluff scrub None and coastal dunes FF_7 /lB Coastal bluff scrub None and cismontane woodlands. FE/SF_J1B Serpentine seeps and None FSC/__/IB Chaparral and coastal None dunes FE/SE/1B Coastal scrub, None serpentine outcrops / /lB Coastal dunes and None prairie FSC/__/1B Coastal salt marsh Potential FSC/ /lB Coastal scrub and None prairie FSC/__/1B Coastal scrub, sandy None or serpentine slopes FSC/__/1B Chaparral, coastal None scrub, and cismontane woodlands FSC/ /lB Coastal scrub and None chaparral FE/SE/1B Coastal dunes None 5f22/01 (P:h'TS 130~lanttbl.wpd) LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Species Crystal Sphngs Lessingia Lessingia arachnoidea San Francisco Lessingia I_,. gertnanorum San Francisco Popcorn-Flower Plagiobothrys diffusus Hairless Popcorn-Flower P. glaber Hickman's Cinquefoil Potentilla hickmanii Adobe Sanicle Sanicula maritima Status* (Federal/State/ CNPS) FSC/ /lB FE/SE/1B FSC/SE/1B / /IA FE/SE/1B FSC,/SR/1B · 'California Sea Blite FE/ /lB Suaeda californica San Francisco Owl's-Clover FSC/ /lB Triphysaria floribunda Habitat Potential / Occurrence in Project Area Coastal sage scrub, None and cismontane woodlands Coastal scrub in open None sandy soils of remnant dunes. Grassland and coastal None prairie Coastal salt' marsh, meadows and seeps Freshwater marshes, None seeps, and small stre~a,.s in open or closed forested areas along the coast. Chaparral, meadows and seeps, and coastal prairie Margins of coastal salt marsheS. Coastal prairie, grassland Potential Presumed extinct in this area. Potential None * Status FE = Federally listed as endangered. FT = Federally listed as threatened. FSC= Federal Species of Concern SE = California listed as endangered. ST = California listed as threatened. SR= California listed as rare. CSC= California Species of Concern CNPS (California Native Plant Society) - Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California lB= List lB: Rare, threatened, or endangered in California lA = List lA: Plants presumed extinct in California No status Sources: California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2000. Department of Fish and Game (Quads: San Francisco South, San Francisco North, Hunters Point, Montara Mountain, San Mateo) Smith, J. And K. Berg (eds.) 1988. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. California Native Plant Society Special Publication No. 1, 4th ed. Sacramento, Ca. 5/22/01 (P:klTS 130\planttbl.wpd) 2 [,SA ASSOCIATES, INc. Table B - Special-Status Wildlife with Potential To Occur in the Project Vicinity Species Status* Habitat (Federal/State) INVERTEBRATES Bay checkerapot butterfly Eu£hydryas editha bayensis FT/ Mission blue butterfly FFJ Icaricia icariodes missionensis San Bruno elfin butterfly Incisialia mossii bayensis Callippe silverapot butterfly Speyeria callippe callippe FISH Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus Chinook salmon ' Oncorh?nchus tshawytscha FT/ FT/CSC Native grasslands on serpentine outcrops; host plant = dwarf plantain (Plantago erecta). Grasslands; host plant = native lupines (Lupinus app.) Grasslands in hills; host plant = stoneorop (Sedum spathulifolium). Northern coastal scrub; host plant = violet (Viola pedunculata). Coastal and central valley streams, may ,seasonally occur in estuaries Bay and Delta tributaries, streams AMPtL-BIANS AND REPTV.ES Westen. pond turtle Clemmys marmorata BIRDS · Short-eared owl Asio flammeus Western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus (eoasta~. population) Northern harrier Circus cyaneus White--ailed kite Elanus leucurus FSC/CSC __/CSC (nesting) FT/CSC (nesting) __/CSC (nesting) ._~FG (nesting) Perennial and seasonal ponds and creeks, brackish sloughs Marsh and grassland Ground nesting Sandy beaches, salt pond levees, and the bottom of dried salt ponds. Marsh and grassland Ground nesting Grassland Trees and shrub habitat for nesting Potential / Occurrence in Project Area None None None None Potential Potential Potential Foraging Foraging. Foraging Fomging 5/22/01(P:~.ts130\wildtbl.wpd) LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Species American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum Salt-marsh common yellowthroat Geothlypi$ trichax sinuosa Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Alameda song sparrow Melospiza melodia pusillula (South Bay) Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus California brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis californicus Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus California black rail Laterallus jamaicensi~ coturiculus California clapper rail Rallus longirostris obsoletus Bank swallow Riparia riparia California least tern Sterna antillarum browni Status* (Federal/State) __/SE (nesting) FSC/CSC FSC/CSC FSC/CSC __/CSC (nesting) FE/SE (nesting colony) __/CSC (rookery site) FSC/ST FE/SE .._/ST (nesting) FE/SE (nesting colony) Habitat Shorelines, grasslands, transmission towers Associated with fresh and brackish marsh that provide continuous cover for foraging. Grassland and open habitat with shrubs or trees for perches Marshes, wetlands, grassland Cultivated fields, salt marshes, open mud fiats Sloughs, channels, and open water Sloughs, channels, and open water. Transmission towers for nesting Salt marshes bordering larger bays. Associated with salt marshes, also found in brackish and freshwater marshes. Salt water marshes traversed by tidal sloughs. Riparian habitat; nests in banks associated with streams, rivers, and lakes. Sandy beaches, alkali fiats, hard-pan surfaces such as bay fill, abandoned salt ponds, and aircraft runways. Potential I Occurrence in Project Area Foraging Potential Potential Potential Foraging Foraging Foraging Potential Potential None Foraging 5/22/01 (p:uts 130\wildtbl.wlxl) 2. LSA A$$OCIA'fES, INC. Species MAMMALS Salt m~rsh harvest mouse Reithrodontomys raviventris raviver~tris Status* (Federal/State) FE/SE FSC/CSC Salt marsh wandering shrew Sorex vagrans halicoetes * Status FE = Federally listed as Endangered. Fl' = Federally listed as ThreatenecL FC= Federal candidate species. FSC -- Federal Special Concern species SE = State listed as Endangere~L ST = State listed as Threatened SCE = State candidate for listing as Endangered SCT = State candidate for listing as Threatened CSC = California Special Concern species DFG = Fully Protected and Protected No status. Habitat Tidal salt marshes in central and southern San. Francisco Bay, and it's tributaries, dominated by picldeweed ( Salicornia spp.). Tidal salt marshes, dominated by pickleweed. Potential / Occurrence in Project Area Potential Potential $/22/OIC~:klts130\wildtbl.wpd) MEMORANDUM TO: Jerry Haag 2029 University Avenue Berkeley, CA 94704 FROM: Jim Martin DATE: 20 March 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL COLLABORATIVE Consultation · Documentation · Restoration 126864th Street · Eme~yville, CA 94808 Phone 510/654-4444 · FAX 510165~.~.~~. SUBJECT: Biological Assessment Water Quality Control Plant Improvement Project Wet Weather Storage Pond South San Francisco, California As you requested, below is a discussion of my preliminary conclusions regarding the sensitivity of the existing wastewater treatment facility site along the south side of Colma Creek in South San Francisco. The site has been used as a treatment facility ;ince 1952 and is currently undergoing an upgrade as part of the Water Quality ontrol Plant Improvement Project. The District is now assessing the feasibility of converting the existing sludge drying beds into a large overflow basin. Using my 1997 assessment of the overall improvement as a basis~, this report provides a description of the existing vegetation and wildlife habitat at the site, discussion of potential impacts and their signit'~ance, and conclusions regarding the need for mitigation. Methods I first conducted a field reconnaissance of the site on 9 September 1997. A follow- up reconnaissance was conducted on 4 March 2002. The purpose of the field reconnaissance was to determine the general vegetation and wildlife species asso.ciated with the site, and potential presence of suitable habitat for special-status species. No detailed surveys were performed as part of the field reconnaissance surveys. Existing Conditions Most of the site has been developed with facilities associated with the treatment lant. These include buildings and tanks, aeration basins, and drying beds. ngoing construction has eliminated most of the ornamental vegetation which once surrounded the original buildings. Ruderal (weedy, invasive) species generally form a narrow band between the developed areas and the shoreline of Colma Creek and 1ENVIRONMENTAL COLLABORATIVE, 1997, Bioioigcel ~ VVator quality Control Plant Improvement Project, memo to Jem/Haag, dated 18 Septentl~r. San Bruno Canal. Species common in areas supporting ruderal cover include wild oats, wild radish, bristly ox-tongue, field mustard, curly dock, and fennel. The sludge drying beds seasonally support a cover of emergent cattails and other wetland indicator species, but are routinely scraped. The shorel'ne along Colma Creek and San Bruno Canal supports a narrow band of coastal sak marsh vegetation, composed of a narrow band of native and non-native species that are distributed vertically depending on the degree to which they can tolerate tic al inundation. A highly aggressive, non-native species of cordgrass (Spartina &lternifolia) has become established at the lowest elevations, and is spreading .-hroughout the canal area. Native pickleweed occurs at the mid-level, often formi ~g a band only one shrub in width. Transitional species such as gumplant and sea lavender occur at the u~pper elevations with ruderal cover. A large area of marshlend vegetation occurs at the northeastern tip of the site, where marsh habitat was reportedly created as part of a mitigation project in the mid-1980's. Because o~ the developed and disturbed condition of the upland portion of the site, it generally provides only marginal habitat for species typical of urban and suburban areas. However, the adjacent tidelands support a continuous band of northern coastal sa tmarsh which together with the mudflats are highly sensitive habitats, supporting numerous species of invertebrates which provide important feeding and roosting habitat for a variety of birds. Grebes, cormorants, bay ducks, coots, gulls, and terns jse the deeper water of the canal and creek for resting and feeding. Wading birds such as herons and egrets use the shallow water associated with the mudflats to hunt for fish and reptiles. Shorebirds such as willets, godwits, dowitchers, sandpipers, snipes, tumstones, and plovers fccd on invertebrates in the mudflats a-rd areas of cordgress when exposed at Iow tide. Kingfishers, tams, and pelicans d've for fish in the water of the canals. Although of artificial origin, certain aspects of the treatment_plant operation create conditions which are attractive to a number of bird species. Several species of gulls and blackbirds were observed foraging in and around the existing digester tanks. The sludge drying beds have also been reportedly used for nesting in the past by Canadian geese and other waterfowl. Several geese were observed during the March 2002 reconnaissance. Active nests of geese and most other birds are protected Jnder the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which prohibits the taking, hunting, killing, sel ing, purchasing of migratory birds, their eggs, or nests. Due to the extent of past disturbance and the absence of essential habitat features, it appears unlikely that the site supports any special-status plant or animal species. No occurrences of species with special-statu_s have been mapped in the project vicinity by the California Natural Diversity Base~. A small population of the state and federally-endangered Califomia clapper rail (Rallus Iongirostris obsoletus) was reported from salt marsh habitat of San Bruno Point in 1975, but it is unlikely that the small areas of prickle-weed in the project vicinity are sufficient in size to support a local popL iation of this subspecies. There remains a possibility that special-status bird and f'sh species known to occur in the bay may occasionally utilize the tidal areas adjacent to the site. However, essential habitat for breeding or roosting California Natural Divemity Data Base, 1997, re(x~d search of the South San Francisco 7.5' U.S.G.S. quadrangle, ~ 6 Match. 2 appears to be absent in the upland portion of the site, and this occasional use should not pose a significant constraint to proposed improvements. Several salt-marsh common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa) were heard vocalizing in the rushes along the Colma Creek channel during the March 2002 reconnaissance. This species is recognized as a California Special Concem species by the Califomia Department of Fish and Game. No wrens were heard or observed in the few stands of cattail in the drying beds, which are believed to be unsuitable for the common yellowthroat due to routine disturbance and clearance of vegetation. Potential Impacts and Conclusions The proposed wet weather storage pond would be confined to the existing sludge drying beds. No. signif'K:~...nt imp. act? are antic!pated o.n any sp?ci. '.al-~etus s. pecie.s,. and disturbance to sensitive natural communities SUCh as coastal salt marsn WOUlC] be avoided. The proposed storage pond would require elimination of the existing sludge drying beds, which are apparently used for foraging and nesting by birds. However, the availability of the drying beds for use by wildlife appears to vary depending on season and maintenance activities. There remains an opportunity to allow for establishment of emergent vegetation around the perimeter of the basin to continue its dual function as nesting and foraging habitat for birds, which would serve to minimize the loss of the drying beds. Construction of the pond could disturb any nesting birds within the drying beds or along the adjacent channels unless outside the improvements are made nesting season (after August 31). The proposed pond has been designed to sit within the existing'uplands on the site and no fill in the adjacent channels or marshlvegetation is proposed. There is a remote possibility that construction activities could inadvertently affect the sensitive marsh habitat unless adequate controls are implemented. Recommendations Appropriate restrictions should be made to limit the extent of disturbance to the sensitive habitat along Colma Creek and avoid destruction of any nests in active use. At minimum these should include implementation of the following recommendations: Modifications to the shoreline of Colma Creek and the San Bruno Creek basin should be avoided, with all improvements restricted above the estimated spring high tide elevation. This would avoid the potential jurisdictional waters of the Corps. Fencing should be installed around the perimeter of the construction zone to clearly delineate the marsh and prevent unauthorized incursion into this sensitive habitat. The proposed overflow basin should be designed to allow for the establishment of emergent vegetation, such as cattail and bulrush, around its perimeter. The basin should preferably be earth-lined, with side slopes not exceeding 2:1. Ideally the northern and eastern side slopes should not exceed 3:1 to allow for establishment of a wider band of emergent vegetation. Any clearing of established vegetation within the drying bed required for 3 pond construction should be scheduled during the non-nesting season after 31 August and before 15 October to avoid disturbance to possible nesting birds. I hope this provides you with the information necessary to complete your review of the proposed wet weather pond. Please feel free to contact me at 5101654 4'1'1'! if you have any questions or would like any additional information. 4 City of South San Francisco Initial St ady/Sewer Improvement Program Appendix 2 Archeological Resources Evaluation (Holman & Associates) Page 65 June 2002 DRAFT INITIAL ARCIIAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES PROCEDURES FOR NATIONAL I-]'ISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT SECTION 106 COMPLIANCE m)R Tmr. CITY O~r SOUTU SAN FRANCISCO WET VYEATHER PROGRAM SEWER AND WATER TREATMENT PROJECT Matthew ~ Clark Registered Professional Archaeologist May2002 Report Prepared For Jerry Haag Urban Planner 2029 University Avenue Berkeley, CA 94704 HOLMAN & ASSOCIATES ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS 3615 FOLSOM STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110 CONTENTS Management Summary ................................................. 1 Introduction .......................................................... 3 Project Location and Description ..................................... 3 Parameters and Goals of this Report .................................. 3 Research Methods ' 6 Section 106 Applicability and Requiremems ................................. 7 Section 106 Work Completed to Date ................................. 8 The Next Steps for Section 106 Compliance ............................ 9 Project Description .................................................... 9 Project Element Types and Potential Impacts ............................... 12 Project Se-ting ...................................................... 12 Geomorphological ......................... ' ....................... 12 Prehistoric/Ethnohistoric/Archaeological .............................. 13 Records Search ................................................. 18 Historical Setting ................................................ 19 Potential Project Impacts .............................................. 22 Pump Station Elements ............................................ 22 Effluent Pond and Creek Bank Elements .............................. 24 PipeEne Elements ............................................... 25 S~ and Conclusions ............................................. 35 References .......................................................... 38 Tables: 1. Section 106 Status of South San Francisco Wet Weather Program Project Elements . 2 2. South San Francisco Wet Weather Program Project: Concordance of Elements ... 11 Maps: 1. South San Francisco Wet Weather Project Location ......................... 5 2. Portion of Nelson's 1909 Map of Bay Region Shell Mounds .................. 17 3. Historical Shorelines and Known Fill Areas (f~om The Mark Group 1988) ........ 23 A~t~endices: A: Carollo Engineers 3/19 and May 7* 2002 Project Descriptions and Maps. B: Carollo Engineers Project Phase 1 Plan Drawings. C: South San Francisco Wet Weather Program, by Historical Archaeologist Christopher M. Lee. D: Initiation of Consultation: List of Contactees and Examples of Contact Letters. ~AGEMEI~r S~Y The "South San Francisco Wet Weather Program" sanitary sewer and water treatment rehabilitatio~ and expan.~ion project is an undertaking by the City of South San Francisco. The Project inch~des 28 separate elements to ira?rove and expand sewer services and water treatment to meet State -,.nd Federal standards. The 28 elements include: upgraded/new pump stations; upgraded, enlarged, or_d new sewer lines and force mains; a new effluent storage pond, and; bank protection on Colma Creek. Most elements are on the east side of Highway 101 in the industrial sector ofthe CitT, three are just west of I-Flghway 101, one element is to the northwest. The SSFWWP comes under the National Historic Preservation Act's Section 106, designed to identify, ev-,Juate, and assess potential effects on "historic properties." Holman & Associates work is specificaLy focused on archaeological resources as pertains to Section 106. The SSFWWP will proceed in _-'our phases; only Phase 1 is approaching design completion, but all phases as currently known are covered by this document. Plans for most elements have progressed adequately to ~ address Section 106 concerns. Though all the Project Elements are within areas of significant archaeological sensitivity, more than half of the Elements were found to be within historic fill areas less than 5C years old and therefore not likely to affect historic properties as defined under Section 106. Most elements of the Project are not designed cor~letely enough to allow for definition of APEs and o fpotential physical effects to tangl~ole resources. Despite this, research presented below shows that numerous Project Elements do not have potential to effect historic properties (see Table 1), and for -hese, it is proposed that definition of precise APEs is unnecessary to meet Section 106 requirements. This report starts Section 106 procedures, beginning development of proposed field efforts to identify historic properties. Although only Phase 1 elements are approaching design completion, the goals of this initial report are broader. The archaeological resource base for the entire SSFWWP Project Area has been addressed for all Project phases. The approaches used and espoused here are also meant to apply to all following phases of the overall project. When a Research Design is proposed for historic property identification and subsequent evaluation for NRHP eligibility, it will also suffice in general terms for application to subsequent Project phases. Research and impact assessments completed have assessed 16 of the 28 Project Elements as having no potential to effect historic properties, lack of design specifics notwithstanding. For many Project Elements the exact APE and construction impacts will not matter because the work is located where there are no historic properties. Eight Elements have been assessed as having possible effects, depending on exact design and construction techniques adopted. Four Project Elements are seen as having def. nite potential to irapact historic properties, but even these are not yet fully assessed because exact construction impacts have not been made specific. These assessments may still change when more exact APEs can be defined. -1- Table 1: Seetion 106 Status of South San Franeiseo Wet Weather Pro~ram Project Elements Project Element Impacts APE Potential Section Element Type Known? Defined? 106 ~? 1 San Mateo Pump Station Upgrade Yes Yes No 2 San Mateo Force Main No No Yes 3 Shaw Road Pump Station Upgrade No No Possible 4 Shaw R~ad Force Main No No Yes 5 Effluent Storage Pond Yes Yes No 6 Airport Blvd Sewer No No Possible 7 Winston Manor Sewer No No Possible 8 Coima Creek Bank Restoration Yes Yes No 9 Pump Station 2 Upgrade Yes Yes No 10 Pump Station 2 Force Main Yes n/a No 11 Pump Station 4 Upgrade Yes Yes No 12 Pump Station 4 Force Main No ' No Yes 13 Pump Station 7 Upgrade Yes Yes No 14 Pump Station 8 Upgrade Yes Yes No 15 Pump Station 8 Force Main Yes n/a No 16 Pump Station 10 Upgrade Yes Yes No 17 Oyster Point Blvd Trunk Sewer No No Yes 18 Allerton Avenue Trunk Sewer Yes n/a No 19 East Grand Trunk Sewer No No Possible 20 DNA Way Subtrunk Sewer Yes n/a No 21 Pump Station I Upgrade Yes Yes No 22 Pump Station 3 Upgrade Yes n/a No 23 Swift Subtrunk Sewer Yes n/a No 24 Littlefield South Subtrunk Sewer No No Possible 25 Pump Station 6 Upgrade No No Possible 26 Harbor Way Subtrunk Sewer No No Possible 27 Executive Drive Subtrunk Sewer No No Possible 28 Littlefield North Subtrunk Sewer Yes n/a No -2- INTRODUCTION Project Location and Description The "South San Francisco Wet Weather Program" sanitary sewer and water treatment rehab'ffitafion and expansion project (SSFWWP, or "Project") is an undertaking by the City of South San Francisco in San Mateo County, California. The entire Project Area is located within City limits and is contained on the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute "San Francisco South" topographic quadrangle; see "Map 1." The Project Area is within the Mexican-era Rancho Buri Bur~ Land Grant, and is therefore not surveyed into the township-and-range survey systenz The Project involves 28 separate elements that, taken together, will provide for improved and expanded sewer services and water treatment for the City, which must meet State and Federal standards fo_-treatment and discharge of waste water into San Francisco Bay. Carollo Engineers are the Project Engineers, with primary responsibility for design of Project elements, while the City will make final ~_ecisions as to which and when specific elements will be completed. The 28 elements include: upgraded and new pump stations; upgraded, enlarged, and new sewer lines and force mains; a new effluent storage pond; and restoration and installation of bank protection ora short section of Colma Cree ¢ near its outlet. The majority of these elements are in the eastern portion of the City, east of Highway 101, the Bayshore Freeway; three are just west of 101, and a single element is in the northwest of the City. See the appended aerial photographs and descriptions of proposed facilities by Carollo Engineers for Project element numbers, locations, and descriptions (Appendices A and B). The SSFWWP Project will proceed in four phases over the next several years; only Phase 1 is approaching design completion, but all phases as currently known are covered by this document. Phase 1 includes five Elements: the San Marco Pump Station (Element [ID No.] 1); the San Mateo Force Main (Element 2); the Shaw Road Pump Station (Element 3); the Shaw Road Force Main (Element 4~; and, the Effluent Storage Pond (Element 5) (each described in more detail below). Although P_mse 1 is not yet completely designed, plans for the elements have progressed to a state adequate to address cultural resources impacts. Other Project phases are at less complete design states, as reflected in the discussion below. Parameters and Goals of this Report Holmza & Associates Archaeological Consultants (H&A) of San Francisco is contracted with Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, of Berkeley, to provide cultural resources consultation and Section 106 compliance services for the SSFWWP Project. David Antonson is the Project Manager for Carollo Engineers and has provided the Project maps and descriptions used here. This work is specifically focused on archaeological resources as pertains to Section 106; that is, potential historic properties occurring f-om the ground surface down. The SSFWWP comes under the purview of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), specifically under NHPA Section 106, embodied by Federal regulations codified in the Code -3- of Federal Regulations at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 is designed to identify, evaluate, and assess potential effects on "historic properties," the general covering term for what are elsewhere oRen referred to as "cultural resources" and including a variety of possible resources: ( 1 ) ( 1 ) Historic property means any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places [NRHP] maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term includes properties of traditional religions and cultund importance to an Indian tribe .... and that meet the National Register criteria. (2) The term eligible for inclusion in the National Register includes both properties formally determined as such in accordance with regulations ... and all other properties that meet the National Register criteria [36 CFR 800.16]. This research and report specifically focus on NRHP listed, eligible, or potentially eligible archaeological resources; i.e, potential historic properties existing in the form of remnants, typically found on and below the current ground surface. There are no NRHP listed historic properties within any identified Project impact zones, so the focus here is on potential historic properties. Historic structures and buildings, districts, and objects are not addressed except as part of the archaeological record. H&A's work is limited to archaeologically verifiable tangible resources-physical entities that can be located in specific areas. Because initiation of Section 106 procedures requires that the Project's "Area of Potential Effects" (APE) be specifically defined-that is, all areas in which work for the project could possibly affect National Register eligible properties, including indirect impact areas and work areas not otherwise part of the Project Area (such as staging areas) this report addresses SSFWWP Phase 1 work to a higher level of completion than for the other phases. Only the elements of Phase 1 are at a stage of design completion that will allow for definition of some APEs and of potential physical effects to tangible resources. Even some Phase 1 Elements still lack design specifies required to define APEs (e.g., construction techniques, pertinent to assessing potential effects, have not been finally decided for some elements). Despite this, and lesser design completion of other phases, research discussed below has found that numerous Project Elements are regarded as having no potential to effect historic properties (see Table 1), and for these, it is proposed that definition of precise APEs is unnecessary to meet Section 106 requirements. This report is the initiation of Section 106 procedures, meant to begin to meet requirements prior to development ora proposed scope of field efforts to identify historic properties. Although only Phase 1 elements are approaching design completion, the goals of this initial report are broader. The entire SSFWWP Project Area has been addressed for background research; that is, the archaeological and historic setting of the entire Project Area has been researched to provide background for all Project phases. The approaches used and espoused here are also meant to be applied to all following phases of the overall project. When a Research Design is proposed for historic property identification and subsequent evaluation for NRHP eligibility, it will also suffice in general terms for application to subsequent Project phases. po/r,~ S~n San Francisco -~, I-Project Elemems 1-6. Map 1: Sot-th San Francisco Wet Weather Program Project Location. Francisco Airport -5- Research Methods Beginning Section 106 compliance work for the SSFWWP Project involved four inithl steps. First, a clear comprehension ofthe Project was needed, so H&A met and discussed with Jerry Haag and obtained the first maps of the Project. These proved inadequate to the Section 106 task, being too general in nature to clearly delineate potential Project im~ts. As more maps and project descriptions were obtained from Carollo Engineers, the Project kept growing from the ~ 12 elements to the 28 currently envisioned, and Project elements changed, were added, or dropped out. This report is based on our best current understanding of the Project, built by studying the documents, maps, and facilities descriptions furni.qhed by Mr. Ha_ag, Carollo Engineer~, and the City of South San Francisco's City Engineering Department. Secondly, a field recormai.qspnce was undertaken of all the Project elements. The reconnai.qspnce proved unfruitful, as expected given the totally built environment, except in general terms, such as an appreciation of the lay of the land, logistical opportunities and problems, the locations of various existing facilities. Thirdly, research into the archaeological setting was conducted. This included a search of cultural resources records, data, and maps maintained by the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at Sonoma State University, discussed below, and archival research and a report by Historical Archaeologist Christopher Lee (Appendix C) and by the author, utilizing documents and records in the City Engineering Department. Fourth, consultation with interested parties has been initihted, including regional Native American groups with regard to prehistoric cultural resources and historical societies and interested individuals for historic cultural resources. -6- SECTION 106 APPLICABH,ITY AND REOUIREMENTS Under Section 800.3, Federal agencies are encouraged to integrate the Section 106 process into agency planning at its earliest stages. The South San Francisco Wet Weather Program comes under the jurisdiction of California' s State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), which will help fund the Project -Jarough the State Revolving Fund (SRF). The SWRCB is delegated legal responsibility for compliance with Section 106 in accordance with Federal law. So, as the state agency respons~le for Federal Section 106 compliance, the SWRCB is the Federal lead agency for the Project, and will therefore have the respons~ility to consult with and seek concurrence on 106 compliance with the California State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The frst requirement o f Section 106 procedure initiation (Sec. 800.3 (a)) is to establish whether the proposed project is an "undertaking" of a type that has the potential to have an effect on historic properties. Our focus here is on archaeological resources, which generally exist from the ground surface down. Since the proposed sewer and water treatment project involves work below ground level, for example trenching for pipelines, it is clear that the Project meets the 106 definition of an undertaking. This finding is certain to be concurred with by the SWRCB, which will also therefore consult with the SHPO during the compliance process. The next requirement (Sec. 800.3(e, f)) is to plan to involve the public and to idemify other consulting parties. Notification and consultation with the ~general public and their own constituents, as well as local governments and agencies other than the City of South San Francisco, are properly the concert, of the City. H&A has taken respons~ility to identify and initiate consultation with other potential consulting parties specified by 106 regulations; that is, Native American representatives, whose primary concern is with prehistoric cultural resources. Both the California Native American Heritage Commi~ion (NAHC) and representatives of 10 San Francisco Bay region Native American Indian groups (the various Ohlone groups and individuals identified by the NAHC) are being contacted to initiate the consultatio a process (see Appendix D). "Additional consulting parties" not specifically named by Section 106 include "certain individuals and organiTations with demonstrated interest.., due to... their concern wi-h the undertaking's effects on historic properties." (Section 800.2 (c)(5). H&A interprets this to require initiation of consultation with the South San Francisco Historical Society (SSFHS), South San Yrancisco Historian Kathleen Kay at the History Room of the South San Francisco Public Library, the San Marco County Historical Association (SMCHA), and any groups or individuals concerned with historic resources in South San Francisco, such as any other local historical societies. SSFHS, Kathleen Kay, and the SMCHA are being contacted for any concerns or information they may have, and H&A, through an Historical Archaeologist, is researching whether any other groups or individual.q should be contacted. At this writing, only the NAHC has responded, replying that their files show :~o sacred lands or resources anywhere near the Project Area. Contact with and consultation with the SI-IPO will, at least initially, be through the SWRCB staff assigned Section 106 overview respons~ility for this Project. However, it is anticipated that direct -7- contacts between H&A and SI-IPO will facilitate the process as the Project progresses. It is stressed that both SWRCB and SI-IPO must be consulted on all phases of 106 compliance. The SWRCB has Federal lead agency responsibility for Section 106 compliance. SHPO "reflects the interests of the State and its citizens in the preservation of their cultural heritage" and "advises and assists Federal agencies in carrying out their section 106 responm'bilities ... to ensure that historic properties are taken into consideration at all levels of planning and development" (Sec. 800.2 (c)(1)(i)). The next phase of 106 compliance is to identify historic properties. The scope of efforts (Sec. g00.4 (a)) for identification is determined by the Federal lead agency official, in thi.~ case, again, the' SWRCB. This process includes "pre'hminary work, actual efforts to identify pr6perties, and evaluation of identified properties to determine whether they are 'historic;' Le., they are listed on, or elig~le for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places." Critical, before identification of historic properties can begin, is "determining and documenting the area of potential effects'(quotes from Advisory Council on Historic Preservation [ACHP] Section 106 Explanatory Materials). The APE "means the geographical area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties" (Sec. 800.16 (d)). Conversations with the responsible S WRCB Section 106 compliance oversight staffhave confirmed that definition of the APE must be based on complete (or very nearly so) design plans; it is unacceptable to either draw much larger areas around the actual potential irnpact areas, which would require much more identification effort than supportable, or to simply state that there will be no potential effects for certain aspects of the (especially as-yet undesigned) Project and therefore leave work areas out of the APE. For a project of the scope and nature of the SSFWWP, where years may elapse between concept, design, construction, and implementation, the only practical approach is to define Project APEs sequentially as Project elements are designed and construction techniques specified. Section 106 Work Completed to Date Compliance procedures for the SSFWWP are still at an early stage. The Federal lead agency has been contacted. It has been agreed that the nature of the Project brings it within the definition of an undertaking subject to Section 106. SHPO has not yet been contacted. Idemification and contact with potential consulting parties is being completed simultaneously with work on thi.q document. Definition of APEs has been problematic and can be considered reasonably complete only for currently designed portions-i.e., the five elements of Phase 1. However, as discussion below will illuminate, the nature, or lack of; potential impacts concomitant with many elements of the Project have made precise definition ofthe APEs less pertinent than would normally be the case. The process of idemi~ng potential historic properties has been begun with obtaining and review of the archaeological data base for the vicinity of all possible element APEs, as well as with completion of an historical study of the City of South San Francisco with special focus on the locations of the 28 Project elements. APE definition, the first critical step, lags because specific Project Elements are not yet fully designed, nor have construction techniques been specified; however, this may not matter very much. It is likely, based on conversations with the SWRCB, that long portions of the proposed pipeline work, for example, while necessarily included within element APEs, will not actually require -8- additional historic property identification work if specific construction techniques and potential impacts can be clearly demarcated and seen to have no potential to impact historic properties. The '~ipe burstirg" technique proposed by Project engineers, SWRCB has agreed, can be considered to have no potential effect on historic properties. However, the excavations needed to apply this technique definitely could have potential effects. Lacking an exact definition of where excavations will take place and where the pipe bursting technique will be used leaves no alternative but to consider the ~ntire pipeline route as the possible APE, with potential for effects in the entire zone and a consequent, need to conduct historic property idemification work within that entire route. Similarly, work on the ' lpgraded and new pump stations will require exact definitions ofwhere excavations and any other work that could affect historic properties will take place in order to assess potential effects; otherwise, tt_ose entire areas must be considered as element APEs with potential impacts tlm>ugbout. However, as will be explicated below, the majority ofthe elements ofthe Project are in locations known to contain historic fill deep enough that it will not be penetrated by Project work and so will not potemially encounter historic properties. Definition and exact mapping of APEs for these locations, w'_~ere historic properties are not likely to be encountered, is therefore much less criticaL The Next S-eps for Section 106 Compliance As noted above, establishing the APE for 106 purposes is only possible for designed Project elements; even those still lack critical construction technique details. An effort is made below to define the APEs for Phase 1 elements. Any changes in the APEs, either expansion or constriction, will affect the appropriate scope of identification efforts. Following concurrence on the APEs by SWRCB, efforts to identify potential historic properties will colranence based on the proposed methods to ~e detailed at that point. Once potential historic properties are identified, a Research Design to evaluate those properties, if any, based on National Register criteria will be developed for approval by SWRCB and SI-I?O, and then implemented. The results of the historic property identification and evaluation efforts will then dictate the course of following 106 compliance work. PROJECT DESCRIFFION The South San Francisco Wet Weather Program Project is a sanitary sewer and water treatment rehabilitatio .a and expansion project covering primarily the eastern portions of the City, particnlarly the industrial zone east of Highway 101, where 27 of 28 Project elements are located (see Map 1). The South San Francisco system and Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP) serve the City, as well as the Tom of Colma and portions of the City of Daly City and City of San Bruno. The system discharges effluent into San Francisco Bay fi.om the WQCP near the outlet of Colma Creek, south of Point San Bruno. The WQCP is upgrading under a 1997 order from the Regional Water Quality Control Board to irr~prove the system to meet current discharge requirements. In addition, portions of the system are old, the pipelines leaking due to settlement of filled areas on former Bay mudflats and rnarginv_l marshlands. The leaking pipelines add to the load ofthe treatment plant during the rainy season, and so need to be replaced or upgraded to lessen that additional seasonal load (hence "Wet -9- Weather"). Additional capacity is also needed to meet future needs of development in commercial zones east of Highway 101, where localized wastewater collection and transport facilities will accommodate anticipated expansion in required capacity (the "East of 101" portion ofthe Project). H&A has been dependent on the Project engineers, Carollo Engineers, for maps and descriptions of the varied SSFWWP Project elements and currently is working with two mt-exactly congruous versions. The primary source, both in the temporal sense and for discussion purposes, is a list of 27 "Proposed facilities WWP Phases 1 4," keyed to accomtmnying color aerial photos and dated 3/19/02 (see Appendix A- 1). The set of Project elements shown on the "3/19 document," incorporates both the "Wet Weather" components and the "East of 101" components. Secondly and n6tably later in the analysis process, another document of"Proposed Improvements," dated May 7, 2002, and keyed to a map with color coded Project elements, "Figure 5.1" (see Appendix A-2). This "May 7~ document" incorporates only the latest version of the "East of Highway 101" Project components. Not all elements actually east of 101 (Elements 4, 5, and 8) are included in the "East of 101" project components. Because the May 7~ document contains one more Project element ea~ of 101, the total number of elements is 28 and neither document covers all. Each document follows a different numbering system for the Project elements covered. Further, there were, and remain, discrepancies between the Project element descriptions. The following presents the most up to date information furnished to H&A as of this writing. The following concordance shows the relationshil~ between the two numbering systems. However, to simplify discussion and facilitate understanding, the 3/19 document list will be used, with the addition of the added East of 101 element, which will be assigned the number 28 here. So, it should be understood that here, for example, Project Element 23 will be the same as East of 101 Improvement 16, etc. In addition, two sets of working plans furnished to H&A have been essential in examining Project elements to assess potential impacts. These are the "City of South San Francisco... Contract Documents for Construction o fWet Weather Program-Phase 1" (50% submittal, dated March 2002), and the "C" sheets of the same plans as a "90% submittal," also dated March and May 2002, depending on the sheet. Also, for the East of 101 Project elements only, a map and data sheet was furnished by Carollo showing the locations and elevations of inverts at manholes on pipelines being evaluated for upgrading, improvement, replacement or augmentation in the east of 101 area (Towill 2002); these provide information on how deep existing pipelines are below the current surface. In addition, Jerry Hang and Carollo Project Manager David Antouson (and other Carollo staff) have responded to questions posed by the author on numerous occasions, and City Engineer Barbara Hawkins and City Engineering StatfRichard Harmon also provided useful information. -10- Table 2: South San Francisco Wet Weather Program Project: Concordance of Elements Carollo Engir.eers' "3/19 document" and color aerials ("Figure 1: Wet Weather Program Phases 1-4 Proposed Improvements March 2002" at 1 "=1000'; and "Figure 2" at 1 "=803 from Cat'oHo show and desc'n~ 27 Project elements. The"5/07 document" shows and describes 20 Project elements, keyed to undated "Figure 5.1 Proposed Improvements.'(see Appendix A.) 3/19 ID~ 3/19 Description 5107 (East of 101)ID # 1 San Mateo Pump Station none 2 San Mateo Force Main none 3 Shaw Road Pump Station none 4 Shaw Road Force Main none 5 Effluent Storage Pond none 6 Airport Blvd. Sewer none 7 W'mston Manor Sewer none 8 Colma Creek Bank Restoration none 9 Pump Station No.2 Improvement 2 10 Pump Station No. 2 Force Main Improvement 9 11 Pump Station No. 4 Improvement 4 12 Pump Station No. 4 Force Main Improvement 10 13 Pump Station No. 7 Imp~'ovement 6 14 Pump Station No. 8 In~overnent 7 15 Pump Station No. 8 Force Main Improvement 11 16 Pump Station No. 10 Improvement 8 17 Oyster Point Blvd Trunk Sewer Improvement 12 18 AileRon Ave Trunk Sewer Improvement 13 19 East Grand Trunk Sewer 'Improvement 14 20 DNA Way Subtmnk Sewer Improvement 15 21 Pump Station No 1 Improvement 1 22 Pump Station No. 3 Improvement 3 23 Switt Submmk Improvement 16 24 Littlefield Subtrunk Improvement 18 25 Pump Station No. 6 Improvement 26 Harbor Way Subtmnk Improvement 20 27 Executive Subtmnk Improvemem none (28*) none Improvement 5/07 Description Pump Station No. 2 Force Main PS No. 2 Pump Station No. 4 Force Main PS No. 4 Pump Station No. 7 Pun~ Station No. 8 Force Main PS No. 8 Pump Station No. 10 Oyster Point Submmk AIlerton Subtrtmk East Grand Trunk Forbes-DNA Subtrunk Pump Station No. 1 Pump Station No. 3 Swffi Subtmnk Littlefield South Subtna~ Pump Station No. 6 Harbor Way Subtnmk 19 Executive Subtmnk 17 Littlefield North Subtmnk * number used in this document. Project Element Types and Potential Impacts The Project involves three basic types of elements: pump station upgrades and replacements; pipeline expansion or replacements, and; large excavation for a new effluent pond and smaller bank excavations to stabilize a short portion of the bank of Colma Creek near the WQCP. Within these categories, Project elements have basically the same potential for i ~mpacts to historic properties, and will be discussed in order. For simplicity, all the documents, plans, profiles, etc. furnished by Carollo Engineers, Jerry Haag, and the City refer to or preface subtitles with the complete Project name ("South San Francisco Wet Weather Program"), which is abbreviated or should be assumed for all documents cited below. Pump Station work: Elements 1, 3, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 21, 22, 25. Effluent Pond and Creek Bank work: Elements 5 and 8. Pipeline work: Elements 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28. As broad categories, the Pump Station Elements have zero to a relatively small potential to effect NRHP eligible historic properties. The Pond and Creek Bank Elements appear to have no potemial impacts to historic properties. The Pipeline Elements have the greatest potemial to impact historic properties, but potential varies widely, ranging from zero potential effects in areas already known to be cut or filled recently, to potential effects where pipelines will be placed in "old fill" (more than 50 years old), are in particularly sensitive locations, or'my penetrate historic fill to land surfaces extant in the mid to late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Potential impacts by specific Project Elements will be discussed at~er describing the Project context. PROJECT SETTING Geomorphological The geomorphological setting of the various SSFWWP elements is pertinent as the matrix in which archaeological resources would occur. Most of South San Francisco is within the Colma Creek watershed, and fortunately this area has been the subject of extensive geomorphologieal study (e.g., Knott 1969; Helley, et al. 1979; Bonilla 1998; Knudsen et aL 2000; W'mer 2001). However, the SSFWWP Project elements east of Highway 101 are largely in areas of San Francisco Bay and its margins historically filled for development, areas highly sensitive for prehistoric archaeological deposits and which also contain historic features and resources under the fill. The Colma Creek corridor has been subject to extensive alluvial filling during the Holocene, burying the formerly steeper valley under several meters of alluvial deposits, primarily Colma Formation sand (Bonilla 1998; Witter 2001). The watercourse of Colma Creek meandered over time but remained basically along the geomorphic dividing line between the Franciscan Complex Cretaceous and Jurassic rocks of San Bruno Mountain to the east and the Pleistocene Colma Formation to the north and west (Knott 1969). Exposures of Franciscan bedrock on the slopes of -12- San Bruno 1V2'_ountain include dark grey to yellow brown interbedded sandstones and shales (Bonilla 1998). The Colma Formation is mostly "fine-to-medium sand deposited in near-shore marine and continental settings. The deposit contains few interbecls of sandy silt, clay to sandy clay and graveL... The age is esn. imated between 500,000 to one million years" (Witter 2001:3). Though both si_des of the drainage contribute to sediment load and bank development along the creek, the highly erosive Colma Formation supplies much more bulk; in turn, those sand deposits are easily cut and transported by water flow (Knott 1969). Natmal filling was accentuated and added to by a program of historic filling in the raid to late nineteenth century, involving purposely altering the watercourse to bring sand to specific a-cas (Hynding 19112; Witter 2001). This fillinE extended to near the Bay margin and deposited considerable depths of recent fill ' The op2y Project element in the upper Colma Creek drainage, Element 7, the proposed "Winston Manor Sew~r'' rehabilitation, is in a location subject to this natural alluvial filling (Brabb and Pampeyan 1983; Clark 2002a) and so could contain prehistoric archaeological deposits from near the surface to p_-obably well below the depth of potential Project impacts. Downstream, the dozen Project elements nearest Colma Creek are in the immediate flood plain and margins ofthe Bay subject to filling by '.he meandering creek. These downstream areas have been subject to both natural and artificial filling. The more northerly ofthe eastern elements, around Point San Bruno, are also mostly in both natural and artificial fill: the artificial fill lying on top ofeoarse alluvial sands and gravels from washed down from the slopes of San Bruno Mountain. A prehistoric shell midden site on the former banks of Colma Creek, at Chestnut Avenue and Mission Ro~d, was discovered under a minimum 150 em, and more than 600 cm below surface in some locations of recent fill: the majority of which is interpreted as quite recent and likely to have resulted from both natural and purposeful filling (Water 2001). This location is approximately half way betweert the Winston Manor Sewer and the other Project elements beginning on the west side of Highway 101 and extending out into twentieth century fill around Point San Bruno. It is likely that Holocene fi_l, both natural and artificial, is deeper at the more easterly Project element locations subject to direct filling by Colma Creek. With the exception of the Project elements nearest the highest, erosion-resistant knobs o f serpentinite and sheared Franciscan Formation rocks on Point San Bruno, ail other Project elements are in napped artificial fill up to 30 m deep (Brabb and Pampeyan 1983). Th~s artificial geomorphic setting makes research into the filling progression and episodes along the Bay margin and around Point San Bruno essential in assessing Project potential to encounter both prehistoric and historic archaeological resources. Prehistoric/Ethnohistoric/Arehaeologieal Though it is likely the San Francisco Peninsula has been inhabited by humans for something approaching 10,000 years, data confirming such a long tenure is lacking in San Mateo and San Francisco counties. While Santa Clam and Santa Cruz counties have furnished carbon dates in that age range, lhe oldest published dates for the Peninsula appear to be about 5000 years for undoubted habitation sites. The oldest published date for San Mateo County remains that from a site near the outlet of Colma Creek to the Bay at SMA-40, at just over 5100 years before present. Nearly equally old are the oldest component of the University Village Site (SMA-77) at the southeast of the county, -13- and the "BART Man" (actually a woman) in San Francisco (Breschini~ Haversat, and Erlandson 1996). Hints of poss~ly older occupation on the San Mateo coast have been published, but are unsupported by technical dating techniques (e.g., Hyikema 1998 ). It is safe to say that the Peninmfia~ including the Colma Creek drainage, was probably occupied by Native Americans by at least 5000 years ago, but by different people than would later own the area. Ethnohistorically, the Colma Creek drainage was occupied by the Urebure m'belet, an Ohlone group, the Native Americans who owned the San Francisco Bay region, Santa Cruz Mountains, East Bay H~l~ and the Monterey Bay area at the 1769 Spanish invasion. Archaeological evidence indicates the ancesual Ohlones arrived in the San Francisco/Monterey Bay region-depending on location-somewhere around A.D. 500 (Moratto 1984), possibly from the lower Sacramento Valley/Delta, displacing an earlier population. Natural resources of their home areas provided for nearly all the needs of the aboriginal Ohlone populations. The prehistoric Ohlones were "hunters and gatherers," who adapted to and managed their abundant local environment so well that some places were continuously occupied for literally · thousands of years. Compared to modem standards, population density always remained relatively low, but the Ohlone area, especially around Monterey and San Francisco Bays, was one of the most densely lived-in areas of prehistoric Califomim The Ohlones had perfected living in and rvanaging myriad slightly differing environments. Some environments were rich enough to support large permanent villages of"coliectors;" others had less abundant resources and supported a more mobile "forager" way of life. Littoral (shoreline) and riparian environments, such as along and at either end of Colma Creek and along San Francisco Bay, were obviously more productive and were therefore most sought out, most intensively utili?ed and occupied, and most jealously defined and guarded. Uplands and redwood areas were less productive and less intensively used and occupied than the ocean and bay coasts. As throughout Central California, the acorn was the dietary staple of the Ohlones, but a huge number of floral and faunal resources were utilized. Like other native Californians, the Ohlones managed their environment to improve it for their use. For example, they burned grass and brush lands ann, ally to improve forage for deer and rabbits, keep the land open and more safe from predators and their neighbors, and improve productivity of many resources. The basic unit of Ohlone society was the "tribelet," a small independent land-holding group of usually related families occupying a specific territory and speaking the same lang-~ge or dialect. An incredible diversity of lang~ges had evolved in Central California, evidence of centuries of in-place divergence of very small social groups. Early linguists encountered some groups of only 50-100 people speaking dialects sometimes but not generally unintelligible to their neighbors. Inter-tn3elet relationships were socially and economically necessary however, to supply both marriage partners and goods and services not available locally. Trade and marriage patterns were usnally but not always dictated by proximity; traditional enemies were usually also defined by proximity. Regional festivals and religious dances would bring groups together during periods of suspended hostilities. Traditional trade patterns thousands of years old operated when the Spanish invaded, supplying the Ohlones with products from sources sometimes hundreds of kilometers distant and allowing export of products unique to their region. Obsidian was obtained from the North Coast Ranges and -14- Sierran sou_-ces, in patterns that changed through time. By 1769, the Ohlones had been buying finished obsidian arrowheads of specific forms, manufacUnvxi by North Coast Range tribes, for hundreds ofyears. Shell beads and ornaments, a major export fix)m the Ohlone regions, were made primarily from the shells of abalone (Haliotis), Purple Olive snail (Olivella), and Washington clam (Saxidomus), allocean coast species. Shell beads and ornaments evolved through many different and definable type_ s through the millennia, allowing chronological typing of these common artifacts to serve as keys to the age and relative cultmal position of archaeological complexes. These beads were traded for t'_~ousands of years, and have been found in prehistoric sites throughout California and many kilometers east, into the Great Basin, showing that prehistoric peoples on the Penln.qula were tied into an "international" system of trade. At the time of the Spanish invasion, ~ome Central Californians had developed a system of exchange x:urrency ("money") based on clam shell disk beads; the extent to which the Ohlones related to that system is unknown. Absolute and relative dating of archaeological sites, the linguistic diversity, and demonstrably ancient trade patterns all indicate that the Ohlones and other Central California groups had reached a si. ate ofdemo~p~c and social stability unimaginable to modem city-dwellers--a state in which the same family groups occupied the same location continuously for hundreds or even thousands 0fyears with few if any changes in population size or profile. This long term stability is reflected in the homogeneity of archaeological sites spanning wide geographic and temporal ranges. By the time of European invasion, a unique native ~ettlement pattern was in place along the Penin.~ula, in which the same tnq~elet group would own a strip across the Peninsula from ocean to Bay, based on drainages. These watercourses formed natural travelways across the spine of the Peninsula. Like other watercourses from the southern Santa Clara Valley to the northern end of the Peninsula, Colma Creek has a series of archaeological sites along its banks, connected to prehistoric cultural sites along the margins of the Bay. The Colma Creek (known as "San Bruno Creek" by the Spanish/Mexicans) drainage was probably held by a single group, the Urebure, that extended from the slopes of San Bruno Mountain to about San Mateo Creel and used the creek corridor to travel from village sites on the Bay, the Pacific, and in between. Around the beginning ofthe twentieth century, N.C. Nelson recorded more than 400 major shell midden sites around San Francisco Bay, some of which had already been leveled or destroyed (Nelson 1909). Ne son's 1909 "Map of San Francisco Bay Region Showing Distribution of Shell Heaps" shows sites #378 and #377/3797 (the numbers are difficult to read; see Map 2) in the vicinity of the SSFWWP ?roject. Nelson shows #378 south of Oyster Point on the north shore of San Bruno Point, and #377/3797 on the south side of Point San Bruno (Map 2). Nelson's rough and sometimes inaccurate mapping, plus historic changes in the Bay shore and local topography, filling, massive construction projects in and around South San Francisco such as steel and meat packing plants, the Southern Pacific Railroad, and the Bayshore Freeway, and Nelson's generali?ed location descriptions, make a positive identification of a site on the south shore of Point San Bruno or near the mouth of Colma Creek difficult. Nelson also remarks that the largest mounds are invariably associated with a source o_-' freshwater, and: -15- Many of the largest mounds are located at the head of sheltered coves, yet not a few deposits lie in thoroughly exposed places... Occasionally a hillside, with or without any accommodating shelf or hollow, has been chosen, doubtless on account of some small spring issuing in the vicinity. Good illustrations are furnished by ... no. 379, near South San Francisco [Nelson 1909:328]. This description matches both the north and south sides of Point San Bruno, with a spring available at SMA-40 and Colma Creek at the south. Prehistorically, the upper Project Area (near Hickey Boulevard) would have been an area of windswept sand dunes fringed by oak grassland alongside the more thickly-vegetated Colma Creek riparian corridor. The Bay shore was very mar. shy, (marshes extended up to approximately the Orange Park region in modem South San Francisco [Nichols and Wright 1971; Hynding 1982]), with extensive mudflats and wetlands that offered very abundant resources but made access to the Bay difficult, so ideal habitation locations were at spots where hard ground met the Bay, surrounded by the marshes. The open exposure, easy slope, availability of fresh water, and location along one of only two easy routes along the Peninsula made this location attractive to the Ohlone Indians long before the European invasion. Several villages were located in the territory of the Urebure tribelet when the Spanish arrived, including occupations along Colma (San Bruno) Creek and on the margin of the Bay. A major site is located at the foot of San Bruno Mountain, just north of Point San Bruno (SMA-40), two habitation middens are recorded on the creek between the northwest and east of the Project (SMA- 299 [Bocek 1989; Rice 1994a] and -355), and another on the ocean at the western end of the route up Colma Creek (SMA-72); all were probably in use by the Urebure when the Spanish arrived (Milliken 1983, 1986, 1995). SMA-72 and SMA-355 are Late Period sites (Clark 1986, 2002; Witter 2001) and SMA-40 b_as a late component (Clark 1998). Further, Brown (1973) reports that prior to 1835 the San Bruno Mountain south slope area was known as a location of"indian huts," perhaps a resettling of an old village site after secularization of the missions and dispersal of many of the missionized Indians, but no village or place name is recorded. Clearly the Colma Creek corridor and mouth, and surrounding Bay margin were a focus of aboriginal settlemem and use, making the Project APEs archaeologically sensitive for prehistoric deposits. While the creek occasionally runs dry, the area still afforded sources of freshwater year round. Historic accounts affirm the area of the upper creek was "characterized by small lakes and an abundance of springs" (Svanivik and Burgett 1995: 16), and the earliest maps show a lake and springs near Hickey Boulevard (U.S. Coast Survey 1853). Remnants of these lakes are still shown on E1 Camino plans in 1925 (California Highway Commission 1926) and exist today. The creek drainage below, in South San Francisco, was been extensively filled and any such lakes covered, along with prehistoric sites. Bay margin filling and historic developmem have also covered or destroyed prehistoric shell middens on the former marshland margin of the Bay, which once extended far up Colma Creek (Nichols and Wright 1971; Mark Group 1988). Farther bom the currem, or historic shoreline, prehistoric sites are still possible; Heizer (1950), Bickel el al. (1973), Bickel (1978, 1978a), and Moratto (1984) have hypothesized that sites along the Bay shore older than about 5000 years lie buried under sediment or under the Bay itself due to rising sea level. -16- MAP 2: A Portion of Nelson's 1909 Map of Bay Region Shell Mounds. (Source: Nelson 1909: "Map of San Francisco Bay Region Showing Distribution of Shell Heaps") -17- Records Search Archaeological research for the SSFWWP Project was initiated with a search of relevant records, maps, and archives maintained by the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at Sonoma State University. Due to the indeterminate scope of the Project when the records search was sent in, a very wide area was addressed in the record search, essentially the entire Colma Creek drainage, and all of South San Francisco east ofJunipero Serra Boulevard. The records search was conducted by the Center staff~ revealing that numerous small areas of the Project Area had been surveyed for cultural resources previously, only a few of which proved finally to be directly applicable to the PrOject as now understood. Few cultural resources or historic properties are recorded within 500 m of the 28 SSFWWP Project elements, none east of Highway 101. The CHRIS Records Search File Number for the SSFWWP Project Area is 00-560. A copy of this report will be submitted for inclusion in the permanent archives of the CHRIS. The records search revealed only three prehistoric archaeological sites in the vicinity of the SSFWWP, the aforementioned SMA-40, SMA-299, and SMA-355. SMA-40 is a large shell midden mound on the southeast slope of San Bruno Mountain west of Highway 101, a major cultural resource (Clark 1998), a little over 500 m from the nearest Project work, Element 9 at Gateway Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard. SMA-299 is a diffuse shell midden once found on both banks of Colma Creek, now mostly destroyed (Rice 1994, 1994a, 1994b). SMA-355 is a buried Late Period shell midden on the north bank of Coima Creek at Chestnut Avenue (Clark 2000a, 2002). Both these last two sites are well over a kilometer from the nearest Project work. Project Element 7, the Winston Manor Sewer, north of Hickey Boulevard from Camaritas Avenue to E1 Camino ReaVSmte Route 82, is well removed to the northwest from all the other Project elements. A single archaeological reconnaissance was recorded along E1Camino through the vicinity of Hickey Boulevard (Young 1976), and another crossed Hickey west of Element 7 (Baker 1979). Neither recormaissance reported historic properties. An historic property, "the Frank Lagomarsino vegetable farm" is recorded within 500 m of the east end of Hickey Boulevard (Shoup 1994, 1994a), but is well outside any poss~le impacts for this Project. The Project elements near and east of Highway 101 are mostly omside any recorded archaeological reconnaissances, and no excavations are reported anywhere near any Project elements. Several areas of'Project work have been previously surface surveyed, but none of these have recorded historic properties. The banks ofchannelized Colma Creek, where Elements ~, 5, 8, 12, and 25 are proposed was surveyed by Rice (1995). The area surrounding and including the WQCP was surface surveyed in 1976, including the remnants of "Belle Air Island" (Roop 1976); this also included Elements 5 and 8, and the eastern end of Element 4. Anastasio et al. did a recon~ai.qsance along part of what became Gateway Boulevard, southward of any Project work, but this same lineal surface survey did cross Project Element 6, the Airport Boulevard Sewer (Anastasio et al. 1988). Finally, a survey along the Somhem Pacific Railroad right-of-way that partially became Executive Drive encompassed the portion of Executive where Project Element 27 will be installed (Biosystems Analysis, Inc. 1989). -18- The records search turned up just one recorded site within 500 mofany ofthe eastern Project elements. SMA-gl 1H is an historic refuse scatter eroding out ofa railbed embanlcment just north of Colma Creek and Project Element 1, the San Mateo Pump Station (McGinni.q 2000). This scatter includes glass, ceramics, crockery, marbles, oyster shell and mi-qc, ellaneous other materials; estimated date of the deposit is 1890 to 1918. The site map seems to indicate SMA-811H might be quite close to the exis~.ing San Mateo Pump Station. No historic properties are recorded east of Highway 101. Historic Setting Research into the historic development of South San Francisco and the APEs of the Project has been und~en by the author and for H&A by Historical Archaeologist Christopher Lee (see Appendix C). To very briefly summarize that research: Histery starts in the Project Area with the arrival of the Spanish in the late 1700s. Though it is known ~hat Native American Indians now generally known as Ohlones occupied the area then, there are r_o known specific locations of Ohlone settlements dating to the Spanish invasion, though Late Period sites have been identified as noted above. Neither are there specific locational records of any Spanish- or Mexican-em structures or features with the Project's APEs. The South San Francisco area in general is known to have been used for cattle grazing by about 1800, and what later became Rancho Bud Bud was specifically used to graze cattle for the Presidio of San Francisco. There is no record of specific rancho activities within the APEs, but the old Spanish wagon trail that became El Camino Real passed through the upper Project Area vicinity, just past Project Element 7. By 1810 small private ranches along El Camino had introduced the cattle and sheep that denuded the hill.qides and accelerated erosion in the Colma Creek drainage (Hynding 1965). The original route of E1Camino Real, now partly Mission Road, probably meandered along the creek and the first railroad down the Penin~mla also ran through the same corridor as meandering Colma Creek. Little else is recorded about the rest of the Hispanic or early American periods in the vicinity of the Project, where no real towns existed until the 1890s. Rancho Bud Bud was granted in 1835, encompassing the entire Project Area (save the areas of Bay later filled to create dry land); the grantee died in 1843 and within 10 years portions of the property began to be sold off. The early agricultural/pastoral community of Baden was the location of the "12 Mile House" stage stop and public house on Mission Road as early as 1853. "Baden" came into being when cattleman Charles Lux bought 1500 acres of the Bud Bud Rancho in 1856 and built a large house near the creek and Project A_-ea. Two years later, he and rancher Henry Miller formed a cattle company, lVfiiler's birthplace in Germany was the namesake for "Baden." Lux and Miller supplied San Francisco stockyards for the next 30 years, the cattle being driven up E1Camino to Baden and then into the city. The first local railroad ran through Baden when it began regmlar service down the Peninsula in 1863. At, er Lux died, in 1888 meatpacking titans Swffi and Armour joined forces to form the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company, bought Lux's land and 2000 more acres, including the East of 101 Project Area and began the City of South San Francisco. In 1891 the town site was platted be:ween the San Bruno Toll Road and the Lux home at Baden, along what was still then known as San Bruno Creek and San Bnmo Slough nearer the Bay. By 1893, a streetcar line had been extended :~om the Baden Station eastward through the new town to the industrial sector on the Bay. -19- Around the mm ofthe twentieth century the City was known for enclaves o fvarious knmigrants, with "Frenchtown," "Irishtown, ' "Italiantown," and groups of Portuguese, Chinese, and others. The City was formally incorporated in 1908 and then dominated by the Italians, many of whom established or worked in floricultmal businesses (Hynding 1982:102-109). The South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company chose the Point San Bruno area in 1891 to industrialize, because it was not settled, was reached by streetcar and soon railroads, and also had access to the Bay. West of the toll road the town began to be built. East of the road a meat packing plant, stockyards, wharves, and the San Bruno Channel ship canal were constructed, largely on filled land. The highest points of Point San Bruno were also graded down into th6 Bay. In the mid 1890s other industries began to move into.the East of 101 area, including brick and pottery factories, steel mills, paint companies, a tannery, and a lumbermill. Colma Creek was cbannelized from above the location of the Baden Station on Mission Road all the way to the Bay marsh margin by 1897 (USGS 1899), but not as far out as the present location of the WQCP. The native California or Pacific oyster has also been an important factor in both the prehistory and historic development of the Bay Area and South San Francisco. The hundreds of prehistoric shell mounds surrounding the Bay testify to the importance of the oyster to Native American populations for millennia. The earliest Europeans soon came to appreciate the oysters as well, and when California was taken from Mexico and then the Gold Rush brought thousands of new immigrants to the Bay Area, an industry soon arose based on exploitaffon of the abundant oyster beds. By the 1850s there were commercial oyster beds around the Bay, and alter the Transcontinental Railroad arrived in 1869 business boomed based on transplanted eastern oysters, making San Mateo County Bayside tidelands valuable real estate. In 1890 Morgan Oyster Company, the single largest purveyor of oysters in California, owned some 16,000 acres of San Mateo tidelands, including around and south of Point San Bruno. By 1900 millions of pounds of oysters were harvested annually from the Bay, but the industrial boom around the Bay soon spelled doom for the oyster beds as uncontrolled pollution destroyed the industry by the 1920s. Chinese immigrants to California, many imported as laborers for the gold fields and railroad, were often let~ unemployed when the gold boom lessened and became mechanized and the railroad was complete. Many turned to pursuits familiar from their homelands, including fishing, particularly taking shrimp and oysters from the Bay. Fishing for shrimp and oysters by Chinese enclaves began by 1870 and became an important profession for Chinese-Americans. Tied into the trade in oysters (mostly local) and shrimp. (with the largest proportion going to the export market back to China) through the "Chinese Six Companies," the oyster and shrimp camps around the Bay flourished until about 1905, when export of dried California shrimp was banned, and became increasingly unviable due to pollution and racial hostility from the majority whites (Chinese had been banned from fishing for salmon almost as soon as the first immigrants arrived) until in 1911 the Chinese bag net was banned, effectively ending the fishing camps around the Bay within a few years (Shoup and Shoup 1999). A Chinese fishing camp was established somewhere near Point San Bruno in the 1870s (Anonymous 1968:5), but the exact location is disputed; according to different sources, a camp was -20- located at Oyster Point (ShoecraR 1986), at Dry Laguna Cove between Oyster Point and Point San Bruno (I-Iynding 1982:108), at Point San Bruno, then also called "China Point" (Anonymous 1968:5), or On the south side of the Point (Shoup and Shoup 1999:F-36). It may be that more than one Chinese fish'nE "camp" existed around Point San Bruno, as an 1889 map seems to show three such catnps arotmd the Point (Slxmp and Shoup 1999:F-36, Map F-2). These weren't really"can~s" so much as small towns where people lived all year. The one at Point San Bruno comprised about 20 buildings along with cooking bins, drying floors, nets, piers, and other equipment, and was clearly a habitation site (see Figure 3, Appendix C). The Chinese fishing camp established in the Oyster Point area was on land leased from the SSFL&I Company, and was destroyed by fire in 1912. By World War I the area east ofwhat is now Highway 101 was heavily industrialized, but the area south of the ship channel remained rnarshlands as hte as 1939 (Appendix C: Plate 1; USGS 1939, 19471}. By 1939 a new Bayshore Highway had been built on a long causeway crossing the marshlands from the southeast to the current alignment of Bayshore Boulevard (this roadbed is now occupied by part of South Airport Boulevard). World War II brought significant changes to South San Francisco, as the city grew, becoming even more industrialized, and more areas along the Bay were rapidly filled to facilitate industrialization associated with the war effort. By 1943, Kaiser Industries was operating a shipyard building Liberty Ships, having gouged out larger mooting or anchorage north of Oyster Point and filled in more of the East of 101 area north of Point San Bruno (National Archives 1943 ). By 1946 the marshlands north of Point San Bruno had almost completely disappeared under fill, but marshlands were still present' south of the ship channel and Southern Pacific Railroad spur (National Archives 1946). By 1958 the marshlands south of the channel had been mostly filled, and another major Bay filling project took place that soon filled the channel as well and marine shipping access moved southward of Colma Creek. The hSstory of"South San Francisco The Industrial City," (as proclaimed in huge white letters on the soulh slope of Sign Hill, an historic londmark created in 1923 to celebrate the City's most famous attribute) is truly the story ofindustriali?ation. The story of South San Francisco, of Lux and Miller, Sw'_f[ and Armour, Bethlehem Steel and Kaiser, is the story of the transition of the San Francisco Bay Area and California from far-flung frontier to the huge modem economy oftoday, and must be considered historically significant on the local, regional, state, and national!evels. The SSFWWP Project Area lies primarily in the zone where this industrialization took place and that is being reindustrialized today. Reranants of the historic development of the City, if present as archaeological deposits in the Project APEs, would likely qualify for nomination to the National Register o_-'Historic Places. A most useful item uncovered by Chris Lee is a map of the "Historical Shoreline and Known Fill Areas" (Mark Group 1988; Map 3 here). This map shows the historic shoreline circa 1871 (as per Nichols and Wright 1971), the extent of historic mudflats/fill, the 1958 shoreline, and the shoreline ha 1988. Even more importantly, areas of fill are mapped, the earlier with wider time frames (pre-1958 fill over Bay muds and fill 1900-1920), and the later fill areas with more precise dates (1958 fill ~nd post 1958 fill). This map illustrates the extensive fill around Point San Bruno and up the Coima Creek drainage, and allows an estimation of how deep the fill is by comparing current elevations to the previous sea level or lower. For example, in the region of Swift Avenue, elevation -21- is currently 10 to 12 feet, so fill must be at least that deep, and more, because the former ship channel dredged through the Bay mudflat was just south of and parallel to Swift Avenue. In addition, over Bay muds, general subsidence has also been at least 75-100 em due to surcharging of the mud (squeezing out the water), and more in some areas, adding another three feet or so to the fill thickness. In general, fill over the former mouth of the Cohna Creek estuary is therefore known to be 12-15 feet or more thick where the Project Elements will be constructed. This means, ofcourse, that excavations that do not reach that depth will not encounter former marshland surface and should not encounter prehistoric sites. Had there been significant shell midden deposits in this region, Nelson would have recorded them, as he did on the Bay shore around Point San Bruno, and even at the island surrounded by marshland south of Point San Bruno, as he did on the simil~ly skuated island at Coyote Point to the south (Nelson 1909). Historic research was also conducted by the author utilizing archives kept by the City. Department of Engineering, dating to the early years of the twentieth century. This proved to he a treasure trove of historical information, albeit rather difficult to use. This research focused primarily on the East of 101 Project compo, nents, and began with review of recent environmental impact documents for the area. Recent environmental work covering some of the same romes for SSFWWP Project Elements, such as along Oyster Point Boulevard (P&D Technologies 1990, 1990a; City of South San Francisco DPW 1998), and wider area examinations (Morehouse Associates 2000, 2000a) found no evidence ofprehistoric archaeological or cultural sites east of I 01. Further, suchdoeutma~ illustrate that ongoing industrialization of the east of 101 area since the 1890s has periodically ~ om all surface manifestations as newer industries and technologies have changed the area: "All industrial buildings associated with steel and ship-building originally dating from 1913 were last demolished in the 1980's" (Morehouse Associates 2000:13-1). The City Engineering archives were very valuable for determining the locations and nature of landscape alterations in the East of 101 area and are utilized in the discussion of Project impacts below. -22- -23- POTE~rTL~ P~O~CT IMPACTS As noted above, the various broad categories of Project Elements have differing potential to effect archaeological resources. Obviously, Project work that will not involve excavations nor significant surface disturbances, even in areas with demonstrated archaeological sensitivity, wffi not potentially affect historic properties. Work with excavations that will not penetrate undisturbed subsurface strata, or that will not penetrate recent fill.q into older fil[q, or that will only penetrate into strata known to have been cut into sterile soil, similarly do not have potential to affect historic properties. Project Elements requiring excavations that will or might penetrate into native or undisturbed strata, or into historic land surfaces that might contain historic archaeological deposits, or into historic fill that could contain potentially significant historic materials, will poss~ly affect historic properties, and therefore need to be carefully researched to assess both the degree ofpotential imp~ts and the potential for archaeological resources in the impacts zone. Finally, Project excavations that will only re-disturb strata known to have been previously, recently, disturbed, cannot be seen as having potential to affect historic properties. Though this process is necessarily complex for a Project involving 28 separate elements, detailed examination of the Project Setting and potential impacts will illustrate that many proposed elements will not have potential to affect historic properties. Bythe process of eliminating from consideration those Project Elements that do not have potential to effect historic properties, the number of elements of concern in the Section 106 context is substantially reduced. As explicated in the Project Setting above, every element of the Project is in a location with archaeological sensitivity, either for prehistoric or historic resources, or both. Basically, all elements are in the Colma Creek drainage or along the historic margins of the Bay and marshlands, clearly in areas of high sensitivity for prehistoric archaeological deposits. Even Project Elements out in what were in the 1850s open Bay waters are in an archaeologically sensitive zone due to rising Bay waters over the last several thousand years. So, the key question for every Project Element in terms of Section 106 concerns is whether excavations will take place, and if so, whether those excavations could encounter archaeological resources potentially meeting NRHP eritefim Pump Station Elements The 10 SSFWWP Project Pump Station upgrades are most easily described: with two and possibly three exceptions, the process will involve adding additional or larger pumps and/or pipes within the ex/sting facility building, or; changing various other facilities within the existing building, such as adding capacity with newer equipment, new electric systems or improvements, altering wet and dry wells, etc. and; other changes involving no excavations or underground impacts. All proposed work is within existing footprints and existing buildings and fences, and will be done on existing grades and elevations-there will be no excavations. These Project Elements, numbers 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 21, and 22, will therefore have no potential impacts to NRHP eligible archaeological resources. -24- The four exceptions for Pump Station upgrades that could possibly have effects on historic properties due to additional work aspects outside or below the existing facility involve a new pump station, a new electrical and control building at an existing pump station, and a poss~le new pump station. Two of these Pump Station upgrades are considered to not have potential effects on historic properties and the other two to poss~ly have that potential Project Element 1, the San Mateo Pump Station, will require an upgrade to the existing facility, work to be done inside the existing building (no potential ~. ~ts), and a''new electrical and control building wLl be constructed" at the site (Carollo 3/9 document). This work is descnq~! on the "SSFWWP Phase 1, Civil, San Marco Pump Station, Site Plan, Grading Plan, and'Yard Piping; Drawing C-I" (90% Submittal by Carollo Engineers, dated Mar 2002; see Appendix B). Grading is minimal, and most elevations will be virtually unchanged or raised a small amount (less than a foot to two feet~ when work is complete. A44" water pipe near the station will he plugged, but this pipe is exposed on the surface. A new fuel tank will also be installed, but on the surface as well The new control building will be on a slab on grade supported by piles (Brian Adams, Carollo Engineers, personal communication [email] to David Antonson, Carollo Engineers, forwarded to H&A, May 17, 2002). This on-grade construction will not impact native soils below the current fill and therefore will not effect potential historic properties. Project Element 3, the Shaw Road Pump Station, is in an area on the south bank of Colma Creek whe_-e will was placed over Bay mud prior to 1958 (Map 3). This Element requires that "a new pump station will be consUucted on the site of the existing pump station. Once construction is complete, the existing pump station will be demolished" (Carollo 3/9 document). This Element is shown on"SSFWWP Phase 1, Civil, Shaw Road Pump Station, Site Plan and Yard Piping; Drawing C-6' (Apl~mdix B) Final floor elevation for the new building will be 1/10 to and a hafffoot higher than the existing grade. The contractor's staging area is delineated on the east ofthe new building location; it will not be inside the fence when the project is completed. The existing pump station will be demolished and the area inside the fence around the new building will be paved. Several facilities at the new pump station will require excavations below existing grade. A new "Junction Structure" will be bull: outside the fences, for connection existing pipelines to the new inflow line. The new wet wells and discharge header room will be below grade and the new pump station structure is approxima-.ely 25 feet deep (Brian Adams, Carollo Engineers, personal communication [email] to David Antonson, Carollo Engineers, forwarded to H&A, May 17, 2002). Current elevation where the new pomp station and junction structures will be built is approximately eight feet. Fill in this general area is post 1939 (USGS 1939) but pre-1958 (Map 3). Research to date has not shown how deep the fi'l in this location might be. Situated at the edge of the historic marsh and outlet of Colma Creek, this location should be considered archaeologically sensitive, so effects to historic properties are possible. The other Pump Station that could possibly effect NRHP eligible properties is work at Pump Station 6, ?roject Element 25. At PS 6, "the pump station has settled approximately 2 feet l~om the original construction and may require a new pump station structure" (Carollo 5/07 document). The possible need for a new pump station structure is under consideration by the City, and the question is still open, so at this writing it is unknown whether such construction will take place (personal -25- communication from Tony Akel, Project Design Engineer, Carollo Engineers Fresno office, May 13, 2002). In both these instances, if only shallow excavations are necessary, work will be done in historic fill with low or zero potential for effects to NRHP eligible resources. However, "if it [the pump. station] gets replaced it will be with a wet pit submers~le set up. The wet well will most likely be on piles.., maybe only 15 feet deep" (Brian Adams, Carollo Engineers, personal communication [email] to David Antouson, Carollo Engineers, forwarded to H&A, May 17, 2002). So, if new construction takes place at this location, certainly the upper structure work will be in fill placed between 1939 and 1958, and the proposed wet well would be about 15 feet deep from the new slab, so it appears very likely that this excavation would be entirely in historic fall. Potential i .n.n.n.n.n.n.n.n.n~cts to historic properties are still considered poss~le until design specifics are available. Finally, work at Pump Station 3, Element 22, may require replacement of an existing retaining wall, which would require excavations. This work location is in fill placed after 1968 (USGS 1968, 1980) on what was previously the San Bruno Canal (ship channel; USGS 1915, 1939) and proposed excavations for the retaining wall will not penetrate that fill. Effluent Pond and Creek Bank Elements The Effluent Pond, Element 5, and the Colma Creek bank restoration, Element 8, are near one another on the south bank near the mouth of the creek. This area borders a Bay island surrounded by marshland shown on early maps (Bel Air Island On the ! 871 Rancho Bud Bud map [Appendix C, Figure 1]; USC&G 1899; USGS 1915) and also shows on Nelson's 1909 map of Bay region shell mounds, but is not noted to contain any prehistoric sites. However, the proposed pond location, east of the WQCP, and the bank restoration location, in front of and west of the WQCP, are both in areas known to have been filled in 1958, which were previously open water or marshland (Map 3). Excavations for both these Elements will not penetrate the 1958 fill and therefore cannot encounter potential historic properties. The Effluent Pond, Elemem 5, will be excavated in an area of fill currently used for sludge drying beds, with a general elevation of about 7-7~ feet but with humps up to over elevation 23 feet. The new pond will have a bottom elevation of six feet, with the deepest excavations to 3.5 feet for the pond inlet/outlet (David Antonson, Carollo Engineers, personal communication [email] to Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer, copied to H&A, May 10, 2002). In an area filled in 1958, excavations to this depth will not encounter previous soil mmfaces or the subsided marshland below. The Colma Creek Bank Restoration will also take place in 1958 fill. This is the only Project element being designed by a finn other than Carollo Engineers, Innovative Technical Solutions, Inc. (ITSI). Information on this element is provided in the Carollo 3/19 document and on ITSI's "Figure 2A Project Area and Topography, City of Somh San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant, San Mateo County, California," dated 12/11/01 (ITSI Drawing No. 00-175.02-F1). This element involves installing sheet piling and riprap along the eroding south bank of the creek adjacent to and west of the existing WQCP, in an area approximately 15 to 38 feet wide and 440 feet long. Since all this work will be adding to the existing topography, and areas excavated for preparation of -26- the bank to received ripmp are in 1958 fill: this element appears to have no potential to encounter possible historic properties. Pioeline Element~ The most numerous Project Elemems, the most complex for hnpacts evaluation, and those with the most potential to ' .nnpact historic properties, are the 16 areas ofproposed pipeline Proposed pipeline Elements include replacement of existing lines with lines ofthe same type and size, replacemeat of existing lines with larger pipes, additions of new lines paralleling existing lines, and in one instance, replacement of an existing line with a smaller pipe. The pipeline elem6nts, numbers 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26, 27, and 28, will be addressed in numerical order, with Phase I elements first, then other elements, and finaliy the East of 101 elements. The "East of 101" and other pipeline elements were extensively researched in the City Engineering Deparmle~. archives, which was the primary source of the documents cited below. These documents included plans, blueprints, profiles, soils information, etc., for buildings, roads, utilities, fill and grndlng episodes, redevelopment, and even some work that was planned but never done, and proved very valuable for assessing the degree of previous land disturbance at almost all the pipeline elements with a potentia2 .to encounter and impact possible historic properties. The project descriptions utilized for this discussion are found in the Carollo Engineers 3/19 and May 7~ (_ocuments, as well as the sets of Project plans specified above, plus various personal communications from Carollo staff, primarily Project Manager David Antonson, mostly contained in emails, which update or add needed detail to the descriptions in the cited documents. There are several key factors in determining whether and the degree to which various project elements can have potential to impact any historic properties within the APE for that specific element. For the pipelines especially, these are rather complicated due to the complicated nature of the undertaking and the complex setting ofnative and historically altered landscape in which the elements are proposed. Conditions and a priori definitions for "potential to have impacts"and '~o potential to have impacts" for the pipelines should be made explicit. Defined as having no potemial to affect historic properties: -As stated above (first paragraph of this section), excavations of such types that will not possibly encounter historic properties. -Unless ir has been shown otherwise, replacement of pipes with new pipes of the same size and description in the same trench-that is, excavation of a previous trench, removal and replacement of the existing pipe, and then baclcfillirlg. -The one pipeline proposed to be replaced with a smaller line in the same trench. -Pipelines, and other excavations, placed in fill known to be less than. 50 years old, regardless whether new or replacement lines, and regardless of size and route. -Pipelines previously or proposed to be trenched into areas where previous deep grading has removed the origiral surface down to bed strata are considered to have no potemial impacts. -27- -As per a conversation with SWRCB Section 106 compliance staff~ Archaeologist Cookie Heams, pipeline routes to be replace using the "pipe bursting method" will considered to have no potential impacts, regardless of size or matrix. Defined as having the potential to affect historic properties: -Work on pipelines over 50 years old; however, with only a single exception, none of the subject pipelines appear to be older than 50 years. -Replacement pipelines where the new excavations will be outside the previous trench-e.g., deeper to provide for more support base, or where the alignmem is not the same, or the trench needs to be wider, or work or connection pits are necessary. -Replacement pipelines where the new pipe will be of larger size and therefore require a larger trench -The work pits needed for the pipe bursting technique, approximately 30 feet long and eight wide, and slightly deeper (about 6~) than the bottom ofthe existing pipeline (but not necessarily deeper than the original trench). -Pits required to replace manholes, or to remove soil to provide a buffer between existing utilities and pipes to be expanded by the bursting technique, or at locations where pipes make turns acute enough that the pipe bursting technique cannot follow the original pipe (where a new work pit would be needed). In addition, it is not clear what happens when a length of newly pipe burst line intersects an existing pipeline, but it -Unless the locations of the pipe bursting work pits described above can be specified, the entire length of pipes to be expanded by bursting. -New or replacement pipelines that will not follow the same route as existing lines. According to Carollo Engineers (David Antonson, Project Manager, personal coramnnication on 30 April), typically new or replaced sewer pipelines and force mains will have "five to six feet of cover" over the pipes, so a 24 inch pipe would be about eight feet below surface at its base, with six to 12 inches of support base underneath; a 24" pipe therefore would be placed in a trench with impacts reaching to about nine feet below surface. Trenches, where needed, can be asmmed to be approximately 18" wider than the size of the pipe (e.g., a 24" pipe needs about a 42" trench). Exceptions to these generalities regarding pipeline work were identified. The exceptions include the Airport Boulevard Sewer, Element 6, at about 15 feet below surface; the proposed size, location, and construction technique for this element have not been specified. Another exception specified is the portion of Element 4, the Shaw Road Force Main, that will go under Highway 101 at approximately 25 feet deep, by "rnicrotunneling ... via a proposed 54" steel casing" (3/19 document). A third possible exception includes the crossing under Colma Creek by the San Mateo Force Main, Element 2, "that will be constructed by the County in conjunction with the Creek channelization project" (3/19 document) and is therefore unspecified as to construction techniques and potential impacts. Where new pipelines are, or may be, constructed to parallel existing lines, "A typical offset distance for pipes is 10' from outside to outside. However, there are many factors that come in to play when selecting the alignment such as: product carried in the pipe, existing utilities, traffic control -28- soil conditions, saving room in the street for future pipes, etc. If need be, we might be able to get as close as 4' outside to outside. Therefore it would just be a guess to say that the new pipe will be X distance off the existing pipe" (David Antonson, Carollo Engineers Project Manager, personal communication [emaii], May 10, 2002). Further, many factors also must be considered in deciding on which site of an existing pipeline the parallel line will be placed; so, the possible route ranges from about nine feet to more than 20 feet wide. This means that where parallel lines are proposed, until the decision is made whether to build such lines and then the route is determined, delineation of APE for pipeline elemems cannot be done accurately nor cost-effectively. For example, should subsurface testing be proposed for the Airport Boulevard Sewer, a zone about 1100 feet long, up to 21 feet wide, and 15 feet deep would need to be tested on a very busy major thoroughfare, wheh this element may ncr_rally be done by the pipe bursting method. Construction methods and routes should be defined prior to definition of APEs. Projec: Element 2, San Marco Force Main [Note: this is also referred to as the "Lowrie Avenue Force Main," as on drawings "C-2" through "C-5" on "SSFWWP Phase 1, Lowrie Avenue Force Main, Civil, Plan and Profile" (90% Submittal by Carolio Engineers, dated Mar 2002; see Appendix B), and abbreviated as "LAFM in emails and notes]. This p_~peline route runs the north bank of(channelizett) Colma Creek, under the creek and then down Lowrie and San Mateo Avenue to Shaw Road, turning east and ending at the Shaw Road Pump Station. Tke route traverses an area shown as marsh land in 1897 and 1915, on the very edge ofthe Bayside mask, and dry filled land in 1939 (USGS 1897, 1915, 1939); the Mark Group 1988 map also shows it had been filled over Bay mud prior to 1958. Elevation along the entire route is currently about 10 feet, the same as in 1939. Though additional fill has very likely been placed in the area since 1939, the a_-ea was raised to that elevation sometime between 1915 and 1939, so the underlying fill is more than 50 years old and it is possible that trenching for a new 36" line will penetrate even that fill to an his:ofic surface. Impacts to historic properties are therefore poss~le, except where the pipe bursting technique will be used. The 3/19 document notes that 4400 feet of new 36" force main will replace the existing 27" pipe, but is vague on construction techniques: "One half.., will be done by pipe bursting ... the other half will be installed by conventional trenching method." Which half will be excavated is not clear. Additional 2nformafion on this element was furnished in an email from Amonson on May 10: "Within Shaw Roac2 from San Mateo Ave to the [Shaw Road] pump station, the existing 20" forcemain will be removec and the new 36" LAFM will be installed in that alignment. At the SRPS [Shaw Road Pump Stat:_on], the new 36" foreemain angles into the new PS building and the 20" forcemain eominues and connects to the existing 33" Shaw Road force main. At the eounection to the 33", an excavation will be required to sever the connection so that the 33" can remain operational." Compared to the 3/19 documem, this appears slightly contradictory (existing 27" vs. existing 20"), but the 90% submittal drawings show a 27" existing sewer from the San Mateo PS down Lowrie to San Marco Avenue, where a 20" force main starts to parallel the 27" sewer and both cominue to the next PS on Shaw Road. -29- In response to the question: "Where a pipe bursted line intersects an existing line does that area need to be excavated so that connections can be made? Carollo Engineers also noted that for Lowrie Avenue: "In the case of the new 36" LAFM, the current concept is to construct the new 8~ gravity line in Lowrie first and then switch all the laterals (including the 6" and 8" coming from San Marco) over to the new 8" line. This will be done by constructing new laterals from the 8" to at least the property line (as we discussed at our last meeting, the 6" and 8" lines will need to be re-laid back to San Mateo Avenue so they will be shallower). At the point where the new lateral connects to the existing lateral, a 1' or so portion of the existing lateral towards the street will be removed so that when the pipe bursting occurs, the existing lateral is not pushed into the new lateral." This seems to mean that for the pipe bursting method, every connection to an existing line will need to be excavated prior to pipe bursting and then reconnected to the new line after it is in place. Until and unless the portion of the route to be pipe bursted to replace the existing sewer with a larger force main is mapped, this entire route from the San Mateo PS to the Shaw Road PS is considered to have the potential to impact historic resources. The work pits for the pipe bursting method also need to be specified. The method by which Colma Creek will be crossed just south of the San Mateo PS and any needed excavations should also be specified. H&A has also not been furnished with any information about the "new 8" graviW line" in Lowrie Avenue or the plan to "switch laterals.., coming fi:om San Mateo.' It is recommended that the APE for this element not be delineated until the potential impact zones are specified. At that point additional time for detailed research into the historic substrate under the pipeline route may be well-spent, rather than conducting such research for the more than 4/5 mile entire ronte. Project Element 4, Shaw Road Force Main This 2800 feet of new 42" force main route crosses filled land shown as marsh in 1939 (USGS 1939) but filled by 1958 (Map 3). The route follows Shaw Road eastward to near Highway 101, jogs slightly to microtunnel under the freeway, then crossed private property onto Beacon Street and across Airport Boulevard, jogs south and then runs across developed property (parldng lots and landscaping) north of Belle Air Road and ends in the middle of that road where the road turns north. The route basically follows the south bank of San Bruno Slough at varying distances. It has not been definitively determined whether the fill along the route is more than 50 years old, but it seems quite likely given the degree of work in the area during and immediately after World War II. Elevation along the route ranges fi:om about five to about I 1 feet. Trenching (pipe bursting is not possible; this is a new pipeline route) for a new 42" force main, with six feet of cover and one foot of base will reach about 10½ feet deep, so it may encounter historic surfaces onto which fill was placed; such a trench will need to be 60" wide. Presumably a sizeable excavation will be needed on each side of Highway 101 to accommodate the equipment to microtunnel a 54" steel casing 25 feet under the freeway. -30- The APE for Element 4 may be defined as the pipeline mute, approximately five to six feet wide, plus the undefined needs for the tunneling equipment near the freeway. Project Element 6, Airport Boulevard Sewer As noted, the Airport Boulevard Sewer will be exceptionally deep, on the order of 15 feet below the current snqace. The mute runs on Airport west of Highway 101 between Chapman and Armour Avenues, a Listance of about 1100 feet. The available descriptions of this element are too vague to define an APE or assess potential impacts: "..upslzing an existing 8" sewer line .... Alternatives to be evaluated wL! include constructing a new parallel sewer main adjacent to the existing lhle or upsizing the existing 2ine by pipe bursting" (3/19 document). A parallel line would be considered to have potential impacts; pipe bursting might not or would have a much smaller APE. As discussed above, a parallel line would need to be chosen and the route, delineated before an APE can be deflnec[ Project Element 7. W'mston Manor Sewer This is the single northwesterly Project'Element, involving rehabilitation of 280-290 feet of existing 6" sewer. "Various forms oftrenchless methods will be evaluated to replace this line" (3/19 document). Ifa trenchless method is chosen, locations of work pits and any connection pits would need to be defined before the APE can be drawn and potential impacts can be evaluated. [The following are "East of 101" Project Elements; descriptions from the May 7~ docum~t and Figure 5.1 are used, but the numbering system ofthe 3/19 document is retained.] Proiec: Element 10. Pump Station No. 2 Force Main This element involves placing a new 10" force main parallel to the existing 10" line along Gateway Boulevard. Examination of field conditions and historic maps (USGS 1897, 1915, 1939, 1968, 1980, 1993; Mark Group 1988) and 1940s aerial photographs show that this force main mute follows a road cut up the hill from the pump station near Oyster Point Boulevard. The original contours were reconfigured several times along what is now Gateway Boulevard as recently as the early 1990s as railroad spurs were installed, moved, and removed. Documents in the City Engineering Department also indicate thLq portion of Gateway Boulevard was regraded several times in the last 30 years. This element is considered to have no potential to impact historic properties. Project Element 12. Pump Station No. 4 Force Main This proposed new 21" force main to parallel an existing 21" force main between Pump Station 4, north o f Co lma Creek, and the W QCP on the south bank o f the creek. This route fo llows a former railbed from the back of PS 4 to and across Littlefield Avenue, then leaves the former railbed south of Littlefie;d to cross Colma Creek to the WQCP. South of Littlefield, the route crosses fill placed in 1958 (Map 3) and therefore less than 50 years old; that portion of the route need not be further considered for potential to affect historic properties. North of Littlefield the route appears to be in historic fill over 50 years old. -31- Elevation of this and other East of 101 pipeline elements are from the January 2002 Towill survey map and d~t~ sheet. Street (manhole rim) elevation outside PS 4 is 7.01 feet; the existing force main invert is at about -5.8 feet, so the sewer line runs approximately 12.8 feet below the street level At the south end at Littlefield Avenue, street elevation is 10.02 feet; the existing main invert is at -2.25 feet, so here too the main runs over 12 feet below the surface. Twelve feet below current surface is probably w~thin historic fill, since the entire area has subsided two or three feet (or more) since filling began, but could encounter old surfaces or any previous filled over high spots. This portion of Element 12 appears to have to potential to i .mpact historic properties. Because this element involves a new force main paralleling an existing one, the ~oute has not been mapped, but could be fi-om four to about 10 feet away, on either side ofthe existing main. The proposed depth of the new force main is also not specified. It is recommended that when the route and depth of this element is specified, the APE be delineated and more focused research on the historic substrate be completed. Project Element 15, Pump Station No. 8 Force Main This Project Element consists of a new 10" force main that will parallel an existing 21" main along Forbes Boulevard fi-om PS 8 to Allerton Avenue. Although this route curves around the north side of the hill on Point San Pedro, and was therefore dry land very near the Bay and marshland in aboriginal times (USGS 1897, 1915), historic maps and ph6tos and more recent information indicate that this entire stretch of Forbes Boulevard is all within either fill material or cuts into the hilhide less than 50 years old. History of land alterations along this route indicates that the proposed parallel force main will not encounter prehistoric or historic archaeological materials over 50 years old. Historic maps do indicate that as early as 1897 a road curved around the south side of the Point, and by 1915 there were small buildings on the west slope ofthe hill~ but by 1939 the hill.qides were furnishing fill materials to raise the area between Point San Bruno and Oyster Point, smoothing the contours. Plans in the City Engineering archives for the late 1960s"Cabot, Cabot & Forbes IndusUial Park Units 2 and 2A" development indicate that the part of Forbes near Allerton Avenue and Allerton southward fi-om Forbes to East Grand Avenue were placed in fill cut offthe east side of the Point San Bruno hill and brought from the other high spots to the northwest, further smoothing the contours (Wilsey & Ham 1967, 1969). The route ofeasternForbes Boulevard in the early 1960s is at least 20 feet lower than in 1939 (Wilsey, Ham & Blair 1964), as the bilhide was cut to raise areas below to the north, continuing a process of filling mamhland and a small lagoon shown on the 1897 map but not on the 1915 map. Following the Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Industrial Park construction ofthe late 1960s, the road is once again higher than in 1939. Profiles for 1969, aRer construction in 1967-68, show the then-existing 10" force main under six to 9~A feet of fill, which had been placed on a zone previously excavated for fill_ Project Element 17. the Oyster Point Boulevard Trunk Sewer This Element proposes replacement of an existing pipelines with larger lines (18" for 12"; 15" for 10" and 12"; 121" for 8") running fi-om 240 feet south of Oyster Point Boulevard (OPB) on -32- Eccles Avenue north to OPB, then westward to Gateway Boulevard and south on Gateway a short way to Pum~ Station 2. Much of this route is clearly or very probably in fill (or cuts and fall) less than 50 years old, but the land alteration history in this location is very complex; it appears that the western end of this route may be in fall less than 50 years old and shallow enough that trenching could encounter historic or natural land surfaces. This locations is especially sensitive for archaeological resources, both prehistoric and historic; it was the edge ofthe Bay margin marshlands, with a small lagoon near' ~y, and the probable location of a late-nineteenth/early-twentieth century Chinese fishing camp. Early fill over any of these archaeological manifestations would likely have lei~ intact deposits below. Note t ~e following discussion addresses only the proposed route of this Element-i.e., OPB east of Gateway and west of Eccles, not the more westerly part of OPB. The Mark Group 1988 map is not eluciclat:_ve for this Element because it doesn't show fill activity along Butler Road/Oyster Point Boulevard. Comparing the 1897 map with the 1915 map shows filling and curing had been taking place in this general area prior to 1915, when a road and railroad spur show in the general location of OPB, with the road at an elevation of about 25 feet, but dipping to below 25 feet at the western end, and the railbed at about 50 feet. The 1939, 1968, 1980, and 1993 USGS topographic maps show the same elevations for Butler near Gateway, with the eastern end near Eccles at about 60 feet. By 1939, "Butler Road," later OPB, runs in the same location as the current road (USGS 1939), as clearly shown in 1943 and 1946 aerial photographs (National Archives), still at or above 25 feet elevation except at the western end near (what would become) Gateway and rising to the east. Plans to improve Butler Road during World War II (Klassen 1942) show that up to four feet of fill will be placed on the road, west of and just past Gateway, until it begins to climb the hill at the east. In 1957, plans for improvements to Butler Road east of Gateway show cuts and fill ranging from two to eight feet (Anonymous 1957), and for"lower" Butler show fill and cuts ranging from five to eight feet west of Gateway (DPW 1957). West of Gateway, additional fills were added to Butler Road in 1963 (Anonymous 1963). Also in 1963, the City proposed improvements to Butler Road east of Gateway, with fill from six inches to five feet plus (DPW 1963). Just east of Eccles, cuts up to eight feet and fill over 10 fi~'et deep show that the City was planning to smooth out the contours on the road in the mid-1960s (Wiisey, Ham 8: Blair 1964, 1965). What became part of Gateway Boulevard near PS 2 and OPB in both directions had railroad spurs removed and was regraded in 1965, removing previously placed fill, cutting into previous fill and/or native ground to an undetectable degree (Survey Cor_stmction Staking Company 1964). All in a_l, though the picture is very complex due to purposeful alterations to the landscape and contours for a century, it appears that the lower western portion of the route of Element 17, from the intersection of Oyster Point with Gateway Boulevard, rema~ near the elevations established early in the twentieth century. While undoubtedly altered too, this short stretch, from Gateway east to Veterans, is close enough to the original and early historic contours to have a potential to encounter historic fill more than 50 years old, historic surfaces, or the natural pre-alteration surface. It is recomamnded that once the technique and route for this work is clearly established, testing of subsurface s ram will be appropriate. -33- Project Element 18~ the Allerton Avenue Trunk Sewer This proposed element is the replacement of the existing 15" sewer with a new 18" line along Allerton Avenue fi.om Forbes Boulevard to East Grand Avenue, and along East Grand from Allerton to Littlefield Avenue. As noted for Element 15, historic maps and construction documents show this entire stretch to be in fill less than 50 years old, or running in cuts through the native soil on the east hill.~ide of Point San Bruno. The northerly half of this route is lower than in 1915 or 1939; the southerly haft is higher. Allerton rises fi.om about 16 feet elevation at East Grand to about 40 feet at Forbes, showing the north part had been cut into the bill.~ide and the south part filled. The 1988 Mark Group map shows the intersection of Allerton and East Grand at the edge of or just partly within fill placed in 1958. East Grand to the wost was graded into the hillside as well, and the fill placed to the soutlx This element is considered to not have potential to encounter poss~le historic properties. Project Element 19. the East Grand Avenue Trunk Sewer This element proposes to replace existing sewer lines along East Grand Avenue fi.om Allerton Avenue at the east to Harbor Way on the west (27" to replace 18"; 24" for 18/15"; 21" for 15"). The route crosses several different types and ages of fill and presents a complex picture. The intersection of Allerton and East Grand is at the edge of or partially, within 1958 fill (Map 3). From that intersection to the west, about halfway to Roebling Road, East Grand runs in an area cut into the original contours and the fill pushed to the south prior in 1958; this portion ofthe road was later filled again. From about halfway betweenAllerton and Roebling to near Roebling, East Grand sits on 1958 fill depicted in the Mark Group map (1988). West of this point, East Grand sits on deep pre-1958 fill. Soil logs taken in 1974 at Roebling and East Grand show 19 feet of fill near the intersection and 12 feet of fill a little farther away (Keller & Gannon 1974). West of Roebling pre-1958 fill continues to Harbor Way. This element bas potential to encounter historic properties in the entire section fi.om Harbor Wayto 150 feet east of Roebling Road, where the existing 18" pipe will be replaced with 27" pipe, /fthe replacement is done by trenching. If pipe bursting is used, only the work and connection pits would poss~ly encounter historic properties. It is recommended that once the replacement technique is chosen, the APE be designated and a testing plan for historic properties designed. Project Element 20. the DNA Way Subtrunk This element is to replace existing 8" line with 10" and existing 10" with 12" along easternmost Forbes Boulevard east of Pump Station 8 and a short stretch on DNA Way south ofthe east end of Forbes. This entire element is within post 1958 fill (Map 3) and elevations of existing pipelines indicate the replacements will not penetrate the recent fill, which is more than 15 feet thick (Towill 2002). This element therefore has no potential to impact historic properties. Project Element 23. the Swit~ Subtrunk This element proposes to replace failing 15" pipeline with new pipe ofthe same size along Swill Avenue from Pump Station 3 eastward to the end of the street. This entire element is within post 1958 fill (Map_ 3) and elevations of existing pipelines (Towil12002) indicate the replacements will not penetrate the recent fill; which is more than 15 feet thick. This element therefore has no potential to ~ historic properties. Project Element 24, the Littlefield (South) Subtrunk Elemen: 24 is the replacement of 8" and 10" pipes with pipes of the same size along an approximately 2400 foot stretch of southern Littlefield Avenue east of Pump Station 7. This area is pre-1958 fill over Bay muds (Map 3). No documents were found that gave more detail about this fill than the 1988 map, but based on other locations within the pre- 1958 fill.q, it is likely the area was filled in more than one episode. Plans were made to fill this area as early as 1915 (see Appendix C, Figure XX), but the 1939 map shows the area still to be mudflats and marshland (USGS 1939). Elevation at the northeast end of this route is about 7.18 feet and at PS 7 about 10 feet (Towil12002), so it is likely this area contains at least 15 feet offlll~ perhaps 20 feet. Invert structures at those same two locations are at about 6¼ and nine feet below surface respectively, so if the replacement pipes are placed at the same elevations, former marshlands or mudflats will not be encountered. If the existing trenches are re-excavated to replace the pipes, there will be no impacts to previously undisturbed kistoric fill or surfaces, with the exception of connection and work pits, if any. This element is considered to have some potential to encounter historic properties unless only the pre-existiag trench is subject to impacts. Once the exact dimensions of planned excavations are known so the APE can be defined, additional research into the history and nature of"pre-1958 fill" in this location may also be fiafiffuL Project .~lement 26. the Harbor Way Subtnmk "This in:provement consists ofreplaciag the e~fisting 8-inch sewer along Harbor Way with a new 10-inch pipe from Utah Avenue to approximately 80 feet north'of Mitchell Avenue" (May 7~ document), a distance of about 1000 feet. The north end lsat Pump Station 4. This pipeline route is entirely within pre-1958 fill over Bay muds (Map 3). Again, no documents were found that gave more detail about the age of this fill than the 1988 map, but based on other locations within the pre- 1958 fill.q, it is likely the area was filled in more than one episode. Documents in the City Engineering Department dated January 1958 indicate the then-existing sewer lines along Harbor Way from East Grand to East Harris Street (north ofthis Element) ranging in elevation from zero to eight feet in "fill" and that fill is all about elevation zero (W'flsey & Ham 1958). At PS 4, modification work was done in 1961, with soils studies indicating "stable fill material" to a depth of elevation-1.7 feet, where the PS site elevation ranged fi.om nine to 12 feet, so the identified fill was at least 10.7 to 13.7 feet thick, and getting thicker with a lower elevation base heading south (Kirker 1961a). In 1988, sewers along Harbor Way in the Element vicinity are -35- shown at elevation zero to minus five feet (Reimer Associates 1988). So, in 1958 sewer lines ran between eight feet and zero elevation and by 1988 from zero to minus five feet elevation, perhaps reflecting the fill losing elevation as the Bay muds below compresses (this is only a rough comparison because information is not fi.om the same locations). Conversely, the 2002 Towill survey of sewers along Harbor Way show an invert elevation of 2.27 feet at Utah Avenue and Harbor, and -5.79 feet at Mitchell Avenue on the 8" line proposed for replacement. So, the question of whether the proposed replacement lines will be all in historic fill or might penetrate subfill historic or natural surfaces depends on the elevation the new lines will be placed at. Because this Element proposes to replace a pipeline with a larger line, requiring a lar~er trench, it has potential to impact historic resources. The. depth at which the new line will be placed is important and any work or connection excavations will also need to be specified to define the exact APE. Additional research into the history and nature of"pre-1958 fill" in this location may also be productive in assessing potential impacts. Project Element 27. the Executive Subtrunk This proposed improvement is the replacement of a failing 18" pipeline with a smaller 15" line along a stretch of Executive Drive northward from East Grand Avenue. The 3/19 description ofthis Element has been superceded by the May 7~ document to only include about 800 feet of pipeline replacement along Executive. The southern end of this route is in pre-1958 fill outside the 1871 shoreline (in the former Bay) (Map 3); within about 200 feet, terrain that was dry land in mid- nineteenth century is reached and contains the rest of the Element. This element is generally considered to have no potemial to encounter historic properties because a larger pipe is being replaced with a smaller one, except where any needed work or connection pits may be placed. If the existing line is abandoned in place and the new one placed above it, the larger portion of the route will not impact potential historic properties. If the new line is "sleeved" within the existing larger line, only the work/connection pits would have potential impacts. If a different route is adopted to replace the existing line, this Element would cross zones archaeologically sensitive for both prehistoric and historic resources. The construction technique and location of the line is pivotal in defining the APE for this element. Project Element 28. the Littlefield (North) Subtrunk This ks a proposed replacement of an existing 8" line with a new line of the same size in the vicinity of Lawrence Avenue. As a replacement in the same trench with the same size pipe, potential impacts are limited to work and/or connection pits along the line, as long as the same route and depth (or shallower) are ufflized. Construction details and current data indicate that even work and/or connection pits will not penetrate to fill over 50 years old, so this element is considered to have no potential to effect historic properties. The northern portion of this route, approximately from Lawrence north, is in post- 1958 fill and is not sensitive for historic properties. Documents from 1961 contain profiles showing the exlx~ted -36- "30 year grade" at the bottom of recent fall on thi.q northern portion, showing how much settlement may be caused by the fill surcharge (Kirker 1961). From Lawrence Avenue south, another document shows the "original ground 1956" under the "1961 fill;" the 1956 surface, which according to the Mark Grocp map must be interpreted as fall also, is shown as five to 14 feet below the 1961 fill, getting deeoer farther south (DPW 1969). Invert dam for the mute south of Lawrence show the existing line at 4.8 to 5.6 feet below current street level, also getting deeper moving south (Towill 2002). The 196 i top o f 1956 fill data and 2002 invert depth data indicate that replacing this pipeline at the same depth will not penetrate even into the 1956 fill SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Section 106 compliance research for a project having 28 separate Project Elements is necessarily complex, detailed, and lengthy. Section 106 compliance procedures for the South San Francisco Wet Weather Program Project are yet in an early stage. This report is the beginning of that process, but considerab2e progress has been made. Every Project Element is appropriately evaluated for possible effects to b2storic properties. Every Project Element is located in an archaeologically sensitive zone, for prehistoric sites, historic resources, or both. Nevertheless, research and impact assessments completed to date have shown that 16 of the 28 Project Elements can be assessed as having no potential to effect historic properties as defined by Section 106, lack of design and/or construction techniques notwithstanding. Essentially, for many Project Elements the exact APE and construction impacts wLl not matter because the work is located where there will not be historic properties to be impacted. Another eight Elements have been assessed as having possible effects, depending on exact design and construction techniques adopted. Four Project Elements are seen as having definite potential to impact historic properties, but even these are not yet fully assessed because exact constructien impacts have not been made specific. These assessments may still change when more exact APEs can be defined. The r_ext step for Section 106 work, identification of potential historic properties, can now proceed for several of the Phase 1 Elements and is not deemed necessary for others. This step, it is proposed, can be eliminated for the 16 Elements in areas where historic properties will not be potentially encountered under current design parameters. For those Project Elements where effects on historic properties is possible, it is recommended that potential impacts be reexamined in detail when design is complete and construction techniques are known. In fact, when complete design details and proposed construction techniques are available, it i~ recommended that all 28 Project Elements I~e reexamined. For many Elements, this will simply mean confirmation of what is already known (for instance, that the Pump Station upgrades will not require excavations other than those discussed ~.bove as planned or poss~le). REFERENCES Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1999 Protection of Historic Properties. 36 CFR 800 1999a Recommended Approach for Consultation on Recovery Sign~icant Information from Archeological Sites. 64 FR27085-87. Anastasio, R.L., D.M. Gamvonta, S.A Guedon, R.M Harmon, and J.W. Sc, ho~felder 1988 A Cultural Resources Assessment for San Francisco Resource Supply Study, (San Mateo Substation to Martin Substation), Daly City to City of San Mateo, San Mateo County, California. R~'t on file, Northwest Information Center, California Historic~ Resources Info~raation System, Sonoma State University, File No. 10402. 1957 1963 1968 Proposed Improvements Butler Road to Healy-Tibbitts Yard. Date~! April 30, 1957. Archives ofthe Department of Engineering, City of South San Francisco, Document D10-908. Location of Road, Bethlehem Steel Prolx,n'ty, South San Francisco (added note to title: "Scavenger Road in connection with Butler Road"). Dated 11-8-63. Archives of the D~partment of Engineering, City of South San Francisco, Document D10-928. The Bay Shore: Otter, Oysters, China Camps, Salt, and Land. La Peninsula XIV:5. San Mateo County Historical Society. San Mateo, CA. 1979 4 Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed San Andrea Pipeline No. 3, San Mateo County. Report on file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University;, File No. S-03074. Bickel, P. McW. 1978 Changing Sea Levels Along the California Coast: Anthropological Implications. The Journal of California Anthropology 5:1:6-20. 1978a Corrections to Sea-Level Article. The Journal of California Anthropology 5:2:296-297. Bickel, P. McW., T.L. Jackson, and T.F. King 1973 Rising Sea Levels along the California Coast: A preliminary consideration ofsomepossible archaeological consequences. Paper presented at the 38th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. San Francisco. Biosystems Analysis, Inc. 1989 Technical Report of Cultural Resources Studies for the Proposed VeTG-WEST, Inc Los Angeles to San Francisco and &zcramento, California Fiber Optic Cable Project. Report on file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University; File No. 11396. Bocek, B. 1989 Site Record and Notes for CA-SMA-299. Report on file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University. Bonilla, M.G. 1998 Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South 7. 5' Quadrangle and Part of the Hunter's Point 7.5' Q~drangle, San Francisco Bay Area, California. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98- 354. Brabb, E.E., and E.H. Pampeyan 1983 Geologic map of San Mateo County, California. U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map 1-1257-A (reprinted 1998). Breschini, O.S., T. Haversat, and J. Erlandson (compilers) 1996 California Radiocarbon Dates. Eighth Edition, March 1996. Coyote Press, Salinas, CA. Bromfield, D. 894 Official Map of San Mateo County, California. Brown, A.~ 1973-74 Indians of San Maten County. Mateo, CA. La Peninsula:XVII:4. San Mateo County Historical Society. San California Higaway Commission 1926 Plan and Profile of Proposed State Highway in San Mateo County from Colma to Cypress Lawn Cemetery. Dated both July 3 and July 30, 1926. Sacramento, CA. Chandler, S.C. 1973 Gateway to the Peninsula: A History of Daly City, *California. Published by the City of Daly City. Chavez, D. 1979 Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Colma Wastewater Collection System, Town of Colrna, San Mateo County, California. Report on file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University;, File No. S-03043 Clark, M. R. 1986 1991 1992 1998 2000 Archaeological Investigations of the Mussel Rock Site, Cd-SMA-72, San Mateo County, California. Report prepared for the City of Daly City Department of Community Planning. Coyote Press, Salinas, CA. Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed Serratnonte Boulevard Reconstruction Project, in the Town of Colma, San Mateo County, California. Report on file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University;, File No. S-12436. Initial ~lrchaeological Evaluation of Proposed Park Additions and a Portion of the Calma Creek Channel for the Orange Memorial Park Master Plan FIR, South San Francisco, California. Report on file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University. Evaluative Archaeological E~ccavations at the San Bruno Mountain Mound Site, C,4-SMA-40, South San Francisco, California. Report on file, Northwest Inf~n.lation Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University. Coyote Press, Salinas, CA. Initial Subsurface ,archaeological Reconnaissance of Two Redevelopment Parcels on Chestnut ~tvenue in the City of South San Francisco, California with Preliminary Resource Evaluation and Management Recommendations. Report on file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University. -39- Clark, M.R. 2000a 2OO2 2002a An Addendum To: Initial Subsurface Archaeological Reconnaissance of Two Redevelopment Parcels on Chestnut Avenue in the City of South ~m Francisco, California with Preliminary Resource Evaluation and Management Recomme~ons. Rqx~t on file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University. Final Report of Archaeological Investigations at C~4 -SM~4 -355for the Chestma Creek ~enior Housing Project, South San Francisco, California [working title; in preparation]. Colma Creek Flood Control Project Archaeological Monitoring Plan. Report prepared for San Mateo County Flood Control District, Department of Public Works, San Mateo County. Report on file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University. . Department of Public Works, City of South San Franciseo 1957 Lower Butler Road Improvement, City of South San Francisco; Drawing 10-2-57. Dated 10-2-57. Archives of the Department of Engineering, City of South San Francisco, Document Di0-910. 1963 City of South San Francisco: Butler Road Impvt, Industrial Way to City Beach. Dated 12-16-63. Archives of the Department of Engineering, City of South San Francisco, Document D!0-912. 1969 Littlefield Avenue Settlement Study on Street Drainage, Station 11+00. Dated 2-21-69. Archives of the Department of Engineering, City of South San Francisco, Document D60-6010. 1998 Initial Study/Negative Declaratior~ Oyster Point Boulevard ~idening Project. Report prepared by and on file with the City of South San Francisco. Easton, A.S. 1868 Official Map of the County of San Mateo, Californiai Including the City and County of San Francisco. Heizer, R.F. 1950 Observations on Early Man in California. University of California,4rchaeological Survey Reports 7:5-9. Berkeley. Helley, E.J., K.R. Lajoie, W.E. Spangle, and M.L. Blair 1979 Flatland deposits of the San Francisco Bay Region, California-their geology and engineering properties, and their importance to comprehensive planning. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 943. Hylkema, M.G. 1998 Seal Cove Prehistory : Archaeological Investigations at CA -SM.d- 134, Fitzgerald Marine Reserve, &tn Mateo County, California. Report prepared for San Mateo County Department of Parks and Recreation. Report on file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University. Hynding, A. 1982 From Peninsula to Suburb: The Story of the San Mateo Peninsula. Belmont, CA. Star Publishing Company, Keller & G-annon 1974 Site Plan, Fence Details, United Cold Storage, 233 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California. Dated 6 Dec. 1974. Archives of the Department of Engineering, City of South San Francisco, Document D57-5957. Kirker, Carl. E., Civil Engineer 1961 Littlefield Avenue Assessment District Plan: Littlefield Avenue-Kimball Way Sanitary Sewer Line "A," Somh San Francisco, California. Dated 4-19-61. Archives of the Department of Engineering, City of South San Francisco, Doonnent D13-1233. 1961a Sewer Plan & Profile Modifications to South San Francisco Pump Station No. 4. Dated 6-27-61. Archives ofthe Department of Engineering~ City of South San Francisco, Document Df2-1142.1 (re: referenced soils study by "Cooper & Clark June 1961," no additional reference available), 1942 Plan and Profile for the improvement of Butler Road East of Bayshore Highway, South San Francisco, California. Dated April 1942; 2 sheets, byt P.A. Kla.~-'n, City Engineer. Archives ot~the Depamnent of Engineering~ City of South San Francisco, Document D10-903. Kneese, G.A. 1927 Official Map of San Mateo County, California. Knott, J.M. 1969 Imerim Report on Streamflow and Sedimem Discharge in the Calma Creek Basin, California. United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, Open-File Report [unnumbered] Prepared in Cooperation with San Mateo County. Menlo Park, California. Knudsen, ICL., J.IVL Sowers, R.C. Witter, C.M. Wentworth, and E.J. Heiley 2000 Preliminary Maps of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility, Nine County San Francisco Bay Region, California. U.S. Geological Survey ,Open-File Report 00 ~.~.~.. (available as a digital database on the USGS website). Mark Group Engineers and Geologists, Inc. 1988 Addendum to the Hydrogeological Assessment Report, The O'Brien Corporation, South San Francisco, California: Drawing No. 4-1: Historical Shorelines and Known Fill Areas. McGinnis, P. 2000 Site Record for CA-SMA-811H/P-41-000465. Report on file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University. Milliken, lET. 1983 1986 1995 The Spatial Organization of Human Population on Central California's San Francisco Peninsula at the Spanish Arrival. Master's Thesis, Department of Interdisciplinary Studies, Sonoma State University. Indians of the Mussel Rock Area: A Cultural Overview. In Archaeological Investigations of the Mussel Rock Site, CA-SM_~4-72, San Mateo County, California, by M.R. Clark, pp. 29-42. Coyote Press, Salina~ CA. ,4 Time of £ittle Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area 1769- 1810. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 43. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, CA. Moratto, M.J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Morehouse Associates 2000 Draft Supplemental Environmemal Impact Report, Bay West Commercial Project (Formerly Shearwater Project). Report prepared for and on file with the City of South San Francisco. Morehouse Associates 2000a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Bay ggest Commercial Project (Formerly Shearwater Project), Final Response to Comments. Report prepared for and on file with the City of South San Frandsco. National Archives 1943 Aerial Photograph: CAN 10356, DDB-2B- 133, dated 10-11-43. National Archives, Washington, D.C. 1946 Aerial Photograph: CAN 10356, 2-24 GS-CP, dated 7-29-46. National Archives, Washington, D.C. Nelson, N.C. 1909 Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region. University of California Publicatio. ns in American drchaeology and Ethnology 7:309-356. Berkeley. Nichols, D., and N. Wright 1971 Preliminary Map of Historic Margins of Marshlands, San Francisco Bay, California. United States Geological Survey Open File Map. Map on file at USGS Western Map Center, Menlo Park, CA. P & D Technologies, ia cooperation with Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 1990 Draft Environmental Impact Report, Oyster Point Interchange and Grade Separation, South San Francisco. Report prepared for and on file with the City of South San Francisco. 1990a Final Environmental Impact Report, Oyster Point Interchange and Grade Separation, South San Francisco; Volume II: Response to Comments. Report prepared for and on file with the City of Sonth San Francisco. Rice, C. 1994 1994a 1994b 1995 BART-San Francisco Airport Extension Project Dra~ Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Archaeological Survey Report. Report on file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University;, File No. 16687. BART-San Francisco Airport Extension Project Draft Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Archaeological Resources Technical Report. [Revised December 1994] Report on file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University; File No. 16688. Supplemental Site Record for CA-SMA-299. Report on file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University. Calma Creek Zone Drainage Improvements Project, Cultural Resources Technical Report. Report on file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University; File No. 17730. Reimer Associates 1988 Harbor Way Improvements, South San Francisco, California. Dated July 13, 1988. Archives of the Department of Engineeriag, City of South San Francisco, Document D60-6061. Roop, W. 1976 [letter report re] Belle Air lsland Property. Report on file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University;, File No. 03175. Shoup,, L.H., M. Brack, N. Fee, and B. Giiber~i 1994 BART-San Francisco Airport Extension Project, Draft Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: A Historic Resources Evaluation Report of Seven Calma Cemeteries, Calma, California. Repor~ on file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University; File No. S-17191. Shoup,, L.H., M. Brack, N. Fee, and B. Gilberti 1994a BART-San Francisco .4irport Extension Project, Draft Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Historic Architectural Survey Technical Report. Report on file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University;, File No. S-17192. Shoup, L.H. and D. Shoup 1999 The Chinese Fishing Camp at Point Molate: An Historic Overview. In Cultural Resources Evaluation and Impact Mitigation Program for the Fgestern Drive Pipeline Replacement Project Near Poim Molate, Contra Costa County, California, by Randy S. Wiberg, Holman & Associates Archaeological Consultants: F-l-F-51. Report prepared for East Bay Municipal Utility District, Oakland. Report on file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University. Survey ConsW~..ction Staking Company 1964 SWeet Improvement Plan, Spur Track Removal, Oyster Point Bird, South San Francisco, California. Dated June 11, 1963. Archives of the Department of Engineering, City of South San Francisco, Document D72-7212. Svanivik, M., and S. Burgett 1995 City of Souls: San Francisco's Necropolis at Colma. Custom & Limited Editions, San Francisco. Tetra Tech 1994 Remedial Investigation Report, Oyster Point, Soutl~ San Francisco, California. Report prepared for CalTrans District 04: 4.10-4.28. Towill, Inc. 2002 1"=200' Atlas maps w/sewer rims & inverts from January 2002 field survey data, and accompanying dnt_~ spreadsheet for '~3outh San Francisco Manholes" (produced for Carollo Engineers for South San Francisco East of 101 Sewer Master Plan. U.S. Coast Survey 1853 Map of Part of the Coast of California from Point San Pedro Northward. 1867 Map showing the Approaches to San Francisco for Use of Engineer Department, U.S. Army U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey 1899 Ingleside to Calera Valley California U.S. 1899 1939 1947 1968 1980 1993 Geological Survey San Mateo, California 15 minute topographic quadrangle. San Mateo, California 15 minute topographic quadrangle. San Francisco South, California 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle. San Francisco South, California 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle. San Francisco South, California 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle. San Francisco South, California 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle. Wilsey & Ham 1958 1967 Engineers, Inc. Assessment Diagram, Harbor Way Assessment District, South San Francisco, California. Dated Jan. 1958. Archives of the Department of Engineering, City of South San Francisco, Doctmaent DI 2-1143. Reclamation Stage 2-Detail Grading Plan, Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Industrial Park Units No. 2 & 2A. Dated July 1967. Archives oftheDepartment ofEngineering, CityofSouth San Francisco, Document D54-5317. Wilsey & Ham Engineers, Inc 1969 Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Industrial Park Unit 2, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California: Improvement Plans; Sheet 2. Dated May 1969. Archives of the Department of Engineering, City of South San Francisco, Document D54-5329. Wiisey, Ham & Blair 1964 Butler Road Extension, South San Francisco, California. 1965 Witter, R. C. 2001 Dated Dee. 1964. Archives of the Department of Engineering, City of Sonth San Francisco, Document D10-944. Oyster Point Road Intersection. Dated May 1965. Archives ofthe Department of Engineering~ City of South San Francisco, Document D10-945. Geological and Geomorphic .4nalyses, Ghestnut Creek Senior Homing Project, South San Francisco, California. Report prepared for Department of Housing and Community Services, City of South San Francisco, by William Lottis & Associates, Earth Science Consultants, Walnut Creek, California. Young, D.L. 1976 Archaeological Survey Report for Widening Project on 4-SM-82-20. 8/22.1. Report on file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University;, File No. S-03134. APP~.NmX A Carollo Engineers 3/19/02 and May 7~ 2002 Project Descriptions and Maps City of South San Francisco Proposed facilities WWP Phases 1-4 ID Proposed No. Facility I San M&teo Pump Station 2 San Mateo Fome Main 3 Shaw Road Pump Station 4 Shaw Road Force Main 5 Effluen: Storage Pond 6 Airport Blvd. Sewer 7 Winsto3 Manor Sewer 8 Colma Creel Bank Restoration 9 Pump Station No. 2 10 Pump Station No. 2 Force Main 11 Pump Station No. 4 12 Pump Station No. 4 Force Main 13 Pump Station No. 7 14 Pump Station No. 8 15 Pump Station No. 8 Force Main Description Upgrade existing pump station by converting dry well to wet well and adding new pumps. New electrical and control building will be constructed. Construct approximately 4, 400' of new 36" force main between the San Mateo pump station and the Shaw Road pump station. One half of the installation will be done by pipe bursting an existing 27' sanitary sewer line, the other half will be installed by a conventional trenching method. Force main includes a crossing of Colma Creek that will be constructed by the County in conjunction With the Creek channelizatiqn project. A new pump station will be constructed on the site of the existing pump station. Once construction is complete, the existing pump station will be demolished. Construct approximately 2,800' of new 42' force main between the Shaw Road pump station and the WOCP. Installation will include a microtunneling crossing of Highway 101 via a proposed 54' steel casing. A new effluent storage pond will be constructe~J on the WQCP proPerty. The area in the past has been used as sludge drying beds. A portion of the area is currently being used by the WQCP expansion project contractor. Th~ completed pond will consist of an earthen reservoir (approximately 3.0 MG) with a plastic liner. A pump station will be constructed adjacent to the pond to both fill and drain the reservoir. This project involves the upsizing of an existing 8" sewer line in Airport Blvd. between Chapman and Armour. Alternatives to be evaluated will include constructing a new parallel sewer main adjacent to the existing line or upsizing the existing line by pipe bursting. Rehabilitate an existing 6" sewer main that has been damaged by root intrusion and settlement. Various forms of trenchless methods will be evaluated to replace this line. The line begins in the intersection of Hickey Blvd. and Camadtas Ave and continues northeast to a manhole just west of El Camino Real. This project consists of adding creek bank protection on the south side of Colma Creek at the WQCP. The south bank of Colma Creek has eroded due to high velocities during wet weather flows in Colma Creek. The erosion is threatening the WQCP facilities near the creek bank. Bank protection is expected to include sheet piling and rip rap. Upgrades to existing pump station. Construct approximately 850' of new 10" force main in Gateway Blvd south of Oyster Point Blvd. Upgrades to existing pump station. Construct approximately 2,800' of new 21" force main between Pump station No. 4 and the WQCP. Upgrades to existing pump station. Upgrades to existing pump station. Construct approximately 2,800' of new 10" force main between Pump station No. 8 and Allerton Ave. h:~client'~southsl'~4182g.10~Project Oescril3tions (Phases 1.4) 1 3/19/D2 4:14 PM City of South San Francisco Proposed facilities WWP Phases 1-4 16 Pump Station No. 10 17 Oyster Point Blvd. Trunk Sewer 18 Allerton Ave. Trunk Sewer 19 East Grand Ave. Trunk Sewer 20 DNA Way Subtrunk Sewer 21 Pump Station No. 1 22 Pump Station No. 3 23 Swift Subtrunk 24 Littlefield Subtrunk 25 Pump Station No. 6 26 Harbor Way Subtrunk 27 Executive Subtrunk Upgrades to existing pump station. This project consist of two new pipelines. The first line which will be 12' and approximately 900' in length begins in Eccles Avenue 240' south of Oyster Point Blvd. and continues west in Oyster Point Blvd. to approx. 640' west of Eccles Ave. The second line will be 15' and approximately 1,800' in length. It will be located in Oyster Point Blvd. and will extend from Eccles Ave. to Pump Station No. 2. Construct approximately 2,200' of 18' pipe in Allerton Ave between East Grand Ave. and Forbes Blvd. and approximately 600' of 18' pipe in East Grand Ave. between Allerton Ave. and Littlefield Ave. ConstnJct approximately 2,300' of new trunk sewer ranging in size from 21" to 27'. The new line will be located in East Grand Ave. between AIlerton Way and Harbor Way. Construct approximately 200' of 10' sewer in DNA Way south of Forbes Blvd. and 600' of 10' sewer from 300' west of DNA to 90' east of Kaufmann. Upgrades to existing pump station. Upgrades to existing pump station. Construct approximately 3,200' of 15" sewer in Swift Ave and along the RR spur. Construct approximately 2,400' of 8' and 10" sewer in Littlefield Avenue. Upgrades to existing pbmp station. Construct approximately 1,000' of 8' sewer in Harbor Way between Utah Ave. and 80' north of Mitchell Ave. Construct approximately 2,100' of 15" sewer in Executive north of East Grand Ave. and in East Grand Avenue between Executive and Gateway. h:~client~.~3uttlsf~182g.10~Project I:)escfiptions (Phases 1-4) 2 3/19/02 4:14 PM stations and the Water Quality Control Plant to be exceeded. Older pump stations have also experienced reliability problems. Wastewater treatment is accomplished at the City's Water Quality Control Plant, located at the easterly terminus of Belle Air road just south of Colma Creek. The Plant also provides service for the city of San Bruno, San Francisco International Airport and portions of other communities. The Plant has been recently upgraded and expanded to accommodated growing employment uses in the Plant's service area and to meet Regional Water Quality Control Board discharge requirements. Storm drainage: City of South San Francisco maintains a series of drainage pipes and culverts through the City to accommodate stormwater runoff. East of the 280 freeway, storrnwater flows into Colma Creek for ultimate disposal in San Francisco Bay. Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Co. provides electrical and natural gas service to the City of South San Francisco through a series of overhead and underground electrical lines. Existing pump stations receive electrical power from PG&E. · Communications: Pacific Bell provides a range of telephone and telecommunication service to homes and businesses in the community. Projec: Impacts a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? NI. The proposed project is being undertaken to meet such discharge requirements. No impacts are therefore ar.ticipated. b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities ? NI. The proposed project does include new dry weather facilities as part of the Water Qaality Control Plan, however, these are proposed to be constructed to comply w'.th Regional Water Quality Control Board discharge requirements and would not expand dry weather treatment capacity. No impacts are anticipated. c) Require new storm drainage facilities ? NI. Existing drainage patterns would not be c2~anged and no new drainage facilities would be needed. No impact would therefore result. d) Are sufficient water supplies available? NI. Based on infom-~ation provided in the General Plan Existing Conditions Report, the water purveyor to the City has indicated that an ample water supply exists to serve future land uses. In this instance, the proposed project would not require any new source of water, so no impact to water service is anticipated. City of South San Francisco Initial S:udy/Sewer Improvement Program Page 62 July 2002 e) e,f) g) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? LS. See response to "a,' a'~ove. Solid waste disposal? LS. Small quantities of solid waste would be generated by the implementation of the proposed project, which would be construction debris. This amount of solid waste is anticipated to be less-than-significant and can be accommodated in the local sanitary landfill. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? NI. The existing service provider will ensure adherence to federal, state and local solid waste regulations should the proposed reorganization be approved. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range ora rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory ? No. The preceding analysis indicates that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact on overall environmental quality, including biological resources or c'~ltural resources. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the e_-'fects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). No the proposed project involves elements to upgrade the City's sewer facilities to assist in meeting wastewater discharge requirements. The project has been designed to replace existing facilities and to allow limited new growth consistent with the City's adopted General Plan, so there would be no cumulative impacts associated with project approval. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. No such impacts have been discovered in the course of preparing this Initial Study. City of South San Francisco Initial S;udy/Sewer Improvement Program Page 63 July 2002 Initial Study Preparers Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager Miley Holman, Holman Associates, archeology Matthew Clark, Holman Associates, archeology H. Bill Sugaya, Carey & Co, architectural history Connor Turnbull, Carey & Co., architectural history Phillip Smith, Treadwell & Rollo, hazardous materials Donald Ballanti, air quality James Martin, Environments Collaborative, biology lane Maxwell, report graphics Agencies and Organizations Consulted The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study: City of South San Francisco Barbara Hawkins, P.E., City Engineer Ramesh Bhagat, P.E., project engineer Michael Lappen, Senior Planner Carollo Engineer (design engineer) Michael Britten, P.E., Principal-in-Charge David Antonson, P.E., Project Manager Bay Conservation and Development Commission Leslie Lackos References South San Francisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues, Dyett & Bhatia, 1997 South San Francisco General Plan, Dyett & Bhatia, 1999 South San Francisco General Plan EIR. EIP Associates, 1999 City of South San Francisco Initial S;udy/Sewer Improvement Program Page 64 July 2002 City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Sewer Improvement Program Archeological Resources Evaluation Appendix 2 (Holman & Associates) Page 66 July 2002 Appendix 1 Biological Reconnaissance Studies -Colma Creek Bank Stabilization (LSA Associates -Wet Weather Pond (Environmental Collaborative) City of South San Francisco Initial St Jdy/Sewer Improvement Program Page 65 July 2002 II 'f "' ,' ~' '. .' 3::0 co C) . J, eM .~oq.m H ,,% N o 4o 8o SCALE IN FEET Note: See attached Table 1 for description of proposed improvements. engineers Figure 2 WET WEATHER PROGRAM PHASES 1-4 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS MARCH 2O02 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SSF302F2-4182.CDR PRC POSED IMPROVEMENTS The improvements discussed in this section are needed to mitigate existing system capacity deficiencies and to provide additional capacity for anticipated future users. The identified improvements have been assigned a number that is cross-referenced to Figure 5.1. · Improvement I - Pump Station No. 1 P amp Station No. 1 requires the replacement of two existing centrifugal pumps with dry well submersible pumps. The pump. station also needs variable speed controls and a standby generator. · Improvement 2 - Pump Station No. 2 T ~e hydraulic capacity analysis indicates the existing pumps need to be replaced with larger pumps to handle anticipated future flows. Other station improvements include provisions for variable speed controls for the pumps and a standby generator. · Improvement 3 - Pump Station No. 3 P amp Station No. 3 requires the replacement of the existing centrifugal pumps with dry well submersible pumps and the installation of variable speed controls for the pumps. Other needed station improvements include: ,the installation of a standby generator, the irstallation of a crane/davit for pump and equipment removal, raising the vent stack, reconstructing the driveway retaining wall, and upgrading the electrical service. Inprovement 4 - Pump Station No. 4 T ~e hydraulic capacity analysis indicates the two existing pumps should be replaced a3d two new pumps be added to the station to handle the future firm capacity of 9,000 g3m. Other station improvements include: installation of variable speed controls for the p amps, provision of a standby generator, installation of crane/davit for pump and equipment removal, construction of a channel monster grinder at the influent channel to the pump station, and an electrical service upgrade. Improvement 5 - Pump Station No. 6 Pump Station No. 6 requires a new motor control center and other miscellaneous required improvements. The pump station has settled approximately 2 feet from the original construction and may require a new pump station structure. · Improvement 6 - Pump Station No. 7 At buildout conditions, flows tributary to Pump Station No. 7 increase significantly requiring the replacement of the existing pumps with larger capacity pumps. Other improvements include the provision of a new motor control center and the installation of In emergency generator. · I ~provement 7 - Pump Station No. 8 The capacity analysis indicates that this pump station is deficient and requires a capacity upgrade to handle anticipated future flows. The pump firm capacity needs to be upgraded by replacing the two existing pumps with three new pumps. Other needed improvements include the addition of variable speed controls for the pumps and the i~stallation of an emergency generator. May 7, 2002 C:\Wll~ DOWS~,TEMP~SF-Improvements.doc · .Improvement 8 - Pump Station No. 10 To mitigate the hydraulic deficiency at Pump Station No. 10, the two existing pumps need to be replaced with two new pumps designed to handle future flows. Other needed improvements include upgrading the dry well entrance and the addition of an emergency generator. · Improvement 9 - Force Main Pump Station No. 2 This improvement consists of a new 10-inch force main paralleling the existing 10-inch force main along Gateway Boulevard. · Improvement 10 - Force Main Pump Station No. 4 ' This improvement consists of a new 21-inch force main that parallels the existing 21-inch force main between Pump Station No. 4 and the South San Francisco San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant. · Improvement 11 - Force Main Pump Station No. 8 This improvement consists of a new 1 O-inch force main that parallels the existing 10- inch main along Forbes Boulevard, between Pump Station No. 8 and Allerton Ave. · Improvement 12 - Oyster Point Subtrunk The Oyster Point Trunk begins approximately 240 feet south of Oyster Point Boulevard on Eccles Avenue and continues westward to Pump Station No. 2. This improvement consists of a new 18-inch pipe to replace the*existing 12-inch sewer that continues on Gateway Boulevard from Pump Station No. 2. The portion that continues eastward along Oyster Point Boulevard from Gateway Boulevard consists of a new 15-inch pipe that replaces the existing 1 O-inch and 12-inch sewer. A new 12-inch pipe is needed to replace the existing 880 feet of 8-inch pipe, which continues along Oyster Point Boulevard and then jogs southerly along Eccles Avenue. · Improvement 13-Allerton Subtrunk The capacity analysis indicates that future flows will exceed the capacity of this trunk sewer. A new 18-inch pipe is needed to replace the existing 15-inch sewer along Allerton Way and East Grand Avenue to Littlefield Avenue. · Improvement 14- East Grand Trunk This improvement for the East Grand Trunk consists of a new 27-inch pipe to replace the existing 18-inch along East Grand Avenue to 150 feet east of Roebling Ave. The portion that continues southeast along East Grand consists of a new 24-inch pipe to replace the existing 18-inch, then 15-inch to Littlefield Avenue. Finally, a new 21-inch pipe along East Grand Avenue, from Littlefield Avenue to Allerton Way (parallel to the downstream portion of the Allerton Trunk), is needed to replace the existing 15-inch pipe. · Improvement 15- Forbes - DNA Subtrunk The existing 10-inch pipe along Forbes Boulevard from Kaufmann Court to 300 feet west of DNA Way needs to be replaced with a new 12-inch sewer. The smaller reach along DNA Way, from the Southern Pacific Railroad alignment to 530 feet north of Grandview Drive, consists of a new 1 O-inch pipe to replace the existing 8-inch. · Improvement 16- Swift Subtrunk May 7, 2002 C:\WIN DOWS\TEMl:ASSF-Improvements.doc 2 Amicipated future flows will require the replacement of this existing 15-inch trunk sewer along Swift Avenue· Poor soil conditions along the alignment of this sewer have caused sags along the Swift Subtrunk, resulting with a reduced capacity. This trunk currently handles existing flows, but requires replacement when additional users are added. The pm posed improvement consists of a new 15-inch pipe to replace the existing 15-inch sewer terminating at Pump Station No. 3. · Im ~rovement 17 - Littlefield North Subtrunk Th's improvement consists of a new 8-inch pipe to replace the existing 8-inch pipe wh'ch is experiencing settlement along Littlefield Avenue, west of Pump Station No. 3. · Im 3rovement 18 - Littlefield South Subtrunk Th's improvement consists of a new 10-inch then an 8-inch pipe to replace the existing 10- and 8-inch pipes, respectively. It is reported that portions of the subtrunk sags, possibly the result of poor soil conditions. · Im 3rovement 19 - Executive Subtrunk As a result of root intrusion, the existing 18-inch pipe along Executive Drive needs to be replaced. The analysis indicates that new pipe size can be reduced to 15-inches in di;.meter. · Im 3rovement 20 - Harbor Way Subtrunk Th's improvement consists of replacing the existing 8-inch sewer along Harbor Way with a new 10-inch pipe from Utah Avenue to approximately 80 feet north of Mitchell Avenue. 3 May 7, 2002 C:\WlNDOWS\TEMP~SF-Improvements.doc N.T.S. (~ LEGEND STUDY AREA BOUNDARY "-"MODELED SEWER PiPE & SIZE E ,,..: EXISTING PUMP STATION & NUMBER :~ PS5 PROPOSED SEWER PIPE IMPROVEMENT & SIZE PROPOSED FORCE MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROPOSED PUMP STATION UPGRADE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT NUMBER SEE TABLE 6.2 FOR DETAILS · 8" :15" 27' FIGURE 5.1 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO F..A~T OF HIGHWAY 101 SEWER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN APP~NI)IX B Carollo Engineers Project Phase 1 Plan Drawings South San Francisco Wet Weather Program Project by Christopher M. Lee Historical Archaeologist .! I \ \ \ '" 'x \ \ \ 8O08815.38 - ? .......... ROd EL. 8.30 ? 90% SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 10.3 ~f_ i~. 2064.719.52 E pm.[ 10.O~L RR TRACKS (BALLAST O"LY) 12" JET F'US-L SSMH 11395 RIM EL 8.71 N-.2064617.0 E ~93.73 POLE .~;:, 9.6~ AC 1. 8M 1101 LOCAIT]) AT N 2064~6,L71 E 6(308679.52 N 2064593.19 E 6000843.76 DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED ~ /4 COrOLLO °" E engineers SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WET WEATHER PROGRAM PHASE 1 SAN MATED PUMP STATION CML SAN MATED PUMP STATION SITE PLAN, GRADING PLAN, AND YARD PIPING VERIFY SCALES ~~Y JOB NO. 4182G10 DRAWING HO. 1. I~ ~I'A'I~ 101+~0-~ TO ~I'AI~ON 120+70~, · PLAN AND PROFILE SCALES: HORIZONTAL 1"=40', VERTICAL 1"=4' 18 14 lO 2 -2 -lO il ,. t 10-1-00 11+00 90% SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 12+00 OES~¢.ED x DRAWN CHECKED x I~kY 2~2 ~, F IL~ ~\Cr~t\S~"~_wCO\4t~2glO\O~F~'~ ~010~ A~* ~0. 2002 04R)~.tTpm ~ [ LW~I~I~r I L~O I ~ I ~..~=~=~0 I VK~v~01 I WCS~03 : ; '. . ,. ! 'b Ii,Ar 11 .L, ...'t --[ 15-1-00 1~H30 17+00 , t dOB NO. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WET WEATHER PROGRAM PHASE 1 ~l~ sc,q. gs ,~.2~ I~R IS OtlE l~lt ~ LOWRIE AVENUE FORCE MAIN ~ ,.,.~ =3.Aw.,~ .o. c~ o~l' C--2 PLAN AND PROFILE · .~ o~.~. 0. ~ .o. STA 10+00 TO STA 22+00 ~' '~-~" x o,, xxx ~ , .... ~ ~ _..----" ,!! ~ ,' ~... * ~' ~ ~ ' . · t ~ ' ~ i i ~ ~ ~..~ ~ . I ~ , ~ '~ [~ ~ · '&' ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~' ' ' ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ...... ~ - ' ~ ~: ~ ', C~[ ~ !I~.· ~,~ i~ ~ ~ ~ - : ~ - . ~ ~ ' ~L-~ '2 ~"~ ~o.~~~rh~~'~ .... ~,'nn-' - o~.a~ '~ 21-~ ~F~ ~¢[-0~" "~0100 _ r~'~ · -~ %: ~ ~.~ ~.. "..2 ~ ~t.,.... , ........,.~-,._ ..-_. _ ,. :,~ ~ c .... ~ ~ ~ . : - ~ : ~ _~. : "~ ', - ' ~ ......... - ...... ff '- ~ ~ -:~ : ""-,,~.' "~'~. ',. ."3'.-. :. '~ ." : : ........... ~-< k ~-.-- -. . -~-.. ','. ...... . k '. ~ ..... : ~'~ .................. ~ ......... --~_~-'~.... ~ ~ ~....~" ~ ,' ' ~ ~-- ~. ".' '~. ' ...... SCALES: HORIZONTAL 1"=40', VERTICAL 1"~' ~ .......... '--- ' ..... L PROPOSE9 ~ LOWRIE AVE. x 36' 1, ~ ~A~ 101+~ ~ ~A~ 1~70~, 18 , : '. . i i ~ 90% SUSMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 24+00 DESIGN£O ~oo2 30+0~ 31,4..OO 32.4-OO SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WET WEATHER PROGRAM PHASE 1 NtERIF'Y SCALES LOWRIE AVENUE FORCE MAIN CML .0 PLAN AND PROfiLE ~TA 22+00 TO STA 33+00 ',~ 14 10 -2 doll NO. 4182~1D DI~WING NO. I I I 1. FRO~ STAllO~ 130+70. TO STAllOH 141+80~:, REMOV~ EXISllHG 20' FM AND INSTALL ~ 36' FM IN ~IE SNaE LOCAlX~I N~IO AT 114E D.EVAlION IN 'n~ PROF1LE. , / / / / / · F: ':i, ... ~' '~'~ .--" .--'--'~ ~*" I ,: .~ ~'c ".,.. "-" '* ~' .' "- .-- _~ ,. '/ ..... ~: ?' .~.. . . , PLAN AND PROFILIr '::;(3ALES: HORIZON'f^L 1"=,40', VERTICAL .,i /! PROPOSED 36" FM SEE NOTE I -2 -e i . L 90% SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF. SIGNED X DRAWN CHF'CKE'D x ~ F'It.~}~&~ ~\C~t\~SF_~CO~41A~gtO\D~t~J~ RCp030(O~ ~ 30. 20~2 O4..-O4:35~m Ib~-~e~ I LwR~rMbdr I LW~O I ~ I ~ I w~SS~O1 I ~ ,38+00 ,~9+00 40+00 41+00 engineers ~ SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WET WEATHER PROGRAM PHASE L0WRIE AVENUE FORCE MAIN CML PLAN AND PROFILE STA 55+00 TO STA 4.4+00 10 --2 JOB NO. 41~2G10 ONIM~L ~ D~ NO. o~!' C--4 't 1 I PROPOSED 36" FM 1. FROM STATION 130+70:1: TO STAl10N 141+~0:1:, REtKM~ EXIS'nNG 20' F'M AND INSTNJ. NEW 36' F'M IN 'IHE SNdE HORIZONTAL LOCA'noN AND AT 'ri.II EI.EVAllON SHOWN IN ~4E PROFILe. PLAN AND PROFILE $CALF'$: HORIZONTAL '1"=40', VFRTICAL 1"=4' ~v ROAD I~J~ STATION 14.2+62 E]~ 36' F'M PRoPoSI~D '--'--'--'--'--'--J 42" FM SEE DWG C-10 I ! 1 I .q 14 10 -2 -6 -10 i ' 43+00 46+00 47+00 90% SUBMITTAL ' DR, AWN ~ NOT FOR CONS~UC~ON ~ ~ c.~cx~ ~ x - I i ................. T .......................................... i ................. ~ ............... 1 : ....................... : .... :_':.Z::'..L_----.:.~-:-_: ........... ' ....................................... ~ ......... ] ............... j ....... ! -,o 49+00 50+00 51 +0~ 52+00 ,~ ~!~ COI'OI.I.O ~'" "- ~ en=lneers SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WET WEATHER PROGRAM PHASE 1 LOWRIE AVENUE FORCE MAIN CML PLAN AND PROFILE STAT 4.4.+00 TO STA 52+66 o~ H:\C~\.~o~SF_W~"O\4182910\O~:~ RC~044)0~ ~ ~O. 200'2 04:0~:02pm I~ I LWl~rUbdr I LWl~GR~O I r=jJ~ I ~ I ~t I wCSS~'803 VERIFY SCALES 0 ~m~;~l;;~ ~ ' JOB NO. 4,182G10 DRAWING. NO. x oF xxx I I I "I'-N 20617O0 7.9 X RIM EL 7.58 IN~ EL X.XX -'J- N 2061600 8.4 X 2061700 8.,.t7 X A 8.08 2061700 R~M EL ~ EL X.}~58 X 8.'28 [. .......'.v.'.v.'.Ex s'r,o s~,,w.'.'.v.v v.v.v.v.' v.v.tv ':. '~' ......... ~ .... ROA0 PUMP ................... '~''' ! '. ~.'-'.'.'.'.'.'-'.'-'-'-' ',' STATION ~ '-'-'.'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'.'-'-'-'-'~.'. -'~ ",~ v.'.'.v.v.v.v.v ;~,'ic~-;~o:~;'.'.'.v.'iv.'.~v. · ~[': v-.-'._=-T~_~?+- - - \'.'r:'.'.W. 8,, x ;. · ............... 'o:~9'.4,'.'.'.'.'. .x.-...-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-...-.-...~.-.-..... ~ .... N __ ..... N 2061569.72 111329 RIM EL 7.08 ti, A/ EL. X.XX WEATH£R WP...I WLLL .-i CONTROL ROOM BUILDING ' ' 8.52 DESIGNED 90% SUBMITTAL" i ~ NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION cz ,~ H:~_~41~gl0~ ~7 ~ ~. 2~2 ~:~ I~ I ~ I ~1~ I ~1~ I '--~.~ BM 1DO ~ .......... ~.75 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /-.-ce SHAW ~OAD / -~:~---._.._--~.~.~ ~ _ _~/ .- . ~~ /. RIM" IL 6.66 --~. ~ .... ~__ · .... ~ .... _ ~ "-~ .~ . ~ _ ~ CClI'OLI. O ° - - ~ en6lneers SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WET WEATHER PROGRAM PHkSE 1 SHAW ROAD PUMP STATION SITE PLAN AND YARD PIPING VERIFY SCALES JOB NO. 4182G10 ORAWt N~ NO. ' i ,,,o-. r':'"' ""'" 56- 55 '/ 20'_~_~ * ,' '...., ',,,.f ! T PLAN AND PROFILE SCALES: HORIZONTAL 1"-.-40'. VERTICAL 1"=4' ' ; ' ~ ~ : ~ : ~__ ~ ~ ~ : .L_ . : : _5_.~ ................... =~. ........ : ..... / .............. ~ .................. ; .................... L ..... : : : ~ ~ , = ~ ...... , ........ ~ :.: ............. / I , ; ~-- · : · ~ ~ ~ : ~_ ~ ..... : ] . , L-~--~ ................................. J~ ........................... ~ ~ -12 ~ : ~ ~ : ~ , ~ = ~ j ~ --12 ~ 61 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~+~ 66+~ 67~ ~+~ 69+~ ~ 71 gO% BUD O AL x ~ ~ so~ ~ ~ClSCO ~ w~mD PR~ P~E 1 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ o~' C--10 c.(c~,. ~ ~ ~ e n mi n e e r s oA~ ~ ~ ~A 60+00 T0 ~A 71+00 ~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~Y 2~2 ~ X ~ x~ I I 24" R~I PLAN AND PROFILE SCALES: HORIZONTAL 1"=40', VERTICAL 1"=4' I ........... ~ ................... ~ .- _ ~ --. ~-~ DESIGNED ~ ~ ~~ SO~ ~ ~CISCO W~ W~ER PR~ PH~E 1 o~w. ~ - S~W ROAD FORCE ~IN CHECKED ~ ~ e ~ ~ I ~ e e ~ 5 c~ o~1' x ~ ~ P~ AND PROFI~ DA~ ~ ~ ~A 71+00 TO STA 82+00 ~4 12 --12 JOB NO. 4182G10 DRAWING NO. C-11 X OF* X~ 1 J ,4 PLAN AND PROFILE SCALES: HORIZONTAL 1"=40', VERTICAL 1"=4' 14 12 -4 --8 -12 DESIGNED X DRAWN CHECKED X DAT~ MAY 2002 90% 8UI M TTAL NOT FOR CON~11:IUCTION ~:~ ~"11..~ H:\CJle~t\SeM~_'IICO~41B211IO\I~ R~D030~ ~ Or. 2~02 o4:18:~m, beton I S~,~wndber I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~SSF801 I wCSS;~O3 86+00 87+00 14 -8 ---- -12 88+00 enr-lneers JOB NO. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WET WEATHER PROGRAM PHASE 1 vB~'Y~ SHAW ROAD FORCE MAIN ~=.~=~.,~ ORAW~N~ NO. c~ o '~' 0-12 PLAN AND PROFILE ~' ,~ a,~ ,NC. o. sHEer .o. STA 82+00 TO STA 87+74 ~ ,v:ax. GY or x~x ..! I DESIGNED 90% SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ~/KH~ CHECKED i t en~,neers ~ 30, 2002 04:15~40~m Ibeet~ I ~ I ~t~2 I S~Ir-W~::P-?0PO I ~2002 I ~gP$F~O81 I v~PS/~O?2 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WET WEATHER PROGRAM PI-IASE 1 EFFLUENT STORAGE POND SITE PLAN PAVING AND GRADING ~C)B NO. 4182010 DRAWING NO. C-.,1~'1~ St.,llE~'r NO, X OF ~ ,~ ~ H:.\Cl'~mt\~_k~)\4182~JlO\l~ CC~rO02 ~ .10. 2002 04:4.4:20~ ll~o~ ".~,: -- ,,,..~?_...~._ .; ,, , ,,~ POND -.:~ ?~.' ~NLET/OUTL~ · . , .., -~ ~...~.;:.~ ...... "' ', ~':,i ......... "' .,, . .~ ..,~ :.,..:,' ,-::. , ~. > !:' .:, -..,:: ',.,> ,,:, i-~-.:':! ,~._ :: ,:, .-: .:: '.- ,.,4.,,, '- -. , -' 2.:-.% . --' ,"":? 'x '.,,: ,,: : / /½ ':::,, ..-.,.~:,.~._..?. ,,,~',~."^,' ~ .?, ,./~ ~ ', i ,"3' · ....... %' .'~ ' ' · ~" ' 't:~ '~' -7:':'.'-' -~:. :. :. :.;: '~ ,:,~ : :,- :- :' :S.~a~ .~^~[~' :,_~ ,,~· , · ,~,,-'. ''$~MP.NO. ~.' ;u ,' . -. :-. :':~. :-:-. :.: .: · ::\ ·... ·.. .....~,~. ;.-.~. .~: . :..~. ,,. ;,~ ~,;.' .. · . - "-: -.'. ..?;..... :. ..' :-:,o.-,-.'- ii/ /[ !, :': '.. : O:OTO~.£:) : .' ~'~ ~.'~ .. :::: :: : *;d' ~o.~ ..-. · ' */' '"' * * ' * C ~L :~ ,.'~,*%S- " ~_~- _. ~,~_, ':~ - .... __________ ~-~,.~-~-- : ...... :..- ,. .'..: .... :, · 90% SUBMITTAL ~' ' ~ ~' o_.oz_ . ab, cOrOLLO NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION H 2061948.23 E 6013006.74 PLAN - VALVE VAULT 114' -- C1~111 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WET WEATHER PROGRAM PHASE 1 EFFLUENT STORAGE POND YARD PIPING VERIFY SCALES JOB NO. 4182G10 DRAWING NO. c...t~ l! $~'1~8'~ NO. ~ OIl' ~X -Z'Z 'Z × GUNER CROSS SECTION N~S CC~'107 15' 1MD[ CREST, TOP OF EMBANKId[NT EXISTING SLUDGE-----~ ?r~ r't 1,=n I BED SlOE SLOPE: ~ -'" ..... \' ' /----12' WiDE C. RAV~ ROAD. I c-. ~I~NG SL~ BED BOSOM ~ ~ " ~ '~ 1 ~I~L EMB~KME~ CROSS SEC~ON ' ~1 ~I~NO SLUDOE BEDS N N TYPICAL EMBANKMENT CROSS SECTION 0SECTION O AT FILLED IN AREAS ,3/8' - I'-0' NTS CC$~'110 CCSSF121 90% SUBMITTAL CHECKED DATE ~ JOB NO. ~,~_~~ SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WET WEATHER PROG RAM PHASE 1. rs . -- .VERIFY SCALES 4182OLO '~ ,-, EFFLUENT STORAGE POND ~ m..,~ o...,w..o .o. c. o ,. STORAGE POND ~..o~ o.~ .~. o. s.ecr No.  1141S SNEL~. N),Ki~.T DETAILS AND SECTIONS sc~s< ~, ~Y x o; xxx ! I CHLORINE CONTACT BASIN NO. 2 PARTIAL PLAN 3/le,' - I'-~' J ~ L I~I(X)M HOIST "6T- IN~ El. -2.25 EL -3.25 SECTION 1/4' - 1'-0' C(:~SFI12 EL 9.5 ~'~ , 5'-0' .. ' I I ,~-,,.,,,~,,,~-'...: / ~' ,~ ~ ~ ~L~ / ~IIH BI · : g I~ ~ll -- 3'-0' i ,'-6'~50 ~3~ ~-_ ~gg g g---~,~,.. ~,ll ~tll ~'1,'-' m,''' Il I '. 3' ._,,.~ __-,,~ ~ ~ ~-- ~ ~M BASED ~ PUMP . . ~ ' '' ~ ..... ' MFR SUPPUED 13-8 3~ - ~'-~ 3/~ - ~'-~ DESIGNED 90% SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CHECKED DA~ ~ ~ O~ MAR2~2 ~ ~ ! engineers SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WET WEATHER PROGRAM PHASE 1 VERIFY SCALES o.o ---- CIVIL 0 ~"'~a""'~ 1' PLANS AND SECTIONS ~ ~==o~., JOB NO. 4182010 DRAWING NO. X OF XXX South San Francisco Wet Weather Program Project Repo~ prepared by: Christopher M. Lee For: Holman & Associates Archaeological Consultants 3615 Foisom Street San Francisco, CA 94110 South San Francisco The history and development of South San Francisco is, like most other cities in the Bay Area, linked to the activities of San Francisco to the immediate north. Sometimes referred to as "South City," and with the self-tiffed nickname '°the Industrial City," South San Fra.-~cisco has long been the home of hardworking people who exhibit pride in their city. The Area of Potential Effects (APE) for this project is mostly contained within the peninsu'_a on which are located San Bruno Point and Oyster Point where the majority of the historic and current industries of the city have been located. , As demonstrated in later times, cattle were'long a part of the economy of the region now known as South San Francisco. As early as the 1790s the Presidio of San Francisco and Mission Dolores (also in San Francisco) came into competition with each other for space to graze their respective herds of cattle, sheep, and mules. For a time it seemed the Franciscan padres had won the fight to consolidate both herds under the church, but after five years of State dependence on the Mission, then Governor Diego Bodca re- established the Rancho del Rey (the King's Ranch) at San Francisco (Stanger 1963:25). Cattle grazing land was already in the process of moving down the San Francisco Peninsula so Governor Borica declared that the region known as Buri' Burl would be used by the Presidio for its pastureland (Stanger 1963:26). The padres did not end their arguments. The Franciscans pointed out that sint:e the land legally belonged to the natives, government (military) control would prejudice the natives' rights. The fact that the Mission served as guardian to the natives their possessions likely influenced this argument. While the padres took their argument to the head of their order in Mexico the army appealed to the Viceroy, who ultimately had the final word in the matter. This turf war did not end uritil, under the Republic of Mexico, all enterprises of the Church and of the Sta:e were consolidated into private ventures. Thus began the distribution of land grants to individuals (Dwinelle 1978:60; Stanger 1963:26). Jose Antonio Sanchez was the beneficiary of one such grant in 1835 (Hynding 1982:102; Stanger 1963:35). On November 5 of that year he received title to the Rancho Buri Bud (Figure 1). A former soldier of the Presidio of San Francisco he now found himself in possession of the very tract of land that had been such a point of contention between the Church and State. As was the custom at the time, the land was surveyed by a group of people who had an interest in the boundaries. A haphazard survey ensued with Sanchez's son-in-aw serving as the impartial witness (Stanger 1963:36). Years later their methods were called into question when the boundaries of Buri Buri were disputed as infringing on lancs, previously granted to natives. Then Governor Gutierrez ordered a new survey (Dwinelle 1978:60). Even still, due to laziness on the part of the surveyors, the United States government later called all of the survivors of the survey party into court to attest to the methods. It was determined that at the very beginning of the survey the northern border of Buri Buri should have gone almost straight up the steepest hill of the San Bruno Mountains. Instead of climbing it they circumvented the hill and estimated the boundary line. This, of course, did not satisfy the U.S. court and Buri BUd was redrawn following their p~.th around the hill instead of over it (Stanger 1968:37). Nevertheless, Rancho Buri Buri covered nearly 15,000 acres. When Sanchez died in 1843 he left the land to his wife 2 and ten children who lost it all through sale or debt within 25 years CKaufC, uuan 1976:1; Stanger 1968:47). In 1853, Alfred Edmonson purchased 1,500 acres of the former Rancho from Jose Sanchez's son, Isidrio Sanchez, for $10,000 and in turn sold the land to Charles Lux in 1856 for $18,000 (Hynding 1982:102; Kanfrman 1976:1). A small fanning community was developing along Colma Creek and became known .as Baden. Lux built his "mansion" along the east bank of the creek. The surrounding land consisted of small dairies, vegetable farms, and flower fields (mostly violets). Colma Creek, then called San Bruno Slough, was a tidal slough that affected the area as far inland'as Baden (currently the residential area of South S~an Francisco), which allowed farmers to build piers to get their goods onto boats during high tide. Charles Lux formed a parmership with another cattlenma, Henry Miller, in 1858. Their enterprise evolved into the largest livestock company on the West Coast in the nineteenth century (Hynding 1982:102). By the time Charles Lux died in 1887 the company owned over 700,000 cattle in Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon as well as 80,000 in California. Their ranches were connected via private telegraph lines and in 1897 the corporation's land and cattle holdings were merged with the resulting corporation valued at $12 million (Kanffman 1976:2). The death of Charles Lux proved to be a time of transition for northern San Mateo County. His land was sold in 1888 just when Gustavus Swift arrived in the area from Chicago. Swift was a well-established member of a meat packing cartel informally referred to as the "Beef Trust" (Svanevik 1987). He had increased the profitability of meat packing by introducing refrigerated raikoad cars to the business. He could now deliver prepared meat to destinations many miles fi-om the point of slaughter (Svanevik 1987). Swift now set his sights on the Bay Area for expansion. He established a partnership with Philip Armour and hired Peter Iler to find an area suitable for their needs. Iler had previously worked for Swift in 1879 helping to create South Omaha, which was another company-owned meat packing town located in Nebraska (Hynding 1982:103). Peter Iler chose San Bruno Point, which was the eastern tip of Charles Lux's Baden ranch to be the site for the new meat packing emerprise. This area provided pasture nearby, a deep-water inlet for shipping, and access to railroad lines in Baden. Later, due to the booming industries, Southern Pacific redirected its railroad line to go through Baden. With the backing of other "Beef Trust" magnates such as Michael Cudahy and Nelson Morris and San Franciscan bankers Henry Crocker and Philip Lilienthal the group established the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company and purchased 3,500 acres, including the Lux estate, for $750,000 in 1890 (Hynding 1982:103; Kauffman 1976:4; Svanevik 1987). Michael Svanevik notes in his 1987 article in the San Mateo Times that Swift had previously worked with Philip Armour, Nelson Morris, and Michael Cudaby in setting up large scale meat packing centers and in the process creating the towns of South Chicago and South Omaha. However, Alan Hynding states in his book From Frontier to Suburb (1982) that Philip Armour worked his way into the business first as a hog butcher in Placerville during the Gold Rush days. Hynding does go on to say later that Armour was indeed a member of the "syndicate of Chicago meat packers" (103) so his origin at this point is somewhat ora mystery. The So'~th San Francisco Land and Improvement Company divided its land into two funetior_ally separate areas that were intersected by the San Bruno toll road. West of the road the new town was laid out and named South San Francisco keeping with the eartel's system of naming their company meat packing towns. East of the road and extending to San Brcno Point the investors built a meat packing plant, stockyards, wharves, and a ship channel in 1890 and named their enterprise the Western Meat Company in 1894 (Kaufl~an 1976:4; Hynding 1982:104)..The new facilities covered 82 acres with the stockyards alone costing $25,000 and the abattoirs were near $100,000. Over 800 workers were employed constructing the pens and stables. The result was one of the most sanitary and efficient meat packing plants in the nation (Svanevik 1987). Reached via electric streetcar, which ran from Baden through the new town and out to the meat packing plant, South San Francisco literally became the company town for the Western Meat Company. The Land and Improvement Company assumed all responsibilities for utilities and land management. However, the initial success of Western Meat Company did not go unnoticed and certainly was not appreciated by the consortium of butchers just to the north in San Francisco (Svanevik 1987). Despite the name, Western Meat Company was comprised of trod-westerners. This, gompounded with the introduction of new types of meat processing and storage in the form of refrigeration and the fact that Swift brought experienced workers from Omaha and Chicago instead of hiring locally, sent paags of fear through the already established businesses in "butehertown" around Third Street in San Francisco (Hynding 1982:104). Not only did a boycott of Western Meat Company products ensue, but propaganda was also spread outlining the risks involved with refrigerated beef and that digestive problems were certain to follow if it was ingested. Local physicians were hired and gave testimony to the health hazards involved with refrigerated beef (Svanevik 1987). Hynding (104) states that Swifts partners pulled out of South San Francisco as a result of the depression of 1893 while SvanevJc says their departure was due to the bitter conflict with the San Francisco "butehertown" meat industry. Whatever the reason Swift was on his own for a short while u.atil the arrival of William Martin and Ebenezer Cunningham. With the improving economic conditions of the late 1890s and the help of Martin and Cunnin~mm the Land and Improvement Company was able to sell more lots of the new town to employees. In 1896 Martin brought in the city's first outside industry, the Steiger Terra Cotta Company. Originally based in San Jose but destroyed by fire, the brick ~nd pottery factory finally found a new site for its operations in South San Francisco (Hynding 1982:104). As the depression lessened other companies moved into the area. Some of these included the Fuller Paint Company (1898), two steel mills (1904), a tannery, two more brickyards, and a lumber mill. The South San Francisco Railroad and Power Company took over the electric trolley in 1903 and built a power plant for the city, which already had telephone service that began the year before (Hynding 1982:105). 4 Many residents of the peninsula apparently became concerned that the growing city of San Francisco would try to annex some, if not all, of the lands in current San Mateo County. ProPositions were introduced that would have incorporated all of the cities of San Mateo County in order to stop the perceived threat of urban encroachment of San Francisco. Instead, voters in South San Francisco decided to incorporate their town on September 19, 1908. (San Bruno Point can be seen shortly at~er this time in Figure 2) With nearly 2000 inhabitants "South City" became the fourth largest city in San Mateo County OCaulY,,,an 1976:15). Then, with the outbreak of World War I the South San Francisco waterfront was built up more with piers and bulkhead lines that were ordered by the War Department. The geographic location of the city and inexpensive rates for shipping cargo via rail, water, or truck .expanded the city's importance as a major industrial region of California. The Southern Pacific had its main line through the city and at this time was making 52 trips per day (KauFauan 1976:40). Oyster Industry Bay Area shell mounds attest to the prehistoric importance of oysters in local human diet. The native ostrea lucida is a small oyster, but it was supplemented later by imported East Coast oysters. The area around San Bruno Point/Oyster Point also has a history that involves the oyster and shrimp industry. As early as the 1850s there is a report of a storm destroying commercial oyster beds at Oyster Point in South San Francisco (La Peninsula 1968:4). The most influential person in the San Mateo County (and entire Bay Area) oyster business was Captain John Stillwell Morgan. Originally employed in the New York oyster business he came to California seeking gold in 1849 but realized quickly that easier money could be had by assuming his former profession transplanted to the San Francisco Bay Area (La Peninsula 1968:4; Postel 1988:27). Disease damaged many of the local oysters and Morgan and others turned to a Mexican source in 1868 to supply their market. This turned out not to be necessary as the year 1869 brought so many changes to the United States with the completion of the transcontinental railroad. A. Booth and Company, a Chicago firm, brought three train cars of eastern oysters to San Francisco, thus flooding the market. Instead of allowing the price to drop too drastically the remaining oysters from this venture were stored in the Bay off Sausalito. Not only did they survive, they unexpectedly fattened tremendously. Morgan and others began buying up tidal lots all over the Bay for the purpose of farming transplanted eastern oysters. By 1890 usable tidal lots were selling for $100 an acre in San Marco County (La Peninsula 1968:4; Postel 1988:28; Tallent 1974). At the peak of his operations Morgan owned 16,000 acres of San Mateo tidelands (Svanevik 1986). The imported oysters never reproduced however. They grew extremely fast, but due to the water temperatures reproduction was not possible. As a result, seedlings continued to be shipped to the area. "Seed" oysters came from Newark Bay and were just past the infant stage so that several thousand could fit in one barrel. The young oysters were spread around the bay to mature. Eventually they were transplanted to shallow areas where tide and river waters brought plenty of food for them until harvest time. At the time there were two main dangers to the oyster farms: the bat-stingray and the oyster pirate. The stingray could be kept away with makeshi~ barriers. But the oyster pirate raided 'n the middle of the night from bases of operation in the East Bay, Oakland in partic, flar. Perhaps the most famous oyster pirate was then 16 year-old Jack London. Although very dangerous work (occasionally gun baffles ensued and an oyster pirate could be hanged if caught in the act of theft), it was very profitable. Jack London noted that a sSngle night of work could bring in up to $200 from San Francisco restaurants. The "oyster wars" ended after the mm of the century due mainly to pollution of the Bay. The year 1899 saw 2,700,000 pounds of oysters harvested. By 1923 the amount was only 17,000 pounds (La Peninsula 1968:4-5; Postel 1988:29; Svanevik 1986). · The completion of the transcontinental railroad brought other newcomers to the South San Fr',m¢isco area. Many Chinese, having been recently unemployed, sometimes sought work in ways traditional to theft former lifestyle in China. They set up shrimp camps all over the Bay. One such camp was near San Bnmo Point. Hynding (108) states that the camp was near Dry Laguna Cove which would place it approximately half way between San Brmo Point and Oyster Point in area currently under fill. La Peninsula, the journal of the San Mateo County Historical Association (5), said in 1968 that the location of the Chinese shrimp camp was actually at San Bruno Point stating that at the time it was referred to as "China Point." Figure 3 is a photograph of the Chinese shrimp camp fi'om 1888-1889. The handwritten label says the photo i~ from Point San Bruno. However, a 1986 article in the San Francisco Progress claims that the Chinese shrimp camp was actually located at Oyster Point (Shoecraft 1986). Regardless, care should be used when excavating in these areas. Whatever the exact location of this camp it nevertheless is important in the development and history of Chinese-American culture in the Bay Area. This camp was owned by San Francisco Chinatown's Lung Sing & Co. (also spelled Lun Sing & Co. [Shoecrafi 1986]). The camp was comprised of about 20 shacks and sheds, cooking bins, drying floors, nets, and other fishing gear (Hynding 1982:108). Although the majority of shrimp caught by Chinese fisherman were dried and exported to China locals still saw the Chinese as compe-Jtion and when the yields of shrimp began to diminish from Bay waters people blamer'~ the large scale fishing methods of the Chinese. Many laws were passed restricting types of nets used and other equipment, but in the end they were basically anti- Chinese legislations that were circumvented through bribery and later through the study of the laws by the Chinese and hiring attorneys to contest discrimination. By 1910 however, the bag net was outlawed which effectively destroyed the Chinese shrimp business (Postel 1988:36). The camp in the San Bruno Point/Oyster Point area was actually destroyed by fire in 1912 (Hynding 1982:108). Bay Fill The filing of the Bay in the Oyster Point area is documented by Caltrans and Tetra Tech in their document entitled "Remedial Investigation Report, Oyster Point, South San Francisco, California" (1994) and by analyzing the series of maps supplied in this report (Figures 4 through 9). Filling seems to have begun in the late 1800s when a road was 6 built around Sierra Point. The cuttings were used to reinforce the road by dumping them in the Bay. Southern Pacific began constructing a double-track line from Mission Bay through Sierra and Oyster Points and into South San Francisco in 1903. Some of the track was constructed directly in reclaimed tidal marshes. The area south of Sierra Point Boulevard and East of the railroad tracks was filled by Sunset Scavenger Company and the Golden Gate Disposal Company in the 1940s through the 1960s (Garbarino 1992 in Tetra Tech 1994). In 1990 Caltrans tested the right of way of the railroad tracks by Oyster Point and determined that the area directly below the tracks comained no debris, but that the widened portions of the right of way comained trash from the 1906 earthquake as evidenced from makers marks and date stamps on ceramics 'and glass bottles. Although the area around San Bruno Point and Oyster Point continues to physically and economically evolve it has remained tree to its industrial origins. The history of this area is important to the community of South San Francisco and San Mateo County. This project has the potential to provide valuable archaeological material to supplement the written historical data of area and should benefit all involved. 7 References Cited Dwinelle, J.W. 1978 (1867) Colonial History of San Francisco. Ross Valley Book Company. H~ding, A. 1982 From Frontier To Suburb: The Story of The San Mateo Peninsula. Star Publishing Company, USA. Kauffman, L. 1976 South San Francisco: A History. Linda Kauffman. La Peninsula Journal of the San Mateo County Historical Association 1968 The Bay Shore: Otter, Oysters, China Camps, Salt, and Land. Volume XIV No. 5, October, 1968. Postel, .M. 1988 A Lost Resource: Shellfish in San Francisco Bay. California History, March, 1988. pp. 24-40. South San Francisco Public Library Web site , 2002 1916 Photograph of Point San Bruno (Figure 2) and China Camp photograph (Figure 3) and http://plsinfo.org/imagesprojeetfmdex.html Shoeeratt, D. 1986 East of Bayshore: Locale has never lost its advantages. San Francisco Progress. March 16:C5. Svanev:k, M. 1986 Once upon an oyster empire. San Mateo Times. February 28. Svanev'k, M. 1987 Swiit winds of change blow in SF stockyards. SanMateo Times. July31:B3 Tallent, O. 1974 When San Francisco Bay was a big oyster bed. (newspaper unknown-- obtained from the San Mateo County I-Iistorieal Association Archives in Redwood City). March 16. Tetra Tech 1994 Remedial Investigation Report, Oyster Poim, South San Francisco, California. Prepared for Caltrans District 4. February. Pp. 4.10 - 4.28. 8 Ii t: Figure 1. 1871 map of a Rancho Bud Buff. Obtained from the South San Francisco Public Library. 9 Figure 2. "About 1916 -fi.om left to fight; Ship Yards, Baden Brick, American Berrium and Shaw Bateher". Photo obtained from South San Francisco Public Library web site: 10 Figure 3. Chinese Shrimp Camp circa 1888-1889 at Point San Bruno. Photo obtained from the San Mateo County Historical Association Archives in Redwood City, CA. 11 Figure 4. 1896 15 minute San Mateo Quadrangle. United States Geological Survey. 12 Figure 5. 1915 15 Minute San Mateo Quadrangle. United States Geological Survey. 13 Figure.- 6. 1939 15 Minute San Mateo Quadrangle. United States Geological Survey. 14 Figure 7. 1947 15 Minute San Mateo Quadrangle. United States Geological Survey. 15 ,.~eap/an,e Harbor' ~'e~TM Figure 8. Survey. 1995 7.5 1Wmute South San Francisco Quadrangle. United States Geological 16 tOSS ~m EXIt4 o4 Hl~rlc ;eSl Figure 9. Caltrans map of Bay Fill activities. From "Remedial Investigation Report, Oyster Point, South San Francisco, California." AP~'END~X D Initiation of Consultation: List of Contactees and Examples of Contact Letters The following potential consulting parties were sent contact letters as seen in the following examples: Native Amefimn Indian (Ohlone) Representatives: Ella Rodriquez (Ohlone/Costanoan/Esselen PO Box 1411 Salims, CA 93902 Jakki Kehl (OhlonedCostanoan) 720 North 2~ Street Patterson, CA 95363 Katherine Erolinda Perez (Ohlone/Costanoan/ . 1234 Luna Lane Northern Valley Yolmt/ Stockton, CA 95206 Bay Miwok) Marjorie Ann Reid (Ohlone/Costanoan) 19279 Lexington Lane Redding, CA 96003 Amah/Mutsun Tribal Band (Ohlone/Costanoan) Irene Zwierelein, Chairperson 789 Canada Road Woodside, CA 94062 Amah/Mutsun Tribal Band (Ohlone/Costanoan) Michelle Zimmer 4952 McCoy Avenue San Jose, CA 95130 The Ohlone Indian Tn'be, Inc. Andrew Galvan (Ohlone/Costanoan) PO Box 3152 Mission San Jose, CA 94539 Thomas P Soto (Ohlone/Costanoan) Howard S. Soto PO Box 56802 Hayward, CA 94539 Indihn Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan Ann Marie Sayer, Chairperson PO Box 28 Hollister, CA 95024 Trina Marine Ruano Family (Ohlone/Costanoan) Ramona Garibay, Representative 37974 Canyon Heights Drive Fremont, CA 94536 Native American Heritage Commission. State of California: Debbie Pilas-Treadway Native American Heritage Commi~ion 915 Capitol Mall Room 364 Sacramento, CA 95814 -D1- 501:5' FOLSOM ST. SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA .04110 Thomas P. Soto Howard S. Soto 474 Grove Way Hayward, CA 94541 11 May 2£02 Dear Mr. Soto, The City of South San Francisco in San Mateo County is planning for a major rehab'flitation and expansion of their sanitary sewer and water treatment system. The Project is located on the USGS "San Francisco South" topographic quadrangle (see enclosed). The purpose ofHolman & Associates study is to identify cultural resources within the Project's "Area of Potential Effects" that might be impacted by the proposed project. Please review the enclosed information to identify any.cultural resources .mown to you that may be within or adjacent to the study area, as depicted on the enclosed aerial pho-.ographs. The red lines and squares show the actual project impact areas, and the attached two pages briefly describe the various Project elements. We ask if you, or any individuals known to you, have information they feel is pertinem and should be considered in evaluating cultural ~urces or Project impacts, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the consultation requirements of Section 106 of the National I4_istorie Preservation Act. We also ask you this question: in your opinion, would the proposed project effect cultural resource values known to you? Your input will be valuable in identifying and evaluating potential project impacts. We request that you address this matter and provide a written response within 15 days of this letter' s date, which we will incorporate into our report. If you or anyone else known to you would like to contact me, please use my home office phone (650-726-6269), email [mre~ttbi.eom], or mail to my home office adC.ress, P.O. Box 652, E1 Granada, 94018. Thank you for your consideration. Cordially yours, Matthew R. Clark, RPA Senior Associate eno: Tol~) Map, SSF-WWP Caroilo aerials and Proposed Facilities Debbie Pilas-Treadway Native American Heritage Commission 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 Sacramento, CA 95814 08 May 2002 Dear Ms. Pilas-Treadway, The City of South San Francisco in San Mateo County is in the planning process for a major rehabilitation and expansion of their sanitary sewer and water treatment system. The purpose of Holman & Associates study at this point is to identify cultural resources within the Project's "Area of Potential Effects" that will or might be im.nacted by the proposed project. We ask ffyou, or any individuals known to you, have information they feel is pertinent and should be considered in evaluating cultural resources or Project impacts, as requirea by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the consultation requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Please review NAHC files and the enclosed information to idemify any Native American cultural resources or sacred lands that may be within or adjacent to the study area, as depicted on the enclosed aerial photographs. The red lines and squares show the actual project impact areas, and the attached two pages briefly describe the various project elements. We also request a list of Native American individuals and groups who may have knowledge of cultural resources in the Project Area. Please notify us if yOu have any information or concerns. To reach me, please call or fax to my home office number (650-726-6269) or use my email [mrccrm~tttbi.com], not the main office number, unless you can't reach me or would like to talk to Miley about the project. We look forward to hearing from you. Cordially yours, Matthew R. Clark, RPA Senior Associate enc: SSF-WWP Carollo aerials and Proposed Facilities Local Historical Societies: Mitch Postel, Director San Mateo County Historical Association 777 Ham3ton Street Redwood. City, CA 94063 Kathleen Kay; City Historian' South San Francisco History Room 306 Wakut Avenue South Saa Francisco, CA 94080 South San Francisco Historical Society Atten: Bertha Iskra P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Mitch Pos'teL Director San Mateo County Historical Association 777 Hamilton Street Redwood City, CA 94063 08 May 2002 Dear Mr. Postel, The City of South San Francisco in San Mateo County is in the planning process for a major rehab'flitation and expansion of their sanitary sewer and water treatment system. We are evaluating historic resources in the Project Area that will or might be impacted by the proposed project. Please review the Association's files for any historic cultural resources that may be within or adjacent to the study area, as depicted on the enclosed aerial photographs. The red lines and squares show the actual project impact areas, and the enclosed two pages briefly describe the various project elements. The purpose of our study is to identify cultural resource concerns within the study area. We ask if the SMCHA, or any individual members, has information they feel is pertinent and should he considered in evaluating historical resources, as required by the California Enviromnemal Quality Act (CEQA) and the consultation requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and as requested by the City. We also ask the Association to address these questions: in your opinion, would the proposed project adversely effect historic values known to you? If so, what forms might mitigation of those impacts take? The SMCHA's input will be valuable in identifying and evaluating potential project i ~mpacts. We request that you address this matter at your next meeting and provide a written response, which we will incorporate into our report. Ifyou or any other Society members would like to contact me, please use my home office phone (650-726-6269), email [mr~bi. com], or mail to my home office address, P.O. Box 652, El Granada, 94018. Thank you for your consideration. Cordially yours, Matthew 1L Clark, RPA Senior Associate enc: SSF-WWP Carollo aerials and Proposed Facilities Kathleen Kay, City Histo~ South San Francisco History Room 306 Walnut Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 16 May 2002 Dear Ms. Xay, The City of South San Francisco is planning a major rehab'flitation and expansion of their sanitary sewer and water treatment system. The Project is located on the USGS "San Francisco South" to)ographic quadrangle (see enclosed). We are evaluating historic resources in the Project Area that :night be impacted by the proposed Project. Please review the Association's files for any historic cultural resources that may be within or adjacent to the study area, as depicted on the enclosed ~ photographs. The red lines and squares showy the actual project impact areas, and the enclosed two pages briefly describe the various project elements. We ask ifyou, as City Historian, or any individuals known to you, have information they feel is pertinect and should be considered in evaluating historical reso~, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the consultation requirements of Section 106 ofthe National Historic Preservation Act. We also ask the Association to address these questions: in your opinion, would the proposed project adversely effect historic values known to you? If so, what forms might mitigatior_ of those impacts take? Youz input will be valuable in identif34ng and evaluating potential project impacts. We request that you address this matter and provide a written response, which we will incorporate into our report. If you or any other individuals or groups would like to contact me, please use my home office phone (650-726-6269), email [~ttbi.com], or mail to my home office address, P.O. Box 652, El Granada, 94018. Thank you for your consideration. Cordially yours, Matthew IL Clark, RPA Senior Associate enc: SSF-WWP Carollo aerials and Proposed Facilities South San Francisco Historical Society Atten: Bertha Iskra P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 16 May 2002 Dear Ms. Iskra, The City of South San Francisco is planning a major rehabilitation and expansion of their sanitary sewer and water treatment system. The Project is located on the USGS "San Francisco South" topographic quadrangle (see enclosed). We are evaluating historic resources in the Project Area that might be impacted by the proposed Project. Please review the Association's files for any historic cultural resources that may be within or adjacent to the study area, as depicted on the enclosed aerial photographs. The red lines and squares show the actual project impact areas, and the enclosed two pages briefly desenq~e the various project elements. We ask if the SSFHS, or any individual members, have information they feel is pertinent and should be considered in evaluating historical resources, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the consultation requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. We also ask the Association to address these questions: in your opinion, would the proposed project adversely effect historic values known to you? If so, what forms might mitigation of those impacts take? The SSFHS's input will be valuable in identifying and evaluating potential project impacts. We request that you address this matter and provide a written response, which we will incorporate into our report. If you or any other Society members would like to contact me, please use my home office phone (650-726-6269), email [mree~ttbi. eom], or mail to my home office address, P.O. Box 652, E1 Granada, 94018. Thank you for your consideration. Cordially yours, Matthew 1L Clark, RPA Senior Associate enc: SSF-WWP Cat'oHo aerials and Proposed Facilities City of South San Francisco Initial S~udy/Sewer Improvement Program Appendix 3 Historical Resource Evaluation (Carey & Co.) Page 67 July 2002 HISTORIC RESOURCES EVALUATION REPORT DRAFT Wet Weather Program Phases 1-4 Proposed Improvements South San Francisco, California May 9, 2002 Prepared for Jerry Haag, Urban Planner Historic Resources Evaluation Report DRAFT Wet Weather Program Phases 1-4 Proposed Improvements South San Francisco, California May 9, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ..................................................... 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................... 2 RESEARCH METHODS ....................................................... 3 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW .................................................... 3 DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCES .............................................. 10 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................................. 20 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................ 20 ENDNOTES ................................................................ 20 PHOTOGRAPHS ...................................................... included APPENDIX ........................................................... included HISTORIC RESOURCES EVALUATION REPORT DRAFT Wet 'Weather Program Phases 1 4 Proposed Improvements South San Francisco, California May 9, 2002 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS At the request of Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, Carey & Co. has undertaken an evaluation of properties for their h".storic significance within various Area of Potential Effect (APE) associated with the proposed Wet Weather Program, Proposed Improvements project located in the City of South San Francisco. The properties are situated on Point San Bruno and the area directly west of Highway 101, as well as a small area further west of downtown South San Francisco on El Camino Real and Hickey Boulevard. This report is being prepared for Section 106 review of the Wet Weather Program Phases 1- 4, Proposed Improvements project. After surveying the area, researching sources at local agencies, and examining the City of South San Francisco "List of Designated and Potential Historic Resources," Carey & Co. has determined that no resources within the APE are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources. Two properties, 224-233 East Grand Avenue and 249 East Grand Avenue, are identified in the South San Francisco Historical Market Site Tour Map. The tour map was created by the Historic Preservation Commission in order to identify historically or culturally significant sites throughout South San Francisco - none have been designated as historic resources. After surveying and researching the two structures, Carey & Co. has determined that they are not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, nor are they eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Wet Weather Program Phases 1-4 will be undertaken by the City of South San Francisco. The majority o5 the proposed improvements occur on Point San Bruno, a land mass east of Highway 101 and downtown South San Francisco, and bounded on the east by the San Francisco Bay. Three streets where improvements will occur are located west of Highway 101 south of downtown South San Francisco. A separate area of improvement is located west of downtown South San Francisco on E1 Camino Real at the juncture of Hickey Boulevard. The streets referred to in this report where improvements will occur include: Airport Boulevard, Allerton Avenue, Beacon Street, Belie Air Road, DNA Way, East Grand Avenue, Eccles Avenue, El Camino Real, Executive Drive, Forbes Boulevard, Gateway Boulevard, Harbor Way, Hickey Boulevard, Linden Avenue, Littlefield Avenue, Lowrie Avenue, San Mateo Avenue, Oyster Point Boulevard, Shaw Road, South Linden Avenue, Swift Avenue, Utah Avenue. Some wo£¢ will take place in and around Colma Creek. The proposed work will entail upgrading existing pump station (APE 1, 3, 9, 11, 13, 14, 21, 22 & 25), construction of pipe lines (APE 17 & 18), sewer lines (APE 19, 20, 23, 24, 26 & 27), force mains (APE V~ret Weather Program South San Franc/sco, Ca//forn/a DRAFT - Historic Resources Evaluation Report - May 9, 2002 Page 3/21 2,4, 10 12 & 15), as well as sewer line up-sizing and repair (APE 6 & 7). Several improvements include the and an effluent storage pond (APE 5), and restoration of the Colma Creek bank (APE 8). RESEARCH METHODS The survey areas considered in this report are located in South San Francisco and consist of twenty- seven different APE with proposed improvements and includes twenty-one streets. Carey & Co. initially reviewed background materials provided for this survey. The APEs defined within the overall Wet Weather Program proposed improvements project area were listed and pinpointed on a map (see map and list in Appendix). Using the map, Carey & Co. conducted a "windshield survey" on March 5 and April 22, 2002 in the APEs. Further research was performed at the South San Francisco Public Library and History Room, San Francisco Public Library, and the records of the City of South San Francisco. Our evaluation was based on the eligibility criteria for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) which requires that the resource be at least fifty years old (except under special circumstances), that it retain its historic integrity, and that it be significant under at least one of four criteria. These four criteria include: association with historic events, association with important persons, distinctive design or physical characteristics, and the potential to provide important information about history or prehistoty. In determining National Register eligibility, we weighed known historical associations, architectural merit, and the current level of integrity. We also evaluated the historic significance of the building using the established criteria of the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) in order to assess if it is eligible for listing in the state register. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW Like today, in which a large hillside sign welcomes visitors to "South San Francisco, The Industrial City," South San Francisco historically identified itself with industry and business. Indeed, from its beginnings community leaders actively encouraged light and heavy industrial development. This is particularly true in Point San Bruno, where the original solid bedrock peninsula could withstand heavy loads, continual use, and natural disasters and where the area's typography could create strong winds to blow unpleasant smells away from residential neighborhoods. The modes of production in South San Francisco's Point San Bruno varied over time, often paralleling nation-wide trends such as the decreasing popularity of heavy industry toward the end of the 20m century. Evolving land use priorities led, in turn, to changes in Point San Bruno's physical attributes, including the infilling of large amounts of marshland around the peninsula's original bedrock. The development of what is today known as South San Francisco began in the mid-192 century, when cattle ranchers from California's Central Valley purchased large expanses of open land immediately south of San Francisco. As a place to hold and graze livestock before eventually driving them north to the slaughterhouses in Hunter's Point, ranchers found this to be an extremely efficient arrangement in the pre-refrigeration era. When the largest land-owner, Charles Lux, died in 1888, Chicago-based meat packers Gustavus Swift V/et V/eatJ~er P~'offram Soud~ San Francisco, Cali£omia DRAFT - Historic Resources Evcduadon Report. May 9, 2002 Page 4/21 and Philip Armour started considering the area for a possible West Coast expansion of their businesses. Together with Michael Cudahy and Nelson Morris, two other meat packing industry leaders from Chicago, the "Big Four" purchased 3,500 acres in 1890 and created a corporation to guide and control development of their land. Well-known local investors in the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company included Henry Crocker and Philip Lilienthal. Based on Swift's earlier experiences successfully developing land for meat packing south of Omaha and Chicago, the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company designed separate residential and industrial neighborhoods.~ In this case, the existing San Bruno Toil Road provided a north-south line through the property dividing the flat agricultural land to the west from the windy bedrock peninsula projecting into San Francisco Bay to the east. Thus, homes, small businesses, and farms were planned for the west section while Point San Bruno was earmarked for heavy industry. Extant streets from this original plan include Grand Avenue (now Grand and East Grand Avenues), Butler Avenue (now Oyster Point Boulevard), and Linden Avenue. While no longer used, also still visible are some tracks from the South San Francisco Land & Improvement Company's early private railroad system. South San Francisco's first business on Point San Bruno was the Western Meat Company, created by Swift and his parmers in 1894 and constructed along Grand Avenue2. It included a meat packing plant, large stockyards, a wharf, and a ship channel. The new town did well during its first few years, despite an initial boycott by San Francisco's meat retailers, but was threatened by the 1893 nation-wide economic downturn that forced most of Swift's parmers to back out of the undertaking. Turning to more creative land agents, who instituted new strategies such as "weekend excursion boats and trains sponsored by the land company,''3 South San Francisco survived. Beginning at this time and continuing for many decades, the importance of bringing different industries to Point San Bruno was integrated into marketing plans. In the 1890s, this included Steiger Terra Cotta & Pottery Works and the Fuller Paint Company, located in the southeast comer of the peninsula along the private tracks. By the middle of the next decade, steel, lumber, and leather companies had also set up factories there, increasing the town's industrial base. Related to this diversification, and contributing to it, was the Southern Pacific Railroad's decision by 1906 to "redirect its main line through South City," providing not only much-needed transportation for the goods being produced on Point San Bruno but also allowing people in nearby cities to find jobs at South San Francisco's new factories.4 While Sou-.h San Francisco sustained some damage during the 1906 earthquake and fire, Point San Bruno's solid bedrock base protected the town's economic engine from disaster. With its industry almost entirely intact, business leaders benefitted from the contrast between their good fortune and San Francisco's devastation. This was particularly true for Western Meat Company, whose advocacy of refrigeratec railcars had been strongly challenged by their competitors to the north before the earthquake and fire destroyed much of San Francisco's meat packing infrastructure. With the benefits of refrigeration being proven by the ready availability of fresh meat despite the calamity, meat packing in South San Francisco took over the Bay Area's meat industry. Indeed, meat packers and retailers in San Francisco, -xaditionally located in the Hunter's Point neighborhood, never fully recovered from this aspect of the 1906 disaster. As more factories established themselves in South San Francisco, community leaders began to implement policies to make the physical infrastructure of Point San Bruno more attractive. This Wet Weather Program South San Francisco, California DRAFT - Historic Resources Evaluation Report - May 9, 2002 Page 5121 included constructing new docks, improving and expanding the private railway system, controlling Colma Creek with a man-made canal, and infilling some areas of the peninsula to add more sellable land. This effort paid off; by the time the City of South San Francisco was incorporated in 1908, it was home to 14 major industries? By 1919, the "improved" Point San Bruno area hosted a range of light and heavy industrial sites. Along the southeast edge, corresponding to Grand Avenue and the new canal, industries included meat packing, rice distribution, marble and mosaic manufacturing, paint production, and chemical plants. Running north-south on both sides of the Southern Pacific Railroad line, development tended toward heavy industries such as foundries, steel processing, oil distribution, and machine parts manufacturing. Additionally, the federal government's communications equipment and towers may have been installed on the top of Point San Bruno's low bedrock "mountains" by this time as well? From the 1920s until the beginning of World War II, a number of forces acted on South San Francisco that led to changes on Point San Bruno. Improved transportation and lower land costs caused meat packing companies to gradually move away from South San Francisco toward the Central Valley. By the early 1930s, the steel industry had taken hold of much of Point San Bruno, including a large factory site at the west edge of the peninsula owned by Bethlehem Steel that continued operations for almost fifty years. Roughly simultaneous with this transition from meat packing to the dominance of the steel industry was the beginning of the Depression. South San Francisco weathered the country's economic difficulties in part due to a variety of federal programs, many of which put people to work filling the mud fiats south of Point San Bruno and around Bel Air Island for future factory sites. The development of Point San Bruno during the second half of the 20a' century consists of a series of large events or projects that resulted in changes in the area's industrial and physical landscape. The first of these was World War II, in which South San Francisco's priority shifted to supporting ship building on Point San Bruno and the construction of large housing projects in the residential areas of the city. Then, after the war, San Francisco Airport's redevelopment and subsequent inclusion of international flights led to increasing interest in the southern areas of South San Francisco, particularly near the recently infilled land near Bel Air Island. Third, beginning in 1955, the city "experienced a vast industrial transformation," as it "embarked on one of the largest industrial expansion programs in the state.''7 This program included more infill and encouragement of additional light industry such as distribution or warehouse storage. The fourth project occurred a decade later, when businessmen purchased a large swath of land through the center of Point San Bruno's original bedrock peninsula area. Called the Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Industrial Park, this development added streets, leveled the area's hilly topography, and improved other infrastructure to support an integrated community of light and heavy industrial sites. 8 Marketing booklets for the industrial park highlight the proximity of South San Francisco's recently-completed stretch of the Bayshore Highway, which followed the approximate footprint of the earlier San Bruno Toll Road. The fifth factor that influenced Point San Bruno's development, the Gateway Project, began in the early 1980s. Like the Cabot, Cabot & Forbes park, the Gateway consisted of land on Point San Bruno's original peninsula, this time encompassing the Bethlehem Steel factory site, abandoned since 1977. Also similar to the earlier industrial park, this project included new streets and related infrastructure, however, unlike Cabot, Cabot & Forbes, who prepared and sold sites for industrial use, the Gateway actually planned and built buildings, in an "extensively landscaped, campus-like setting.''9 This signaled a shift away from manufacturing products in a factory environment and toward a focus on activities such as offices and research and development. It also resulted in a major change in Point San Bruno's landscape, in which the older modes of Wet V/eather P~ograrn South San F~ancisco, California DRAFT - H/stor/c Resources Evaluation Report - MaN 9, 2002 Page 6/21 development, including outdated street patterns, railroad tracks, large warehouse~style buildings, and other industrial infrastructure were demolished or heavily modified to make way for human~scale development. Most recently, South San Francisco has encouraged the growth of the biotechnology and internet~related industries on Point San Bruno, such as the city's largest employer, pharmaceutical giant Genentech. This continues development priorities established in the early 1980s, in which Point San Bruno's remaining historic industrial fabric has been replaced by infrasmacture more appropriately engineere?_ for 21s~ century business models. Airport Boulevard (APE 4 & 6) Airport Boulevard follows the route of what was originally San Bruno Toll Road and then Bayshore Highway during the mid-20m century. These historic roads provided the same function as Airport Boulevard today, to connect San Francisco with neighboring communities to the south. When the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company purchased the future town site, San Bruno Toll Road prov"_ded a logical dividing line between industry on the bedrock Point San Bruno peninsula to the east and residences on the flat agricultural land to the west. Development continued along this pattern as the roach's importance increased with the construction of Bayshore Highway and then Airport Boulevard. Allerton Avenue (APE 18) Allerton Avenue was one of the first north~south streets on Point San Bruno. It originally divided Western Meat Company's property roughly in half, with the stockyards northwest of Allerton Avenue along Wal'.cer Avenue (now East Grand Avenue). It provided Selby Smelting & Lead Company, which occupied t-ae northeast section of Point San Bruno, with the only non-rail connection between its property and Walker Avenue. In the early 20~ century, Allerton Avenue became a minor axis of development, featuring primarily meat packing-related businesses. It was retained in the plans for Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Industrial Park, complete with an alee of trees marching down either side of the street. Beacon Street (APE 4) Beacon Street is located in southern South San Francisco, originally a marshy zone characterized by frequent Colma Creek overflows. During the Depression, however, federal work programs employed people for large infill projects there. Because of its proximity to the airport, after being filled the first businesses to establish in the southern section of South San Francisco were airport-related. Later, wartime ship building became an important industry in the area. Belle Air Road (APE 4 & 8) Belle Air Road is located in southern South San Francisco, originally a marshy zone characterized by frequent Colma Creek overflows. Most streets in the area, such as Beacon Street, were first created as a result of I~epression~era infill projects. However, today's Belle Air Road may follow an historic access route to Bel Air Island, a small bedrock island south of Point San Bruno no longer visible today as a result of the infilling. Colma Creek (APE 5, 8 & 12) In South San Francisco's early days, Colma Creek overflowed regularly, making the adjacent land marshy and difficult to develop. As a result, by the turn of the 20~ century there were already efforts underway to channelize the waterway. Colma Creek's path is controlled by a complete concrete channel system dating to the 1970s. 'fi/et Weather Program South San Francisco, California DRAFT - Historic Resources Evaluation Report - May 9, 2002 Page 7/21 DNA Way (APE 20) As seen today, DNA Way is approximately two years old, corresponding to the development of the Genentech campus at the far eastern end of Point San Bruno. This area of the peninsula remained relatively undeveloped until recently due to the low bedrock hills that characterized it however during the 1960s, Cabot, Cabot & Forbes included this street with landscaping in their industrial park plans. East Gram Avenue (APE 19) East Grand Avenue is one only a handful of original streets laid out by Swift and his partners at the beginning of their South San Francisco venture. Known then as simply Grand Avenue, this east-west street crossed San Bruno Toll Road to provide the major axis for both the residential and industrial halves of the city. Indeed, throughout its history, East Grand Avenue has provided a spine along which much of Point San Bruno's development has concentrated. Western Meat Company, as well as Steiger Terra Cotta & Pottery Works and the Fuller Paint Company all located their factories along this artery. Unlike the west side of Grand Avenue, East Grand Avenue has experienced a number of name changes. By 1910, Swift Avenue was the name of the east-west section of the street that began at San Bruno Toll Road and continued east until it turned toward the southeast. Beginning at this turn and heading southeast toward the next turn, the street was called Walker Avenue. After this final turn, the road, here called Railroad Avenue because of the private railroad tracks in the vicinity, continued for a short distance and then stopped. By the beginning of World War II, the road had been extended almost to the end of Point San Bruno, possibly to support the increased use of the peninsula's Bay side by the ship building industry. Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Industrial Park plans clearly feature the entire road east of Bayshore Highway as East Grand Avenue, indicating the name as used today. Eccles Avenue (APE 1 7) Eccles Avenue first took concrete form in the 1960s with the planning of Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Industrial Park. However, there appears to have been private railroad tracks along the approximate route of Eccles Avenue beginning in the early years of the 2ffh century. By 1919, industrial development appears to have also followed the outline of earlier usage patterns. El Camino Real (APE 7) E1 Camino Real, or "the royal road," is perhaps the most famous road in California, dating to colonial days when a group of Spaniards and Mexicans traveled up the Pacific coast establishing missions and religious communities each separated by one day's distance from each other. The movement to protect the street began around the turn of the 20d' century. Today E1 Camino Real has evolved into a series of linked state highways, most of which follow the road's actual historic route. Unlike these, however, the section of E1 Camino Real running through western South San Francisco, today also referred to as Highway 82, was re-routed in the 1920s because Colma Creek's unpredictable flooding made development along this important axis prohibitively difficult. Today's Mission Road, located parallel to Highway 82 from the point at which the highway diverges until Chestnut Avenue, is the historic E1 Camino Real path. Wes '~Zeather Program South San Francisco, California DRAFT - H/stcr~c Resources Evaluation Report - May 9, 2002 Page 8/21 Executive Drive (APE 27) Paralleling the path of Southern Pacific Railroad's South San Francisco spur line, Executive Drive provided the western edge for the Bethlehem Steel factory until it was demolished in the early 1980s. Executive Drive is referred to as "Industrial Way" in the plans for Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Industrial Park plan dating to the 1960s, providing a more obvious connection to its historical usage pattern. Forbes Boulevard (APE 14, 15, 16 & 20) Forbes Boulevard dates to the 1960s and the development of Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Industrial Park. Wit'.ain the plan for the new park, Forbes Boulevard, starting at East Grand Avene and curving north and then east through the central section of Point San Bruno, served as the main street off of which most development was located. True to standard boulevard design, Forbes Boulevard featured regular, grassy medians running down its middle from beginning to end, as well as the rows of trees that other streets in the park displayed. The earliest plans for the development indicate several existing businesses along Forbes Boulevard, suggesting that the route chosen for the street may have followed an extant, albeit informal, path of travel. Gateway Boulevard (APE 9 & i O) Gateway Boulevard was designed as a new road in conjunction with the early 1980s Gateway Project. From the Depression until the late 1970s, almost the entire site of this development was occupied by a Bethlehem Steel factory. Even before Bethlehem Steel took ownership of this land, however, the area's large, undivided acreage and direct access to Southern Pacific's South San Francisco line invited other heavy industrial interest, such as Benicia Iron Works at the turn of the 20~h century and Pacific Coast Steel by 1910. Harbor Way (APE 11 & 26) Extending south from East Grand Avenue, Harbor Way covers much of what had been marshlancl until the 20m century infill projects. This area was filled and developed by a private corporation called the Utah Construction Company in the 1950s, roughly corresponding to the post-war taterest in water-related industries such as ship building and distribution. Hickey Bo alevard (APE 7) Hickey Boulevard is named for Tom Hickey, a Western Meat Company supervisor who relocated to South San Francisco from Chicago at the beginning of the town's history. Hickey later became a community leader and South San Francisco's representative to the county government. The intersection of Hickey Boulevard and E1 Camino Real has historically been a way-station of sorts, providing a variety of traveler's needs such as food, gas, and lodging. Although the businesses have changed many times, the usage pattern at this intersection as remained consistent. Linden Avenue (APE 6) Linden Avenue is one of the original streets planned by Swift and his partners for South San Wet We. artier Program South San Francisco, California DRAFT - Historic Resources Evaluation Report - May 9, 2002 Page 9/21 Francisco. While Grand Avenue provided the major east-west axis, Linden Avenue provided a residential-scale street roughly paralleling San Bruno Toll Road's path. Littlefield Avenue (APE 12, 13 & 24) Running alongside Colma Creek near the waterway's mouth to the Bay, the area where Littlefield Avenue is today was originally one of the places where dredging and channelizing was first attempted. With the infilling and development of the 1930s, Littlefield Avenue appears to have finally taken shape at the edge of the filled marshland. The approximately one block that today separated Littlefield Avenue from Colma Creek date to the post-war push to channelize the waterway. Lowrie Avenue (APE 2) Lowrie Avenue is located on land infilled during the 1930s however it appears to have developed as a street during World War II a full decade later. Lowrie Avenue was one of a number of streets, including the southern extension of Linden Avenue, that were constructed as part of large government housing projects in the area. After the war, these housing projects were slowly demolished, leaving open land for new or relocating light industrial uses. San Mateo Avenue (APE i & 2) Like Lowrie Avenue, San Mateo Avenue was constructed as part of wartime government housing projects on land that had been infilled in the 1930s. Along San Mateo Avenue, Cape Esperanza Village opened on March 2, 1945, providing housing for a total of 176 Navy personnel and their families. This project was eventually demolished and businesses appeared on the street in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Oyster Point Boulevard (APE 9, 17 & 21) Oyster Point Boulevard, originally Butler Road, was one of the first streets in South San Francisco. Like Grand Avenue, Butler Road provided an east-west connection between the residential and industrial halves of the city across San Bruno Toll Road. Butler Road, however, did not develop as early or as extensively as Grand Avenue. Instead of hosting a row of relatively small and diverse factories, a small number of large plants, such as Pacific Coast Steel Company and Schaw-Batcher Pipe Works Company. A Butler Avenue exit/entrance was constructed for the Bayshore Highway and then in the 1960s the road was incorporated into the Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Industrial Park plan as Oyster Point Boulevard. Shaw Road (APE 2, 3 & 4) Like Lowrie and San Mateo Avenues, Shaw Road was constructed as part of wartime government housing projects on land that had been infilled in the 1930s. Shaw Road provided the southern edge of the Cape Esperanza Village project, opened on March 2, 1945. Cape Esperanza was eventually demolished and businesses appeared on the street in the late 1950s and early 1960s. V~ret WeaO~r Program $ou~h San Francisco, California DRAFT -H/stor/c Resources Eval~xion Report - May 9, 2002 Page 10/21 South Linden Avenue (APE 2) South Linden Avenue is the southern extension of Linden Avenue, one South San Francisco's earliest streets. South Linden Avenue is located on former marshland that was infilled through Depression-era work projects and as a result of the construction of Southern Pacific Railroads's South San Francisco spur line. While most of this area of the city's development began to occur after World War II, businesses began appearing along South Linden Street by the early 1930s, making the street a key artery in the decades that followed. Swift Avenue (APE 22 & 23) Swift Avenue, located in the southeast comer of Point San Bruno, is part of a series of blocks developed through infilling in the late 1950s as South San Francisco evolved and adapted to post-war economic realities. Included in this era's land creation projects was infilling of a prominent canal used heavily by early industry along Grand Avenue. Swift Avenue is named after Gustavus Swift, one of the "Big Four" Chicago-based meat packers who purchased the land, designed t~ae town, and guided its development for many years. Today's Swift Avenue is the second such street; the original Swift Avenue consisted of a stretch of today's East Grand Avenue. Utah Avenue (APE 25 & 12) Like Harbor Way, Utah Avenue in located on what had been marshland until the 20m century infill projects. This area was filled and developed by a private corporation called the Utah Construction Company in the 1950s, roughly corresponding to the post-war interest in water- related industries such as ship building and distribution. DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCES (~enera/Description The Wet Weather Program APEs are all located in the City of South San Francisco. The City of South San Francisco occupies the land south of the curvature of the San Bnmo mountains and is bounded to the east by the San Francisco Bay. Highway 101, the major thoroughfare between San Francisco and the peninsula, passes through the east portion of the city. The majority of the proposed improvements are located in Point San Bruno, a land mass east of Highway 101 and downtown South San Francisco, and bounded by the San Francisco Bay. Three project areas are located west of Highway 101 and south of downtown South San Francisco. A separate area of improvement is located further west of downtown South San Francisco on E1 Camino Real at the juncture of Hickey Boulevard. The streets referred to in this report where improvements will occur include: Airport Boulevard, Allerton Avenue, Beacon Street, Belle Air Road, DNA Way, East Grand Avenue, Ecdes Avenue, E1 Camino Real, Executive Drive, Forbes Boulevard, Gateway Boulevard, Harbor Way, Hickey Boulevard, Linden Avenue, Littlefield Avenue, Lowrie Avenue, San Mateo Avenue, Oyster Point Boulevard, Shaw Wet Weather Program South San Francisco, California DRAFT - Histor/c Resources Evaluation Report - May 9, 2002 Page 11/21 Road, South Linden Avenue, Swift Avenue, Utah Avenue. Some work will take place in and around Colma Creek. The streets within this study are either four-lane streets, two-lane streets, two-way streets with no lanes marked, or one-way streets. The buildings located on these streets are typically low-rise commercial or light industrial structures or business park development. Some residential buildings were found near the downtown South San Francisco area (see matrix in Appendix). Airport Boulevard, North (APE 6) Airport Boulevard, divided by Highway 101 runs north to south. It is flanked on its northernmost leg by downtown South San Francisco and Highway 101 but passes to the east side of 101 near Colma Creek and continues south. Traffic runs both directions on the four-lane road with a concrete median divider. The low-rise buildings characteristic of the north portion of the street stand primarily on the west side separated from the road by a sidewalk and are part of the downtown South San Francisco urban fabric. The buildings vary in use and age, with a majority containing commercial uses with some residential intermingled. The buildings range in architectural styles. The following is a list of properties located within the APE 6 on Airport Boulevard: · 899 Airport Boulevard · 905 Airport Boulevard · 915 Airport Boulevard · 935 Airport Boulevard · 945 Airport Boulevard · 955 Airport Boulevard Shell Station 76 Station Commons Auto Parts Dot and Andy's club Accurate Door Various commercial 1000 Airport Boulevard, apartments Airport Boulevard, South (APE 4) The southern portion of Airport Boulevard, east of Highway 101, contains commercial structures, however, only three buildings in this section are within the project area. These buildings are characteristic of the one-story to three-story (low-rise), light industrial commercial buildings found throughout the project areas. The following is a list of properties located within the APE 4 on Airport Boulevard: · 470 Airport Boulevard, Atlas Heating and Ventilating Company · 454-456 Airport Boulevard, for sale · 428-438 Airport Boulevard, Inner City Cleaners Allerton Avenue (APE 18) Allerton Avenue, located on Point San Bruno, runs southwest to northeast with two lanes of traffic. All the buildings are low-rise commercial structures, set-back from the street to varying degrees and Wet 'Of/eather Program South San Francisco, California DRAFT - Historic Resources Evaluation Report - May 9, 2002 Page 12/21 separated 1:¥ parking zones from the sidewalk. The buildings on the street's west side are smaller in scale than their neighbors to the east but all are monolithic in character. A defunct railroad spur intersects the street near its center and trees line the street. The following is a list of properties located within the APE 18 on Allerton Avenue: · 301 Allerton Avenue, Aura Hardwoods Inc. · 311 Allerton Avenue, Toshiba · 321 Allerton Avenue, for lease · 323 Allerton Avenue, Machinists Union District Lodge 141 · 342-510 Allerton Avenue, Pacific Distribution Center · 349 Allerton Avenue, Concurrent Control · 371 Allerton Avenue, The Early Years · 383 Allerton Avenue · 405 Allerton Avenue, Elena's Foods · 410 Allerton Avenue, See's Candies · 434 Allerton Avenue, See's Candies Beacon Street (APE 4) Beacon Street is located in the southern portion of Point San Bruno, west of Airport Boulevard and south of Colma Creek. The semi-circular two-way street begins and terminates on Airport Boulevard. The buildL-xgs, slightly set-back from the street, are characteristic of the light industrial and commercial buildings found throughout the project areas. The following is a list of properties located within the APE 4 on 3eacon Street: · 127-137 Beacon Street, New Method · 130-14.8 Beacon Street, Sieger Engineering Inc. Belle Air Road (APE 4 ~ 8) Belle Air Road runs one block east of Airport Boulevard and south of Colma Creek. Traffic is two-way along this street and terminates at a gated industrial compound. The one building is typical of "big box" commercial construction separated from the road by a large expanse of parking. The following is a list of properties -ocated within the APE 4 and 8 on Belle Air Street: · 451 Belle Air, Costco Co/ma Creek (APE 5, 8 ~ 12) Colma Creek is a channel of water, artificially re-directed into its current pathway, that flows from the CiW of South San Francisco into the San Francisco Bay. The Creek has two channels. Where the creek splits the main channel flows north to pass under Utah Avenue and then turns west into the city. The other channel continues west from the Bay and terminates near the juncture of Shaw Road and San Wet Weather Program South San Francisco, California DRAFT - Historic Resources Evaluation Report - May 9, 2002 Page 13/21 Mateo Avenue. Two of the three areas, APE 8 and 12, are either in the creek or on its bank. The third area, APE 5, which is inaccessible to the public, occupies the land south of the creek's mouth. From the north bank, the viewer can see a collection of industrial outbuildings and tanks - the property is currently under construction. DNA Way (APE 20) DNA Way runs north to south at the northeast edge of Point San Bruno. This two~way street travels from the eastern termination of Forbes Avenue and runs up the main hill of Point San Bnmo. The buildings located on either side of the street are of contemporary low-rise construction and house biotechnology companies. The following is a list of properties located within the APE 20 on DNA Way: · 1601-1757 DNA Way, Genentech East Grand Avenue (APE 19) East Grand Avenue is the main corridor between Point San Bruno and downtown South San Francisco, where it becomes Grand Avenue. Most roads in Point San Bruno lead to East Grand Avenue. The wide, four-lane road runs west to east and curves a path from Highway 101 east and terminates short of the San Francisco Bay. The road is characterized by its width and the large scale, low-rise commercial structures and business park development on each side. These structures are almost all set far back from the road, with expanses of parking areas between their monolithic presence and the travel corridor. Two addresses, 224~233 East Grand Avenue and 249 East Grand Avenue, are included in South San Francisco Historical Market Site Tour Map, which indicates historic sites in the city with a concentration on the various businesses that occupied the site. The following is a list of properties located within the APE 19 on East Grand Avenue: · 100 Petrini Van and Storage · 130 East Grand Avenue, "3-D" · 120422 East Grand Avenue, Max's Kitchen · 121 East Grand Avenue, Comfort Suites · 101-290 East Grand Avenue, Celera · 150-461 East Grand Avenue, Brittania Pointe Grande business park · 181 East Grand Avenue, Power Substation · 190 East Grand Avenue, gas station · 2 !3 East Grand Avenue, Shaman · 221 East Grand Avenue, JAS Forwarding (USA) Inc. · 224-233 East Grand Avenue, United Cold Storage · 249 East Grand Avenue, Georgia Pacific Corporation Packaging Division · 284~286 East Grand Avenue, Michelin South San Francisco Tire Service · 285 East Grand Avenue, Jetro · 288 East Grand Avenue, U.S. Glass & Aluminum Inc. ~XT'et ~/eather Program Sout~ San Fmr~isco, California DRAFT - Hiswric Resources Evaluation Report - May 9, 2002 Paie 14/21 Eccles A~erme (APE Eccles Avenue begins at Oyster Point Boulevard on the north portion of Point San Bruno. The two-lane road runs northeast to southwest. The street is characterized by medium to large scale low-rise commercial structures, generally set back from the road with parking between. The project area travels only a short distance along Eccles Avenue. The following is a list of properties located within the APE 17 on Eccles Avenue: · 551 Eccles Avenue · 561 Eccles Avenue · 570 Eccles Avenue · 571 Eccles Avenue, Aspira Biosystems El Camiuo Real (APE 7) E1 Camino Real runs south of South San Francisco and travels northwest to southeast. The four-lane road is a w'_'de, major thoroughfare and travels the breadth of the San Francisco peninsula. The area of proposed improvements is at the juncture of Hickey Boulevard and E1 Camino Real. The low-rise commercial buildings in this area are typically set back from both roads and are of contemporary construction. The following is a list of properties located within the APE 7 adjacent to E1 Camino Real: · 1709 E1Camino Real, motel Executive Drive (APE 27) Executive Drive is a one-way frontage road that runs parallel to the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. Traffic travels north from the west terminus of East Grand Avenue and passes under the Grand Avenue overpass to downtown San Francisco. All buildings are located on the east side of the street but either have addresses on East Grand Avenue or Gateway Boulevard. Therefore, there are no properties listed for this street.. Forbes Boulevard (APE 14, 15, 16 ~' 20) Forbes Boulevard runs southwest to northeast, from East Grand Avenue to the northeast comer of Point San Bruno. The four-lane street features a series of grassy median with light fixtures and supports a large portion of Point San Bruno's traffic. Low-rise, large-scale biotechnology and commercial structures stand on either side of the street and are characteristic of the area. Where DNA Way and Forbes Boulevard intersect, there is almost entirely new construction for biotechnological companies. Most buildings are set back from the road with a parking area filling the intervening space. Only the north half of Forbes Boulevard is part of the proposed improvements. The following is a list of properties located within the APE 14, 15, 16 and 20 on Forbes Boulevard: ~ret 'ff/eather Program South San Francisco, California DRAFT - Histcrric Resources Evaluation Report - May 9, 2002 Page 15/21 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 493 Forbes Boulevard, Colombus Salame Company 494 Forbes Boulevard, Jessica McClintock Inc. Outlet 499-700 Forbes Boulevard, Genentech (15 & 20) 501 Forbes Boulevard, Repro Media Inc. 530 Forbes Boulevard, 543 Forbes Boulevard, 560 Forbes Boulevard, 573 Forbes Boulevard, Japan Food Corporation Int'l Inc. Keeco Anderson Lithograph UTI 660 Forbes Boulevard, Genentech parking Pump Station # 8 (14) 657 Forbes Boulevard, United Parcel Service 644-646 Forbes Boulevard, Genentech parking structure 616-636 Forbes Boulevard, UCSF warehouse and parking Pump Station # 10 (16) Gateway Boulevard (APE 9, 10, 19 8 27) Gateway Boulevard, located at the western portion of Point San Bruno, begins at East Grand Avenue and travels a curved path to terminate at Oyster Point Boulevard. The four-lane road features a grassy meridian and is characterized by commercial high-rises and Iow-rise business park development. These buildings are set far back from the road with parking occupying the intervening spaces. Only the north third of the street is subject to the proposed improvements although the one building at the south end is adjacent to APE 27. The following is a list of properties located within the APE 10, 19 and 27 on Gateway Boulevard: · 250 Gateway Boulevard, Embassy Suites (19) · 201 Gateway Boulevard, Fibrogin (27) · 701-899 Gateway Boulevard, Actuate and parking (10) · 670-690 Gateway Boulevard, Larkspur Landing Home Suite Hotel (10) · 750-900 Gateway Boulevard, Gateway Business Park (10) · 1000 Gateway Boulevard, Aesclup (10) · Pump Station # 2 (9) Harbor Way (APE 11 ~ 26) Harbor Way, parallel to the north channel of Colma Creek, runs north to south between East Grand Avenue and Litflefield Avenue. The two-way street is characterized by low-rise commercial and light industrial buildings separated from the road by a small setback. Only a small portion between Utah Avenue and Mitchell Avenue is part of the proposed improvements. The following is a list of properties located within the APE 11 and 26 on Harbor Way: · Pump station # 4 (11) · 266 Harbor Way, Hertz Equipment Rental · Harbor Way at Mitchell, Fire Station 62 Wet Weather Program $ou~ San Francisco, California · 271 Harbor Way · 315 Harbor Way, EWI · 325 Harbor Way DRAFT. Historic Resources Evaluation Report - May 9, 2002 Page 16/21 Hickey Boulevard (APE 7) Hickey Boulevard runs between El Camino Real and Highway 280 west of downtown South San Francisco. Where it intersects E1 Camino Real, the four-lane road features large-scale, low-rise buildings and structures with travel oriented uses such as gas stations. The area of proposed improvements is located in a triangular plot at the juncture of Hickey Boulevard and E1 Camino Real. The following is a list of properties located within the APE 7 adjacent to Hickey Boulevard: · 100 Hickey Boulevard, motel · 120 Hickey Boulevard, gas station Linden Avenue (APE 6) The north segment of Linden Avenue, between Armour Avenue and Airport Boulevard, rum east to west. At Armour Avenue, this two.lane road tums south and passes through downtown South San Francisco to become South Linden Avenue. The street is mainly residential in character including the small-scale residence that stands at the juncture of Airport Boulevard and Linden Avenue, within the area of proposed improvements. The following is a list of properties located within the APE 6 on Linden Avenue: · 985 Linden Avenue, residence Little, field Avenue (APE 12., 13 8 2.4) Littlefield Avenue runs from Harbor Way to Utah Avenue following the curve of Colma Creek where it meets the San Francisco Bay. This two-way street is characterized by small to large scale low-rise commercial structures, generally set back from the street and, on the north side, with parking in the intervening space. Staggered trees and landscaping line the street. The following is a list of properties located wi'lain the APE 12, 13, and 24 on Littlefield Avenue: · 200 Littlefield Avenue, IMPCO (12) · 202-204 Littlefield Avenue, Sing Tao Daily and Blue Shield · 210-2:8 Littlefield Avenue, various offices · 215 Littlefield Avenue, Sing Tao Daily · 222 Littlefield Avenue, Fed Ex · 229 L"ttlefield Avenue, vacant · 240 Littlefield Avenue, Golden State Flooring · 260-280 Littlefield Avenue, office park · 258 Littlefield Avenue, J. Sosnick & Sons Wet W'earJaer Program South San Francisco, California · 360 Littlefield Avenue · Pump Station# 7 (13) DRAFT - Histor/c Resources Evaluation Report - Ma2 9, 2002 Page 17/21 Lowrie Avenue (APE 2) Lowrie Avenue runs north to south and parallel to the nearby Southern Pacific Railroad. Lowrie Avenue begins at San Mateo Avenue and terminates at the main branch of Colma Creek. This two-way road is characterized by low-rise commercial and light industrial structures and business park development. Parking fills the space where buildings stand back from the street. Most of the street's east side displays the rear entries to buildings with San Mateo addresses. The following is a list of properties located within the APE 2 on Lowrie Avenue: · 1333-1336 Lowrie Avenue, Kayman · 1341-1349 Lowrie Avenue · 1353-1361 Lowrie Avenue · 1350-1368 Lowrie Avenue · 1355 Lowrie Avenue, vacant · 1365 Lowrie Avenue, for lease · 1373 Lowrie Avenue, warehouse · 1375-1377 Lowrie Avenue, San Francisco Door Co. · 1374-1376 Lowrie Avenue, Universal Fleet Supply · 1381-1383 Lowrie Avenue, Interstate Batteries · 1387-1389 Lowrie Avenue, The Burke Co. · 1392 Lowrie Avenue · 1394 Lowrie Avenue, for lease · 1395 Lowrie Avenue, San Bruno Garbage · 1399 Lowrie Avenue, Polywell Systems San Mateo Avenue (APE 1 ~ 2) San Mateo Avenue, runs parallel to Lowrie Avenue in a north to south direction. This two-lane street, west of Highway 101, supports most traffic moving north to Airport Boulevard and downtown San Francisco. Although the area of proposed improvements is not directly on San Mateo Avenue, except between Shaw Road and Lowrie Avenue, the Lowrie Avenue buildings front San Mateo Avenue. These buildings are typically low-rise, small to medium scale commercial and light industrial structures set back from the street with parking in the intervening spaces. The following is a list of properties located within the APE 1 and 2 on San Mateo Avenue: · 1305 - 1341 San Mateo Avenue, Graniterock Industries · 1331 San Mateo, vacant warehouse · 1341-1343 San Mateo, Asia View Entertainment · 1349 San Mateo Avenue, Moss Rubber & Equipment Corporation · 1357-1361 San Mateo Avenue, Arco's Autobody & Taylormade Automotive · 1367 San Mateo Avenue, Bayshore Truck Equipment Co. Wet Weather Program South San Francisco, California DRAFT - Hiswr/c Resources Evaluation Report - May 9, 2002 Page 18/21 · 1379 San Mateo Avenue, Grace Body Shop · 1383 San Mateo Avenue, E & J Auto Repair · 1387--399 San Mateo Avenue, Calpico · 1405 San Mateo Avenue, Four Star Truck Repair · 1409 San Mateo Avenue, various businesses · 1415~2417 San Mateo Avenue · 1423 San Mateo Avenue, R & W Concrete Contractors · 1429 San Mateo Avenue, Tiffany's Caf~ and Bakery · 1431 San Mateo Avenue, Michael's Rentals · 1445 San Mateo Avenue, Johnstone Supply · 1451 San Mateo Avenue, R & R Scaffolding · 1459 San Mateo Avenue, Oscar Tiele · San Mateo Pump Station (1) Oyster Po",nt Boulevard (APE 17 ~ 21) Oyster Point Boulevard travels along the north edge of Point San Bruno in an east to west direction. Serving as an access road from Highway 101 to Point San Bruno, this four-lane street is wide in character with few structures along its edges. The area north of the road is almost entirely under construction. As there is a rise in topography on the road's south side, most of the low-rise commercial or business park development address ancillary streets such as Eccles Avenue or Gateway Boulevard. The few buildings within the area of proposed improvements, on the north side of the street, are a collection of "big box" commercial structures grouped together as a Tech Center. The following is a list of properties located within the APE 17 and 21 on Oyster Point Boulevard: · Lots north side of Oyster Point Boulevard, "The Cove" under construction (biotech campus) · 270 Oyster Point Boulevard, Monique Trading Co. · 333-335 Oyster Point Boulevard, Oyster Point Tech Center/Alexandria Tech Center · Pump Station# 1 (21) Shaw Road (APE 2, 3 ~ 4) Shaw Road runs adjacent to Highway 101 in a north to south direction but tums east to west at the area of the proposed improvements. This two-way street is characterized by low-rise, medium-scale light industrial and commercial structures set back from the road. Some have parking areas in the set-back area. The :ollowing is a list of properties located within the APE 2, 3 and 4 on Shaw Road: · 205 Shaw Road, Westside and Central Concrete (2) · 213 Shaw Road (2) · 212-228 Shaw Road, currendy light industrial warehouse/to be Shaw Business Center (2) · 219 Shaw Road, A.G. Makellim Co. (2) · 220 Shaw Road, for lease (2) · 223 Shaw Road, under construction (2) Wet ~X/eather Program South San Francisco, California DRAFT - H/stcrr/c Resources Evaluation Report - May 9, 2002 Page 19/21 · Shaw Road Pump Station, to be demolished (3) · 228-242 Shaw Road, Brenton Safety (4) · 251 Shaw Road, McLellan Equipment Inc. (4) · 304 Shaw Road, Pioneer Express (4) · 300 Shaw Road, Manning Trading Company (4) South Linden Avenue (APE 2) South Linden is the south segment of Linden Avenue. The two-lane road roms south at Armour Avenue and passes through downtown South San Francisco to become South Linden Avenue. At this portion the street supports mainly commercial and light industrial uses. The low-rise commercial structures in the area of proposed improvements stand at the comer of South Linden Avenue and San Mateo Avenue. The following is a list of properties located within the APE 2 on South Linden Avenue: · 205 South Linden Avenue, various businesses · 220 South Linden Avenue, various businesses Swift Avenue (APE 22 ~ 23) Swift Avenue runs east to west at the southeast end of Point San Bruno, directly south of East Grand Avenue. The two-way street spans between East Grand Avenue and Haskins Way and is characterized by medium to large-scale commercial and business development structures set back from the road with some parking between. The area of proposed improvement runs almost the entire length of Swift Avenue. The following is a list of properties located within the APE 22 and 23 on Swift Avenue: · Pump Station # 3 (22) · 301 Swift Avenue, Unisys · 328 Swift Avenue, Pro Source · 333 Swift Avenue, Cintas · 360-390 Swift Avenue, business park · 351-355 Swift Avenue, Freight Solutions Int'l · 377 Swift Avenue, office Utah Avenue (APE 12 ~ 25) Utah Avenue spans from Littlefield Avenue to the south portion of Airport Boulevard and crosses the main branch of Colma Creek. The four-lane road supports most of the traffic traveling along the south end of Point San Bruno. The street is characterized by low-rise, medium to large scale commercial buildings and business developments. The area of proposed improvements runs along a Southern Pacific Railroad spur that intersects Utah Avenue and also encompasses a pump station where the street crosses Colma Creek. The following is a list of properties located within the APE 12 and 25 on Utah Avenue: ~r e£ 3X, reat. he~ Program South San Francisco, California DRAFT - Historic Resources Evaluation Report - May 9, 2002 Page 20/21 · 152-156 Utah Avenue, for lease · Utah Avenue at Colma Creek, Pump House # 6 (25) · 209-211 Utah Avenue, Micheal S. Hensley · 233-235 Utah Avenue, C.H. Bull Co. warehouse · 206 Utah Avenue, Apex Starlink Warehouse · 250 Utah Avenue, Cargo Warehouse STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE After surveying the area, researching sources at local agencies, and examining the City of South San Francisco "List of Designated and Potential Historic Resources," Carey & Co. has determined that no resources within the project areas are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or the California _2.egister of Historical Resources. To be listed in the NRHP and CRHR, a property must first be over fifty years old and, not only be shown to be significant under the evaluation criteria for the respective registers, but it must also possess historic "integrity." Integrity is defined as "the ability of a property to convey it significance." Both the National Register and California Register criteria recognize seven aspects or qualities that define integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. The properties identified within the proposed improvements areas are either not yet fifty years old, or are not significant examples of a type or period of architecture, nor are they associated with an important person or event, nor have they yielded or likely to yield information about prehistory or history. Two properties, 224-233 East Grand Avenue and 249 East Grand Avenue, are identified in the South San Francisco Historical Market Site Tour Map. The tour map was created by the Historic Preservation Commission in order to identify historically or culturally significant sites throughout South San Francisco - none have been designated as Historic Resources. After surveying the two structures, Carey & Co. has determined that they are not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, nor are they eligib:e for the California Register of Historical Resources. The two properties identified are not significant examples of a type or period of architecture, nor are they associated with an important person or event, nor have they yielded or are likely to yield information about prehistory or history. CONCLUSI ON Through a site survey and examination of researched information regarding the Wet Weather Program Phases 1-4, Proposed Improvements APEs in South San Francisco, Carey & Co. has determined that the project areas do not include any historic resources within their boundaries. ENDNOTES 1. At the zime they arrived in South San Francisco, Swift and other meat packers were experienc;_ng some challenges to their stockyards in Chicago. Citizens "disturbed by the rank orders from the packing houses and concerned about the pollution of the Chicago River" eventually managed to get meat packers to move away from populated areas of Chicago. (Powell Wet Weather Program South San Francisco, California DRAFT. Historic Resources Evaluation Report - May 9, 2002 Page 21/21 A. Moore, The Calumet Region [n.p.: Indiana Historical Bureau, 1959]: 131-2.) 2. Linda Kauffman, South San Francisco: A History (South San Francisco: Linda Kauffman, 1976): 11; Map of South San Francisco, c. 1910, South San Francisco Public Library History Room, South San Francisco, California. 3. Alan Hynding, From Frontier to Suburb: The Story of The San Mateo Peninsula (n.p.: Star Publishing Company, 1982): 104. 4. Hynding 106 & 108. 5. Kauffman 15. 6. Map of South San Francisco, 1919, South San Francisco Public Library History Room, South San Francisco, California. 7. Progress Report 1958-59 (South San Francisco: City of South San Francisco, 1959): n.p., South San Francisco Public Library History Room, South San Francisco, California. 8. Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Industrial Park, South San Francisco (n.p.: Cabot, Cabot & Forbes, c. 1965): n.p., South San Francisco Public Library History Room, South San Francisco, California. 9. Arnold & Palmer & Noble, The Gateway photographs, c. 1981, South San Francisco Public Library History Room, South San Francisco, California. Wet Weather Phases 1-4 Proposed Improvements South San Francisco, California PROPERTY MATRIX ID/APE No. Proposed Facility 1 San Mateo Pump Station Street San Mateo Ay. Property San Mateo Pump Station Colma Creek 2 San Mateo Force Main Forbes Blvd. Lowrie Av. San Mateo Ay. 499-700 Forbes Boulevard, Genentech 500 Forbes Boulevard, Repro Media Inc. 529 Forbes Boulevard, Japan Food Corporation Int'l Inc. 542 Forbes Boulevard, Keeco 559 Forbes Boulevard, Anderson Litho§raph 572 Forbes Boulevard, UTI 659 Forbes Boulevard, Cenentech parkin§ 1333-1336 Lowde Avenue, K~yman 1341-1349 Lowrie Avenue 1353-1361 Lowrie Avenue 1350-1368 Lowrie Avenue 1355 Lowrie Avenue, vacant 1365 Lowrie Avenue, for lease 1373 Lowrie Avenue, warehouse 1375-1377 Lowrie Avenue, San Francisco Door Co. 1374-1376 Lowrie Avenue, Universal Fleet Supply 1381-1383 Lowrie Avenue, Interstate Batteries 1387-1389 Lowrie Avenue, The Burke Co. 1392 Lowrie Avenue 1394 Lowrie Avenue, for lease 1395 Lowrie Avenue, San Bruno Garba§e 1399 Lowrie Avenue, Polywell Systems 1305 - 1341 San Mateo Avenue, Graniterock Industries 1331 San Mateo, vacant warehouse 1341-1343 San Mateo, Asia View Entertainment 1349 San Mateo Avenue, Moss Rubber & Equipment Corporation 1357-1361 San Mateo Avenue, Arco's Autobody & Taylormade Automotive 1367 San Mateo Avenue, Bayshore Truck Equipment Co. 1379 San Mateo Avenue, Grace Body Shop 1383 San Mateo Avenue, E & J Auto Repair 1387-1399 San Mateo Avenue, Calpico 1405 San Mateo Avenue, Four Star Truck Repair 1409 San Mateo Avenue, various businesses 1415-1417 San Mateo Avenue 1423 San Mateo Avenue, R & W Concrete Contractors 1429 San Mateo Avenue, Tiffany's Caf~ and Bakery Shaw Road Pump Station S. Linden Av. Shaw Rd. Shaw Rd. 1431 San Mateo Avenue, Michael's Rentals 1445 San Mateo Avenue, Johnstone Supply 1451 San Mateo Avenue, R & R Scaffoldin§ 1459 San Mateo Avenue, Oscar Tiele 205 South Linden Avenue, various businesses 220 South Linden Avenue, various businesses 205 Shaw Road, Westside and Central Concrete 213 Shaw Road (4) 212-218 Shaw Road, currently li§ht industrial warehouse / to be Shaw Business Center 219 Shaw Road, A.G. Makellim Co. 220 Shaw Road, for lease Shaw Road Pump Station, to be demolished 223 Shaw Road, under construction 251 Shaw Road, McLellan Equipment Inc. Shaw Road Force Main Airport Blvd. Beacon St. Belle Air Rd. Shaw Rd. 469 Airport Boulevard, Atlas Heating and Ventilating Company 454-456 Airport Boulevard, for sale 428-438 Airport Boulevard, Inner City Cleaners 127-137 Beacon Street, New Method 130-148 Beacon Street, Sieger Engineering Inc. 451 Belle Air, Costco 228-242 Shaw Road, Brenton Safety 251 Shaw Road, McLellan Equipment Inc. 304 Shaw Road, Pioneer Express 300 Shaw Road, Manning Trading Company 6 Airport Boulevard Sewer Airport Blvd. Linden Av. 898 Airport Boulevard, Shell Station 904 Airport Boulevard, 76 Station 914 Airport Boulevard, Commons Auto Parts 934 Airport Boulevard, Dot and Andy's club 944 Airport Boulevard, Accurate Door 954 Airport Boulevard, Various commercial 999 Airport Boulevard, apartments 985 Linden Avenue, residence Winston Manor Sewer El Camino Real Hickey Blvd. 1709 El Camino Real, motel 100 Hickey Boulevard, motel 119 Hickey Boulevard, gas station 8 Colma Crk Bank Rest. Colma Creek 451 Belle Air, Costco Pump Station 2 Gateway Bvld 1000 Gateway Boulevard, Aesclup 10 11 Gateway Blvd. 701-899 Gateway Boulevard, Actuate and parking 670-690 Gateway Boulevard, Larkspur Landing Hotel 750-900 Gateway Boulevard, Gateway Business Park 1000 Gatewa_Y Boulevard, Aesclup Pump station # 4 Harbor Way at Mitchell, Fire Station 62 266 Harbor Way, Hertz Equipment Rental 12 Littlefield Av. Utah Ay. 200 Littlefield Avenue, IMPCO 152-156 Utah Avenue, for lease 209-211 Utah Avenue, Micheal S. Hensley 233-235 Utah Avenue, C.H. Bull Co. warehouse 206 Utah Avenue, Apex Starlink Warehouse 250 Utah Avenue, Cargo Warehouse 13 14 Forbes Blvd. Pump Station # 7 202-204 Littlefieid Avenue, Sing Tao Daily and Blue Shield 215 Littlefield Avenue, Sing Tao Daily 212-218 Littlefield Avenue, various offices Pump Station # 8 657 Forbes Boulevard, United Parcel Service 660 Forbes Boulevard, Genentech parking 15 16 Forbes Blvd. 493 Forbes Boulevard, Colombus Salame Company 494 Forbes Boulevard, Jessica McClintock Inc. Outlet 499-700 Forbes Boulevard, Genentech 501 Forbes Boulevard, Repro Media Inc. 530 Forbes Boulevard, Japan Food Corporation Int'l Inc. 543 Forbes Boulevard, Keeco 560 Forbes Boulevard, Anderson Lithograph 573 Forbes Boulevard, UTI 660 Forbes Boulevard, Genentech parking 657 Forbes Boulevard, United Parcel Service 644-646 Forbes Boulevard, Genentech parking structure 616-636 Forbes Boulevard, UCSF warehouse and parking Pump Station # 10 616-636 Forbes Boulevard, UCSF warehouse and parking 17 £ccles Blvd. Oyster Point Blvd. 570 Ecdes Avenue, Aspira Biosystems Lots north side of Oyster Point Boulevard, "The Cove" under construction (biotech campus) 270 Oyster Point Boulevard, Monique Trading Co. 333-335 Oyster Point Boulevard, Oyster Point Tech Center/ Alexandria Tech Center 18 Allerton Ave. 300 Allerton Avenue, Aura Hardwoods Inc. 310 Allerton Avenue, Toshiba 320 Allerton Avenue, for lease 322 Allerton Avenue, Machinists Union District Lodge 141 342-510 Allerton Avenue, Pacific Distribution Center 348 Allerton Avenue, Concurrent Control 370 Allerton Avenue, The Early Years 382 Allerton Avenue 404 Allerton Avenue, Elena's Foods 410 Allerton Avenue, See's Candies 434 Allerton Avenue, See's Candies 19 E. Grand Ay. Gateway Blvd. 100 Petrini Van and Storage 129 East Grand Avenue, "3-D" 120-122 East Grand Avenue, Max's Kitchen 120 East Grand Avenue, Comfort Suites 101-290 East Grand Avenue, Celera 150-461 Fast Grand Avenue, Brittania Pointe Grande business park 180 East Grand Avenue, Power Substation 189 East Grand Avenue, gas station 212 East Grand Avenue, Shaman 220 East Grand Avenue, JAS Forwarding (USA) Inc. 224-233 East Grand Avenue, United Cold Storage 248 East Grand Avenue, Georgia Padfic Corporation 284-286 East Grand Avenue, Michelin SSF Tire Service 284 East Grand Avenue, Jetro 287 East Grand Avenue, U.S. Glass & Aluminum Inc. 250 Gateway Boulevard, Embassy Suites 20 DNA Way Forbes Blvd. 1601-1757 DNA Way, Genentech 499-700 Forbes Boulevard, Genentech 21 Oyster Point Blvd. Pump Station # 1 385 Oyster Point Boulevard May 9, 2002 City of South San Francisco Wet Wear. her Program, Phases I-4 . ' ................... : . . ~ , .... ,~ .,. ~. ,'73~ .,..~y:,, ~ ':' '-""~ ......................... :.-:,-.~..,= ', ~'- 31~¥, .... :' ,,. >t, ~.' ' .::i: '. ?:: ,~;,, ? ' :.' : ~. . ", : '...;'~'~" '. ~, .i ':. ;: .' ':~ Photo I:APE 2, San Mateo/Lowrie Avenues, streetscape Photo 2: APE 2, Shaw Road, typical light industrial Carey & Co. 5nc. DRAFT -Historic Resources Evaluation 400 Oyster Point Boulevard 22 23 Swift Av. Swift Ay. Pump Station # 3 301 Swift Avenue, Unisys 301 Swift Avenue, Unisys 328 Swift Avenue, Pro Source 333 Swift Avenue, Cintas 360-390 Swift Avenue, business park 351-355 Swift Avenue, Freight Solutions Int'l 377 Swift Avenue, office 24 25 Littlefield Av. Utah Av. 202-204 Littlefield Avenue, Sing Tao Daily and Blue Shield 210-218 Littlefield Avenue, various offices 215 Littlefield Avenue, Sing Tao Daily 222 Littlefield Avenue, Fed Ex 229 Littlefield Avenue, vacant 240 Littlefield Avenue, Golden State Flooring 260-280 Littlefieid Avenue, office park 258 Littlefield Avenue, J. Sosnick & Sons 360 Littlefield Avenue Utah Avenue at Colma Creek, Pump House # 6 Colma Creek 152-156 Utah Avenue, for lease 26 Harbor Way 266 Harbor Way, Hertz Equipment Rental Harbor Way at Mitchell, Fire Station 62 271 Harbor Way 315 Harbor Way, EWl 325 Harbor Way 27 Gateway Blvd. 201 Gateway Boulevard, Fibrogin May 9, 2002 City of South San Francisco Wet Weather Pro.am, Phases I-4 Photo 3: APE 3, Shaw Road, Shaw Road Pump Station Photo 4: APE 4, Beacon Avenue, commercial Carey & Co. I.~c. DRAFT -Historic Resources Evaluation May 9, 2002 City of South San Francisco Wet Weather Program, Phases I-4 Photo 5: APE 5 vicinity, proposed effluent storage pond area Photo 6: APE 6, Airport Boulevard, streetscape looking north Carey & Co. Inc. DRAFT -Historic Resources Evaluation · May 9, 2002 City of South San Francisco Wet Weather Pro.am, Phases I-4 Photo 7: APE 7, E1 Camino Real/Hickey Avenue, commercial Photo 8: APE 8, Colma Creek looking south Carey & Co. ~nc. DRAFT -Historic Resources Evaluation Ma? 9, 2002 City of South San Francisco Wet Weather Pro.am, Phases I-4 Photo 9: APE 10, Gateway Boulevard, typical offices. Vicinity of APE 9 Photo 10: APE 11, Harbor Way, Pump Station ~4 Carey & Co. Inc. DRAFT -Historic Resources Evaluation May 9, 2002 ,~q?:~~~:.:.?' .~ :";5. . ~. :, City of South San Francisco Wet Weather Program, Phases 1-4 Photo 11: APE 13, Swift Avenue, Pump Station #7 Photo 12: APE 14, Forbes Avenue, Pump Station ~4 Carey & Co. Inc. DRAFT -Historic Resources Evaluation May 9, 2002 City of South San Francisco Wet Weather Program, Phases i-4 Photo 13: APE 15, Forbes Avenue, typical offices Photo 14: APE 16 vicnity, Forbes Avenue, vicinity of Pump Station #10 Carey & Co. Inc. DRAFT -Historic Resources Evaluation May 9, 2002 Photo 15: City of South San Francisco Wet Weather Program, Phases 1-4 APE 17, Eccles Avenue, typical offices Photo 16: APE 17, Oyster Point Boulevard, north side under construction Carey & Co. ;nc. DRAFT -Historic Resources Evaluation May 9, 2002 City of South San Francisco Wet Weather Pro.am, Phases 1-4 iil Photo 17: APE t8, Allerton Avenue, typical commercial Photo 18: APE 19, East Grand Avenue, location of historic site marker Carey & Co. Inc. DRAFT -Historic Resources Evaluation May 9, 2002 Ci~ of South San Francisco Wet Weather Program, Phases Photo 19: APE 19, East Grand Avenue, location of historic site marker Photo 20: APE 19, East Grand Avenue, historic site marker Carey & Co.. 5nc. DRAFT -Historic Resources Evaluation May 9, 2002 City of South San Francisco ·, ~:.~ l !,.:. Wet Weather Program, Phases I-4 Photo 21: APE 19, East Grand Avenue, ts-pical offices Photo 22: APE 20, Forbes Avenue, typical offices Carey & Co. Inc. DRAFT -Historic Resources Evaluation May 9, 2002 City of South San Francisco Wet Weather Program, Phases Photo 23: APE 22 and 23, Swift Avenue, streetscape Photo 24: APE 24, Littlefield Avenue, t3'pical offices Carey & Co. Inc. DRAFT -Historic Resources Evaluation M~y 9, 2002 City of South San Francisco Wet Weather Program, Phases 1-4 Photo 25: APE 24, Littlefield Avenue, rear of typical light industrial Photo 26: APE 25, Utah Avenue, Pump Station #6 Carey & Co. Inc. DRAFT -Historic Resources E~,aluation May 9, 2002 City of South San Francisco Wet Weather Program, Phases 1--4 Photo 27: APE 26, Harbor Way, firestation Photo 28: APE 27, Executive Drive, typical offices Carey & Co. I,~c. DRAFT -Historic Resources Evaluation May 9, 2002 City of South San Francisco Wet Weather Program, Phases 1-4 -~-.. ,,!.' :, , :~,~'i,?~,~: Photo 29: APE 27, Executive Drive, typical commercial Carey & Co. Inc. DRAFT -Historic Resources Evaluation City of South San Francisco Proposed facirties WWP Phases 1-4 ID Proposed No. Facility I San Mateo Pump Station 2 San Mateo Force Main 3 Shaw Road Pump Station 4 Shaw Road Force Main 5 Effluert Storage Pond 6 Airport Blvd. Sewer 7 Winston Manor Sewer 8 Colma Creel Bank Restoration 9 Pump Station No. 2 10 Pump Station No. 2 Force Main 11 Pump Station No. 4 12 Pump Station No. 4 Force Main 13 Pump Station No. 7 14 Pump Station No. 8 15 Pump Station No. 8 Force Main Description Upgrade existing pump station by converting dry well to wet well and adding new pumps. New electrical and control building will be constructed. Construct approximately 4, 400' of new 36" force main between the San Mateo pump station and the Shaw Road pump station. One half of the installation will be done by pipe bursting an existing 27" sanitary sewer line, the other half will be installed by a conventional trenching method. Force main includes a crossing of Colma Creek that will be constructed by the County in conjunction with the Creek channelization project. A new pump station will be constructed on the site of the existing pump station. Once construction is complete, the existing pump station will be demolished. Construct approximately 2,800' of new 42" force main between the Shaw Road pump station and the WQCP. Installation will include a microtunneling crossing of Highway 101 via a proposed 54" steel casing. A new effluent storage pond will be constructed on the WQCP property. The area in the past has been used as sludge drying beds. A portion of the area is currently being used by the WQCP expansion project contractor. The completed pond will consist of an earthen reservoir (approximately 3.0 MG) with a plastic liner. A pump station will be constructed adjacent to the pond to both fill and drain the reservoir. This project involves the upsizing of an existing 8" sewer line in Airport Blvd. between Chapman and Armour. Alternatives to be evaluated will include constructing a new parallel sewer main adjacent to the existing line or upsizing the existing line by pipe bursting. Rehabilitate an existing 6" sewer main that has been damaged by root intrusion and settlement. Various forms of trenchless methods will be evaluated to replace this line. The line begins in the intersection of Hickey Blvd. and Camaritas Ave and continues northeast to a manhole just west of El Camino Real. This project consists of adding creek bank protection on the south side of Colma Creek at the WQCP. The south bank of Colma Creek has eroded due to high velocities during wet weather flows in Colma Creek. The erosion is threatening the WQCP facilities near the creek bank. Bank protection is expected to include sheet piling and rip rap. Upgrades to existing pump station. Construct approximately 850' of new 10" force main in Gateway Blvd south of Oyster Point Blvd. Upgrades to existing pump station. Construct approximately 2,800'. of new 21" force main between Pump station No. 4 and the WQCP. Upgrades to existing pump station. Upgrades to existing pump station. Construct approximately 2,800' of new 10" force main between Pump station No. 8 and Allerton Ave. h:~ctient~outhst~182g.10~Project Descriptions (Phases 1-4) I 3/19/02 4:14 PM City of South San Francisco Proposed facilities WWP Phases 1-4 16 Pump Station No. 10 17 Oyster Point Blvd. Trunk Sewer 18 Allerton Ave. Trunk Sewer 19 East Grand Ave. Trunk Sewer 20 DNA Way Subtrunk Sewer 21 Pump Station No. 1 22 Pump Station No. 3 23 Swift Subtrunk 24 Littlefield Subtrunk 25 Pump Station No. 6 26 Harbor Way Subtrunk 27 Executive Subtrunk Upgrades to existing pump station. This project consist of two new pipelines. The first line which will be 12" and approximately 900' in length begins in Eccles Avenue 240' south of Oyster Point Blvd. and continues west in Oyster Point Blvd. to approx. 640' west of Eccles Ave. The second line will be 15" and approximately 1,800' in length. It Will be located in Oyster Point Blvd. and will extend from Eccles Ave. to Pump Station No. 2. Construct approximately 2,200' of 18" pipe in Allerton Ave between East Grand Ave. and Forbes Blvd. and approximately 600' of 18" pipe in East Grand Ave. between Allerton Ave. and Littlefield Ave. Construct approximately 2,300' of new trunk sewer ranging in size from 21" to 27". The new line will be located in East Grand Ave. between Allerton Way and Harbor Way. Construct approximately 200' of 10" sewer in DNA Way south of Forbes Blvd. and 600' of 10" sewer from 300' west of DNA to 90' east of Kaufmann. Upgrades to existing pump station. Upgrades to existing pump station. Construct approximately 3,200' of 15" sewer in Swift Ave and along the RR spur. Construct approximately 2,400' of 8" and 10" sewer in Littlefield Avenue. Upgrades to existing pump station. Construct approximately 1,000' of 8" sewer in Harbor Way between Utah Ave. and 80' north of Mitchell Ave. Construct approximately 2,100' of 15" sewer in Executive north of East Grand Ave. and in East Grand Avenue between Executive and Gateway. h:~client~southst~182g.10'~Project Descriptions (Phases 1-4) 2 3/19/02 4:14 PM 0 5OO 10OO SCALE IN FEET Note: See attached Table 1 for description of proposed improvements. COr'OgL, C) engineers ,'-,. : ..' ,.,f....:-- ..... : .... Oyster Point Blvd. ~j · - >'"; Shaw Road .\ Forbes Blvd. ! · ..~~,~- · ;PRR ROW Figure 1 WET WEATHER PROGRAM PHASES 1-4 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS MARCH 2002 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ssf302f1-4182.cdr 0 40 80 SCALE IN FEET Note: See attached Table I for description of proposed improvements. eCOT'OLL. O engineers SSF302F2-4182.CDR Figure 2 WET WEATHER PROGRAM PHASES 1-4 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS MARCH 2002 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Wet Weather Program South San Francisco, California CREDITS DRAFT - Historic Resources Evaluation Report - May 9, 2002 The following individuals participated in this historic resource evaluation report: Carey & Co. '_nc. Alice Carey, Principal Hisashi B. Sugaya, Project Manager Sarah M. Dreller, Architectural Historian Connor E. Turnbull, Preservation Specialist Carey & Co. Inc. Histor/c Resource Evaluation