HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 84-2017 (17-663) City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,
400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
Jar O
City Council
c:4 Rr Resolution: RES 84-2017
File Number: 17-663 Enactment Number: RES 84-2017
A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND ADOPTING THE
ADDENDUM TO THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO/SAN BRUNO
WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT, AND DIRECTING STAFF TO BEGIN IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE PROJECT.
WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco and City of San Bruno are co-owners of the South San
Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant("Water Quality Control Plant"); and
WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco ("City") operates the Water Quality Control Plant and
proposes to perform capital improvements,which include the Wet Weather Improvements Project-Phase
2,the Digester Rehabilitation Project, and the Green Energy Project(collectively"Project"); and
WHEREAS, City seeks approval for the proposed Project, which is considered a Project for purposes of
the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq. (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA, an initial study was performed, the result of which was
preparation and circulation of a mitigated negative declaration(IS/MND) analyzing the proposed Project
and concluding that approval of the Project could not have a significant effect on the environment because
the impacts of the Project could all be mitigated to levels below established CEQA thresholds of
significance with the adoption of mitigation measures; and
WHEREAS, the adopted IS/MND was distributed to the State Clearinghouse and circulated for a 30-day
public review on June 24, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the City revisited the type of digestion processing system to build and an alternative
processing system was developed, designed, sized, and selected for implementation; and
WHEREAS, the City's modified digester project elements were integrated into a somewhat modified
design for the Digester Replacement/Rehabilitation Project portion of the overall set of CIPs that were
covered in the adopted 2013 IS/MND and the other two elements(Wet Weather Improvements and Green
Energy) are unchanged from that in the adopted IS/MIND; and
City of South San Francisco Page 1
File Number: 17-663 Enactment Number: RES 84-2017
WHEREAS, an addendum to the adopted IS/MND was developed to evaluate the modified and improved
digestion process relative to the original project in the adopted IS/MND and to demonstrate that the
modified Project does not bring any new significant impacts; and
WHEREAS,the addendum to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was distributed to the State
Clearinghouse and circulated for public review and comment on April 21, 2017 and the 30-day public
review period ended on May 21, 2017; and
WHEREAS, one comment letter was received from the State Water Resources Control Board and though
the CEQA does not require a lead agency to formally respond to written comments received on an
IS/MND or its addendum, a response memo has been prepared, which addresses all comments received,
and is included in Appendix E of Exhibit A, which is attached to this resolution; and
WHEREAS, the addendum to the IS/MND is a required document to obtain loans from state and Federal
agencies, such as the State Revolving Fund and WIFIA programs; and
WHEREAS, the Engineering Division has reviewed the addendum to the IS/MND and the comments
received, and recommends that the City Council adopt the addendum to the IS/MND, as an objective and
accurate document that reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City in the discussion of the
Project's environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and carefully considered the information in the addendum to
the IS/MND and the comments received, and makes the findings contained in this resolution, and adopts
the addendum to the IS/MND, as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent
judgment and analysis of the City in the discussion of the Project's environmental impacts.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it,which includes
without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.
(CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.; the South San
Francisco 1999 General Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report, including the 2001 updates
to the General Plan and 2001 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; the South San Francisco
Municipal Code; the South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant Capital Improvements
Projects, Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration, State Clearinghouse No. 2013062051, adopted
September 11, 2013; the addendum to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for
the Project;and all reports,minutes,public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's July 12,2017
meeting, and City Council deliberations; and any other evidence(within the meaning of Public Resources
Code § 21080(e) and § 21082.2), the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as
follows:
City of South San Francisco Page 2
File Number: 17-663 Enactment Number: RES 84-2017
The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.
The Addendum to the IS/MND for the Project, attached as Exhibit A and the Mitigation Measures and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,attached as Exhibit B to this resolution are incorporated by
reference as part of this resolution, as if it were set forth fully herein.
The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the
Engineering Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
94080, and in the custody of Principal Engineer, Sam Bautista, P.E.
The proposed Project is consistent with the City of South San Francisco General Plan because the land use,
development standards, densities and intensities, buildings and structures proposed are compatible with
the goals, policies, and land use designations established in the General Plan(see Gov't Code, § 65860),
and none of the land uses, development standards, densities and intensities, buildings and structures will
operate to conflict with or impede achievement of the any of the goals, policies, or land use designations
established in the General Plan.
In accordance with CEQA, the City Council has considered the addendum to the Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project,and based on the entirety of the record,as described above,
the City Council, exercising its independent judgment and analysis, makes the following findings
regarding the environmental analysis of the Project:
In October 1999,the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan; in 2001
the City Council certified a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for updates to the General Plan.
CEQA allows for streamlined approval of actions that are consistent with adopted General Plans for which
an EIR was certified. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15152, 15183.) An initial
study was prepared for the proposed Project and a mitigated negative declaration analyzed the potential for
impacts that were peculiar to the Project or not analyzed as significant impacts in the General Plan EIR,or
Supplemental EIR. The Addendum to the IS/MND, which expressly considers the City's previous EIRs,
concludes that approval of the Project will not result in any significant environmental impacts.
Design features of the Project, as well as the mitigation measures proposed in the addendum to the
IS/MND, will operate to ensure the impacts of the proposed Project will not exceed established CEQA
thresholds of significance. Therefore, and as further documented in the addendum to the IS/MND for the
Project, additional mitigation measures beyond those established in the addendum to the IS/MND are
City of South San Francisco Page 3
File Number: 17-663 Enactment Number: RES 84-2017
required for the Project.
For the reasons stated in this resolution,the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence in the
record supporting a fair argument that approval of the Project will result in a significant environmental
effect.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the
findings contained in this resolution, and adopts the addendum to the IS/MND for the Project, attached as
Exhibit A,subject to the Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,attached
as Exhibit B.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage
and adoption.
At a meeting of the City Council on 7/12/2017, a motion was made by Richard Garbarino, seconded by
Liza Normandy, that this Resolution be approved. The motion passed.
Yes: 5 Vice Mayor Normandy, Councilmember Garbarino, Councilmember
Matsumoto, Mayor Gupta, and CouncilmemberAddiego
Attest by Olt
Gabriel - ::riguez
•
City of South San Francisco Page 4
EXHIBIT A
Page 1 of 148
EXHIBIT A
Page 2 of 148
EXHIBIT A
Page 3 of 148
|
EXHIBIT A
Page 4 of 148
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project i ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
South San Francisco/ San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project Addendum
Page
Chapter 1, Background and Purpose of This Addendum ............................................... 1-1
1.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 1-2
1.2 Purpose of This Addendum ............................................................................... 1-3
Chapter 2, Project Description .......................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Project Overview ................................................................................................ 2-1
2.2 Original Project Description ............................................................................... 2-3
2.3 Proposed Changes to the Project ...................................................................... 2-4
2.4 Operational Characteristics ............................................................................... 2-5
2.5 Construction Characteristics .............................................................................. 2-6
Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts ................... 3-1
3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 3-2
3.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ....................................................... 3-3
3.3 Environmental Checklist .................................................................................... 3-4
3.3.1 Aesthetics .............................................................................................. 3-4
3.3.2 Agricultural and Forest Resources ........................................................ 3-6
3.3.3 Air Quality .............................................................................................. 3-8
3.3.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................... 3-14
3.3.5 Cultural Resources .............................................................................. 3-18
3.3.6 Energy ................................................................................................. 3-21
3.3.7 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity ............................................................ 3-23
3.3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................ 3-26
3.3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...................................................... 3-28
3.3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................... 3-32
3.3.11 Land Use and Land Use Planning ....................................................... 3-36
3.3.12 Mineral Resources............................................................................... 3-37
3.3.13 Noise ................................................................................................... 3-39
3.3.14 Population and Housing ...................................................................... 3-43
3.3.15 Public Services .................................................................................... 3-44
3.3.16 Recreation ........................................................................................... 3-46
3.3.17 Transportation and Traffic ................................................................... 3-47
3.3.18 Utilities and Service Systems .............................................................. 3-50
3.3.19 Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................... 3-52
Chapter 4, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ... 4-1
4.1 Air Quality .......................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Biological Resources ......................................................................................... 4-3
4.3 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................ 4-5
4.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................... 4-6
4.5 Noise ................................................................................................................. 4-7
EXHIBIT A
Page 5 of 148
Table of Contents
Page
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project ii ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
Chatper 5, Report Preparers ............................................................................................. 5-1
5.1 Lead Agency ...................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Addendum Consultants ..................................................................................... 5-1
Appendices
A. Updated Special Status Species Lists ........................................................................A-1
B. Air Quality Emissions Estimates .................................................................................B-1
C. Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map ...................... C-1
D. Alternatives Analysis .................................................................................................. D-1
E. Comment Letters ........................................................................................................E-1
List of Figures
2-1 Project Site Location ................................................................................................... 2-2
2-2 Project Location .......................................................................................................... 2-7
List of Tables
3-1 Project Construction Annual Emissions .................................................................... 3-10
3-2 Project Construction Annual GHG Emissions ........................................................... 3-27
3-3 Typical Noise Levels from Construction Activities and Construction Equipment ....... 3-40
EXHIBIT A
Page 6 of 148
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 1-1 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
CHAPTER 1
Background and Purpose of This Addendum
Project Title
South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant Capital Improvements Project
Lead Agency Contact Address
Sam Bautista, Principal Engineer
City of South San Francisco
Engineering Division
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA, 94080
Project Applicant Contact and Address
Sam Bautista, Principal Engineer
City of South San Francisco
Engineering Division
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA, 94080
Project Location
The Wet Weather and Digester Improvements portion of the South San Francisco/San Bruno Water
Quality Control Plant Capital Improvements Project (Project) would be located at the South
San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP), located in the city of South
San Francisco at 195 Belle Aire Road. The WQCP is on the shoreline of San Francisco Bay, just
north of San Francisco International Airport and south of Colma Creek. The project site lies on a
peninsula with protected inlets of San Francisco Bay to the east and south.
EXHIBIT A
Page 7 of 148
1. Background and Purpose of This Addendum
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 1-2 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
1.1 Background
The City of South San Francisco (City) and the City of San Bruno are members of the North
Bayside System Unit (NBSU), a joint powers authority that also includes San Francisco
International Airport and the Cities of Burlingame and Millbrae. Treated, disinfected wastewater
from the WQCP enters the NBSU force main and combines with treated, disinfected wastewater
from other NBSU members. In addition to processing wastewater from the cities of South San
Francisco and San Bruno, and the Town of Colma, the WQCP provides dechlorination treatment of
the chlorinated effluent from San Francisco International Airport and the cities of Burlingame and
Millbrae prior to discharging the treated wastewater into Lower San Francisco Bay. The wastewater
discharge is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) No.
CAS0038130, Order No. R2-2008-0094 issued to the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno
by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). In the event of peak
wet weather flows that exceed secondary treatment capacity, the excess primary effluent bypasses
the secondary treatment train and is disinfected and blended with secondary effluent prior to
discharge. In the rare event of an emergency when all onsite storage of effluent has been filled to
capacity and with adequate notice to the RWQCB, blended effluent is discharged into a near-shore
outfall in Colma Creek.
In 1997, the City completed a facility plan for the WQCP. The facility plan was developed to
address the need to comply with the NPDES permit requirements, add treatment capacity, and
improve treatment reliability. The facility plan provided the basis for several WQCP improvement
projects from 1998 to 2005, which included the Capacity Expansion and Improvements Project
(completed in 2000) and the Wet Weather Improvements Project (completed in 2005).1 The
improvements identified in the facility plan and conducted at the WQCP allow full secondary
treatment of the design dry weather flow (13 MGD) with peak wet weather flows up to 30 MGD. In
2011, the City prepared and adopted an update to the 1997 facility plan. The 2011 Facility Plan
Update was developed to address future capacity expansion and regulatory compliance needs across
a 20-year planning horizon.
The 2011 Facility Plan Update provided the basis for the project designs that were proposed and
analyzed in the South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Projects Initial Study
and Mitigated Negative Declaration (adopted IS/MND)2 prepared in June 2013 in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). That proposed project included three different
components of the WQCPs Capital Improvements Projects, which had stemmed from the Facility
Plan Update. Those components included the following projects:
Wet Weather Improvements Project
Green Energy Project (solar panels over a covered parking area)
Digester Replacement/Rehabilitation Project
1 Carollo Engineers, South San Francisco/ San Bruno WQCP Facility Plan Update, 2011. 2 City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco/ San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant Capital Improvements
Projects, Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration, State Clearinghouse No. 2013062051, adopted September 11,
2013.
EXHIBIT A
Page 8 of 148
1. Background and Purpose of This Addendum
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 1-3 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
The IS/MND was published on June 24, 2013 and adopted on September 13, 2013. Subsequently,
the City revisited the type of digestion processing system to build. An alternative processing
system was developed, designed, sized, and selected for implementation. The City’s modified
digester project elements were integrated into a somewhat modified design for the Digester
Replacement/Rehabilitation Project portion of the overall set of Capital Improvements Projects that
were covered in the adopted 2013 IS/MND. The other two components (Wet Weather
Improvements and Green Energy) are unchanged from the adopted IS/MND.
The Wet Weather Improvements and the Digester Replacement/Rehabilitation elements are now
formally called the “Wet Weather and Digester Improvements Project.” These two elements are the
same as were described and analyzed in the adopted IS/MND except for the minor design changes
described and analyzed in this Addendum. The Green Energy Project is also unchanged from that
described in the adopted IS/MND and will be implemented separately from the components covered
in this Addendum.
1.2 Purpose of This Addendum
The CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15162 and 15164) require that a lead agency prepare an addendum
to a previously adopted IS/MND if some ch anges or additions to the environmental
evaluation of a project are necessary, but none of the following occurs:
1. There are no substantial changes in the project which require major revisions to the IS/MND
due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2. There are no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which require major revisions to the IS/MND due to involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects; or
3. No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have
been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous IS/MND was
adopted, which shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the IS/MND;
b. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but
the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; The project
will result in impacts substantially more adverse than those disclosed in the EIR; or
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in
the previous IS/MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative.
Accordingly, the purpose of this Addendum is to evaluate the modified digestion process as a
modification to the adopted IS/MND for the original project and to demonstrate that the modified
Project does not trigger any of the conditions described above.
EXHIBIT A
Page 9 of 148
1. Background and Purpose of This Addendum
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 1-4 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
Chapter 2 of this Addendum presents a description of the modified portions of the project
description included in the adopted IS/MND. Chapter 3 presents an updated version of the CEQA
checklist used in the adopted IS/MND. For those impacts that would not be changed by the
different digester or other project design changes, brief explanatory statements are included. For
other impacts, additional or updated data and analysis are presented as necessary. Chapter 4
presents the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that will be implemented for the
modified Project. Chapter 5 presents the preparers of this Addendum.
EXHIBIT A
Page 10 of 148
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 2-1 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
CHAPTER 2
Project Description
2.1 Project Overview
The project site consists of the Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP) located in the City of South
San Francisco (City) at 195 Belle Aire Road (see Figure 2-1). The WQCP provides wastewater
treatment for the cities of South San Francisco, San Bruno and portions of Daly City and Colma.
The WQCP is located on the shoreline of San Francisco Bay, just north of San Francisco
International Airport and south of Colma Creek. The project site lies on a peninsula with
protected inlets of San Francisco Bay to the east and south. The WQCP site consists entirely of
previously developed or landscaped areas with mostly industrial land use in the vicinity such as
petroleum storage, warehousing, shipping and light manufacturing,1 though there are some
wholesale/retail and other commercial enterprises nearby.
The current average dry weather flow through the WQCP is approximately 9 million gallons per
day (MGD) with peak wet weather flows of over 60 MGD.2 The permitted average dry weather
flow capacity is 13 MGD.3 Wastewater treatment processes at the WQCP include screening and grit
removal, primary clarification, secondary treatment4 by an activated sludge process, secondary
clarification, disinfection, and dechlorination. Biosolids are concentrated using dissolved air
flotation thickeners, anaerobically digested, and dewatered with belt filter presses. Biosolids are
hauled from the WQCP site and deposited in a permitted landfill.5
The Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno are members of the North Bayside System Unit
(NBSU), a joint powers authority that also includes the San Francisco Airport and the Cities of
Burlingame and Millbrae. Treated, disinfected wastewater from the WQCP enters the NBSU
effluent pump station and force main and combines with treated, disinfected wastewater from other
NBSU members.
1 Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), City of South San Francisco Permit No. 8-98. July 29,
1998. This permit is amended as needed to address ongoing changes to the WQCP. 2 City of South San Francisco, California, Water Quality Control Plant. Available online at
http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=506. Accessed on January 26, 2017. 3 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Order No. R2-2014-0012, National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) No. CA0038130, 2014. 4 Secondary treatment is a biological process that removes biochemical oxygen demand, suspended solids and some
dissolved solids through biological conversion. 5 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Order No. R2-2014-0012, National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) No. CA0038130, 2014.
EXHIBIT A
Page 11 of 148
Costco
San Francisco
International Airport
Belle Aire Rd
North Access Rd
S
o
u
t
h
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
B
l
v
d
Costco
SamTrans
Peninsula
SamTrans
Peninsula
San Francisco
International Airport
Belle Aire Rd
North Access Rd
S
o
u
t
h
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
B
l
v
d
C o l m a C r e e k
Figure 2-1
Project Site Location
SOURCE: Google Maps; adapted by ESA, 2017 South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP CIP. 120473.02
0 400
Feet
San Francisco Bay
Project Site Pacific Ocean
SANRAFAEL
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
SAN
JOSE
FREMONT
HAYWARD
SANRAMON
WALNUT
CREEK
CONCORD
ALAMEDASANFRANCISCO
DALYCITY
BERKELEY
REDWOOD
CITY
SANMATEO
OAKLAND
RICHMOND
680
580
880
280
280
101
PROJECT
SITE
EXHIBIT A
Page 12 of 148
2. Project Description
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 2-3 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
In addition to processing wastewater from the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, and
the Town of Colma, the WQCP provides dechlorination treatment of the chlorinated effluent from
San Francisco Airport and the Cities of Burlingame and Millbrae prior to discharging the treated
wastewater into Lower San Francisco Bay.
The wastewater discharge is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) No. CA0038130, Order No. R2-2014-0012 issued to the Cities of South San Francisco
and San Bruno by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). In
the event of peak wet weather flows that exceed secondary treatment capacity, the excess primary
effluent bypasses the secondary treatment train and is disinfected and blended with secondary
effluent prior to discharge. In the rare emergency when all onsite storage of effluent has been
filled to capacity and with adequate notice to the RWQCB, blended effluent is discharged into a
near-shore outfall in Colma Creek.6
2.2 Original Project Description
In the South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (adopted IS/MND)7 the City proposed the Wet Weather
Improvements Project, Green Energy Project, and Digester Replacement/Rehabilitation Project.
The Wet Weather Improvements Project would increase the peak secondary treatment capacity at
the WQCP by 10 MGD to a total capacity of 40 MGD. This would be achieved by installing a
new secondary clarifier with associated equipment and piping and upgrading associated
secondary treatment facilities.
The Green Energy Project would involve installation of 500 solar panel canopies that would
cover the entire 10,555-square foot WQCP parking lot near Area 42. The solar panels would
provide 150 kilowatts of alternative, sustainable energy onsite. The solar energy generated would
be connected to the motor control center in the maintenance building onsite. The area would
continue to be used for parking purposes following the solar panel installation.
The Digester Replacement/Rehabilitation Project would result in two out of five of the digesters
currently at the WQCP (Digesters No. 1 and 2) to be demolished and replaced in the same
location and one digester (Digester No. 3) to be rehabilitated. The size of the new digesters would
remain consistent with the existing digesters at approximately 70 feet in diameter and 25 feet in
height with structure height of 20 feet above grade. Along with the two digesters, two associated
support buildings that house heating and mixing equipment in the 20,000-square foot area, would
be demolished and replaced with a new larger building. The new building would continue
supporting the operations of the digesters.
As noted in Chapter 1 of this Addendum, the Wet Weather Improvements Project and the
Digester Replacement/Rehabilitation Project are now being implemented together under the new
name “Wet Weather and Digester Improvements Project”, and the Green Energy Project is moving
6 The NPDES permit otherwise prohibits the discharge of flows that do not undergo secondary treatment. 7 City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco/ San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant Capital Improvements
Projects, Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration, State Clearinghouse No. 2013062051, adopted September 11,
2013.
EXHIBIT A
Page 13 of 148
2. Project Description
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 2-4 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
forward as a separate project. This Addendum only addresses changes to the portions of the
project that relate to the digesters; there are no planned changes to the wet weather improvement
designs.
2.3 Proposed Changes to the Project
Following the adoption of the IS/MND, the City proceeded to move forward with design changes
to the Wet Weather and Digester Improvements Project (modified Project). The following bullet
list presents the proposed changes to the project previously described.
The previous project would have demolished existing Digesters 1 and 2, while leaving
Digester 3 in place. Digesters 1 and 2 would have been rebuilt in place and with the same
design and functionality as the existing systems. In the modified Project, Digesters 1 and 2
would still be demolished, but only Digester 1 would be rebuilt, and with the same size and in
the same location.
In the modified designs, the rebuilt Digester 1 would include a more efficient digester system
(called high-solids digestion (HSD) system) instead of the conventional digester that was
included in the previous designs and analyzed in the adopted IS/MND. The proposed digester
system uses thickening and mixing technologies to increase solids concentration in the
digester, enabling a single HSD digester to process the flows of multiple conventional
digesters. The system necessitates the inclusion of several of the new elements or modified
versions of the elements described previously. It also enables the WQCP to reduce the
number of onsite digesters it operates.
The rebuilt Digester 1 would also have a different set of heating and mixing equipment in its
control building than was proposed in the previous project designs. The equipment would be
placed in the same building and would have similar construction and operational details to
those in the previous designs. There would also be piping improvements made to Digester
Control Building 2. This is not a change; it is noted here for completeness.
The modified Project includes thickening equipment which supports the operation of
Digester 1. The equipment would be constructed on existing pavement and on grade under a
sun canopy where Digester 2 is currently located.
The modified Project also proposes the addition of a polymer storage facility in the Dissolved
Air Flotation Thickening (DAFT) Building in order to support the new thickener.
The previous project designs planned to demolish and replace Digester Control Building 3. In
the revised design, Digester Control Building 3 would instead be demolished without
replacement.
Digester 3 would be structurally and mechanically rehabilitated as stated in the adopted
IS/MND. This is not a change; it is noted here for completeness.
The modified Project includes a new element called the digester gas conditioning system, to
be constructed on a concrete slab that would be placed at existing grade. The proposed
digester gas conditioning system would remove digester gas contaminants, including
hydrogen sulfide (H2S), siloxanes, and water, which would otherwise cause problems with
the WQCP’s cogeneration equipment if not removed through fuel conditioning. The system
EXHIBIT A
Page 14 of 148
2. Project Description
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 2-5 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
would have H2S removal vessels, a gas compressor, a single-stage refrigeration moisture
removal system, and siloxane removal vessels. The proposed system would require
approximately 50 horsepower to operate, a demand that can be met by existing onsite
equipment.
The modified Project includes a new element called the primary sludge screen, to be placed
on existing paved areas or on top of existing structures within the previous project footprint.
Sludge screens are enclosed pressurized systems consisting of screening and dewatering in
each unit. The screens are enclosed to help contain odors and have a relatively small
footprint. Sludge flow enters a screening unit at one end and passes through a tapered screen
where solids greater than the screen opening size are trapped and removed. The screened
sludge exits through the central connection and is piped to downstream processes. The
separated debris remains in the sludge screen where it is compacted and dewatered before
being discharged into a receptacle or conveyor.
The support equipment (e.g., air compressors, pumps, heat exchangers) for the new digester
system was also modified to address the different functional demands of that system.
As noted above, the modified project designs do not propose any changes to the Wet Weather
Improvements Project or the Green Energy (solar-paneled carport roof) Project that are described
in the adopted IS/MND. They are noted here for completeness and consistency with the adopted
IS/MND.
2.4 Operational Characteristics
Consistent with current operations and with what was characterized in the adopted IS/MND, the
City would continue operating the WQCP 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The WQCP would
continue receiving wastewater consistent with its average and peak weather flow capacities.
The proposed modified design for the Wet Weather and Digester Improvements Project, however,
would modify the WQCP’s existing process flows through the facility’s digesters and other
processing infrastructure. The proposed modified design provides the flexibility to feed
approximately half of the sludge into Digester 1 and the other half into two existing conventional
digesters. The two conventional digesters would also receive the digestate (a by-product of that
first step) from the proposed newer system. The digestate would be pumped into the sludge feed
loop and fed to the conventional digesters to mix with the thinner conventionally digested sludge.
That mixture would be transferred to the existing sludge storage tank and dewatered as a
combined stream like the current operation. By mixing the high solids digestate in the
conventional digesters, the combined digested sludge stream transferred to the sludge storage
tank and dewatering system would be thinner and more uniform.
This proposed modification would not change the amount of raw sludge that would need to be
digested or the amount of digested sludge that needs to be dewatered. This proposed process
would, however, provide enough treatment capacity for a remaining conventional digester to act
as standby. This configuration would provide the necessary redundancy to take one digester out
of service for maintenance without interrupting solids treatment. The change would replace older
and less efficient equipment with newer and more efficient equipment.
EXHIBIT A
Page 15 of 148
2. Project Description
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 2-6 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
2.5 Construction Characteristics
Project construction would occur on previously developed or disturbed land within the WQCP
property as stated in the adopted IS/MND. Almost all of the project activities would occur on
asphalt surfaces; the others are part of the Wet Weather Improvements Project or the Green
Energy Project and have not changed in the modified project description for the digester
improvement portion of the project. As shown on Figure 2-2, some of the project facilities are
located within 100 feet of the shoreline of San Francisco Bay, which lies in the shoreline band
jurisdiction of San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). The
City would obtain the necessary approvals and permits prior to project implementation.
2.5.1 Digester Improvement Construction
The construction duration for the Wet Weather and Digester Improvements Project would be
approximately three years. Construction is expected to begin in 2018 and finish in 2021. The
construction sequencing requirements established in the adopted IS/MND and the associated
designs would change only slightly to incorporate a high solids digestion system.
Existing Digesters 3, 4, and 5 would remain in service with existing equipment during the
demolition of Digesters 1 and 2. Demolishing Digesters 1 and 2 and replacing Digester 1 and the
existing support buildings would first involve tearing down and removing the existing structures.
As the demolition takes place, the associated equipment within Digester Control Building 1
would be removed, and modifications within that building could start. Following demolition, the
20,000-square foot site would be excavated to a depth of approximately six feet. The excavated
material would be hauled away for offsite disposal or otherwise handled as described in the
adopted IS/MND.
Construction of the new Digester 1 would begin. The new digester would be constructed such that
it would be partly aboveground with approximately five feet below grade. During the time when
Digester 1 is under construction, all equipment associated with Digester 3 (i.e., gas mixing
compressor, heating system, sludge-transfer system, feed valving, and digester gas system) would
remain in operation. This equipment and the electrical power supply for this equipment would
remain in service until the new Digester 1 is operational and Digester No. 3 can be taken out of
service.
EXHIBIT A
Page 16 of 148
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP CIP. 120473.02 Figure 2-2
Project Layout
SOURCE: Carollo Engineers, 2017
EXHIBIT A
Page 17 of 148
2. Project Description
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 2-8 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
This page intentionally left blank
EXHIBIT A
Page 18 of 148
2. Project Description
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 2-9 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
The primary sludge screen construction is estimated to last approximately 6 to 10 months and
would occur in parallel to the digester construction. The area would be excavated to a depth of up
to 5 feet. Any pipes under the structure would be relocated outside the footprint of the concrete
slab or receive a protective support if they are to remain in place. An on-grade concrete slab
would be constructed to support the screening equipment and a metal personnel access structure
around the equipment. The facility would be connected to the existing electrical infrastructure on
site. Once the facility is constructed, it would be tested and placed into service.
The digester gas conditioning system construction is estimated to last approximately 6 to 12 months
and would occur in parallel to the digester construction. The area would be excavated to a depth of
up to 5 feet. Any pipes under the structure would be relocated outside the footprint of the concrete
slab or receive a protective support if they are to remain in place. A concrete slab on grade
supporting the equipment would be constructed. The facility would be connected to the existing
electrical infrastructure on site. Once the facility is constructed, it would be tested and placed into
service. The sequencing associated with the proposed preliminary design is slightly simpler than the
original design because it avoids constructing Digester Control Building 3 and Digester 2.
2.5.2 Other Construction Activities
The construction activities associated with more general project components are largely
unchanged from how they were described in the adopted IS/MND. Construction of new
aboveground facilities would involve site preparation, minor grading, building of new facilities,
and site restoration. New underground pipelines associated with the project would be installed
using the shored trench technique with excavation of up to 10 feet of depth and 200 feet of length.
Following construction or installation of the facilities, imported fill would be used as backfill and
the site would be restored to pre-construction conditions.
During project construction, approximately 13,750 cubic yards of soil would be excavated and
hauled 15 miles offsite to a waste processing facility or to a recycling yard. A temporary
contractor staging area would be constructed west of Aeration Basins No. 5-7 in Area 44 shown
on Figure 2-2. As stated in the adopted IS/MND, the types of equipment, which would be used
during various phases of construction, may include but are not limited to the following:
Asphalt Pavers Brooms & Sweeping Equipment, Water trucks
Compactors/Rollers Concrete Mixers/Pumps/Vibrators
Electric Generators Graders
Air Hammers Excavators
Backhoes Cranes and/or Booms
Loaders Trucks/Trailers
Sprayers and rollers Welding and Cutting Equipment
Construction safety activities at the WQCP would be unchanged from the previous project
description and would include standard construction practices and guidelines including worker
safety training and use of personal protective equipment.
EXHIBIT A
Page 19 of 148
2. Project Description
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 2-10 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
Similarly, the adopted IS/MND’s description of environmental protection measures would be
implemented as described therein. The adopted IS/MND includes dust control measures, tents and
covers during equipment recoating, wildlife exclusion fencing, silt fencing and other erosion
control measures. The City will obtain necessary approvals and permits from the regulatory
agencies as described previously. In compliance with the regulatory requirements, the City will
implement best management practices to avoid and control any environmental impacts from the
project activities. The City’s environmental compliance group located at the WQCP conducts
regular inspections of City construction sites, including at the WQCP. The environmental
compliance group ensures that erosion and storm water control measures such as swales and
waddles are in place especially during wet seasons; these practices would be implemented during
project construction. The environmental compliance group serves as the City’s inspectors and
oversees compliance with regulatory permit requirements.
EXHIBIT A
Page 20 of 148
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-1 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
CHAPTER 3
Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
1. Project Title: South San Francisco / San Bruno Water
Quality Control Plant (WQCP) Capital
Improvements Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of South San Francisco, California
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Sam Bautista, Principal Engineer
City of South San Francisco
Engineering Division
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA, 94080
4. Project Location: 195 Belle Aire Road,
South San Francisco, California
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and
Address:
City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA, 94080
6. General Plan Designation(s): Public Lands
7. Zoning: Public/Quasi-public Land
8. Description of Project: See Chapter 2.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting. The Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP) is
surrounded by Mixed Industrial (MI) zone on the south with facilities such as the Shell fuel
storage tanks and a long term airport parking structure, and by a freeway commercial (FC)
zoning area on the west that runs parallel to U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101) and North Airport
Boulevard with a small section of business commercial (BC) land to the southwest.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required. Notice of Intent to obtain the
General Construction Permit from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB); Amendment to Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)
Permit No. 8-98; Authority to Construct and an amendment to the existing Permit to Operate
from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
EXHIBIT A
Page 21 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-2 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
3.1 Introduction
This chapter describes any changes that have occurred in the existing environmental conditions
within and near the project area, as well as environmental impacts associated with the Project,
based on the current project footprint.
The following sections provide revised California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) checklists,
based on the City’s standard CEQA procedure, and as provided in the South San Francisco/San
Bruno Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP) Capital Improvements Project Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (adopted IS/MND).1 For the purposes of this Addendum,
the checklists have been modified to clarify any potential changes that would result from Project
implementation, as compared to Project implementation as discussed in the adopted IS/MND. As
shown below, no new significant environmental impacts were identified.
The adopted IS/MND found that the proposed project could potentially affect the environmental
factor(s) checked below. However, with implementation of the mitigation measures developed for
that proposed project, the impacts would be reduced to less than less than significant.
In this Addendum, the proposed design changes were described and evaluated. The potential
impacts were found to be similar or slightly reduced in magnitude and potential to occur. The
following discussion reviews revisions to setting information provided in the adopted IS/MND,
and discusses potential resulting changes in environmental impacts, for each CEQA resource
area.
1 City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco/ San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant Capital Improvements
Projects, Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration, State Clearinghouse No. 2013062051, adopted September 11,
2013.
EXHIBIT A
Page 22 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-3 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
3.2 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 in the adopted IS/MND
and the Addendum checklist on the following pages.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ☒ Air Quality
☒ Biological Resources ☒ Cultural Resources ☐ Geology/Soils
☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☒ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ☐ Hydrology/Water Quality
☐ Land Use/Planning ☐ Mineral Resources ☒ Noise
☐ Population/Housing ☐ Public Services ☐ Recreation
☐ Transportation/Traffic ☐ Tribal Cultural Resources ☐ Utilities/Service Systems
☐ Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this Addendum:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
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 revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. The MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION prepared and adopted in 2013 adequately described and addresses
those potential environmental impacts.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only
the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, no further
environmental documentation is required.
Signature Date
Printed Name For
EXHIBIT A
Page 23 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-4 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
3.3 Environmental Checklist
3.3.1 Aesthetics
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project
1. AESTHETICS — Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect daytime or nighttime views in the
area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
3.3.1.1 Setting
The setting surrounding the Wet Weather and Digester Improvements Project (modified Project)
site has not changed in comparison to that described in the adopted IS/MND. No noticeable
additional ground disturbance over the Project site is proposed in the modified Project compared
to the approved Project. The modified Project would still demolish Digesters 1 and 2 but only
Digester 1 would be rebuilt, and with the same size and in the same location. Digester Control
Building 3 would be demolished without replacement in the modified project. None of these
modifications would change the setting discussed in the adopted IS/MND.
3.3.1.2 Findings of Previously Adopted IS/MND
The adopted IS/MND identified less-than-significant impacts for potential adverse effects on
scenic vistas, potential to damage scenic resources, and potential to degrade existing visual
character or quality of the site or surroundings. There was no impact identified for creating a new
source of nighttime lighting.
3.3.1.3 Discussion
The activities proposed under the modified Project would include demolition and construction of
features within the WQCP’s boundaries as discussed in the adopted IS/MND. The project site is
developed with asphalt and paved surfaces, buildings, and wastewater treatment process units and
structures. The vista in the project area largely constitutes the urbanized portion of South San
Francisco with commercial buildings on the eastern side toward San Francisco Bay. The modified
Project would not install additional facilities that could obstruct or alter views or vistas. The
EXHIBIT A
Page 24 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-5 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
modified Project would not be visible from a listed state scenic highway.2 The modified Project
would not change the industrial nature of the surrounding site. The proposed changes to the
Project would not increase nighttime lighting. Therefore, all potential impacts on aesthetics would
be the same as the approved Project.
3.3.1.4 Conclusion
Implementation of the modified Project would not result in any new or more significant impacts
related to creating a new source of light or glare than those identified in the previously adopted
IS/MND. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project [No Impact])
Implementation of the modified Project would not result in any new or more significant impacts
to a scenic vista, scenic resources within a state scenic highway, or existing visual character or
quality of the site than those identified in the previously adopted IS/MND. (Same Impact as
Previously Approved Project [Less Than Significant Impact]
2 California Department of Transportation, California Scenic Highway Mapping System, San Mateo County.
Available online at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm. Accessed on
January 30, 2017.
EXHIBIT A
Page 25 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-6 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
3.3.2 Agricultural and Forest Resources
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
Than
Significan
t Impact
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project
2. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES —
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In
determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding
the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the
California Air Resources Board.
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
3.3.2.1 Setting
The setting surrounding the project site has not changed in comparison to that described in the
adopted IS/MND. The project site consists of the existing WQCP property, which is developed
land, and the proposed modified Project involves upgrades to the facilities and treatment
processes at the existing WQCP.
3.3.2.2 Findings of Previously Adopted IS/MND
The adopted IS/MND identified no impacts for all checklist items relating to agricultural and
forest resources.
EXHIBIT A
Page 26 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-7 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
3.3.2.3 Discussion
As described in the adopted IS/MND, the project would not involve converting farmland to non-
agricultural use. The project site is designated as public lands in the South San Francisco General
Plan3 with a zoning designation of public-quasi public land.4 The proposed project would not
conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract and thus. The
proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning or cause rezoning of forest land, or
result in the loss of forest land to non-forest use. There would be no change in the existing
environment, which could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. The project
would result in no impacts.
3.3.2.4 Conclusion
Implementation of the modified Project would not result in any new or more significant impacts
to agricultural and forest resources than those identified in the previously adopted IS/MND.
(Same Impact as Previously Approved Project [No Impact])
3 City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco General Plan, Land Use Element, 1999. 4 City of South San Francisco, Planning Division, Zoning District Map, August 2016.
EXHIBIT A
Page 27 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-8 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
3.3.3 Air Quality
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project
Less Impact
Than
Approved
Project
3. AIR QUALITY — Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
3.3.3.1 Setting
The air quality setting relevant to the Project site, including applicable regulations and air quality
conditions, has not appreciably changed since the adoption of the IS/MND. The Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD) maintains regional authority for air quality
management in the Project area and vicinity. The BAAQMD’s 2010 Clean Air Plan5 serves as a
multi-pollutant air quality plan to protect public health and the climate, and includes emissions
control measures for stationary sources, mobile sources, and transportation related sources.
Sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project site, as identified in the adopted IS/MND, have
not changed. Those discussed in the adopted IS/MND remain applicable to the modified Project.
The nearest residential receptors to the project site are located 3,500 feet to the southwest with a
medical clinic located approximately 400 feet west of the site.
The Project site is located within the City of South San Francisco in the San Francisco Bay Area
Air Basin. The Project site is located entirely within the existing WQCP that was analyzed in the
adopted IS/MND.
3.3.3.2 Findings of Previously Adopted IS/MND
The adopted IS/MND identified no impacts with respect to the potential for the project to conflict
with the applicable air quality plan. Less-than-significant impacts were identified for the
cumulative net increase in criteria air pollutants for which the region is non-attainment, and for
5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, adopted September 15, 2010.
EXHIBIT A
Page 28 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-9 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
exposure to substantial pollutant concentrations and objectionable odors. The potential to violate
any air quality standards was determined to be a less than significant impact with mitigation.
3.3.3.3 Discussion
Potential for Violation of an Air Quality Standard
Construction
To be conservative, the same construction hours and equipment estimates from the adopted
IS/MND were used for the air quality analyses of this Addendum. Due to only reconstructing one
digester after demolition instead of two, emissions from construction activities will be slightly
less than those identified in the adopted IS/MND. Construction of the modified Project would
include site preparation, excavation, installation of pipelines, building of higher channel walls,
installation of underground pumps, creation of a bypass channel, backfilling, building demolition,
and site restoration. These activities were included and analyzed in the adopted IS/MND and are
not substantially changed in the modified project designs. As indicated in the adopted IS/MND,
these activities would have the potential to affect air quality through the use of heavy-duty
construction equipment, haul trucks for import and export of materials, and vehicles used by
workers to travel to and from the construction site. In addition to exhaust emissions caused by the
use of mobile equipment, trenching and earthmoving activities would result in emissions of
fugitive dust including PM10.
Activities such as the demolition of the two existing digesters and the associated control
buildings, and excavation and backfilling of the site would cause fugitive dust emissions on an
intermittent and temporary basis, generating similar impacts as project construction. According to
BAAQMD, impacts from construction-related fugitive dust would be considered less than significant if
all applicable recommended measures are applied.6 Implementation of these measures (as part of
the Mitigation Measure AIR-1a below) will ensure that the modified Project will result in
construction impacts from fugitive dust emissions that are less than significant.
As described in the adopted IS/MND, construction and demolition equipment would also
generate ozone precursors such as reactive organic gases and nitrogen oxides from exhaust
emissions. However, the City found that exhaust emissions from construction equipment would
not be expected to impede attainment of ozone standards in the Bay Area nor would they interfere
with the applicable clean air plan. Since construction emissions under the modified Project will
be slightly less than those identified in the adopted IS/MND, they would also not be expected to
impede attainment of ozone standards in the Bay Area nor would they interfere with the
applicable clean air plan. The associated impacts would be less than significant.
To determine whether federal conformity rule analysis is required, annual emissions from the
modified Project construction activities were calculated for ozone precursors (reactive organic gases
[ROG] and oxides of nitrogen [NOx]), respirable particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter
(PM2.5), and CO and compared to the de minimis thresholds for the San Francisco Bay Area Air
Basin. Table 3-1 below provides the estimated tons of ROG, CO, PM10, PM2.5, and NOx emissions
that would be generated from each year of construction of the modified Project. Subsequent to the
6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, May 2012.
EXHIBIT A
Page 29 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-10 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
approval of the original Project, PM10 exhaust and PM10 and PM2.5 fugitive dust emissions have
been estimated for the modified Project per State Water Resources Control Board’s CCWSRF
application process. Those emissions are combined with the emissions presented in the adopted
IS/MND and presented in Table 3-1. As indicated in the adopted IS/MND, for construction haul
truck and work commute vehicle emissions, it was assumed that the applicable project components
would be constructed during the same calendar year for a conservative analysis. As illustrated in
Table 3-1, construction emissions of ROG, CO, PM2.5, and NOx are estimated to be well under the
annual de minimis threshold levels applicable to the project area. Same as indicated for the
original Project in the adopted IS/MND, the modified Project therefore would be exempt from
General Conformity determination requirements, and the annual emissions would result in a less-
than-significant impact.
TABLE 3-1
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ANNUAL EMISSIONS (TONS/YEAR)
Emissions ROG CO PM10* PM2.5* NOX
Construction Equipment Emissions
Calendar Year 1 Emissions 0.36 1.47 2.85 0.74 2.64
Calendar Year 2 Emissions 0.25 1.05 2.80 0.69 1.93
Calendar Year 3 Emissions 0.14 1.35 2.84 0.73 2.40
Calendar Year 4 Emissions 0.12 0.50 2.72 0.62 0.91
On-road Vehicle Emissions
Haul Truck Emissions 0.02 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.67
Work Vehicle Emissions 0.07 0.68 0.01 0.01 0.07
Total Construction-Related Emissions
Calendar Year 1 Emissions 0.45 2.25 2.88 0.76 3.38
Calendar Year 2 Emissions 0.34 1.83 2.82 0.71 2.67
Calendar Year 3 Emissions 0.23 2.13 2.86 0.75 3.14
Calendar Year 4 Emissions 0.21 1.28 2.74 0.64 1.65
de minimis thresholds (tons/year) 100 100 NA 100 100
Conformity Determination required? No No NA No No
* See Emissions Supplement that follows this memorandum for information regarding the PM10 and PM2.5 emission estimates.
N/A: Not applicable.
SOURCE: City of South San Francisco, 2013.
While exhaust emissions are not expected to result in a significant impact to air quality, exhaust
emissions from idling of vehicles could add to regional ozone precursor emissions. Same as for
the approved Project, the impact for the modified Project would be minimized by implementing
Mitigation Measure AIR-1b to further ensure a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measure AIR-1a: During construction activities, the City shall require the
construction contractor(s) to implement a dust abatement program that includes, but is
EXHIBIT A
Page 30 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-11 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
not necessarily limited to, the following BAAQMD-recommended measures as needed to
control dust:
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be
covered.
All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using
wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power
sweeping is prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding
or soil binders are used.
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of
Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all
access points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance
with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified
mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to
contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and
take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be
visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Mitigation Measure AIR-1b: During construction activities, the City shall ensure that
the construction contractor(s) implement the following measures:
On-road construction vehicle idling time shall not exceed five minutes. Additionally,
off-road equipment engines shall not idle for longer than five minutes per
Section 2449(d)(3) of Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9 of the California Code of
Regulations.
Operation
As determined in the adopted IS/MND, it was found that there would be no operational emissions
as a result of the original Project that would result in a significant adverse impact. The City
currently operates the WQCP under a Permit to Operate from the BAAQMD; an application
would be submitted to amend the existing permit to incorporate the proposed project elements.
New pumps and equipment associated with the modified Project would be operated using
electrical power. Long-term project operation would not result in an increase in daily vehicle trips
to the WQCP because it would not result in a permanent increase in employees working onsite.
The modified Project operations would result in a less-than-significant impact, and there would
not be any new or more significant impacts than those identified in the adopted IS/MND.
EXHIBIT A
Page 31 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-12 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
Potential for Cumulative Increases in Non-Attainment Criteria Pollutants
As demonstrated in the text above and in the adopted IS/MND, the modified Project would be
consistent with the adopted Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan and would not result in a significant
operational air quality impact. The project also remains in compliance with the air quality policies
outlined in the South San Francisco General Plan.7 As such, the modified project would not
conflict with an applicable local or regional air quality plan, and cumulative impacts would be the
same as identified in the adopted IS/MND, less than significant.
Potential for Conflict with the Applicable Air Quality Plan, Exposure of
Sensitive Receptors, and Creation of Objectionable Odors
The attainment status of the San Francisco Bay air basin has not changed since the adoption of
the IS/MND, and is currently designated as non-attainment for the State 1- and 8-hour ozone
standards as well as the State particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) standards.8 With respect to the
federal standards, the basin is designated as non-attainment for federal 8-hour ozone standard
and the federal PM2.5 (24-hour) standard.9
Since air pollutant emissions are a function of population and human activity, emission reduction
strategies set forth in the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan were developed based on regional
population, employment, and housing projections. The modified Project would not facilitate an
increase in population in the air basin nor would it generate housing or substantial employment
opportunities leading to increased population or vehicle miles travelled in t he region. As such, the
modified Project would be consistent with the assumptions contained within the Bay Area 2010
Clean Air Plan, and would not result in any new or more significant impacts than those identified
in the adopted IS/MND.
3.3.3.4 Conclusion
The modified Project would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to
conflicting with implementation of an applicable air quality plan than those identified in the
previously adopted IS/MND. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project [No Impact])
The modified Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria
pollutants, additional exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or
create additional objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people than those
identified in the previously adopted IS/MND. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project
[Less than Significant Impact])
With implementation of the measures included in the adopted IS/MND to reduce possible impacts
associated with violation of any air quality standards, the modified Project would not result in any
7 City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999. 8 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status, last updated January 5,
2017. Available online at http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainment-status#
eleven. Accessed on February 8, 2017. 9 The Bay Area is in attainment for CO but still designated as a maintenance area; thus, the de minimis level applies;
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status, last updated January 5,
2017. Available online at http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainment-status#
eleven. Accessed on February 8, 2017.
EXHIBIT A
Page 32 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-13 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
new or more significant impacts than those identified in the previously adopted IS/MND. (Same
Impact as Previously Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation])
EXHIBIT A
Page 33 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-14 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
3.3.4 Biological Resources
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Less Impact
Than
Approved
Project
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES —
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special-status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede
the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
3.3.4.1 Setting
Biological resources located within the Project area remain the same as those described in the
adopted IS/MND. The Project area consists entirely of previously developed or landscaped areas
within the existing WQCP and is adjacent to tidal portions of Colma Creek, the San Bruno
Slough, the San Bruno Canal and the San Francisco Bay shoreline. The proposed modified
Project components are not directly located in areas supporting special-status plants or wildlife or
their habitat. Therefore, setting discussions from the adopted IS/MND for biological resources are
applicable to the modified Project.
EXHIBIT A
Page 34 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-15 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
3.3.4.2 Findings of Previously Adopted IS/MND
The adopted IS/MND identified no impact for potential conflicts with the provisions of an
adopted Habitation Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
plan. The adopted IS/MND identified less than significant impacts for the potential for the project
to have a substantial adverse effect on federally protect wetlands, interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, and conflict with local
policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Impacts that were identified as less than
significant with mitigation incorporated were those that had a substantial adverse effects on
species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special-status species and any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and Fame or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
3.3.4.3 Discussion
Effects on Special Status Species and Riparian and Sensitive Habitats
The California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) documents 68 special-status species within
the San Francisco South U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) 7.5 -minute quadrangle which includes
the project site.10 These species, as well as other special-status species identified by the United
Sates Fish and Wildlife Service11 and California Native Plant Society12 are listed in Appendix A.
Due to updates to the contents of these online databases or to different search parameters used in
the queries, the record searches for this Addendum returned five additional species than the
search done for the adopted IS/MND. As shown in Appendix A, these additional species included
the American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys),
California seablite (Suaeda californica), Franciscan manzanita (Arctostaphylos franciscana), and
the San Bruno Elfin butterfly (Callophrys mossii bayensis). None of the occurrence records were
in or near the Project area, and no suitable habitat for these species is present at the WQCP. These
added species would not be disturbed by the construction activities in ways not already addressed
by the analysis in the adopted IS/MND.
As described in the adopted IS/MND, the project area consists entirely of previously developed or
landscaped areas within the existing WQCP and is adjacent to tidal portions of Colma Creek, the
San Bruno Slough, the San Bruno Canal and the San Francisco Bay shoreline. The modified Project
components are not directly located in areas supporting special-status plants or wildlife or their
habitat, but project activities could affect other raptors and special-status bird species that have the
potential to occur on the site. As stated in the adopted IS/MND, construction noise, vibrations, and
human disturbance could cause nest abandonment, death of the young, or loss of reproductive
potential at active nests located near project activities. The low potential of the presence of sensitive
habitat and no historic sightings of the species onsite would reduce the likelihood of the impact.
However, if construction activities were to occur during the breeding season for the bird species
(February 1 through August 31), there could be a significant impact, which would be minimized to
10 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) for
7.5-minute topographic quadrangle of San Francisco South, Commercial version, January 30, 2017. 11 United State Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Official Species List for SSF-SB WQCP
Improvements, January 30, 2017. 12 California Native Plant Society, Rare and Endangered Plants, Online Inventory, 8th Edition, January 30, 2017.
EXHIBIT A
Page 35 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-16 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
a less-than-significant by implementing Mitigation Measure BIO-1a and Mitigation Measure
BIO-1b.
The adopted IS/MND discussed the potential for project activities such as demolition of the
digesters near potential wildlife habitat to increase the noise levels temporarily, which may affect
species like the California Ridgway’s rail (formerly the California clapper rail), if present, by hindering
mate attraction or disrupting reproductive success of breeding birds. This could be a significant
impact, which would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with the implementation of
Mitigation Measure BIO-2, discussed below. In the long term, the operational noise would be
similar to the conditions under existing WQCP operations; hence, the project is expected to have a
negligible impact on any wildlife foraging in the area. The modified Project would not result in
any new or more significant impacts to these biological resources than those evaluated in the
adopted IS/MND.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1a: The City will implement the following measure prior to
construction:
No more than two weeks in advance of any ground-disturbing activity, or other
construction activity that would commence during the bird breeding season (February 1
through August 31), a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct pre-construction
surveys of potential nesting habitat in the vicinity of the planned activity. No surveys
shall be conducted for California Ridgway’s rail nests, as they would disturb the
species and constitute “take” under Federal Endangered Species Act. If surveys
indicate presence of nests, Mitigation Measure BIO-1b will be implemented.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1b: The City will implement the following measure if pre-
construction surveys conducted under Mitigation Measure BIO-1a indicate presence of
nests:
If active nests are found during pre-construction surveys, the results of the surveys
shall be discussed with California Department of Fish and Wildlife and avoidance
procedures would be adopted, if necessary, on a case-by-case basis and construction
in the vicinity would be initiated only after avoidance measures are adopted.
Avoidance measures shall include maintaining construction buffer areas (up to
several hundred feet in the case of raptors) or seasonal avoidance, as needed. If
buffers are created, a no-disturbance zone shall be created around active nests for the
remainder of the breeding season, or until a qualified biologist determines that all
young have fledged. The size of the buffer zones and types of construction activities
restricted shall take into account factors such as the following:
Noise and human disturbance levels at the proposed project site and the nesting
site at the time of the survey and the noise and disturbance expected during the
construction activity;
Distance, line of sight, and amount of vegetation or other screening between the
proposed project site and the nest; and
Sensitivity of individual nesting species and behaviors of the nesting birds.
EXHIBIT A
Page 36 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-17 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: The City shall implement the following measures during
excavation for Storm Water Pump Stations Nos. 4 and 5 (an action identified in the
adopted IS/MND) and demolition of the digesters:
Project construction activities shall take place between September and January, i.e.,
in the months outside of the California Ridgway’s rail breeding season (February 1
through August 31); or
Noise reduction measures, including solid plywood fences, sound blankets, or other
barriers with noise-dampening materials shall be constructed along the northwest,
north, and northeast-facing edges of the project site prior to initiation of construction
to serve as noise attenuation barriers. Noise barriers shall be installed in all locations
along the exterior fence of the project boundary to minimize any direct or reflected
noise above current ambient levels in salt marsh habitats outside the project site. The
noise attenuation barrier shall be a minimum of eight feet in height, but sufficient in
height to reduce any noise from construction on upper stories or building rooftops.
The fences shall shield the marshes from major noise generating phases of
construction to attenuate noise emanating from the project site.
Effects on Wetlands, Migration, Local Policies or Ordinances, and Habitat
Conservation Plans
Revisions under the modified Project would not have any additional effects on wetlands, species
migration, local policies or ordinances, or habitat conservation plans. The modified Project would
include obtaining an amendment to the existing San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission Permit No. 8-98 as stated in the adopted IS/MND. The modified
Project would comply with the City of South San Francisco General Plan and other local policies
and ordinances. Therefore, no change in impact significance would occur under the modified
Project in comparison to the approved Project.
3.3.4.4 Conclusion
Implementation of the modified Project would not result in any new or more significant impacts
from conflicts with applicable habitat conservation plans than those identified in the previously
adopted IS/MND. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project [No Impact])
Implementation of the modified Project would not result in any new or more significant impacts
to federally protected wetlands, to the movement of any applicable native or migratory fish or
wildlife species, to local policies or ordinances than those identified in the previously adopted
IS/MND. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])
Implementation of the mitigation measures included in this Addendum and in the adopted
IS/MND would reduce possible impacts to special-status species or to riparian habitats or other
applicable sensitive communities to a less-than-significant level, and the proposed modified
Project would not result in any new or more significant impacts than those identified in the
previously adopted IS/MND. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project [Less than
Significant Impact with Mitigation])
EXHIBIT A
Page 37 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-18 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
3.3.5 Cultural Resources
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project
Less Impact
Than
Approved
Project
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES —
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in §15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
3.3.5.1 Setting
The environmental setting relevant to cultural resources for the Project site has not changed in
comparison to that described in the adopted IS/MND. Setting discussions from the adopted
IS/MND for historical resources, archaeological resources and human remains, and
paleontological resources are applicable to the entire Project.
3.3.5.2 Findings of Previously Adopted IS/MND
The adopted IS/MND identified no impact for the potential of the project to cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historic resource. The potential for the project to directly
or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature was
determined to be a less than significant impact. The adopted IS/MND identified the potential to
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource and the
potential to disturb any human remains as less than significant with mitigation incorporated
impacts.
3.3.5.3 Discussion
A Cultural Resources Survey Report (CRSR) was completed for the originally proposed project
in August 2013. That report was updated in August 2014. The CRSR summarized the cultural
resources studies that have been completed at the WQCP and included background research at the
Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Inventory System, an on-
foot survey of the WQCP, and correspondence with Native American groups. The records search
was updated on January 31, 2017 (File No. 16-1113) to ensure that no new information has been
made available since the completion of the August 2014 CRSR. The study concluded that based
on the original and updated archival research; the results of the on-foot surface survey; the
topography and environmental context; and the previous archaeological monitoring of the Colma
Creek channel, the south bank, and the WQCP there is low sensitivity for prehistoric and historic-
period archaeological resources. Additionally, the WQCP does not qualify as a historic property.
EXHIBIT A
Page 38 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-19 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
The CRSR concluded that the proposed project would not affect historic properties and that there
is a low potential for uncovering previously undiscovered archaeological resources. The revised
2017 project is entirely within the original Area of Potential Effects (APE), which included the
subterranean portion of the project footprint down to the planned excavation depth. Therefore,
there are no changes to the previous finding of No Historic Properties Affected.
Architectural/Structural Historical Resources
Based on the analysis completed for the adopted IS/MND and updated for this Addendum, the
modified Project would result in no impacts to historical resources or cultural landscapes. A January
2017 records search of the Northwest Information Center had the same results as those in the search
conducted in support of the adopted IS/MND. Both searches indicated that there are no historic-
period resources of the built environment in the search radius, and therefore the modified Project
would have no direct or indirect effects on a historical resource.
Archaeological Resources
Based on the analysis completed for the adopted IS/MND and revised for this Addendum, the
modified Project has a low potential for uncovering archaeological resources. While unlikely, the
inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources cannot be entirely discounted. Mitigation
Measure CUL-1 from the adopted IS/MND would ensure that impacts to archaeological
resources are reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: The City shall implement the following measure:
Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources. If prehistoric or historic-period
cultural materials are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, halt all work
within 100 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist and Native American
representative can assess the significance of the find. Prehistoric materials might
include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers)
or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected
rocks and artifacts; stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or
milling slabs); and battered-stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones.
Historic-period materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls;
filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. If the find
is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the
Native American representative, will develop a treatment plan that could include site
avoidance, capping, or data recovery.
Paleontological Resources
Based on the analysis completed for the adopted IS/MND and revised for this Addendum, there is
a very low potential for paleontological resources and/or unique geologic features to be in the
Project site. As indicated in the adopted IS/MND, the Project site is underlain by artificial fill
over Bay Mud, and is not likely to yield significant paleontological remains because they are
surface deposits that are not considered fossil-bearing rock units. In addition, construction of the
modified Project would not require s ubstantial excavation to depths at which paleontological
resources could be encountered; therefore, the impact would remain less than significant. No
mitigation is required.
EXHIBIT A
Page 39 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-20 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
Human Resources
Based on the analysis completed for the adopted IS/MND and revised for this Addendum, there is
no indication that the Project site has been used for burial purposes in the recent or distant past.
While unlikely, during excavation associated with Project construction, it is possible that previously
unknown human remains could be discovered. Mitigation Measure CUL-2 from the adopted
IS/MND would ensure that impacts to archaeological resources are reduced to a less-than-
significant level.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: The City shall implement the following measure:
Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. If human remains are encountered
during ground disturbing activities, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
requires that no further disturbance will occur until the County Coroner has made the
necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code
(PRC) Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American
descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage
Commission. The Native American Heritage Commission will then identify the
person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent of the deceased Native American,
who will make recommendations for the treatment of any human remains.
3.3.5.4 Conclusion
Implementation of the modified Project would not result in any new or more significant impacts
to historical resources than those identified in the previously adopted IS/MND. (Same Impact as
Previously Approved Project [No Impact])
Implementation of the modified Project would not result in any new or more significant impacts
to paleontological resources than those identified in the previously adopted IS/MND. (Same
Impact as Previously Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])
Implementation of the measures included in this Addendum and the adopted IS/MND would
reduce possible impacts to archaeological resources and human remains uncovered during
construction to a less-than-significant level, and the modified Project would not result in any new
or more significant impacts than those identified in the previously adopted IS/MND. (Same
Impact as Previously Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation]
EXHIBIT A
Page 40 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-21 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
3.3.6 Energy
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Less Impact
Than
Approved
Project
6. ENERGY — Would the project:
a) Result in a substantial increase in
overall or per capita energy
consumption?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Result in wasteful or unnecessary
consumption of energy? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Require or result in the construction of
new sources of energy supplies or
additional energy infrastructure
capacity the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
effects?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Conflict with applicable energy
efficiency policies or standards? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
3.3.6.1 Setting
The environmental setting relevant to energy use for the project has not changed in comparison to
that described in the adopted IS/MND. The purpose of the modified Project remains to increase
reliability and efficiency of wastewater treatment processes at the WQCP and comply with the
regulatory requirements.
3.3.6.2 Findings of Previously Adopted IS/MND
The adopted IS/MND identified less than significant impacts for all checklist items related to
energy usage.
3.3.6.3 Discussion
The purpose of the proposed modified Project is to increase reliability and efficiency of wastewater
treatment processes at the WQCP and comply with the regulatory requirements. The WQCP would
continue to be operated consistent with current practices and the modified Project would not
result in a substantial increase in energy consumption. The modified Project does not change the
Green Energy or the Wet Weather Improvement portions of the project evaluated in the adopted
IS/MND. The Digester Improvement portion of the modified Project would make the WQCP’s
processes more energy efficient than the existing conditions and those in the designs analyzed in
the adopted IS/MND, and would not require the construction of new sources of energy supplies or
energy infrastructure. There would be no wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy, and the
project would not conflict with energy efficiency policies or standards.
3.3.6.4 Conclusion
Implementation of the modified Project would not result in any new or more significant impacts
from the potential for an increase in energy consumption, wasteful or unnecessary energy
consumption, the construction of new sources of energy supplies or energy infrastructure, or
conflicts with applicable energy efficiency policies or standards than those identified in the
EXHIBIT A
Page 41 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-22 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
previously adopted IS/MND. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project [Less than
Significant Impact])
EXHIBIT A
Page 42 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-23 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
3.3.7 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Less Impact
Than
Approved
Project
7. GEOLOGY and Soils —
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? (Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv) Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994)13, creating substantial
risks to life or property?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
3.3.7.1 Setting
The environmental setting relevant to geology, soils, and seismicity for the modified Project
remains the same as that described in the adopted IS/MND. The modified Project would not
disturb any additional soils outside of the area discussed in the adopted IS/MND. Setting
discussions from the adopted IS/MND for geology, soils, and seismicity in the Project area are
applicable to the modified Project.
13 The 2016 California Building Code (CBC), based on the International Building Code and the now defunct Uniform
Building Code, no longer includes a Table 18-1-B. Instead, Section 1803.5.3 of the CBC describes the criteria for
analyzing expansive soils.
EXHIBIT A
Page 43 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-24 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
3.3.7.2 Findings of Previously Adopted IS/MND
The adopted IS/MND identified no impact for exposing people or structures to the rupture of a
known earthquake fault or landslides, and for potential use of septic tanks or other alternative
wastewater disposal systems, because such systems would not be used on site. Less than
significant impacts were identified for the project’s potential to expose people or structures to
strong seismic ground shaking or seismic-related ground failure, result in substantial soil erosion,
be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or would become unstable, and be located on
expansive soil.
3.3.7.3 Discussion
Geology and Soils
Ground disturbance within the WQCP boundaries were discussed and analyzed in the adopted
IS/MND. No additional ground disturbance activities are proposed under the modified Project,
therefore, no additional risks from loss of topsoil, landslides, liquefaction, subsidence, expansive
soil, or soil collapse would occur. Construction activities would be subject to the 2016 version of
the California Building Code, which regulates and controls the design, construction, quality of
materials, use/occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures within its
jurisdiction. Also, the modified Project would not generate wastewater and does not propose
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
Seismic Conditions
Although seismic groundshaking or liquefaction may occur at the site, as discussed in the adopted
IS/MND, the potential damage would likely be minimized through the implementation of current
building code requirements. Project improvements would be required to adhere to the most
current version of the California Building Code (2016), which includes specifications and seismic
design criteria that are created to minimize damage from anticipated groundshaking and
secondary effects of liquefaction. No additional risks from seismic ground shaking and seismic
failure are anticipated from activities under the modified Project. Furthermore, as described in the
adopted IS/MND, no Alquist-Priolo zones or fault hazard zones are mapped in the Project
vicinity; and thus the modified Project would have no impact from the rupture of a known or
unknown earthquake fault.
3.3.7.4 Conclusion
Implementation of the modified Project would not result in any new or more significant impacts
from the potential for exposure to earthquake fault ruptures or landslides, or to the resources
related to the use of septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems than those
identified in the previously adopted IS/MND. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project
[No Impact])
EXHIBIT A
Page 44 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-25 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
Implementation of the modified Project would not result in any new or more significant impacts
from the potential for exposure to strong seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure,
landslides, topsoil erosion, unstable soils, or expansive soils than those identified in the
previously adopted IS/MND. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project [Less than
Significant Impact])
EXHIBIT A
Page 45 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-26 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
3.3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project
Less Impact
Than
Approved
Project
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS —
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy,
or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
3.3.8.1 Setting
The environmental setting relevant to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the Project site has
not substantially changed in comparison to that described in the adopted IS/MND. Applicable
BAAQMD and CEQA requirements discussed in greater detail in the adopted IS/MND remain in
effect.
3.3.8.2 Findings of Previously Adopted IS/MND
The adopted IS/MND identified less than significant impacts resulting from the generation of
GHG emissions during construction and operation, and resulting from the potential for a conflict
with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted to reduce the emission of GHG.
3.3.8.3 Discussion
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The modified Project would generate GHG emissions from temporary construction activities,
including from mobile equipment, building demolition, site preparation, excavation, backfilling,
and site restoration. The projected emissions for the approved Project are presented in Table 3-2.
It is anticipated that the construction emissions for the modified Project would be slightly less
than those presented in the adopted IS/MND, and are therefore considered to be a conservative
representation of the modified Project emissions due to its rebuilding of only one digester instead
of two.
During the project’s operational phase, the modified designs are expected to increase the overall
efficiency of the WQCP relative to both the existing operations and those assessed in the adopted
IS/MND. Therefore, there would be no substantial changes to operational emissions as a result of
the modified Project, and there would be no significant adverse impact.
EXHIBIT A
Page 46 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-27 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
TABLE 3-2
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ANNUAL GHG EMISSIONS (METRIC TONS/YEAR)
Emissions CO2e
Construction Equipment Emission
Calendar Year 1 Emissions 224.45
Calendar Year 2 Emissions 165.44
Calendar Year 3 Emissions 203.42
Calendar Year 4 Emissions 76.53
Construction Haul Truck
Emissions 91.75
Construction Worker Commute Vehicles
Emissions 92.72
Total Construction-related Emissions
Calendar Year 1 Emissions 408.92
Calendar Year 2 Emissions 349.91
Calendar Year 3 Emissions 387.89
Calendar Year 4 Emissions 261.00
Federal reporting threshold 25,000
Project construction emissions were estimated using custom emissions calculations. Construction equipment calculations
were based on emission and load factors from the OffRoad2011 Model. Construction equipment default horsepower were
derived from CalEEMod. Construction haul truck and worker commute vehicle emissions factors were derived from an
EMFAC2011 model run. Equipment numbers and types are based on the project description and experience of the
consultant. See Appendix B for details.
Conflict with Applicable GHG Emissions Policies or Plans
No changes to the modified Project were identified that would incite a potential conflict with
existing GHG laws, plans, policies, or regulations adopted by the California legislature or the
California Air Resources Board. The modified Project is also compliant with City of South
San Francisco Local Sustainability and Climate Change Mitigation Activities as described in the
adopted IS/MND. Therefore, this impact would remain less than significant.
3.3.8.4 Conclusion
The modified Project would not result in new or more significant impacts related to the
generation of GHG emissions than those identified in the previously adopted IS/MND. (Same
Impact as Previously Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])
The modified Project would not result in new or more significant impacts related to conflicting
with an applicable plan, policy or regulation for the reduction of GHG emissions than those
identified in the previously adopted IS/MND. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project
[Less than Significant Impact])
EXHIBIT A
Page 47 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-28 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
3.3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
Than
Significan
t Impact
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project
Less Impact
Than
Approved
Project
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS — Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
3.3.9.1 Setting
The environmental setting relevant to Hazards and Hazardous Materials for the modified Project
site has not changed in comparison to that described in the adopted IS/MND. While the Project area
would include excavation and other construction activities within the WQCP, the modified Project
would not include additional ground disturbance to an area that would intersect any known
hazardous materials sites. The setting discussion from the adopted IS/MND for this resource area is
therefore applicable to the Project area.
EXHIBIT A
Page 48 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-29 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
3.3.9.2 Findings of Previously Adopted IS/MND
The adopted IS/MND identified no impact for emitting hazardous emissions or handling
hazardous substances within one-quarter mile of a school, resulting in a safety hazard for people
at a public airport or private airstrip in the project area, and exposing people or structures to
significant risks involving wildland fires. The adopted IS/MND identified less than significant
impacts for the project’s potential to be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites and to impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or evacuative plan. Impacts that would create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment though transport, use, or disposal of hazard materials and/or reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials in to the
environment were determined to be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation
measures.
3.3.9.3 Discussion
Release of Hazardous Materials
As indicated in the adopted IS/MND, project construction activities would likely require the use
of limited quantities of hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, lubricants, and solvents. The
improper use, storage, handling, transport or disposal of hazardous materials du ring construction
could result in an accidental release exposing construction workers, the public and the
environment, including soil and/or ground or surface water, to adverse effects. The transport, use,
storage, handling and disposal of hazardous materials for the modified Project would be
adequately controlled through existing regulatory requirements as noted in the adopted IS/MND,
and the potential impacts during construction would remain less than significant.
In parallel with the adopted IS/MND, project construction would include the demolition of the
Digesters No. 1 and 2 and associated control support buildings. If these structures contain hazardous
building materials such as asbestos or lead-based paint, then demolition activities could expose
workers or visitors to adverse effects associated with contact of these known hazardous materials,
resulting in a potentially significant impact. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1,
any hazardous building materials would be identified and abated prior to demolition activities in a
manner that would minimize potential exposure to these hazards.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: The City shall implement the following measure:
Prior to commencement of demolition activities, the City shall contract with a licensed
professional to conduct hazardous building material surveys for asbestos containing
materials and lead-based paint for all structures proposed for demolition. Any
subsequently identified hazardous building materials shall be removed and abated in
accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) rule “Lead:
Renovation, Repair and Painting Activities that Disturb Lead-Based Paint”, 40 CFR
745; California Code of Regulations 1529, Bay Area Air Quality Management District,
and any local requirements that govern the protection, collection, transport, and
disposal of hazardous building materials including asbestos containing materials and
lead-based paint.
EXHIBIT A
Page 49 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-30 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
Compliance with existing safety regulations and widely-accepted industry standards would
minimize the hazard to the public and the environment. Construction and operation of the project
would be required to comply with the California fire code and local building codes.
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database14 and the California
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database15 were reviewed to
determine if any additional hazardous materials sites have been identified in the Project area since
the approval of the IS/MND. As stated in the adopted IS/MND, the database lists a neighboring
petroleum product distribution terminal located at 135 North Access Road, which is used to store
gasoline, diesel fuel , jet fuel, and fuel additives. The petroleum product distribution terminal is
known to have released fue l adjacent and south of the proposed project area; cleanup activities
are ongoing. No additional hazardous materials sites or other known hazardous materials spills
were identified.
As described in the adopted IS/MND, in the case that contamination is present in areas proposed
for excavation, the workers, the public or the environment could become exposed to adverse
effects, which could be a significant impact. However, with implementation of a soil management
plan, as required by Mitigation Measure HAZ-2, the potential impact would be reduced to less
than significant.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: The City shall implement the following measure:
Prior to commencement of construction activities, the City shall prepare and
implement a Soil Management Plan as approved by the San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Soil Management Plan shall be
prepared by a qualified environmental consulting firm and shall include protocols for
all earthwork activities that might encounter suspected contamination, emergency
contact information, and minimum personal protective equipment requirements for
onsite construction workers. Any suspected contaminated subsurface materials shall
be segregated, covered, and profiled for appropriate offsite disposal in accordance
with CalOSHA requirements and the receiving facilities requirements. The RWQCB
shall be notified of any suspected contamination and the City shall only proceed with
earthwork activities following direction from the RWQCB or local Certified Unified
Program Agency (CUPA). Any required further excavation as directed by the
overseeing agency shall be completed prior to recommencement of construction.
As part of work on this Addendum and in compliance with Mitigation Measure HAZ-2, a
Contaminated Soil Management Plan (CSMP) has been written for the modified Project.
Other Hazards
The modified Project would not be close to any school or airport, such that additional impacts
could occur. Also, changes during construction or operation under the modified Project would not
14 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), GeoTracker Database, 2017. Available at http://geotracker.
waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed on January 31, 2017. 15 California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), 2017. EnviroStor Database. Available online at
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed on January 31, 2017.
EXHIBIT A
Page 50 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-31 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
introduce additional impacts to emergency response or exposure to wildfires. Therefore, all
potential impacts on other hazards would be the same as the approved Project.
3.3.9.4 Conclusion
Implementation of the modified Project would not result in any new or more significant impacts
from wildland fires or to schools or public or private airports than those identified in the
previously adopted IS/MND. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project [No Impact])
Implementation of the modified Project would not result in any new or more significant impacts
from being located on a hazardous materials site or impairing implementation of emergency
response than those identified in the previously adopted IS/MND. (Same Impact as Previously
Approved Project [Less Than Significant Impact])
Implementation of the modified Project would not result in any new or more significant impacts
from the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials or reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment than
those identified in the previously adopted IS/MND. (Same Impact as Previously Approved
Project [Less Than Significant with Mitigation Impact])
EXHIBIT A
Page 51 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-32 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
3.3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project
Less Impact
Than
Approved
Project
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY —
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner that would result in flooding on- or
off-site?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Create or contribute runoff water that
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures that would impede or
redirect flood flows?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
i) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
3.3.10.1 Setting
Setting information relevant to hydrology and water quality within the Project area remains the
same as discussed in the adopted IS/MND. As indicated in the adopted IS/MND, the project site
is located in the lower San Francisco Bay basin. The footprint of ground disturbance would be the
EXHIBIT A
Page 52 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-33 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
same as the modified Project. Setting discussions from the adopted IS/MND for hydrology and
water quality in the project area are otherwise applicable.
3.3.10.2 Findings of Previously Adopted IS/MND
The adopted IS/MND identified no impact for the project’s potential to place housing within a
100-year flood hazard area. All other impacts on the checklist above were determined to be less
than significant for Hydrology and Water Quality in the adopted IS/MND.
3.3.10.3 Discussion
Water Quality
Under the modified Project, the area of ground disturbance and area of new impervious surfaces
would be the same as the project in the adopted IS/MND. Therefore, the impacts on water quality
during construction would be the same under the modified Project. Any water quality impacts
from construction and operational activities under the modified Project would be minimized by
adhering to the requirements of the following permits: Statewide Industrial Storm Water Permit
(National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit No. CAS000001),
2014 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board NPDES permit16 for point
discharges, and the NPDES Industrial Storm Water Permit.
Construction best management practices would also be implemented by the City of South
San Francisco in compliance with NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated
with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES
No. CAS000002; as amended by Orders 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-006-DWQ). The
Construction General Permit regulates discharges of pollutants in stormwater associated with
construction activity to waters of the U.S. from construction sites that disturb one or more acres
of land surface, or that are part of a common plan of development or sale that disturbs more than
one acre of land surface. The permit regulates stormwater discharges associated with construction
or demolition activities, such as clearing and excavation; construction of buildings; and linear
underground projects, including installation of water pipelines and other utility lines. The
construction contractor would be required to develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to identify pollutant sources that may affect the quality of stormwater
discharge, and to implement Best Management Practices to reduce pollutants in stormwater
discharges. The permits and practices are described in further detail in the adopted IS/MND.
Implementation of the modified Project, in compliance with existing regulatory requirements,
would be effective in reducing potential impacts related to water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements to less-than-significant levels.
Groundwater
As indicated in the adopted IS/MND, the project site is currently developed and largely covered by
impervious surfaces, and all of the proposed modified Project improvements would occur on
asphalt surfaces. As such, there is likely very little groundwater recharge that occurs at the
16 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Order No. R2-2014-0012, National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) No. CA0038130, 2014.
EXHIBIT A
Page 53 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-34 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
project site. In addition, groundwater at the project site is in close proximity to the Bay and is
not a source of water supply. For these reasons, the modified Project would not result in any new
of more significant impacts with respect to the depletion or recharge of groundwater supplies than
those identified in the previously approved IS/MND.
Drainage, Runoff, and Flooding
As mentioned in the adopted IS/MND and above, the modified Project site is currently largely
covered by impervious surfaces and would not otherwise alter the course of any stream or river. All
proposed improvements would be required to comply with the existing NPDES Industrial Storm
Water Permit, as well as the NPDES Construction General Permit. Construction and operation of
the modified Project would not increase the size of impervious surfaces within the Project area or
increase runoff. All modified Project activities would occur within the existing WQCP
boundaries. The potential impacts related to erosion and siltation, flooding on- or off –site from
changes in drainage patterns, and existing or planned stormwater drainage systems would remain the
same as those identified in the previously adopted IS/MND.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has mapped the entire site within the
100-year coastal floodplain revised the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panel that includes the
WQCP on September 9, 2013.17 The revised map shows that the WQCP is no longer designated
as a special flood hazard area (SFHA) subject to inundation by the 100-year flood (i.e., the 1%
annual flood risk). The north side of the WQCP, where Colma Creek runs adjacent to the site, and
the east side of the site, adjacent to the San Francisco Bay, remain the same category of SFHA as
in the previous version of the FIRM.
However, tThe modified Project does not propose additional structures or housing-only
installation. Therefore, the modified Project would not result in any new or more significant
impacts to housing or structures from coastal flood risks, from increases in stormwater runoff, or
from impeding or redirecting flood flows.
Inundation
The modified Project would not include any construction or placement of structures on, adjacent
to, or within a levee, dam, or other flood control feature, and therefore would not directly affect
such facilities.
As indicated in the adopted IS/MND, the project site could be subject to inundation from a tsunami
event, but many of the sources for tsunamis are located from distant sources (e.g., Alaska, South
America, etc.) and would provide the WQCP time to prepare for such an event. The proposed
modified Project would not include any habitable structures, and any damage incurred from a
tsunami would likely be relatively easily repaired, if any were even necessary. The project site is
relatively flat with no evident sources of mudflow in the vicinity and therefore would not be
17 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Map, San Mateo County, California and
Incorporated Areas, Map Number 06021C0044E, effective date October 16, 2012, Revised to reflect Letter of Map
Revision September 9, 2013. This FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map is included as Appendix C of this Addendum.
EXHIBIT A
Page 54 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-35 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
considered susceptible to mudflows. Therefore, impacts related to inundation from seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow would be the same as those identified in the previously adopted IS/MND.
3.3.10.4 Conclusion
Implementation of the modified Project would not result in any new or more significant impacts
related to the placement of housing within a 100-year flood hazard area than those identified in
the previously adopted IS/MND. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project [No Impact])
Implementation of the modified Project would not result in any new or more significant impacts
related to the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, depletion of
groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge, erosion or siltation, surface
runoff, degrading water quality, impeding or redirecting flood flows, and inundation risks from
levee or dam failure, seiche, tsunami, or mudflow than those identified in the previously adopted
IS/MND. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project [Less Than Significant Impact])
EXHIBIT A
Page 55 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-36 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
3.3.11 Land Use and Land Use Planning
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project
Less Impact
Than
Approved
Project
11. LAND USE AND LAND USE
PLANNING — Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
3.3.11.1 Setting
The setting related to land use and land use planning remains the same as that discussed in the
adopted IS/MND.
3.3.11.2 Findings of Previously Adopted IS/MND
The adopted IS/MND identified no impacts for any checklist item related to land Use and land
use planning.
3.3.11.3 Discussion
As discussed in the adopted IS/MND, the improvements as part of the modified Project would occur
at the existing WQCP, thus, the project would not result in the direct or indirect physical division of
an established community. No impact is expected. The modified Project improvements would not
conflict with public lands designation or current uses at the site. Therefore, the modified Project is
compatible with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations.
3.3.11.4 Conclusion
Implementation of the modified Project would not result in a new or more significant impacts
related to physically dividing an established community, conflicting with an applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation, or conflicting with a habitat conservation plan than those identified in
the previously adopted IS/MND. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project [No Impact])
EXHIBIT A
Page 56 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-37 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
3.3.12 Mineral Resources
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project
Less Impact
Than
Approved
Project
12. 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
3.3.12.1 Setting
The setting related to mineral resources remains the same as that discussed in the adopted
IS/MND. The project site is located in an area classified as MRZ-1, with no known significant
mineral deposits present and there are no mines, mineral pants, oil, gas, or geothermal wells located
at the project site.18
3.3.12.2 Findings of Previously Adopted IS/MND
The adopted IS/MND identified no impact for any checklist items related to mineral resources.
3.3.12.3 Discussion
As indicated in the adopted IS/MND, the project site is located in an area classified as MRZ-1,
with no known significant mineral deposits present. In addition, there are no mines, mineral plants,
oil, gas, or geothermal wells located at the project site.19 The local land use plans do not indicate
presence of locally important mineral resources for the project site. The modified Project would
be located within an already developed site that has existing facilities, and would not involve
mining onsite. Therefore, the construction or operation of the modified Project would not alter,
destroy, or limit access to any existing significant mineral resources.
18 California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), Mineral Land Classification:
Aggregate Materials in the San Francisco-Monterey Bay Area, Special Report 146, Part II, 1987. 19 California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), DOGGR Well
Finder, 2014. Available online at http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/#close. Accessed on February 13, 2017.;
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Mineral Resources On-Line Spatial Data, Active mines and mineral plants in the
US (2003), modified December 20, 2016. Available online at https://mrdata.usgs.gov/mineral-resources/active-
mines.html. Accessed on February 13, 2017.
EXHIBIT A
Page 57 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-38 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
3.3.12.4 Conclusion
Implementation of the modified Project would not result in a new or more significant impacts
related to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or a locally important mineral
resource recovery site than those identified in the previously adopted IS/MND. (Same Impact as
Previously Approved Project [No Impact])
EXHIBIT A
Page 58 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-39 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
3.3.13 Noise
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Less Impact
Than
Approved
Project
13. NOISE — Would the project result
in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
of, noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) For a project located in the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise
levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
3.3.13.1 Setting
Noise related setting information for modified Project remains the same as discussed in the
adopted IS/MND. Ambient noise levels remain as documented therein, and no new sensitive
receptors have been identified. Significance thresholds and policies pursuant to the City’s General
Plan have not changed since adoption of the IS/MND.
3.3.13.2 Findings of Previously Adopted IS/MND
The adopted IS/MND identified no impacts related to the project being located in the vicinity of a
private airstrip, and less than significant impacts for exposure to noise levels in excess of
applicable standards, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise, permanent increases
in ambient noise levels, and exposure of people to airport noise. The project’s potential impact to
result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
was determined to be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation.
EXHIBIT A
Page 59 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-40 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
3.3.13.3 Discussion
Construction Noise Impacts
Construction activities under the modified Project would remain similar to those identified in the
adopted IS/MND and Chapter 2, Project Description of this Addendum. As indicated in the
adopted IS/MND, construction activities would comply with Policy 9-I-8 of the City of South San
Francisco General Plan Noise Element20, and Section 8.32 of the City of South San Francisco’s
Municipal Code.21 This noise ordinance establishes standards for both operational noise and
construction-related noise. With regard to construction-related noise, the ordinance establishes
permissible hours of construction of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; 9:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m. on Saturdays; and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. Noise from
individual pieces of construction equipment is restricted to a noise level of 90 A-weighted decibels
(dBA) at a distance of 25 feet. Table 3-3 below presents the noise levels generated by the proposed
equipment and activities. As the data indicates the only equipment/activity with the potential to
exceed the limits of the City’s noise ordinance would be the grader and the sandblasting activity.
TABLE 3-3
TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Construction Equipment
Noise Level
(dBA, Leq at 50 feet)
Noise Level
(dBA, Leq at 25 feet)
Paver 77 83
Compactor 83 89
Roller 80 86
Generator 81 87
Backhoe 78 84
Loader 79 85
Concrete mixer 79 85
Concrete pump 81 87
Grader 85 91
Excavator 81 87
Crane 81 87
Welder 74 80
Sandblasting 96 102
dBA = A-weighted decibels
SOURCES: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide, January 2006.;
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006.
No large or impact equipment that would create vibration impacts from construction activities are
proposed for project construction elements and, consequently, there would be a less than
significant impact from construction related vibration.
20 City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco General Plan, Noise Element, 1999. 21 City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco Municipal Code, Title 8 Health and Welfare, Chapter 8.32 Noise
Regulations. Available online at http://qcode.us/codes/southsanfrancisco/. Accessed on February 2, 2017.
EXHIBIT A
Page 60 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-41 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
As discussed in the adopted IS/MND and shown in Table 3-3, proposed temporary construction
activities would generate noise from construction equipment and sandblasting. Workers engaged in
sandblasting activities would be required to follow actions under the Occupational Safety and
Hazards Act standards, including wearing hearing protection. During substantial increases in
construction noise, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would minimize potentially
significant impacts excessive noise levels to less-than-significant levels, and all construction
noise related impacts of the modified Project would be the same as discussed in the adopted
IS/MND.
Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Construction Noise Reduction Measures. The City shall
require the contractor to implement the following measures:
Construction equipment shall be well maintained and used judiciously to be as quiet
as practical.
All sandblasting activities shall be fully contained with appropriate tenting.
Limit demolition and construction activities to daytime hours between 8:00 AM and
8:00 PM on weekdays and 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Saturdays.
Use “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where
technology exists.
Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers that are in good
condition and appropriate for the equipment.
Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.
Prohibit construction worker radios from being audible beyond the limits of the
construction site.
Operational Noise Impacts
Operational noise impacts have not changed compared to those indicated in the adopted IS/MND.
With regard to operational noise, the noise ordinance establishes a maximum permissible sound
level of 70 dBA for medium-industrial or M-1 zoned land uses, which surround the project site.22
Most of the proposed noise sources would be installed either underground or within pump station
structures or both which would attenuate noise levels.
The facilities proposed under the modified Project would not result in operations that would be
expected to result in vibration impacts, which are generally associated with confined movement
of heavy loads (e.g., railway extensions) or mining activity, and the project would therefore have
a less-than-significant impact from operational vibration.
As indicated in the adopted IS/MND, the modified Project would have a less-than-significant
impact with regard to exposure of people residing or working to excessive noise levels from a
22 This restriction applies only to stationary noise sources and not to construction equipment, which are exempt and which
are addressed with a special provision described previously which restricts their noise levels to 90 dBA at 25 feet,
above; City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco Municipal Code, Title 8 Health and Welfare, Chapter 8.32
Noise Regulations. Available online at http://qcode.us/codes/southsanfrancisco/. Accessed on February 2, 2017.
EXHIBIT A
Page 61 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-42 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
public airport. The modified Project would not be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
and would therefore have no impact with regard to exposure of people residing or working to
excessive noise levels from a private airstrip. All operational noise related impacts of the
modified Project would be the same as discussed in the adopted IS/MND.
3.3.13.4 Conclusion
Implementation of the modified Project would not result in a new or more significant impacts
related to the exposure of people to noise levels associated with a private airstrip than those
identified in the previously adopted IS/MND. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project
[No Impact])
Implementation of the modified Project would not result in a new or more significant impacts
related to exposure of people to noise levels in excess of applicable standards, excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise, permanent increases in ambient noise levels, and
exposure of people to airport noise within two miles of a public airport than those identified in the
previously adopted IS/MND. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project [Less Than
Significant Impact])
Implementation of the modified Project would not result in a new or more significant impacts
related to temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels than those identified in the
previously adopted IS/MND. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project [Less Than
Significant with Mitigation])
EXHIBIT A
Page 62 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-43 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
3.3.14 Population and Housing
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project
Less Impact
Than
Approved
Project
14. POPULATION AND HOUSING —
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
3.3.14.1 Setting
The setting related to population and housing remains the same as that discussed in the adopted
IS/MND.
3.3.14.2 Findings of Previously Adopted IS/MND
The adopted IS/MND identified no impacts for any checklist items related to population and
housing.
3.3.14.3 Discussion
As discussed in the adopted IS/MND, the modified Project would involve upgrades to the
existing WQCP to comply with regulatory requirements. There would be no change in operations
that would induce population growth in the area. The modified Project would not displace people
or existing housing units or necessitate construction of replacement housing, and no impact is
expected.
3.3.14.4 Conclusion
Implementation of the modified Project would not result in a new or more significant impacts
related to the inducing substantial population growth, or displacing substantial numbers of
existing housing units or people than those identified in the previously adopted IS/MND. (Same
Impact as Previously Approved Project [No Impact])
EXHIBIT A
Page 63 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-44 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
3.3.15 Public Services
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project
Less Impact
Than
Approved
Project
15. PUBLIC SERVICES — Would the
project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically
altered government facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the
following public services:
i) Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii) Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii) Schools? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv) Parks? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
v) Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
3.3.15.1 Setting
The setting related to public services remains the same as that discussed in the adopted IS/MND.
Public services in the project area would be provided by the South San Francisco Fire
Department, the South San Francisco Police Department, the South San Francisco School
District, the South San Francisco Public Works Department and the Department of Park and
Recreation, as indicated in the adopted IS/MND.
3.3.15.2 Findings of Previously Adopted IS/MND
The adopted IS/MND identified less than significant impacts to all public services listed in the
checklist above.
3.3.15.3 Discussion
As indicated in the adopted IS/MND, the modified Project would involve short-term construction
activities and the operations would continue consistent with the existing practices. The project
would not significantly increase demand for fire or police protection services. The modified
Project would only result in a temporary increase of construction worker employees in the project
area; which would have no substantial adverse impacts to schools. The modified Project is not
located in the immediate vicinity of any city parks and would not disrupt any park-related
activities or access, or not result in an increase of employees, therefore it would not result in an
increase in the use of existing park and recreation facilities.
EXHIBIT A
Page 64 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-45 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
3.3.15.4 Conclusion
Implementation of the modified Project would not result in a new or more significant impacts
related to adverse physical impacts associated with the need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities for fire protection, police protection, school, parks, or other public
facilities than those identified in the previously adopted IS/MND. (Same Impact as Previously
Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])
EXHIBIT A
Page 65 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-46 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
3.3.16 Recreation
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Less Impact
Than
Approved
Project
16. RECREATION —
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
3.3.16.1 Setting
The setting related to recreation remains the same as that discussed in the adopted IS/MND.
3.3.16.2 Findings of Previously Adopted IS/MND
The adopted IS/MND identified no impacts for either checklist items related to recreation.
3.3.16.3 Discussion
As discussed in the adopted IS/MND, the project site is located approximately 0.5 miles north of
Walnut Park in the City of South San Francisco, and is not anticipated to increase the use of the
existing neighborhood and regional parks in the project vicinity. The modified Project also does
not include a residential component that could contribute to a direct increase in the use of existing
recreational facilities in the area or require the expansion or construction of new facilities.
Furthermore, the modified Project would not result in the alteration or deterioration of existing
recreational facilities. No impact is expected.
3.3.16.4 Conclusion
Implementation of the modified Project would not result in a new or more significant impacts
related to increasing the use of existing parking or recreational facilities or constructing or
expanding recreational facilities than those identified in the previously adopted IS/MND. (Same
Impact as Previously Approved Project [No Impact])
EXHIBIT A
Page 66 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-47 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
3.3.17 Transportation and Traffic
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project
Less Impact
Than
Approved
Project
17. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC —
Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan,
ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and
non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Result in inadequate emergency
access? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or
otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
3.3.17.1 Setting
Setting information relevant to transportation and traffic as relevant to the modified Project remains
the same as discussed in the adopted IS/MND. Construction access routes would be the same as
discussed in the adopted IS/MND.
3.3.17.2 Findings of Previously Adopted IS/MND
The adopted IS/MND identified no potential impacts to the project resulting in a change in air
traffic patterns and/or resulting in inadequate emergency access. Less than significant impacts
were identified for including conflicts with applicable transportation and traffic plans, ordinances,
and policies; conflicts with congestion management plans; substantial increases in traffic related
hazards; and conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle,
pedestrian, and other such facilities.
EXHIBIT A
Page 67 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-48 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
3.3.17.3 Discussion
Traffic Plans, Ordinances, Policies, and Programs
As indicated in the adopted IS/MND, construction activities that would generate off-site traffic
would include the delivery of construction vehicles and equipment to the project site, the daily
arrival and departure of construction workers, the delivery of materials throughout the
construction period, and the removal of construction debris. Construction equipment would be
delivered to and removed from the project site in phases for the different construction activities.
The estimated haul truck traffic would vary depending on the activity, but would peak at
approximately up to 26 trucks per day, which would yield up to 52 daily one-way trips to and
from the project site, which would be spread over the course of the work day.23 There would be
up to 16 construction workers on a peak day and up to 8 on an average day, and they would
commute to and from the worksite primarily before or after peak traffic hours. Construction-
generated traffic would be temporary, and therefore, would not result in any long-term
degradation in operating conditions on any locally used roadways for the project. Project
construction-related traffic would not be substantial in relation to traffic flow conditions on
U.S. 101, I-380 and South Airport Boulevard.
Long-term project operation would be similar to the existing traffic and circulation conditions
within the project area, consisting of continuing maintenance trips, with no expected increase in
permanent employees working onsite. The modified Project would not exceed level-of-service
standards established by the San Mateo County Congestion Management Agency (i.e., the
City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County) for roadways. Traffic impacts
associated with operation and maintenance of the modified Project would remain the same as the
discussed in the adopted IS/MND.
Implementation of the modified Project would neither directly nor indirectly eliminate existing or
planned alternative transportation corridors or facilities (e.g., bike paths, lanes, bus turnouts, etc.),
include changes in policies or programs that support alternative transportation, nor construct
facilities in locations in which future alternative transportation facilities are planned. As indicated
in the adopted IS/MND, the project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans and programs
supporting alternative transportation.
Other Traffic Impacts
As indicated in the adopted IS/MND, the project would not place any object within the flight path
for airplanes in the area. The modified Project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety
risks. Also, neither project construction nor project operations would alter the physical
configuration of the existing roadway network serving the area, and would have no effect on access
to local streets or adjacent uses (including access for emergency vehicles).
23 The estimated truck trips are based on a quantity of about 13,000 cubic yards of excavated soils being transported to
an offsite location in 20-cubic yard-trucks over 40 to 60 work days, plus an additional 5 to 10 extra trucks per day
delivering materials. There also would be haul trucks carrying fill material, but those in-fill trips would be less than
the off-haul trips.
EXHIBIT A
Page 68 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-49 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
Neither project construction nor project operations would alter the physical configuration of the
existing roadway network serving the area, and would not introduce unsafe design features. The
modified Project also would not introduce uses that are incompatible with existing uses already
served by the road system that serves the project area. Therefore, traffic impacts associated with
air traffic patterns, emergency access, and traffic related hazards for the modified Project would
remain the same as the discussed in the adopted IS/MND.
3.3.17.4 Conclusion
Implementation of the modified Project would not result in new or more significant impacts than
those identified in the previously adopted IS/MND related to changes in air traffic patterns or
inadequate emergency access. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project [No Impact])
Implementation of the modified Project would not result in new or more significant impacts than
those identified in the previously adopted IS/MND related to conflicts with applicable
transportation and traffic plans, ordinances, and policies; conflicts with congestion management
plans; increases in traffic related hazards; and conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and other such facilities. (Same Impact as
Previously Approved Project [Less Than Significant Impact])
EXHIBIT A
Page 69 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-50 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
3.3.18 Utilities and Service Systems
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project
Less Impact
Than
Approved
Project
18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS —
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new
or expanded entitlements needed?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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 provider’s existing commitments?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
3.3.18.1 Setting
Setting information relevant to utilities and service systems for the modified Project remains the
same as that discussed in the adopted IS/MND. There would be no expansion of utility service
beyond the WQCP. Setting discussions from the adopted IS/MND for this resource area are
therefore applicable to the modified Project.
3.3.18.2 Findings of Previously Adopted IS/MND
The adopted IS/MND identified less than significant impacts for all checklist items above related to
utilities and service systems.
3.3.18.3 Discussion
Stormwater, Wastewater, and Water Supply
The WQCP is a wastewater treatment facility. As described in the adopted IS/MND, the purpose
of approved and modified Project is to comply with the wastewater treatment requirements of
San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The modified Project would result in increased efficiency,
EXHIBIT A
Page 70 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-51 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
reliability, and secondary treatment capacity at the WQCP along with other upgrades. It would
also remain in compliance with regulatory requirements. The modified Project would continue
operations as regulated under the 2014 NPDES permit, and would not disrupt capacity needed by
existing users. The designs analyzed in the adopted IS/MND included actions to improve
facilities such as new storm sewers and discharge piping; these elements are unchanged in the
proposed modified design. The modified Project would not include any new or different storm
water drainage facilities.
The modified Project would not require new water entitlement, as the project does not propose to
increase the water supply demand. Any construction activities associated with the project (as
discussed in other sections of this chapter) would not cause new or more significant water supply
impacts than those identified in the adopted IS/MND.
Other Impacts on Utilities and Service Systems
Activities proposed under the modified Project would not generate additional impacts on utilities
and service systems. During construction the modified Project would generate a similar volume
and type of construction-related waste and debris as described in the adopted IS/MND. The
contractor would be required to comply with all pertinent regulations regarding the disposal of
solid waste generated by construction activities. No long-term solid waste generation would be
associated with the modified Project. The impact would remain less than significant.
3.3.18.4 Conclusion
Implementation of the modified Project would not result in new or more significant impacts than
those identified in the previously adopted IS/MND related to exceedance of wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board; adequate capacity to serve
the projected demand in addition to the wastewater treatment provider’s existing commitments;
the construction of new water treatment facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, new storm
water drainage facilities and expansion of existing facilities, which could cause significant
environmental effects; water supply availability to serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources; sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the solid waste disposal needs
during construction and operation; and compliance with statutes and regulations related to solid
waste. (Same Impact as Previously Approved Project [Less Than Significant Impact])
EXHIBIT A
Page 71 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-52 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
3.3.19 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Approved
Project
Less Impact
Than
Approved
Project
19. 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 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
3.3.19.1 Findings of Previously Adopted IS/MND
Impact analyses in the adopted IS/MND found that the proposed project would not significantly
degrade the quality of the environment. Potential impacts associated with resources such as
increased dust, noise, traffic, biological resources, and hazards were determined to be less than
significant with mitigation incorporated. The adopted IS/MND identified less than significant
impacts related to the Project’s potential to have impacts that make a cumulatively considerable
contribution and have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse impacts on
human beings.
3.3.19.2 Discussion
Direct or Indirect Impacts to the Quality of the Environment; Fish, Wildlife, or
Plant Species, Habitat, or Community; California Prehistory or History
Impact analyses in the sections above show that the modified Project would not significantly
degrade the quality of the environment. Potential impacts associated with resources such as
increased dust, noise, traffic, biological resources, and hazards would be reduced to less-than-
significant levels with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures in the individual
sections
EXHIBIT A
Page 72 of 148
3. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-53 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
Cumulatively Considerable Impacts and Effects on Human Beings
Projects that are proposed or planned to occur concurrently with the modified Project in or near
the project area include a parking garage expansion of approximately 1,531 spaces for an airport
parking facility.24 The project is located directly south of the WQCP site at 195 North Access
Road in South San Francisco. The parking garage expansion was approved in March 2014, and
construction is expected to start in the first quarter of 2017.
As discussed in the adopted IS/MND and previous sections of this Addendum, environmental
impacts from the modified Project would be limited primarily to short-term effects related to
construction. The impacts would be less than significant or less than signification with mitigation.
If the projects in South San Francisco were to be implemented concurrently with the proposed
project, the cumulative impacts could be significant. However, construction of the parking garage
expansion would not occur at the same time as project construction. Implementation of the
mitigation measures identified in this document would reduce the project impacts to a less-than-
significant level and would ensure that the modified Project’s contribution is less than
cumulatively considerable.
Compliance of the project discharges with necessary permits would ensure protection of the
receiving waters and would not degrade the water quality. As such, when considered with other
projects within the region, the proposed modified Project’s contribution would not be
cumulatively considerable. Therefore, potential cumulative impacts remain the same as in the
adopted IS/MND, less than significant.
The impact analysis in the adopted IS/MND and throughout this chapter indicates that the
modified Project would not have environmental effects that would not cause substantial adverse
impacts on human beings. Regulatory compliance and implementation of protective measures as
part of the modified Project would ensure that the impacts would be minimal, and the impact
would remain less than significant.
3.3.19.3 Conclusion
Implementation of the modified Project would not result in new or more significant individually
limited but cumulatively considerable impacts or cause substantial direct or indirect adverse
effects on human beings than those identified in the previously adopted IS/MND. (Same Impact
as Previously Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])
Implementation of the modified Project would not result in new or more significant impacts
related to 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 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 than those identified in the previously adopted IS/MND. (Same
Impact as Previously Approved Project [Less than Significant with Mitigation])
24 City of South San Francisco, Major Projects, February-2017, February 2017.
EXHIBIT A
Page 73 of 148
3.Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3-54 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
This page intentionally left blank
EXHIBIT A
Page 74 of 148
South San Francisco/ San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 4-1 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
CHAPTER 4
Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
This chapter summarizes the mitigation measures that would be integrated into the modified Project
to reduce the potentially significant impacts to a less -than-significant level. The chapter
provides a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) organized in a tabular format,
keyed to each mitigation measure incorporated into the project. The tables following each
measure provide a breakdown of how the mitigation measure would be implemented, who would
be responsible, and when it would occur. The tables consist of four column headings which are
defined as follows:
Implementation Procedure: If needed, this column provides additional information on how
the mitigation measures would be implemented.
Monitoring and Reporting Actions: This column contains an outline of the appropriate steps
to verify compliance with the mitigation measure.
Monitoring Responsibility: This column contains an assignment of responsibility for the
monitoring and reporting tasks.
Monitoring Schedule: The general schedule for conducting each monitoring and reporting
task, identifying where appropriate both the timing and the frequency of the action.
4.1 Air Quality
Mitigation Measure AIR-1a
During construction activities, the City shall require the construction contractor(s) to implement a
dust abatement program that includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the following BAAQMD-
recommended measures as needed to control dust:
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved
access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power
vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.
EXHIBIT A
Page 75 of 148
4.Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
South San Francisco/ San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 4-2 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are
used.
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing
the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics
control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear
signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the
Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action
within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with
applicable regulations.
Implementation Procedure
Monitoring and
Reporting Actions
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule
1.City includes dust
abatement requirements in
construction specifications.
1.City reviews dust
abatement program.
1.City 1.Prior to construction
2.Contractor implements
measures in the program.
2.City documents that
measures are being
implemented.
2.City 2.During construction
and final inspection
Mitigation Measure AIR-1b
During construction activities, the City shall ensure that the construction contractor(s) implement
the following measures:
On-road construction vehicle idling time shall not exceed five minutes. Additionally, off-road
equipment engines shall not idle for longer than five minutes per Section 2449(d)(3) of
Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9 of the California Code of Regulations.
Implementation Procedure
Monitoring and
Reporting Actions
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule
1.City includes vehicle idling
requirements in
construction specifications.
1.City reviews contract.1.City 1.Prior to construction
2.Contractor implements
measures in the program.
2.City documents that
measures are being
implemented.
2.City 2.During construction
and final inspection
EXHIBIT A
Page 76 of 148
4.Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
South San Francisco/ San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 4-3 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
4.2 Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO-1a
The City will implement the following measure prior to construction:
No more than two weeks in advance of any ground-disturbing activity, or other construction
activity that would commence during the bird breeding season (February 1 through
August 31), a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys of potential
nesting habitat in the vicinity of the planned activity. No surveys shall be conducted for
California Ridgway’s rail nests, as they would disturb the species and constitute “take” under
Federal Endangered Species Act. If surveys indicate presence of nests, Mitigation Measure
BIO-1b will be implemented.
Implementation Procedure
Monitoring and
Reporting Actions
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule
1.City shall contract with a
qualified biologist to
conduct a worker education
program.
1.City executes contract.1.Onsite foreman, City 1.No more than 2 weeks
prior to construction,
and prior to the
removal of any
vegetation
2.City shall contract with a
qualified biologist to
conduct a pre-construction
survey for California
Ridgway’s rail.
2.City executes contract.2.Qualified biologist,
City
2.Between two and four
weeks prior to
construction, and prior
to the removal of any
vegetation
Mitigation Measure BIO-1b
The City will implement the following measure if pre-construction surveys conducted under
Mitigation Measure BIO-1a indicate presence of nests:
If active nests are found during pre-construction surveys, the results of the surveys shall be
discussed with California Department of Fish and Wildlife and avoidance procedures would
be adopted, if necessary, on a case-by-case basis and construction in the vicinity would be
initiated only after avoidance measures are adopted. Avoidance measures shall include
maintaining construction buffer areas (up to several hundred feet in the case of raptors) or
seasonal avoidance, as needed. If buffers are created, a no-disturbance zone shall be created
around active nests for the remainder of the breeding season, or until a qualified biologist
determines that all young have fledged. The size of the buffer zones and types of construction
activities restricted shall take into account factors such as the following:
Noise and human disturbance levels at the proposed project site and the nesting site at
the time of the survey and the noise and disturbance expected during the construction
activity;
Distance, line of sight, and amount of vegetation or other screening between the
proposed project site and the nest; and
Sensitivity of individual nesting species and behaviors of the nesting birds.
EXHIBIT A
Page 77 of 148
4.Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
South San Francisco/ San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 4-4 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
Implementation Procedure
Monitoring and
Reporting Actions
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule
1.City shall contract with a
qualified biologist to
conduct a pre-construction
survey if during the nesting
season.
1.City executes contract.1.City 1.No more than 14 days
prior to construction
2.City shall include potential
work limitations in
construction specifications.
2.City reviews construction
specifications.
2.City 2.Prior to construction
3.If nesting raptors are found
biologist shall identify
appropriate actions to
avoid effects.
3.Sign-off by City that
measures are being
implemented.
3.City 3.During construction
Mitigation Measure BIO-2
The City shall implement the following measures during excavation for Stormwater Pump
Stations Nos. 4 and 5 and demolition of the digesters:
Project construction activities shall take place between September and January, i.e., in the
months outside of the California Ridgway’s rail breeding season (February 1 through
August 31); or
Noise reduction measures, including solid plywood fences, sound blankets, or other barriers
with noise-dampening materials shall be constructed along the northwest, north, and
northeast-facing edges of the project site prior to initiation of construction to serve as noise
attenuation barriers. Noise barriers shall be installed in all locations along the exterior fence
of the project boundary to minimize any direct or reflected noise above current ambient levels
in salt marsh habitats outside the project site. The noise attenuation barrier shall be a
minimum of eight feet in height, but sufficient in height to reduce any noise from construction on
upper stories or building rooftops. The fences shall shield the marshes from major noise
generating phases of construction to attenuate noise emanating from the project site.
Implementation Procedure
Monitoring and
Reporting Actions
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule
1.City shall obtain required
permits and include work
limitations such as
exclusionary fencing in
construction specifications.
1.City reviews construction
specifications.
1.City 1.Prior to construction
2.Contractor shall
implement required
measures including
fencing.
2.Periodic inspections
during construction
along the drainage ditch.
Sign-off by City that
measures are being
implemented.
2.City 2.During construction
EXHIBIT A
Page 78 of 148
4.Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
South San Francisco/ San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 4-5 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
4.3 Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CUL-1
The City shall implement the following measure:
Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources. If prehistoric or historic-period
cultural materials are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, halt all work within
100 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative can
assess the significance of the find. Prehistoric materials might include obsidian and chert
flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally
darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks and artifacts; stone milling
equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered-stone tools,
such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include stone,
concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass,
and/or ceramic refuse. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the
archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American representative, will develop a
treatment plan that could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery.
Implementation Procedure
Monitoring and
Reporting Actions
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule
1.City shall contract with an
archaeologist meeting the
Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for professional
archaeology to monitor all
ground-disturbing activities.
1.City executes contract.1.City, qualified
archaeologist
1.Prior to and during
construction
2.City shall review construction
specifications to ensure
procedures for cultural
resources discovery are
included.
2.City reviews construction
specifications.
2.City 2.Prior to construction
3.In the event subsurface cultural
resources are discovered,
construction within 100 feet of
the find shall be halted and the
qualified archaeologist shall be
notified
3.City shall notify the
County of the discovery.
3.City 3.During construction
4.The archaeologist shall
complete a final monitoring
report
4.Archaeologist completes
report
4.Qualified
archaeologist
4.Following construction
Mitigation Measure CUL-2
The City shall implement the following measure:
Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. If human remains are encountered during
ground disturbing activities, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no
further disturbance will occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as
to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98. If the
remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to
notify the Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American Heritage
EXHIBIT A
Page 79 of 148
4.Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
South San Francisco/ San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 4-6 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
Commission will then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent of
the deceased Native American, who will make recommendations for the treatment of any
human remains.
Implementation Procedure
Monitoring and
Reporting Actions
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule
1.City shall retain a Native
American monitor to monitor
all ground-disturbing activities
1.City executes contract 1.City Native
American Monitor
1.Prior to and during
construction
2.City shall review construction
specifications to ensure
procedures for human remains
discovery are included.
2.City reviews
construction
specifications.
2.City 2.Prior to construction
3.In the event human remains
are discovered, construction in
the area shall be halted and
City shall consult the County
Coroner.
3.The contractor shall
notify City of the
discovery.
3.City 3.During construction
4.City shall review construction
specifications to ensure
procedures for human remains
discovery are included.
4.City reviews
construction
specifications.
4.City 4.Prior to construction
4.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1
The City shall implement the following measure:
Prior to commencement of demolition activities, the City shall contract with a licensed
professional to conduct hazardous building material surveys for asbestos containing
materials and lead-based paint for all structures proposed for demolition. Any subsequently
identified hazardous building materials shall be removed and abated in accordance with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) rule “Lead: Renovation, Repair and
Painting Activities that Disturb Lead-Based Paint”, 40 CFR 745; California Code of
Regulations 1529, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and any local requirements
that govern the protection, collection, transport, and disposal of hazardous building
materials including asbestos containing materials and lead-based paint.
Implementation Procedure
Monitoring and
Reporting Actions
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule
1.City incorporates
requirements in
construction specifications.
1.City reviews construction
specifications.
1.City 1.Prior to construction
2.Contractor implements
measures in the program.
2.City documents that
measures are being
implemented.
2.City 2.During construction
EXHIBIT A
Page 80 of 148
4.Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
South San Francisco/ San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 4-7 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2
The City shall implement the following measure:
Prior to commencement of construction activities, the City shall prepare and implement a
Soil Management Plan as approved by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB). The Soil Management Plan shall be prepared by a qualified
environmental consulting firm and shall include protocols for all earthwork activities that
might encounter suspected contamination, emergency contact information, and minimum
personal protective equipment requirements for onsite construction workers. Any suspected
contaminated subsurface materials shall be segregated, covered, and profiled for appropriate
offsite disposal in accordance with CalOSHA requirements and the receiving facilities
requirements. The RWQCB shall be notified of any suspected contamination and the City
shall only proceed with earthwork activities following direction from the RWQCB or local
Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Any required further excavation as directed by
the overseeing agency shall be completed prior to recommencement of construction.
As part of the preparation of the Addendum and in compliance with Mitigation Measure HAZ-2,
a Contaminated Soil Management Plan (CSMP) has been written for the modified Project.
Implementation Procedure
Monitoring and
Reporting Actions
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule
1.City includes procedures in
the event that contaminated
soils are identified in
construction specifications.
1.City reviews construction
specifications.
1.City 1.Prior to construction
2.Contractor implements
measures in the program.
2.City documents that
measures are being
implemented.
2.City 2.During construction
4.5 Noise
Mitigation Measure NOI-1
Construction Noise Reduction Measures. The City shall require the contractor to implement the
following measures:
Construction equipment shall be well maintained and used judiciously to be as quiet as
practical.
All sandblasting activities shall be fully contained with appropriate tenting.
Limit demolition and construction activities to daytime hours between 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM
on weekdays and 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Saturdays.
Use “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology
exists.
Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers that are in good
condition and appropriate for the equipment.
EXHIBIT A
Page 81 of 148
4.Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
South San Francisco/ San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 4-8 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.
Prohibit construction worker radios from being audible beyond the limits of the construction
site.
Implementation Procedure
Monitoring and
Reporting Actions
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule
1.City incorporates the noise
control measures and
requirements in
construction specifications.
1.City reviews construction
specifications.
1.City 1.Prior to construction
2.The contractor implements
measures.
2.City documents that
measures are being
implemented.
2.City 2.During construction
EXHIBIT A
Page 82 of 148
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 5-1 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
CHAPTER 5
Report Preparers
5.1 Lead Agency
City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Sam Bautista, Principle Engineer
5.2 Addendum Consultants
Carollo Engineers
2700 Ygnacio Valley Rd, Suite 300
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Rick Chan, P.E., Project Manager
Becky Gherini, P.E., Project Engineer
Daniel Chien, P.E., Design Engineer
Seema Chavan, P.E., Environmental Engineer
Environmental Science Associates
550 Kearny Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94108
Jim O’Toole, Project Director
David Halsing, Project Manager, Technical Reviewer
Alena Maudru, Deputy Project Manager, Environmental Planner, Section Author
Michael Burns, Contaminated Soil Management Plan, Technical Reviewer
Matthew Fagundes, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Technical Reviewer
Heidi Koenig, Cultural Resources, Technical Reviewer
EXHIBIT A
Page 83 of 148
5.Report Preparers
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 5-2 ESA / 120473.02
Addendum June 2017
This page intentionally left blank
EXHIBIT A
Page 84 of 148
A-1 ESA / 120473.02 South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project
Addendum June 2017
APPENDIX A
Updated Special Status Species Lists
•California Native Plant Society Species List
•California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database
•U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Official Species List
EXHIBIT A
Page 85 of 148
This page intentionally left blank
A-2
EXHIBIT A
Page 86 of 148
Sc
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
Na
m
e
Co
m
m
o
n
Na
m
e
Fa
m
i
l
y
Li
f
e
f
o
r
m
Ra
r
e
Pl
a
n
t
RSt
a
t
e
Ra
n
k
G
l
o
b
a
l
Ra
n
k
CE
S
A
F
E
S
A
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Hi
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Lo
CA
En
d
e
m
i
c
Am
s
i
n
c
k
i
a
lu
n
a
r
i
s
be
n
t
‐fl
o
w
e
r
e
d
fi
d
d
l
e
n
e
c
k
Bo
r
a
g
i
n
a
c
e
a
e
an
n
u
a
l
he
r
b
1B
.
2
S
2
S
3
G
2
G
3
N
o
n
e
N
o
n
e
50
0
3
T
Ar
a
b
i
s
bl
e
p
h
a
r
o
p
h
y
l
l
a
co
a
s
t
ro
c
k
c
r
e
s
s
Br
a
s
s
i
c
a
c
e
a
e
pe
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
he
r
b
4.
3
S
4
G
4
N
o
n
e
N
o
n
e
11
0
0
3
T
Ar
c
t
o
s
t
a
p
h
y
l
o
s
fr
a
n
c
i
s
c
a
n
a
Fr
a
n
c
i
s
c
a
n
ma
n
z
a
n
i
t
a
Er
i
c
a
c
e
a
e
pe
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
ev
e
r
g
r
e
e
n
sh
r
u
b
1B
.
1
S
1
G
1
N
o
n
e
F
E
30
0
6
0
T
Ar
c
t
o
s
t
a
p
h
y
l
o
s
im
b
r
i
c
a
t
a
Sa
n
Br
u
n
o
Mo
u
n
t
a
i
n
ma
n
z
a
n
i
t
a
E
r
i
c
a
c
e
a
e
pe
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
ev
e
r
g
r
e
e
n
sh
r
u
b
1B
.
1
S
1
G
1
C
E
N
o
n
e
37
0
2
7
5
T
Ar
c
t
o
s
t
a
p
h
y
l
o
s
mo
n
t
a
n
a
ss
p
.
ra
v
e
n
i
i
P
r
e
s
i
d
i
o
ma
n
z
a
n
i
t
a
Er
i
c
a
c
e
a
e
pe
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
ev
e
r
g
r
e
e
n
sh
r
u
b
1B
.
1
S
1
G
3
T
1
C
E
F
E
21
5
4
5
T
Ar
c
t
o
s
t
a
p
h
y
l
o
s
mo
n
t
a
r
a
e
n
s
i
s
M
o
n
t
a
r
a
ma
n
z
a
n
i
t
a
Er
i
c
a
c
e
a
e
pe
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
ev
e
r
g
r
e
e
n
sh
r
u
b
1B
.
2
S
1
G
1
N
o
n
e
N
o
n
e
50
0
8
0
T
Ar
c
t
o
s
t
a
p
h
y
l
o
s
pa
c
i
f
i
c
a
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
ma
n
z
a
n
i
t
a
Er
i
c
a
c
e
a
e
ev
e
r
g
r
e
e
n
sh
r
u
b
1B
.
2
S
1
G
1
C
E
N
o
n
e
33
0
3
3
0
T
As
t
r
a
g
a
l
u
s
nu
t
t
a
l
l
i
i
va
r
.
nu
t
t
a
l
l
i
i
oc
e
a
n
bl
u
f
f
mi
l
k
‐ve
t
c
h
Fa
b
a
c
e
a
e
pe
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
he
r
b
4.
2
S
4
G
4
T
4
N
o
n
e
N
o
n
e
12
0
3
T
As
t
r
a
g
a
l
u
s
te
n
e
r
va
r
.
te
n
e
r
al
k
a
l
i
mi
l
k
‐ve
t
c
h
Fa
b
a
c
e
a
e
an
n
u
a
l
he
r
b
1B
.
2
S
2
G
2
T
2
N
o
n
e
N
o
n
e
60
1
T
Ce
n
t
r
o
m
a
d
i
a
pa
r
r
y
i
ss
p
.
pa
r
r
y
i
p
a
p
p
o
s
e
ta
r
p
l
a
n
t
As
t
e
r
a
c
e
a
e
an
n
u
a
l
he
r
b
1B
.
2
S
2
G
3
T
2
N
o
n
e
N
o
n
e
42
0
0
T
Ch
o
r
i
z
a
n
t
h
e
cu
s
p
i
d
a
t
a
va
r
.
cu
s
p
i
d
a
t
a
S
a
n
Fr
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
Ba
y
sp
i
n
e
f
l
o
w
e
r
P
o
l
y
g
o
n
a
c
e
a
e
an
n
u
a
l
he
r
b
1B
.
2
S
1
G
2
T
1
N
o
n
e
N
o
n
e
21
5
3
T
Ch
o
r
i
z
a
n
t
h
e
ro
b
u
s
t
a
va
r
.
ro
b
u
s
t
a
r
o
b
u
s
t
sp
i
n
e
f
l
o
w
e
r
Po
l
y
g
o
n
a
c
e
a
e
an
n
u
a
l
he
r
b
1B
.
1
S
1
G
2
T
1
N
o
n
e
F
E
30
0
3
T
Ci
r
s
i
u
m
an
d
r
e
w
s
i
i
Fr
a
n
c
i
s
c
a
n
th
i
s
t
l
e
As
t
e
r
a
c
e
a
e
pe
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
he
r
b
1B
.
2
S
3
G
3
N
o
n
e
N
o
n
e
15
0
0
T
Ci
r
s
i
u
m
oc
c
i
d
e
n
t
a
l
e
va
r
.
co
m
p
a
c
t
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
c
t
co
b
w
e
b
b
y
th
i
s
t
l
e
A
s
t
e
r
a
c
e
a
e
pe
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
he
r
b
1B
.
2
S
1
G
3
G
4
T
1
N
o
n
e
N
o
n
e
15
0
5
T
Co
l
l
i
n
s
i
a
mu
l
t
i
c
o
l
o
r
Sa
n
Fr
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
co
l
l
i
n
s
i
a
Pl
a
n
t
a
g
i
n
a
c
e
a
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
he
r
b
1B
.
2
S
2
G
2
N
o
n
e
N
o
n
e
25
0
3
0
T
Eq
u
i
s
e
t
u
m
pa
l
u
s
t
r
e
ma
r
s
h
ho
r
s
e
t
a
i
l
Eq
u
i
s
e
t
a
c
e
a
e
pe
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
rh
i
z
o
m
a
t
o
u
s
he
r
b
3
S
1
S
3
G
5
N
o
n
e
N
o
n
e
10
0
0
4
5
F
Er
y
s
i
m
u
m
fr
a
n
c
i
s
c
a
n
u
m
Sa
n
Fr
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
wa
l
l
f
l
o
w
e
r
B
r
a
s
s
i
c
a
c
e
a
e
pe
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
he
r
b
4.
2
S
3
G
3
N
o
n
e
N
o
n
e
55
0
0
T
Fr
i
t
i
l
l
a
r
i
a
li
l
i
a
c
e
a
fr
a
g
r
a
n
t
fr
i
t
i
l
l
a
r
y
Li
l
i
a
c
e
a
e
pe
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
bu
l
b
i
f
e
r
o
u
s
he
r
b
1B
.
2
S
2
G
2
N
o
n
e
N
o
n
e
41
0
3
T
Gi
l
i
a
ca
p
i
t
a
t
a
ss
p
.
ch
a
m
i
s
s
o
n
i
s
b
l
u
e
co
a
s
t
gi
l
i
a
Po
l
e
m
o
n
i
a
c
e
a
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
he
r
b
1B
.
1
S
2
G
5
T
2
N
o
n
e
N
o
n
e
20
0
2
T
Gi
l
i
a
mi
l
l
e
f
o
l
i
a
t
a
da
r
k
‐ey
e
d
gi
l
i
a
Po
l
e
m
o
n
i
a
c
e
a
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
he
r
b
1B
.
2
S
2
G
2
N
o
n
e
N
o
n
e
30
2
F
Gr
i
n
d
e
l
i
a
hi
r
s
u
t
u
l
a
va
r
.
ma
r
i
t
i
m
a
Sa
n
Fr
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
gu
m
p
l
a
n
t
As
t
e
r
a
c
e
a
e
pe
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
he
r
b
3.
2
S
1
G
5
T
1
Q
N
o
n
e
N
o
n
e
40
0
1
5
T
He
l
i
a
n
t
h
e
l
l
a
ca
s
t
a
n
e
a
Di
a
b
l
o
he
l
i
a
n
t
h
e
l
l
a
As
t
e
r
a
c
e
a
e
pe
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
he
r
b
1B
.
2
S
2
G
2
N
o
n
e
N
o
n
e
13
0
0
6
0
T
He
m
i
z
o
n
i
a
co
n
g
e
s
t
a
ss
p
.
co
n
g
e
s
t
a
c
o
n
g
e
s
t
e
d
‐he
a
d
e
d
ha
y
f
i
e
l
d
ta
r
p
l
a
n
t
As
t
e
r
a
c
e
a
e
an
n
u
a
l
he
r
b
1B
.
2
S
1
S
2
G
5
T
1
T
2
N
o
n
e
N
o
n
e
56
0
2
0
T
He
s
p
e
r
e
v
a
x
sp
a
r
s
i
f
l
o
r
a
va
r
.
br
e
v
i
f
o
l
i
a
s
h
o
r
t
‐le
a
v
e
d
ev
a
x
As
t
e
r
a
c
e
a
e
an
n
u
a
l
he
r
b
1B
.
2
S
2
G
4
T
3
N
o
n
e
N
o
n
e
21
5
0
F
He
t
e
r
a
n
t
h
e
r
a
du
b
i
a
wa
t
e
r
st
a
r
‐gr
a
s
s
Po
n
t
e
d
e
r
i
a
c
e
a
e
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
he
r
b
2B
.
2
S
1
G
5
N
o
n
e
N
o
n
e
14
9
5
3
0
F
Ho
r
k
e
l
i
a
cu
n
e
a
t
a
va
r
.
se
r
i
c
e
a
K
e
l
l
o
g
g
'
s
ho
r
k
e
l
i
a
Ro
s
a
c
e
a
e
pe
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
he
r
b
1B
.
1
S
1
?
G
4
T
1
?
N
o
n
e
N
o
n
e
20
0
1
0
T
Ho
r
k
e
l
i
a
ma
r
i
n
e
n
s
i
s
Po
i
n
t
Re
y
e
s
ho
r
k
e
l
i
a
Ro
s
a
c
e
a
e
pe
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
he
r
b
1B
.
2
S
2
G
2
N
o
n
e
N
o
n
e
75
5
5
T
Ir
i
s
lo
n
g
i
p
e
t
a
l
a
co
a
s
t
ir
i
s
Ir
i
d
a
c
e
a
e
pe
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
rh
i
z
o
m
a
t
o
u
s
he
r
b
4.
2
S
3
G
3
N
o
n
e
N
o
n
e
60
0
0
T
Le
s
s
i
n
g
i
a
ge
r
m
a
n
o
r
u
m
Sa
n
Fr
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
le
s
s
i
n
g
i
a
As
t
e
r
a
c
e
a
e
an
n
u
a
l
he
r
b
1B
.
1
S
1
G
1
C
E
F
E
11
0
2
5
T
Ma
l
a
c
o
t
h
a
m
n
u
s
ar
c
u
a
t
u
s
ar
c
u
a
t
e
bu
s
h
‐ma
l
l
o
w
Ma
l
v
a
c
e
a
e
pe
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
ev
e
r
g
r
e
e
n
sh
r
u
b
1B
.
2
S
2
G
2
Q
N
o
n
e
N
o
n
e
35
5
1
5
T
Mo
n
a
r
d
e
l
l
a
si
n
u
a
t
a
ss
p
.
ni
g
r
e
s
c
e
n
s
n
o
r
t
h
e
r
n
cu
r
l
y
‐le
a
v
e
d
mo
n
a
r
d
e
l
l
a
L
a
m
i
a
c
e
a
e
an
n
u
a
l
he
r
b
1B
.
2
S
2
G
3
T
2
N
o
n
e
N
o
n
e
30
0
0
T
Pe
n
t
a
c
h
a
e
t
a
be
l
l
i
d
i
f
l
o
r
a
wh
i
t
e
‐ra
y
e
d
pe
n
t
a
c
h
a
e
t
a
A
s
t
e
r
a
c
e
a
e
an
n
u
a
l
he
r
b
1B
.
1
S
1
G
1
C
E
F
E
62
0
3
5
T
Pl
a
g
i
o
b
o
t
h
r
y
s
ch
o
r
i
s
i
a
n
u
s
va
r
.
ch
o
r
i
s
i
a
n
u
Ch
o
r
i
s
'
po
p
c
o
r
n
f
l
o
w
e
r
Bo
r
a
g
i
n
a
c
e
a
e
an
n
u
a
l
he
r
b
1B
.
2
S
2
G
3
T
2
Q
N
o
n
e
N
o
n
e
16
0
3
T
Si
l
e
n
e
ve
r
e
c
u
n
d
a
ss
p
.
ve
r
e
c
u
n
d
a
S
a
n
Fr
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
ca
m
p
i
o
n
Ca
r
y
o
p
h
y
l
l
a
c
e
a
e
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
he
r
b
1B
.
2
S
2
G
5
T
2
N
o
n
e
N
o
n
e
64
5
3
0
T
Su
a
e
d
a
ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
c
a
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
se
a
b
l
i
t
e
Ch
e
n
o
p
o
d
i
a
c
e
a
e
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
ev
e
r
g
r
e
e
n
sh
r
u
b
1B
.
1
S
1
G
1
N
o
n
e
F
E
15
0
T
Tr
i
f
o
l
i
u
m
am
o
e
n
u
m
tw
o
‐fo
r
k
cl
o
v
e
r
Fa
b
a
c
e
a
e
an
n
u
a
l
he
r
b
1B
.
1
S
1
G
1
N
o
n
e
F
E
41
5
5
T
Tr
i
p
h
y
s
a
r
i
a
fl
o
r
i
b
u
n
d
a
Sa
n
Fr
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
ow
l
'
s
‐cl
o
v
e
r
O
r
o
b
a
n
c
h
a
c
e
a
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
he
r
b
1B
.
2
S
2
?
G
2
?
N
o
n
e
N
o
n
e
16
0
1
0
T
Tr
i
q
u
e
t
r
e
l
l
a
ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
c
a
co
a
s
t
a
l
tr
i
q
u
e
t
r
e
l
l
a
Po
t
t
i
a
c
e
a
e
mo
s
s
1B
.
2
S
2
G
2
N
o
n
e
N
o
n
e
10
0
1
0
F
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
N
a
t
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
t
S
o
c
i
e
t
y
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
3
0
,
2
0
1
7
EXHIBIT A
Page 87 of 148
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Adela oplerella
Opler's longhorn moth
IILEE0G040 None None G2 S2
Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum
Franciscan onion
PMLIL021R1 None None G5T1 S1 1B.2
Amsinckia lunaris
bent-flowered fiddleneck
PDBOR01070 None None G2G3 S2S3 1B.2
Arctostaphylos franciscana
Franciscan manzanita
PDERI040J3 Endangered None G1 S1 1B.1
Arctostaphylos imbricata
San Bruno Mountain manzanita
PDERI040L0 None Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Arctostaphylos montana ssp. ravenii
Presidio manzanita
PDERI040J2 Endangered Endangered G3T1 S1 1B.1
Arctostaphylos montaraensis
Montara manzanita
PDERI042W0 None None G1 S1 1B.2
Arctostaphylos pacifica
Pacific manzanita
PDERI040Z0 None Endangered G1 S1 1B.2
Astragalus tener var. tener
alkali milk-vetch
PDFAB0F8R1 None None G2T2 S2 1B.2
Banksula incredula
incredible harvestman
ILARA14100 None None G1 S1
Bombus caliginosus
obscure bumble bee
IIHYM24380 None None G4?S1S2
Bombus occidentalis
western bumble bee
IIHYM24250 None None G2G3 S1
Caecidotea tomalensis
Tomales isopod
ICMAL01220 None None G2 S2S3
Callophrys mossii bayensis
San Bruno elfin butterfly
IILEPE2202 Endangered None G4T1 S1
Carex comosa
bristly sedge
PMCYP032Y0 None None G5 S2 2B.1
Chorizanthe cuspidata var. cuspidata
San Francisco Bay spineflower
PDPGN04081 None None G2T1 S1 1B.2
Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta
robust spineflower
PDPGN040Q2 Endangered None G2T1 S1 1B.1
Cicindela hirticollis gravida
sandy beach tiger beetle
IICOL02101 None None G5T2 S2
Cirsium andrewsii
Franciscan thistle
PDAST2E050 None None G3 S3 1B.2
Cirsium occidentale var. compactum
compact cobwebby thistle
PDAST2E1Z1 None None G3G4T1 S1 1B.2
Quad<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(San Francisco South (3712264))
Query run on 30-January-2017.
Query Criteria:
Report Printed on Monday, January 30, 2017
Page 1 of 4Commercial Version -- Dated January, 1 2017 -- Biogeographic Data Branch
Information Expires 7/1/2017
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
EXHIBIT A
Page 88 of 148
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Collinsia corymbosa
round-headed Chinese-houses
PDSCR0H060 None None G1 S1 1B.2
Collinsia multicolor
San Francisco collinsia
PDSCR0H0B0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Corynorhinus townsendii
Townsend's big-eared bat
AMACC08010 None None G3G4 S2 SSC
Dufourea stagei
Stage's dufourine bee
IIHYM22010 None None G1G2 S1?
Emys marmorata
western pond turtle
ARAAD02030 None None G3G4 S3 SSC
Eucyclogobius newberryi
tidewater goby
AFCQN04010 Endangered None G3 S3 SSC
Euphydryas editha bayensis
Bay checkerspot butterfly
IILEPK4055 Threatened None G5T1 S1
Falco peregrinus anatum
American peregrine falcon
ABNKD06071 Delisted Delisted G4T4 S3S4 FP
Fritillaria liliacea
fragrant fritillary
PMLIL0V0C0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
saltmarsh common yellowthroat
ABPBX1201A None None G5T3 S3 SSC
Gilia capitata ssp. chamissonis
blue coast gilia
PDPLM040B3 None None G5T2 S2 1B.1
Gilia millefoliata
dark-eyed gilia
PDPLM04130 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Grindelia hirsutula var. maritima
San Francisco gumplant
PDAST470D3 None None G5T1Q S1 3.2
Helianthella castanea
Diablo helianthella
PDAST4M020 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Hemizonia congesta ssp. congesta
congested-headed hayfield tarplant
PDAST4R065 None None G5T1T2 S1S2 1B.2
Hesperevax sparsiflora var. brevifolia
short-leaved evax
PDASTE5011 None None G4T3 S2 1B.2
Heteranthera dubia
water star-grass
PMPON03010 None None G5 S2 2B.2
Horkelia cuneata var. sericea
Kellogg's horkelia
PDROS0W043 None None G4T1?S1?1B.1
Horkelia marinensis
Point Reyes horkelia
PDROS0W0B0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Hydroporus leechi
Leech's skyline diving beetle
IICOL55040 None None G1?S1?
Ischnura gemina
San Francisco forktail damselfly
IIODO72010 None None G2 S2
Report Printed on Monday, January 30, 2017
Page 2 of 4Commercial Version -- Dated January, 1 2017 -- Biogeographic Data Branch
Information Expires 7/1/2017
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
EXHIBIT A
Page 89 of 148
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Lasiurus cinereus
hoary bat
AMACC05030 None None G5 S4
Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus
California black rail
ABNME03041 None Threatened G3G4T1 S1 FP
Layia carnosa
beach layia
PDAST5N010 Endangered Endangered G2 S2 1B.1
Leptosiphon rosaceus
rose leptosiphon
PDPLM09180 None None G1 S1 1B.1
Lessingia germanorum
San Francisco lessingia
PDAST5S010 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Lichnanthe ursina
bumblebee scarab beetle
IICOL67020 None None G2 S2
Malacothamnus arcuatus
arcuate bush-mallow
PDMAL0Q0E0 None None G2Q S2 1B.2
Melospiza melodia pusillula
Alameda song sparrow
ABPBXA301S None None G5T2?S2S3 SSC
Monardella sinuata ssp. nigrescens
northern curly-leaved monardella
PDLAM18162 None None G3T2 S2 1B.2
Mylopharodon conocephalus
hardhead
AFCJB25010 None None G3 S3 SSC
Pentachaeta bellidiflora
white-rayed pentachaeta
PDAST6X030 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Phalacrocorax auritus
double-crested cormorant
ABNFD01020 None None G5 S4 WL
Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus
Choris' popcornflower
PDBOR0V061 None None G3T2Q S2 1B.2
Plebejus icarioides missionensis
Mission blue butterfly
IILEPG801A Endangered None G5T1 S1
Rallus longirostris obsoletus
California clapper rail
ABNME05016 Endangered Endangered G5T1 S1 FP
Rana draytonii
California red-legged frog
AAABH01022 Threatened None G2G3 S2S3 SSC
Riparia riparia
bank swallow
ABPAU08010 None Threatened G5 S2
Sanicula maritima
adobe sanicle
PDAPI1Z0D0 None Rare G2 S2 1B.1
Silene verecunda ssp. verecunda
San Francisco campion
PDCAR0U213 None None G5T2 S2 1B.2
Speyeria callippe callippe
callippe silverspot butterfly
IILEPJ6091 Endangered None G5T1 S1
Spirinchus thaleichthys
longfin smelt
AFCHB03010 Candidate Threatened G5 S1 SSC
Report Printed on Monday, January 30, 2017
Page 3 of 4Commercial Version -- Dated January, 1 2017 -- Biogeographic Data Branch
Information Expires 7/1/2017
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
EXHIBIT A
Page 90 of 148
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Suaeda californica
California seablite
PDCHE0P020 Endangered None G1 S1 1B.1
Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia
San Francisco gartersnake
ARADB3613B Endangered Endangered G5T2Q S2 FP
Trachusa gummifera
San Francisco Bay Area leaf-cutter bee
IIHYM80010 None None G1 S1
Trifolium amoenum
two-fork clover
PDFAB40040 Endangered None G1 S1 1B.1
Triphysaria floribunda
San Francisco owl's-clover
PDSCR2T010 None None G2?S2?1B.2
Triquetrella californica
coastal triquetrella
NBMUS7S010 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Record Count: 68
Report Printed on Monday, January 30, 2017
Page 4 of 4Commercial Version -- Dated January, 1 2017 -- Biogeographic Data Branch
Information Expires 7/1/2017
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
EXHIBIT A
Page 91 of 148
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
FEDERAL BUILDING, 2800 COTTAGE WAY, ROOM W-2605
SACRAMENTO, CA 95825
PHONE: (916)414-6600 FAX: (916)414-6713
Consultation Code: 08ESMF00-2017-SLI-0953 January 30, 2017
Event Code: 08ESMF00-2017-E-02174
Project Name: SSF-SB WQCP Improvements
Subject:List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as
well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or
may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the
Service under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531 ).et seq.
Please follow the link below to see if your proposed project has the potential to affect other
species or their habitats under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service:
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/protected_species/species_list/species_lists.html
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of
the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can
be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested
through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed
list.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and
the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2)
EXHIBIT A
Page 92 of 148
of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 ), Federal agencies are requiredet seq.
to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and
endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered
species and/or designated critical habitat.
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having
similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological
evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may
affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended
contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.
If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation,
that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the
agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service
recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed
within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7
consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered
Species Consultation Handbook" at:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF
Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 ), and projects affecting these species may requireet seq.
development of an eagle conservation plan
(http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects
should follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing
impacts to migratory birds and bats.
Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications
towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at:
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm;
http://www.towerkill.com; and
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/comtow.html.
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in
the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project
that you submit to our office.
Attachment
2
EXHIBIT A
Page 93 of 148
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 01/30/2017 03:47 PM
1
Official Species List
Provided by:
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
FEDERAL BUILDING
2800 COTTAGE WAY, ROOM W-2605
SACRAMENTO, CA 95825
(916) 414-6600
Consultation Code: 08ESMF00-2017-SLI-0953
Event Code: 08ESMF00-2017-E-02174
Project Type: WASTEWATER FACILITY
Project Name: SSF-SB WQCP Improvements
Project Description: Infrastructure improvements within the footprint of an existing municipal
Water Quality Control Plant.
Please Note: The FWS office may have modified the Project Name and/or Project Description, so it
may be different from what was submitted in your previous request. If the Consultation Code
matches, the FWS considers this to be the same project. Contact the office in the 'Provided by'
section of your previous Official Species list if you have any questions or concerns.
United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: SSF-SB WQCP Improvements
EXHIBIT A
Page 94 of 148
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 01/30/2017 03:47 PM
2
Project Location Map:
Project Coordinates: MULTIPOLYGON (((-122.39407896995546 37.64388603051884, -
122.39349961280824 37.64406443221661, -122.3931133747101 37.64356320730992, -
122.39313483238222 37.64335082285475, -122.39357471466064 37.64288357491589, -
122.39443302154542 37.642135972100654, -122.3954737186432 37.641651725353114, -
122.39663243293764 37.64149880467178, -122.39661097526552 37.64140535298932, -
122.39534497261049 37.64154128267038, -122.39526987075807 37.64132039681234, -
122.39678263664247 37.641141988524495, -122.39672899246216 37.640929597146965, -
122.39691138267519 37.64076817929393, -122.39721179008485 37.6407087094702, -
122.3971474170685 37.640351889528056, -122.39832758903505 37.64015648740492, -
122.39862799644472 37.641311901189326, -122.39991545677186 37.64109101464927, -
122.39989399909975 37.641532787072606, -122.3996686935425 37.64174517672564, -
122.399400472641 37.6418811057849, -122.39946484565736 37.64201703459546, -
122.39927172660829 37.64214446762945, -122.39852070808412 37.64239083754201, -
122.39616036415102 37.642866584026386, -122.39466905593873 37.64356320730992, -
122.39407896995546 37.64388603051884)))
United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: SSF-SB WQCP Improvements
EXHIBIT A
Page 95 of 148
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 01/30/2017 03:47 PM
3
Project Counties: San Mateo, CA
United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: SSF-SB WQCP Improvements
EXHIBIT A
Page 96 of 148
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 01/30/2017 03:47 PM
4
Endangered Species Act Species List
There are a total of 23 threatened or endangered species on your species list. Species on this list should be considered in
an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain
fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. Critical habitats listed under the
Has Critical Habitat column may or may not lie within your project area. See the Critical habitats within your
project area section further below for critical habitat that lies within your project. Please contact the designated FWS
office if you have questions.
Amphibians StatusHas Critical HabitatCondition(s)
California red-legged frog (Rana
draytonii)
Population: Wherever found
ThreatenedFinal designated
Birds
California Clapper rail (Rallus
longirostris obsoletus)
Population: Wherever found
Endangered
California Least tern (Sterna
antillarum browni)
Population: Wherever found
Endangered
Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus
marmoratus)
Population: U.S.A. (CA, OR, WA)
ThreatenedFinal designated
Short-Tailed albatross (Phoebastria
(=diomedea) albatrus)
Population: Wherever found
Endangered
western snowy plover (Charadrius
nivosus ssp. nivosus)
Population: Pacific Coast population DPS-
ThreatenedFinal designated
United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: SSF-SB WQCP Improvements
EXHIBIT A
Page 97 of 148
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 01/30/2017 03:47 PM
5
U.S.A. (CA, OR, WA), Mexico (within 50 miles
of Pacific coast)
Fishes
Delta smelt (Hypomesus
transpacificus)
Population: Wherever found
ThreatenedFinal designated
steelhead (Oncorhynchus (=salmo)
mykiss)
Population: Northern California DPS
ThreatenedFinal designated
Tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius
newberryi)
Population: Wherever found
EndangeredFinal designated
Flowering Plants
Franciscan manzanita (Arctostaphylos
franciscana)
Population: Wherever found
EndangeredFinal designated
Presidio Manzanita (Arctostaphylos
hookeri var. ravenii)
Population: Wherever found
Endangered
Robust spineflower (Chorizanthe
robusta var. robusta)
Population: Wherever found
EndangeredFinal designated
San Francisco lessingia (Lessingia
germanorum (=l.g. var.
germanorum))
Population: Wherever found
Endangered
Showy Indian clover (Trifolium
amoenum)
Population: Wherever found
Endangered
United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: SSF-SB WQCP Improvements
EXHIBIT A
Page 98 of 148
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 01/30/2017 03:47 PM
6
White-Rayed pentachaeta
(Pentachaeta bellidiflora)
Population: Wherever found
Endangered
Insects
Bay Checkerspot butterfly
(Euphydryas editha bayensis)
Population: Wherever found
ThreatenedFinal designated
Callippe Silverspot butterfly (Speyeria
callippe callippe)
Population: Wherever found
Endangered
Mission Blue butterfly (Icaricia
icarioides missionensis)
Population: Wherever found
Endangered
Myrtle's Silverspot butterfly (Speyeria
zerene myrtleae)
Population: Wherever found
Endangered
San Bruno Elfin butterfly (Callophrys
mossii bayensis)
Population: Wherever found
Endangered
Mammals
Salt Marsh Harvest mouse
(Reithrodontomys raviventris)
Population: wherever found
Endangered
Southern Sea otter (Enhydra lutris
nereis)
Population: Wherever found
Threatened
Reptiles
San Francisco Garter snake Endangered
United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: SSF-SB WQCP Improvements
EXHIBIT A
Page 99 of 148
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 01/30/2017 03:47 PM
7
(Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia)
Population: Wherever found
United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: SSF-SB WQCP Improvements
EXHIBIT A
Page 100 of 148
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 01/30/2017 03:47 PM
8
Critical habitats that lie within your project area
There are no critical habitats within your project area.
United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: SSF-SB WQCP Improvements
EXHIBIT A
Page 101 of 148
This page intentionally left blank
A-18
EXHIBIT A
Page 102 of 148
B-1 ESA / 120473.02 South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project
Addendum June 2017
APPENDIX B
Air Quality Emissions Estimates
EXHIBIT A
Page 103 of 148
This page intentionally left blank
B-2
EXHIBIT A
Page 104 of 148
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
-
O
n
-
s
i
t
e
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
No
t
e
:
R
o
a
d
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
o
d
e
l
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
a
n
d
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
.
D
e
f
a
u
l
t
C
a
l
E
E
M
o
d
h
o
r
s
e
p
o
w
e
r
s
w
e
r
e
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
p
i
e
c
e
o
f
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
.
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
l
i
s
t
u
s
e
d
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
t
y
p
e
s
a
n
d
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
.
Ca
l
E
E
M
O
D
de
f
a
u
l
t
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
l
i
s
t
s
w
e
r
e
u
s
e
d
w
h
e
r
e
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
l
i
s
t
d
e
t
a
i
l
w
a
s
n
o
t
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
.
No
t
e
:
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
d
a
y
s
p
e
r
m
o
n
t
h
i
s
a
s
s
u
m
e
d
t
o
b
e
3
0
.
4
d
a
y
s
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
C
H
4
a
n
d
N
2
O
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
1
Ty
p
e
o
f
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
HP
Lo
a
d
F
a
c
t
o
r
Hr
s
/
D
a
y
To
t
a
l
D
a
y
s
RO
G
CO
NO
X
PM
2
.
5
CO
2
RO
G
CO
NO
X
PM
2
.
5
CO
2
RO
G
CO
NO
X
PM
2
.
5
CO
2
CH
4
N2
O
CO
2
e
Ye
a
r
1
1
m
o
n
t
h
Gr
a
d
i
n
g
:
Gr
a
d
e
r
16
2
0.
4
0
8
7
8
30
0.
3
6
2
1
.
1
3
3
3
.
5
5
7
0
.
2
0
0
2
1
8
.
3
6
9
19
2
60
0
1,
8
8
4
10
6
11
5
,
6
6
5
0.
0
1
0.
0
2
0.
0
6
0.
0
0
3.
8
8
2
m
o
n
t
h
s
Ex
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
:
Ex
c
a
v
a
t
o
r
15
7
0.
3
8
1
9
8
61
0.
1
5
6
0
.
9
7
3
1
.
7
7
9
0
.
0
8
7
1
9
9
.
8
2
6
75
46
7
85
3
42
95
,
8
5
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
3
0.
0
6
0.
0
0
6.
4
2
Ex
c
a
v
a
t
o
r
15
7
0.
3
8
1
9
8
61
0.
1
5
6
0
.
9
7
3
1
.
7
7
9
0
.
0
8
7
1
9
9
.
8
2
6
75
46
7
85
3
42
95
,
8
5
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
3
0.
0
6
0.
0
0
6.
4
2
Ex
c
a
v
a
t
o
r
15
7
0.
3
8
1
9
8
61
0.
1
5
6
0
.
9
7
3
1
.
7
7
9
0
.
0
8
7
1
9
9
.
8
2
6
75
46
7
85
3
42
95
,
8
5
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
3
0.
0
6
0.
0
0
6.
4
2
12
m
o
n
t
h
s
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
:
Cr
a
n
e
s
20
8
0.
2
8
8
1
8
36
5
0.
1
9
9
0
.
7
5
4
2
.
2
6
5
0
.
1
0
4
1
5
0
.
9
7
2
96
36
1
1,
0
8
6
50
72
,
3
7
6
0.
0
4
0.
1
5
0.
4
4
0.
0
2
29
.
1
0
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
o
r
S
e
t
s
84
0.
7
4
8
36
5
0.
5
3
2
2
.
6
1
2
3
.
8
0
1
0
.
2
8
5
4
2
0
.
5
4
2
26
4
1,
2
9
9
1,
8
9
0
14
1
20
9
,
1
2
7
0.
1
1
0.
5
2
0.
7
6
0.
0
6
84
.
0
9
Tr
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
75
0.
3
6
8
5
8
36
5
0.
2
2
5
0
.
9
1
4
2
.
0
5
7
0
.
1
6
2
1
9
5
.
0
9
3
50
20
2
45
5
36
43
,
1
3
5
0.
0
2
0.
0
8
0.
1
8
0.
0
1
17
.
3
5
Tr
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
75
0.
3
6
8
5
8
36
5
0.
2
2
5
0
.
9
1
4
2
.
0
5
7
0
.
1
6
2
1
9
5
.
0
9
3
50
20
2
45
5
36
43
,
1
3
5
0.
0
2
0.
0
8
0.
1
8
0.
0
1
17
.
3
5
Tr
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
75
0.
3
6
8
5
8
36
5
0.
2
2
5
0
.
9
1
4
2
.
0
5
7
0
.
1
6
2
1
9
5
.
0
9
3
50
20
2
45
5
36
43
,
1
3
5
0.
0
2
0.
0
8
0.
1
8
0.
0
1
17
.
3
5
We
l
d
e
r
s
46
0.
6
8
36
5
0.
8
4
9
2
.
5
7
9
2
.
3
8
6
0
.
2
1
2
2
5
5
.
7
3
5
18
7
56
9
52
7
47
56
,
4
6
6
0.
0
8
0.
2
3
0.
2
1
0.
0
2
22
.
7
1
Sw
e
e
p
e
r
s
/
S
c
r
u
b
b
e
r
s
88
0.
4
5
5
6
8
36
5
0.
3
9
7
1
.
3
9
3
3
.
1
5
9
0
.
2
7
8
2
3
9
.
3
0
5
12
7
44
7
1,
0
1
3
89
76
,
7
5
5
0.
0
5
0.
1
8
0.
4
1
0.
0
4
30
.
8
7
Ce
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
M
o
r
t
a
r
M
i
x
e
r
s
9
0.
5
6
8
36
5
0.
3
7
3
1
.
9
4
3
2
.
3
4
7
0
.
0
9
9
3
1
8
.
2
4
8
15
78
95
4
12
,
8
3
2
0.
0
1
0.
0
3
0.
0
4
0.
0
0
5.
1
6
0.
3
6
1.
4
7
2.
6
4
0.
1
9
24
7
.
1
1
0.
0
1
0.
0
0
24
7
.
4
1
TP
Y
22
4
.
4
5
MT
/
y
r
Ye
a
r
2
2
m
o
n
t
h
s
De
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
:
Tr
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
75
0.
3
6
8
5
8
61
0.
2
2
5
0
.
9
1
4
2
.
0
5
7
0
.
1
6
2
1
9
5
.
0
9
3
50
20
2
45
5
36
43
,
1
3
5
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
3
0.
0
0
2.
8
9
Tr
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
75
0.
3
6
8
5
8
61
0.
2
2
5
0
.
9
1
4
2
.
0
5
7
0
.
1
6
2
1
9
5
.
0
9
3
50
20
2
45
5
36
43
,
1
3
5
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
3
0.
0
0
2.
8
9
Ex
c
a
v
a
t
o
r
15
7
0.
3
8
1
9
8
61
0.
1
5
6
0
.
9
7
3
1
.
7
7
9
0
.
0
8
7
1
9
9
.
8
2
6
75
46
7
85
3
42
95
,
8
5
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
3
0.
0
6
0.
0
0
6.
4
2
Ex
c
a
v
a
t
o
r
15
7
0.
3
8
1
9
8
61
0.
1
5
6
0
.
9
7
3
1
.
7
7
9
0
.
0
8
7
1
9
9
.
8
2
6
75
46
7
85
3
42
95
,
8
5
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
3
0.
0
6
0.
0
0
6.
4
2
Ex
c
a
v
a
t
o
r
15
7
0.
3
8
1
9
8
61
0.
1
5
6
0
.
9
7
3
1
.
7
7
9
0
.
0
8
7
1
9
9
.
8
2
6
75
46
7
85
3
42
95
,
8
5
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
3
0.
0
6
0.
0
0
6.
4
2
1
m
o
n
t
h
Gr
a
d
i
n
g
:
Gr
a
d
e
r
16
2
0.
4
0
8
7
8
30
0.
3
6
2
1
.
1
3
3
3
.
5
5
7
0
.
2
0
0
2
1
8
.
3
6
9
19
2
60
0
1,
8
8
4
10
6
11
5
,
6
6
5
0.
0
1
0.
0
2
0.
0
6
0.
0
0
3.
8
8
1
m
o
n
t
h
Ex
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
:
Ex
c
a
v
a
t
o
r
15
7
0.
3
8
1
9
8
30
0.
1
5
6
0
.
9
7
3
1
.
7
7
9
0
.
0
8
7
1
9
9
.
8
2
6
75
46
7
85
3
42
95
,
8
5
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
2
0.
0
3
0.
0
0
3.
2
1
Ex
c
a
v
a
t
o
r
15
7
0.
3
8
1
9
8
30
0.
1
5
6
0
.
9
7
3
1
.
7
7
9
0
.
0
8
7
1
9
9
.
8
2
6
75
46
7
85
3
42
95
,
8
5
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
2
0.
0
3
0.
0
0
3.
2
1
Ex
c
a
v
a
t
o
r
15
7
0.
3
8
1
9
8
30
0.
1
5
6
0
.
9
7
3
1
.
7
7
9
0
.
0
8
7
1
9
9
.
8
2
6
75
46
7
85
3
42
95
,
8
5
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
2
0.
0
3
0.
0
0
3.
2
1
7
m
o
n
t
h
s
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
:
Cr
a
n
e
s
20
8
0.
2
8
8
1
8
21
3
0.
1
9
9
0
.
7
5
4
2
.
2
6
5
0
.
1
0
4
1
5
0
.
9
7
2
96
36
1
1,
0
8
6
50
72
,
3
7
6
0.
0
2
0.
0
8
0.
2
5
0.
0
1
16
.
9
8
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
o
r
S
e
t
s
84
0.
7
4
8
21
3
0.
5
3
2
2
.
6
1
2
3
.
8
0
1
0
.
2
8
5
4
2
0
.
5
4
2
26
4
1,
2
9
9
1,
8
9
0
14
1
20
9
,
1
2
7
0.
0
6
0.
3
0
0.
4
4
0.
0
3
49
.
0
6
Tr
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
75
0.
3
6
8
5
8
21
3
0.
2
2
5
0
.
9
1
4
2
.
0
5
7
0
.
1
6
2
1
9
5
.
0
9
3
50
20
2
45
5
36
43
,
1
3
5
0.
0
1
0.
0
5
0.
1
1
0.
0
1
10
.
1
2
Tr
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
75
0.
3
6
8
5
8
21
3
0.
2
2
5
0
.
9
1
4
2
.
0
5
7
0
.
1
6
2
1
9
5
.
0
9
3
50
20
2
45
5
36
43
,
1
3
5
0.
0
1
0.
0
5
0.
1
1
0.
0
1
10
.
1
2
Tr
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
75
0.
3
6
8
5
8
21
3
0.
2
2
5
0
.
9
1
4
2
.
0
5
7
0
.
1
6
2
1
9
5
.
0
9
3
50
20
2
45
5
36
43
,
1
3
5
0.
0
1
0.
0
5
0.
1
1
0.
0
1
10
.
1
2
We
l
d
e
r
s
46
0.
6
8
21
3
0.
8
4
9
2
.
5
7
9
2
.
3
8
6
0
.
2
1
2
2
5
5
.
7
3
5
18
7
56
9
52
7
47
56
,
4
6
6
0.
0
4
0.
1
3
0.
1
2
0.
0
1
13
.
2
5
Sw
e
e
p
e
r
s
/
S
c
r
u
b
b
e
r
s
88
0.
4
5
5
6
8
21
3
0.
3
9
7
1
.
3
9
3
3
.
1
5
9
0
.
2
7
8
2
3
9
.
3
0
5
12
7
44
7
1,
0
1
3
89
76
,
7
5
5
0.
0
3
0.
1
0
0.
2
4
0.
0
2
18
.
0
0
Ce
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
M
o
r
t
a
r
M
i
x
e
r
s
9
0.
5
6
8
21
3
0.
3
7
3
1
.
9
4
3
2
.
3
4
7
0
.
0
9
9
3
1
8
.
2
4
8
15
78
95
4
12
,
8
3
2
0.
0
0
0.
0
2
0.
0
2
0.
0
0
3.
0
1
1
m
o
n
t
h
Sa
n
d
b
l
a
s
t
i
n
g
:
Ro
l
l
e
r
s
84
0.
3
7
5
2
8
30
0.
2
7
3
1
.
0
6
4
2
.
3
9
8
0
.
1
7
9
1
9
7
.
0
3
4
69
26
8
60
5
45
49
,
6
7
9
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
2
0.
0
0
1.
6
6
Ro
l
l
e
r
s
84
0.
3
7
5
2
8
30
0.
2
7
3
1
.
0
6
4
2
.
3
9
8
0
.
1
7
9
1
9
7
.
0
3
4
69
26
8
60
5
45
49
,
6
7
9
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
2
0.
0
0
1.
6
6
1
m
o
n
t
h
Pa
v
i
n
g
:
Pa
v
e
r
s
89
0.
4
1
5
4
8
30
0.
2
9
7
1
.
2
7
4
2
.
5
7
5
0
.
2
0
1
2
1
6
.
2
9
1
88
37
7
76
2
59
63
,
9
7
1
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
3
0.
0
0
2.
1
4
Pa
v
i
n
g
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
82
0.
3
5
5
1
8
30
0.
2
5
2
1
.
1
7
7
2
.
2
6
2
0
.
1
7
3
1
8
6
.
2
2
3
59
27
4
52
7
40
43
,
3
8
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
2
0.
0
0
1.
4
5
Pa
v
i
n
g
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
82
0.
3
5
5
1
8
30
0.
2
5
2
1
.
1
7
7
2
.
2
6
2
0
.
1
7
3
1
8
6
.
2
2
3
59
27
4
52
7
40
43
,
3
8
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
2
0.
0
0
1.
4
5
Ro
l
l
e
r
s
84
0.
3
7
5
2
8
30
0.
2
7
3
1
.
0
6
4
2
.
3
9
8
0
.
1
7
9
1
9
7
.
0
3
4
69
26
8
60
5
45
49
,
6
7
9
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
2
0.
0
0
1.
6
6
1
m
o
n
t
h
Si
t
e
R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
:
Tr
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
75
0.
3
6
8
5
8
30
0.
2
2
5
0
.
9
1
4
2
.
0
5
7
0
.
1
6
2
1
9
5
.
0
9
3
50
20
2
45
5
36
43
,
1
3
5
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
2
0.
0
0
1.
4
5
Tr
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
75
0.
3
6
8
5
8
30
0.
2
2
5
0
.
9
1
4
2
.
0
5
7
0
.
1
6
2
1
9
5
.
0
9
3
50
20
2
45
5
36
43
,
1
3
5
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
2
0.
0
0
1.
4
5
0.
2
5
1.
0
5
1.
9
3
0.
1
4
18
2
.
1
5
0.
0
1
0.
0
0
18
2
.
3
7
TP
Y
16
5
.
4
4
MT
/
y
r
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
(
g
/
h
p
/
h
r
)
Em
i
s
s
i
o
n
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
i
n
g
/
d
a
y
Em
i
s
s
i
o
n
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
i
n
t
o
t
a
l
t
o
n
s
B-3
EXHIBIT A
Page 105 of 148
Ye
a
r
3
12
m
o
n
t
h
s
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
:
Cr
a
n
e
s
20
8
0.
2
8
8
1
8
36
5
0.
1
9
9
0
.
7
5
4
2
.
2
6
5
0
.
1
0
4
1
5
0
.
9
7
2
96
36
1
1,
0
8
6
50
72
,
3
7
6
0.
0
4
0.
1
5
0.
4
4
0.
0
2
29
.
1
0
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
o
r
S
e
t
s
84
0.
7
4
8
36
5
0.
5
3
2
2
.
6
1
2
3
.
8
0
1
0
.
2
8
5
4
2
0
.
5
4
2
26
4
1,
2
9
9
1,
8
9
0
14
1
20
9
,
1
2
7
0.
1
1
0.
5
2
0.
7
6
0.
0
6
84
.
0
9
Tr
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
75
0.
3
6
8
5
8
36
5
0.
2
2
5
0
.
9
1
4
2
.
0
5
7
0
.
1
6
2
1
9
5
.
0
9
3
50
20
2
45
5
36
43
,
1
3
5
0.
0
2
0.
0
8
0.
1
8
0.
0
1
17
.
3
5
Tr
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
75
0.
3
6
8
5
8
36
5
0.
2
2
5
0
.
9
1
4
2
.
0
5
7
0
.
1
6
2
1
9
5
.
0
9
3
50
20
2
45
5
36
43
,
1
3
5
0.
0
2
0.
0
8
0.
1
8
0.
0
1
17
.
3
5
Tr
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
75
0.
3
6
8
5
8
36
5
0.
2
2
5
0
.
9
1
4
2
.
0
5
7
0
.
1
6
2
1
9
5
.
0
9
3
50
20
2
45
5
36
43
,
1
3
5
0.
0
2
0.
0
8
0.
1
8
0.
0
1
17
.
3
5
We
l
d
e
r
s
46
0.
6
8
36
5
0.
8
4
9
2
.
5
7
9
2
.
3
8
6
0
.
2
1
2
2
5
5
.
7
3
5
18
7
56
9
52
7
47
56
,
4
6
6
0.
0
8
0.
2
3
0.
2
1
0.
0
2
22
.
7
1
Sw
e
e
p
e
r
s
/
S
c
r
u
b
b
e
r
s
88
0.
4
5
5
6
8
36
5
0.
3
9
7
1
.
3
9
3
3
.
1
5
9
0
.
2
7
8
2
3
9
.
3
0
5
12
7
44
7
1,
0
1
3
89
76
,
7
5
5
0.
0
5
0.
1
8
0.
4
1
0.
0
4
30
.
8
7
Ce
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
M
o
r
t
a
r
M
i
x
e
r
s
9
0.
5
6
8
36
5
0.
3
7
3
1
.
9
4
3
2
.
3
4
7
0
.
0
9
9
3
1
8
.
2
4
8
15
78
95
4
12
,
8
3
2
0.
0
1
0.
0
3
0.
0
4
0.
0
0
5.
1
6
0.
3
4
1.
3
5
2.
4
0
0.
1
8
22
3
.
9
7
0.
0
1
0.
0
0
22
4
.
2
4
TP
Y
20
3
.
4
2
MT
/
y
r
Ye
a
r
4
4
m
o
n
t
h
s
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
:
Cr
a
n
e
s
20
8
0.
2
8
8
1
8
12
2
0.
1
9
9
0
.
7
5
4
2
.
2
6
5
0
.
1
0
4
1
5
0
.
9
7
2
96
36
1
1,
0
8
6
50
72
,
3
7
6
0.
0
1
0.
0
5
0.
1
5
0.
0
1
9.
7
0
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
o
r
S
e
t
s
84
0.
7
4
8
12
2
0.
5
3
2
2
.
6
1
2
3
.
8
0
1
0
.
2
8
5
4
2
0
.
5
4
2
26
4
1,
2
9
9
1,
8
9
0
14
1
20
9
,
1
2
7
0.
0
4
0.
1
7
0.
2
5
0.
0
2
28
.
0
3
Tr
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
75
0.
3
6
8
5
8
12
2
0.
2
2
5
0
.
9
1
4
2
.
0
5
7
0
.
1
6
2
1
9
5
.
0
9
3
50
20
2
45
5
36
43
,
1
3
5
0.
0
1
0.
0
3
0.
0
6
0.
0
0
5.
7
8
Tr
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
75
0.
3
6
8
5
8
12
2
0.
2
2
5
0
.
9
1
4
2
.
0
5
7
0
.
1
6
2
1
9
5
.
0
9
3
50
20
2
45
5
36
43
,
1
3
5
0.
0
1
0.
0
3
0.
0
6
0.
0
0
5.
7
8
Tr
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
75
0.
3
6
8
5
8
12
2
0.
2
2
5
0
.
9
1
4
2
.
0
5
7
0
.
1
6
2
1
9
5
.
0
9
3
50
20
2
45
5
36
43
,
1
3
5
0.
0
1
0.
0
3
0.
0
6
0.
0
0
5.
7
8
We
l
d
e
r
s
46
0.
6
8
12
2
0.
8
4
9
2
.
5
7
9
2
.
3
8
6
0
.
2
1
2
2
5
5
.
7
3
5
18
7
56
9
52
7
47
56
,
4
6
6
0.
0
3
0.
0
8
0.
0
7
0.
0
1
7.
5
7
Sw
e
e
p
e
r
s
/
S
c
r
u
b
b
e
r
s
88
0.
4
5
5
6
8
12
2
0.
3
9
7
1
.
3
9
3
3
.
1
5
9
0
.
2
7
8
2
3
9
.
3
0
5
12
7
44
7
1,
0
1
3
89
76
,
7
5
5
0.
0
2
0.
0
6
0.
1
4
0.
0
1
10
.
2
9
Ce
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
M
o
r
t
a
r
M
i
x
e
r
s
9
0.
5
6
8
12
2
0.
3
7
3
1
.
9
4
3
2
.
3
4
7
0
.
0
9
9
3
1
8
.
2
4
8
15
78
95
4
12
,
8
3
2
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
1
0.
0
0
1.
7
2
1
m
o
n
t
h
Pa
v
i
n
g
:
Pa
v
e
r
s
89
0.
4
1
5
4
8
30
0.
2
9
7
1
.
2
7
4
2
.
5
7
5
0
.
2
0
1
2
1
6
.
2
9
1
88
37
7
76
2
59
63
,
9
7
1
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
3
0.
0
0
2.
1
4
Pa
v
i
n
g
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
82
0.
3
5
5
1
8
30
0.
2
5
2
1
.
1
7
7
2
.
2
6
2
0
.
1
7
3
1
8
6
.
2
2
3
59
27
4
52
7
40
43
,
3
8
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
2
0.
0
0
1.
4
5
Pa
v
i
n
g
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
82
0.
3
5
5
1
8
30
0.
2
5
2
1
.
1
7
7
2
.
2
6
2
0
.
1
7
3
1
8
6
.
2
2
3
59
27
4
52
7
40
43
,
3
8
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
2
0.
0
0
1.
4
5
Ro
l
l
e
r
s
84
0.
3
7
5
2
8
30
0.
2
7
3
1
.
0
6
4
2
.
3
9
8
0
.
1
7
9
1
9
7
.
0
3
4
69
26
8
60
5
45
49
,
6
7
9
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
2
0.
0
0
1.
6
6
1
m
o
n
t
h
Si
t
e
R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
:
Tr
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
75
0.
3
6
8
5
8
30
0.
2
2
5
0
.
9
1
4
2
.
0
5
7
0
.
1
6
2
1
9
5
.
0
9
3
50
20
2
45
5
36
43
,
1
3
5
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
2
0.
0
0
1.
4
5
Tr
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
75
0.
3
6
8
5
8
30
0.
2
2
5
0
.
9
1
4
2
.
0
5
7
0
.
1
6
2
1
9
5
.
0
9
3
50
20
2
45
5
36
43
,
1
3
5
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
2
0.
0
0
1.
4
5
0.
1
2
0.
5
0
0.
9
1
0.
0
7
84
.
2
6
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
84
.
3
6
4
TP
Y
1GH
G
S
p
e
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
Fr
o
m
C
C
A
R
G
P
R
3
.
1
(
2
0
0
9
)
Ta
b
l
e
C
-
6
Di
e
s
e
l
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
o
f
C
O
2
10
.
1
5
kg
C
O
2
/
g
a
l
0.
0
0
0
5
8
kg
C
H
4
/
g
a
l
0.
0
0
0
2
6
kg
N
2
O
/
g
a
l
So
f
o
r
D
i
e
s
e
l
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
…
CH
4
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
=
5.
7
1
E
-
0
5
pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
C
O
2
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
N2
O
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
=
2.
5
6
E
-
0
5
pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
C
O
2
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
B-4
EXHIBIT A
Page 106 of 148
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
-
H
a
u
l
T
r
u
c
k
s
Pe
a
k
2
6
t
r
u
c
k
s
/
d
a
y
=
5
2
o
n
e
-
w
a
y
t
r
i
p
s
t
o
a
n
d
f
r
o
m
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
(
a
s
s
u
m
e
s
2
0
-
c
y
t
r
u
c
k
s
o
v
e
r
4
0
-
6
0
d
a
y
s
+
5
t
o
1
0
e
x
t
r
a
t
r
u
c
k
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
i
n
g
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
)
;
As
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
:
26
Tr
u
c
k
s
P
e
r
D
a
y
1.
0
0
E
+
0
6
gr
a
m
s
/
M
T
2
Tr
i
p
s
P
e
r
D
a
y
P
e
r
T
r
u
c
k
0.
9
0
7
1
8
5
MT
/
t
o
n
50
Da
y
s
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
T
r
i
p
s
26
0
0
To
t
a
l
T
r
u
c
k
T
r
i
p
s
20
mi
l
e
s
f
r
o
m
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
t
o
d
u
m
p
s
i
t
e
52
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
h
a
u
l
t
r
u
c
k
m
i
l
e
s
t
r
a
v
e
l
l
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
0.
0
0
1
9
4
3
1
8
9
T
o
n
s
C
O
2
/
m
i
l
e
(
d
e
r
i
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
E
M
F
A
C
2
0
1
1
r
u
n
)
0.
0
0
4
8
g
C
H
4
/
m
i
l
e
1
0.
0
0
5
1
g
N
2
O
/
m
i
l
e
1
21
CH
4
G
W
P
31
0
N2
O
G
W
P
Re
s
u
l
t
s
:
10
1
.
0
5
To
n
s
C
O
2
0.
0
0
MT
C
H
4
0.
0
0
MT
N
2
O
91
.
6
7
MT
C
O
2
0.
0
1
To
n
s
C
H
4
i
n
M
T
C
O
2
e
0.
0
8
To
n
s
N
2
O
i
n
M
T
C
O
2
e
91
.
7
5
MT
C
O
2
e
4.
2
5
1
6
6
E
-
0
7
To
n
s
R
O
G
/
m
i
l
e
(
d
e
r
i
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
E
M
F
A
C
2
0
1
1
r
u
n
)
0.
0
2
To
n
s
R
O
G
1.
9
4
5
1
E
-
0
6
To
n
s
C
O
/
m
i
l
e
(
d
e
r
i
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
E
M
F
A
C
2
0
1
1
r
u
n
)
0.
1
0
To
n
s
C
O
1.
2
8
6
0
1
E
-
0
5
To
n
s
N
O
X
/
m
i
l
e
(
d
e
r
i
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
E
M
F
A
C
2
0
1
1
r
u
n
)
0.
6
7
To
n
s
N
O
X
2.
5
5
1
6
6
E
-
0
7
To
n
s
P
M
2
.
5
/
m
i
l
e
(
d
e
r
i
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
E
M
F
A
C
2
0
1
1
r
u
n
)
0.
0
1
To
n
s
P
M
2
.
5
Re
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
:
1(L
G
O
P
1
.
1
,
T
a
b
l
e
G
.
1
2
,
D
i
e
s
e
l
H
e
a
v
y
D
u
t
y
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
)
B-5
EXHIBIT A
Page 107 of 148
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
-
W
o
r
k
e
r
C
o
m
m
u
t
e
16
p
e
a
k
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
/
d
a
y
,
8
o
n
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
/
d
a
y
As
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
:
1.
0
0
E
+
0
6
gr
a
m
s
/
M
T
8
Av
e
r
a
g
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
d
a
i
l
y
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
0.
9
0
7
1
8
5
MT
/
t
o
n
13
7
2
.
5
Da
y
s
o
f
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
12
.
4
mi
l
e
s
p
e
r
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
t
r
i
p
f
o
r
t
h
e
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
w
o
r
k
e
r
,
t
o
a
n
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
2
2
tr
i
p
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
27
2
3
0
4
To
t
a
l
w
o
r
k
e
r
c
o
m
m
u
t
e
m
i
l
e
s
t
r
a
v
e
l
l
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
0.
0
0
0
3
7
4
9
8
1
T
o
n
s
C
O
2
/
m
i
l
e
(
d
e
r
i
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
E
M
F
A
C
2
0
1
1
)
0.
0
0
0
5
g
C
H
4
/
m
i
l
e
3
0.
0
0
1
g
N
2
O
/
m
i
l
e
3
21
CH
4
G
W
P
31
0
N2
O
G
W
P
Re
s
u
l
t
s
:
10
2
.
1
1
To
n
s
C
O
2
0.
0
0
MT
C
H
4
0.
0
0
MT
N
2
O
92
.
6
3
MT
C
O
2
0.
0
0
To
n
s
C
H
4
i
n
M
T
C
O
2
e
0.
0
8
To
n
s
N
2
O
i
n
M
T
C
O
2
e
92
.
7
2
MT
C
O
2
e
2.
4
2
5
0
3
E
-
0
7
To
n
s
R
O
G
/
m
i
l
e
(
d
e
r
i
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
E
M
F
A
C
2
0
1
1
r
u
n
)
0.
0
7
To
n
s
R
O
G
2.
5
0
2
4
7
E
-
0
6
T
o
n
s
C
O
/
m
i
l
e
(
d
e
r
i
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
E
M
F
A
C
2
0
1
1
r
u
n
)
0.
6
8
To
n
s
C
O
2.
4
6
8
0
3
E
-
0
7
To
n
s
N
O
X
/
m
i
l
e
(
d
e
r
i
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
E
M
F
A
C
2
0
1
1
r
u
n
)
0.
0
7
To
n
s
N
O
X
2.
2
3
9
0
9
E
-
0
8
To
n
s
P
M
2
.
5
/
m
i
l
e
(
d
e
r
i
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
E
M
F
A
C
2
0
1
1
r
u
n
)
0.
0
1
To
n
s
P
M
2
.
5
Re
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
:
2
Ca
l
E
E
M
O
D
v
a
l
u
e
f
o
r
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
3(L
G
O
P
1
.
1
,
T
a
b
l
e
G
.
1
2
,
G
a
s
P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
C
a
r
,
M
o
d
e
l
Y
e
a
r
s
1
9
9
6
-
2
0
0
7
)
B-6
EXHIBIT A
Page 108 of 148
PM10 Exhaust Emission Estimates
Emissions PM2.5*PM10**
Construction Equipment Emissions
Calendar Year 1 Emissions0.19 0.21
Calendar Year 2 Emissions0.14 0.16
Calendar Year 3 Emissions0.18 0.20
Calendar Year 4 Emissions0.07 0.08
On-road Vehicle Emissions
Haul Truck Emissions 0.010.01
Worker Vehicle Emissions0.010.01
Total Construction-Related Emissions
Calendar Year 1 Emissions0.21 0.24
Calendar Year 2 Emissions0.16 0.18
Calendar Year 3 Emissions0.2 0.22
Calendar Year 4 Emissions0.09 0.10
*PM2.5 exhaust emissions are obtained from the 2013 IS/MND Table 2-1.
Fugitive Dust from Construction Activity
Emission Factor
(tons/acre/month) 1
(acres)PM10 PM10 PM2.5
2
1 0.22 2.6 0.5
1
2
Total Combined PM 10 and PM2.5 Exhaust and Fugitive Dust Emission Estimates
Emissions PM2.5 PM10
Construction Equipment Emissions
Calendar Year 1 Emissions0.742.85
Calendar Year 2 Emissions0.692.80
Calendar Year 3 Emissions0.732.84
Calendar Year 4 Emissions0.622.72
On-road Vehicle Emissions
Haul Truck Emissions0.010.01
Worker Vehicle Emissions 0.010.01
Total Construction-Related Emissions
Calendar Year 1 Emissions0.762.88
Calendar Year 2 Emissions0.712.82
Calendar Year 3 Emissions0.752.86
Calendar Year 4 Emissions0.642.74
PM2.5 fraction of PM10 for soil disturbance and earth moving were obtained from SCAQMD, 2006.
The Midwest Research Institute has derived a value of 0.11 tons/acre/month. The California Air Resources Board has reviewed
this factor and concluded that it represents PM10 emissions with watering. Consequently, CARB concludes that 0.22
tons/acre/month is more appropriate for unmitigated fugitive dust conditions (CARB, 2002).
EMISSIONS SUPPLEMENT: CONSTRUCTION PM10 and PM2.5 EMISSIONS
Area Disturbed
Emissions
(tons/year)
For a conservative analysis, it is assumed that an average of 1 acre would be disturbed every construction workday.
**PM10 emissions are estimated based on the assumption that 89 percent of off-road equipment exhaust PM 10 emissions are
comprised of PM2.5 (SCAQMD, 2006).
B-7
EXHIBIT A
Page 109 of 148
This page intentionally left blank
B-8
EXHIBIT A
Page 110 of 148
C-1 ESA / 120473.02 South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project
Addendum June 2017
APPENDIX C
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Flood Insurance Rate Map
The Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) issued a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) Determination Document on April 25,
2013 for four maps within the City of South San Francisco, in San Mateo County,
California. The basis of the revision was to update the relevant maps with new
topographic data. The following flood insurance rate maps (FIRMs) had an original
effective date of October 12, 2012, but were revised to reflect the LOMR on September
9, 2013:
•Panel No. 06081C0041E
•Panel No. 06081C0042E
•Panel No. 06081C0043E
•Panel No. 06081C0044E
Panel No. 06081C0044E is relevant to this Addendum because it contains the entire
South San Francisco/ San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant, at 195 Belle Air Road and
surrounding areas. It is the only updated panel that is included in this document. The
other maps and supporting information in the LOMR can be found online at
http://map1.msc.fema.gov/data/06/L/13-09-1038P-065062.pdf?
LOC=98e44ee8b50d5d5d107e5b3a90afcb22
EXHIBIT A
Page 111 of 148
This page intentionally left blank
C-2
EXHIBIT A
Page 112 of 148
MAR
C
O
W
A
Y
SAN FRANCISCO BAY
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
HT0644
LAWRENCE AVE
HT0643
ZONE A
CITY OF
SAN FRANCISCO
(AREA NOT INCLUDED)
BELLE AIR
E
R
D
BE
A
C
O
N
S
T
LI
T
T
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
A
V
E
C
O
R
E
Y
W
A
Y
W
A
T
T
S
W
A
Y
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
ZONE VE
(EL 10)
1% ANNUAL CHANCE
FLOOD DISCHARGE
CONTAINED IN CHANNEL
CITY OF
SAN FRANCISCO
(AREA NOT INCLUDED)
ZONE AE
(EL 10)
KI
M
B
A
L
L
W
A
Y
HT0640
HT0641
HT0642
LI
T
T
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
A
V
E
REVISED
AREA
E HARRIS AVE
DN
A
W
A
Y
SAN MATEO COUNTY
UNINCORPORATED AREAS
060311
ZONE A
HA
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
G
R
A
N
D
V
I
E
W
D
R
W HARRIS AVE
E GR
A
N
D
A
V
E
ZONE
A
POINT SAN BRUNO BLVD
WONDERCOLOR LN
E JAMIE CT
LIMIT OF
STUDY
HA
S
K
I
N
S
W
A
Y
SWIFT AVE
E GRAND AVE
Channel
Navigable
Slough
MI
T
C
H
E
L
L
C
T
ZONE
D
ZONE A
SYLVESTER RD
SAN MATEO COUNTY
UNINCORPORATED AREAS
060311
E
G
R
A
N
D
A
V
E
San Bruno Channel
MITCHELL AVE
UTAH AVE
CITY OF
SAN BRUNO
060326
ZONE AO
BURI BURI
LAND GRANT
(DEPTH 2’)
ZONE
A
Underground
Storm Drain
Underground
Storm Drain
C
o
l
m
a
C
r
e
e
k
CITY OF
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
065062
CITY OF
SAN FRANCISCO
(AREA NOT INCLUDED)
WETLANDS
LAND GRANT
ZONE VE
(EL 10)
NOTE: MAP AREA SHOWN ON THIS PANEL IS LOCATED
WITHIN TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 5 WEST AND
BURI BURI WETLAND LAND GRANT
553000m E
554000m E
555000m E
4165000m N
4166000m N
4167000m N
6445000 FT 6450000 FT
1630000 FT
1635000 FT
122°24’22.5"
37°39’22.5"
122°24’22.5"
37°37’30.0"122°22’30.0"
37°37’30.0"
122°22’30.0"
37°39’22.5"
JO
I
N
S
P
A
N
E
L
0
0
6
3
JOINS PANEL 0132
JO
I
N
S
P
A
N
E
L
0
0
4
3
JOINS PANEL 0042
ZONE A
ZONE AE
ZONE AH
ZONE AO
ZONE AR
ZONE A99
ZONE V
ZONE VE
ZONE X
ZONE X
ZONE D
~~~~~~~~~~
(EL 987)
A A
---------23 23
97°07’30", 32°22’30"
4275000mN
6000000 FT
DX5510
M1.5
MAP REPOSITORIES
- - -
Refer to Map Repositories list on Map Index
EFFECTIVE DATE OF COUNTYWIDE
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
October 16, 2012
EFFECTIVE DATE(S) OF REVISION(S) TO THIS PANEL
MAP SCALE 1" = 500’
PANEL 0044E
Notice to User: The shown below should be
used when placing map orders; the Community Number shown
above should be used on insurance applications for the subject
community.
Map Number
CONTAINS:
COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX
Federal Emergency Management Agency
SAN MATEO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
AND INCORPORATED AREAS
SAN MATEO COUNTY 0603110044E
SAN BRUNO, CITY OF 0603260044E
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,
CITY OF 0650620044E
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT)
This map is for use in administering the National Flood Insurance Program.It
does not necessarily identify all areas subject to flooding, particularly fromlocal
community map repositorydrainage sources of small size. The shouldbe
consulted for possible updated or additional flood hazard information.
Base FloodElevationsTo obtain more detailed information in areas where
floodways(BFEs) and/or have been determined, users are encouraged toconsult
the Flood Profiles and Floodway Data and/or Summary of StillwaterElevations
tables contained within the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report thataccompanies
this FIRM. Users should be aware that BFEs shown on the FIRMrepresent
rounded whole- foot elevations. These BFEs are intended for floodinsurance
rating purposes only and should not be used as the sole source offlood
elevation information. Accordingly, flood elevation data presented in theFIS
report should be utilized in conjunction with the FIRM for purposesof
construction and/or floodplain management.
Coastal Base Flood Elevations shown on this map apply only landward
North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88).of 0.0’Users of this
FIRM should be aware that coastal flood elevations are also provided inthe
Summary of Stillwater Elevations table in the Flood Insurance Studyreport
for this jurisdiction. Elevations shown in the Summary of StillwaterElevations
table should be used for construction and/or floodplain managementpurposes
when they are higher than the elevations shown on this FIRM.
floodwaysBoundaries of the were computed at cross sections andinterpolated
between cross sections. The floodways were based on hydraulicconsiderations
with regard to requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program.Floodway
widths and other pertinent floodway data are provided in the FloodInsurance
Study report for this jurisdiction.
Certain areas not in Special Flood Hazard Areas may be protected by flood
control structures. Refer to Section 2.4 "Flood Protection Measures"of
the Flood Insurance Study report for information on flood controlstructures
for this jurisdiction.
projectionThe used in the preparation of this map was UniversalTransverse
horizontal datumMercator (UTM) zone The was 10.NAD83, GRS1980
spheroid. Differences in datum, spheroid, projection or UTM zones usedin
the production of FIRMs for adjacent jurisdictions may result in slightpositional
differences in map features across jurisdiction boundaries. Thesedifferences
do not affect the accuracy of this FIRM.
Flood elevations on this map are referenced to the North American Vertical
Datum of1988.These flood elevations must be compared to structureand
vertical datum.ground elevations referenced to the same For information
regarding conversion between the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of1929
and the North American Vertical Datum of 1988, visit the NationalGeodetic
http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/Survey website at or contact the National Geodetic
Survey at the following address:
NGS Information Services
NOAA, N/NGS12
National Geodetic Survey
SSMC- 3, #9202
1315 East- West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910- 3282
To obtain current elevation, description, and/or location information for bench marks
shown on this map, please contact the Information Services Branch ofthe
(301) 713- 3242,National Geodetic Survey at or visit its website at
http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/.
This map may reflect more detailed or up to datestream channel configurations
than those shown on the previous FIRM. The floodplains and floodwaysthat were
transferred from the previous FIRM may have been adjusted to conformto these
new stream channel configurations and improved topographic data. Theprofile
baselines depicted on this map represent the hydraulic modelingbaselines that
match the flood profiles and Floodway Data Tables if applicable, in theFIS report.
As a result, the profile baselines may deviate significantly from the newbase map
channel representation and may appear outside of the floodplain.
Corporate limits shown on this map are based on the best data available
at the time of publication. Because changes due to annexations orde- annexations
may have occurred after this map was published, map users shouldcontact
appropriate community officials to verify current corporate limit locations.
Map IndexPlease refer to the separately printed for an overview map of the
county showing the layout of map panels; community map repositoryaddresses;
and a Listing of Communities table containing National Flood InsuranceProgram
dates for each community as well as a listing of the panels on whicheach
community is located.
For information and questions about this map, available products associated withthis
FIRM including historic versions of this FIRM, how to order products or theNational
Flood Insurance Program in general, please call the FEMA Map InformationeXchange
at 1-877-FEMA-MAP (1-877-336-2627) or visit the FEMA Map Service Center website
at http://msc.fema.gov. Available products may include previously issued Letters ofMap
Change, a Flood Insurance Study Report, and/or digital versions of this map. Manyof
these products can be ordered or obtained directly from the website. Usersmay
determine the current map date for each FIRM panel by visiting the FEMAMap
Service Center website or by calling the FEMA Map Information eXchange.
REVISED TO
REFLECT LOMR
EFFECTIVE: September 9, 2013
EXHIBIT A
Page 113 of 148
This page intentionally left blank
C-4
EXHIBIT A
Page 114 of 148
D-1 ESA / 120473.02 South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project
Addendum June 2017
APPENDIX D
Alternatives Analysis
EXHIBIT A
Page 115 of 148
This page intentionally left blank
D-2
EXHIBIT A
Page 116 of 148
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 1 ESA / 120473.02
Environmental Alternatives Analysis June 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERNATIVES
ANALYSIS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Wet Weather and Digester Improvements Project
This document develops and describes alternatives for the South San Francisco / San Bruno (SSF-
SB) Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP) Wet Weather and Digester Improvements Project
(proposed project). This Environmental Alternatives Analysis Technical Memorandum (TM) is
structured to address the alternatives-related requirements of both the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Both regulations
require inclusion and discussion of a situation in which no project is undertaken.
This TM first describes several alternatives and then proceeds to do a comparative analysis of
their adverse and beneficial effects on the existing and future environment. All alternatives are
compared to the proposed project, which is analyzed in the Addendum to the South San
Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (adopted IS/MND).1,2 This document is presented as Appendix D to that 2017
Addendum. The adopted IS/MND is also presented as Appendix E to the Addendum.
Tables near the end of this TM present the elements of the different alternatives and summarize a
comparison of the characteristics of the proposed project with those of the following four
alternatives:
• Alternative A: No Project/No Action
• Alternative B: Original Design
• Alternative C: Reduced Impacts
• Alternative D: Alternate Technology
1 City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco/ San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant Capital Improvements
Projects, Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration, State Clearinghouse No. 2013062051, adopted September
11, 2013.
2 The name of the project as originally proposed and analyzed in the IS/MND was the “South San Francisco/San
Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project”. As part of the design changes that led to the need for a CEQA
Addendum, the project name was also changed to “South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Wet Weather and
Digester Improvements Project”.
EXHIBIT A
Page 117 of 148
Environmental Alternatives Analysis
Technical Memorandum
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 2 ESA / 120473.02
Environmental Alternatives Analysis June 2017
Following are descriptions of each alternative and their impacts, benefits, and ability to meet the
proposed objectives. There is also a section explaining why the proposed project was the alternative
selected for implementation.
Project Objectives and Need
The 2011 Facility Plan Update 3 identified the following needs at the WQCP:
• Comply with regulatory requirements for effluent discharge including minimizing
blending of primary and secondary effluents during wet weather events;
• Replace aging infrastructure at the WQCP for improving reliability in the treatment
process; and
• Adapt to the effects of climate change on the WQCP.
As part of the Facility Plan Update, the City developed the South San Francisco / San Bruno
WQCP Capital Improvements Projects (CIP) to meet the following objectives:
1) Satisfy effluent discharge requirements including the 2008 and 2014 National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and future requirements for increasing
secondary treatment capacity and minimizing blending of primary and secondary
effluents;
2) Improve reliability of the treatment process; and
3) Develop green energy resources to reduce dependence on the local power utility (Pacific
Gas & Electric).
Proposed Project Alternative
Description of Alternative
The main text of the 2017 Addendum to the adopted IS/MND (2014) provides the modified
project description and updates the environmental analysis that was presented in the adopted
IS/MND. The adopted IS/MND is provided as Appendix E to the Addendum, and it contains the
original project description for the proposed project. That document can be consulted for more
information.
The proposed project consists of the Wet Weather and Digester Improvements Project. The
project would include demolishing two of the five existing digesters at the WQCP. Digester 1
would be rebuilt with the same size and at the same location, and with a more efficient high-
solids digestion (HSD) system. Thickening equipment to support the operation of the new
Digester 1 would be constructed on the existing site where Digester 2 was located. Digester 3
would be structurally and mechanically rehabilitated, while Digester Control Building 3 would be
3 Carollo Engineers, South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant, Final Facility Plan Update, April
2011.
EXHIBIT A
Page 118 of 148
Environmental Alternatives Analysis
Technical Memorandum
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 3 ESA / 120473.02
Environmental Alternatives Analysis June 2017
demolished without replacement. A digester gas conditioning system and a primary sludge screen
would also be included as part of the project improvements.
Under this alternative, the Wet Weather Improvements Project would increase the peak secondary
treatment capacity at the WQCP by 10 MGD to a total capacity of 40 MGD. This would be
achieved by installing a new secondary clarifier with associated equipment and piping and
upgrading associated secondary treatment facilities.
The proposed project would not result in any cumulatively considerable impacts, meaning that the
incremental effects of the project are not considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of past, current, or probably future projects. The proposed project benefits the WQCP, the
community, and the environment by upgrading the technology, resulting in more efficient use of
energy and water, and improved water quality. The proposed project would improve the
efficiency and reliability of the WQCP’s operations and maintenance with relatively few impacts
from construction. Operation of the proposed project would result in benefits to air quality,
greenhouse gas emissions, and water quality at the WCQP due to improved technology like the
HSD system and increased treatment capacity.
Alternative A: No Project/No Action
Description of Alternative
As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e), the No Project Alternative is evaluated to
allow decision-makers to compare the environmental effects of approving the project with the
effects of not approving the project. Similarly, under NEPA (Section 1502.14(d), the No Action
Alternative is evaluated. The No Project/No Action Alternative, as described below, represents
what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the proposed project were
not to be approved. Under this alternative, there would be no demolition or construction of any
digester or other facilities at the WQCP. The peak secondary treatment capacity would remain the
same as the existing capacity, 30 million gallons per day (MGD).
Ability to Meet Project Objectives
The No Project/No Action Alternative would fail to meet any of the Wet Weather and Digester
Improvements objectives. The No Project/No Action Alternative would not satisfy new effluent
discharge requirements nor improve reliability of the treatment process. The City would be in
violation of their discharge permit, which could result in costly regulatory fines or other
enforcement measures. This alternative would not replace the existing aging facilities with new
modern and more efficient treatment technologies, and would use equipment beyond its useful
life. Due to the uncertainties associated with future facilities and equipment failures and potential
catastrophic breakdown, it is unknown if, in the long term, the No Project//No Action Alternative
would maintain rate payer affordability.
The No Project/No Action Alternative would not provide any benefits to the WQCP. By not
implementing the proposed project or any of the alternatives, there would be no improvements to
EXHIBIT A
Page 119 of 148
Environmental Alternatives Analysis
Technical Memorandum
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 4 ESA / 120473.02
Environmental Alternatives Analysis June 2017
the WQCP facilities, which would result in benefits from improved efficiency in energy or water
use. There would also be no improvements to effluent water quality.
Environmental Impacts
Under "normal" conditions (without breakdowns and equipment failure), the No Project/No
Action Alternative would avoid all construction and operational impacts that were identified for
the proposed project, but under possible future scenarios with breakdowns, equipment failures
and increased discharge of blended effluent, a wide range of impacts could occur, depending on
the nature and extent of those breakdowns. With the No Project/No Action Alternative, there
would be greater adverse water quality impacts because the performance of the treatment plant
would not be improved relative to the existing condition or to the proposed project. However, the
No Project/No Action Alternative would avoid all construction-related impacts that all of the
other alternatives would risk. Alternative A would not result in any cumulatively considerable
impacts.
Alternative B: Original Design
Description of Alternative
In the adopted IS/MND the City proposed the Wet Weather Improvements Project, Green Energy
Project, and Digester Replacement/Rehabilitation Project. These projects collectively are referred
to as Alternative B, the Original Design Alternative. The project description and impact analyses
of the Original Design Alternative are included in the adopted IS/MND (Appendix E to this
Addendum) and can be reviewed for more detail. Under this alternative, the Wet Weather
Improvements Project would increase the peak secondary treatment capacity at the WQCP by 10
MGD to a total capacity of 40 MGD. This would be achieved by installing a new secondary
clarifier with associated equipment and piping and upgrading associated secondary treatment
facilities.
The Digester Replacement/Rehabilitation Project would result in two out of five of the digesters
currently at the WQCP (Digesters No. 1 and 2) to be demolished and replaced in the same
location, and one digester (Digester No. 3) to be rehabilitated. The size of the new digesters
would remain consistent with the existing digesters at approximately 70 feet in diameter and 25
feet in height, with structure height of 20 feet above grade. Along with the two digesters, two
associated support buildings that house heating and mixing equipment in the 20,000-square foot
area, would be demolished and replaced with a new larger building. The new building would
continue supporting the operations of the digesters.
The Green Energy Project, while not an element of the Wet Weather and Digester Improvements
Project, would involve installation of 500 solar panel canopies that would cover the entire 10,555-
square foot WQCP parking lot near Area 42. The solar panels would provide 150 kilowatts of
alternative, sustainable energy onsite. The solar energy generated would be connected to the
motor control center in the maintenance building onsite. The area would continue to be used for
parking purposes following the solar panel installation.
EXHIBIT A
Page 120 of 148
Environmental Alternatives Analysis
Technical Memorandum
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 5 ESA / 120473.02
Environmental Alternatives Analysis June 2017
Ability to Meet Project Objectives
The Original Design Alternative would meet most of the Wet Weather and Digester
Improvements objectives. This alternative would satisfy new effluent discharge requirements and
future requirements for increasing secondary treatment capacity and minimizing blending of
primary and secondary effluents, and would improve reliability of the treatment process. The Wet
Weather element of this alternative would be the same as the proposed project. The digester
improvements would not be as efficient as the proposed project since they would not include the
high-solids digester technology, but existing digesters would still be improved from their current
condition.
Alternative B provides similar benefits to the WCQP, the community, and the environment as the
proposed project. Although facilities at the WQCP would be improved, this alternative does not
involve the HSD and gas conditioning systems, and would therefore not be as energy efficient as
the proposed project.
Environmental Impacts
The environmental impacts under the Original Design Alternative would be very similar to the
proposed project. The original design was analyzed in the adopted IS/MND and the proposed
project was analyzed in an Addendum to adopted IS/MND, where it was determined that all
environmental impacts were the same as the proposed project in terms of their significance
determinations. The project described in the Original Design Alternative would not result in any
cumulatively considerable impacts.
Alternative C: Reduced Impacts
Description of Alternative
Under this Reduced Impacts Alternative, a smaller secondary clarifier, only capable of treating 5
MGD peak flow, would be built. Only one high-solids digester would be built, with no others
built or rehabilitated. Only one storm water pump station would be included in this alternative.
The nature of the project designs, construction implementation, and ongoing operations and
maintenance of these parts of the WQCP would be similar to those described for Alternative B,
except that they would be somewhat reduced in scale relative to that alternative.
Ability to Meet Project Objectives
This alternative was not selected because it fails to meet the project goals and objectives. With
only three digesters (Digesters 4 & 5 and the new high solids digester), the WQCP would not
have the minimum required redundancy of one digester. This would leave the plant vulnerable to
emergencies if one of the digesters, especially the high solids digester, fails. This also leaves the
WQCP unable to take a digester out of service to perform planned maintenance. In the secondary
treatment system, a smaller clarifier with only 5 MGD of capacity would only expand the total
secondary treatment capacity to 35 MGD, which falls short of the permit required expansion to 40
MGD total capacity. In the storm water management system, construction of only one pump
EXHIBIT A
Page 121 of 148
Environmental Alternatives Analysis
Technical Memorandum
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 6 ESA / 120473.02
Environmental Alternatives Analysis June 2017
station could leave a portion of the WQCP site with stormwater runoff running off the plant
boundaries untreated. This would be a violation of the stormwater management permit
requirements for wastewater treatment plants. Accordingly, this alternative was not selected for
implementation.
Environmental Impacts
Alternative C would bring fewer benefits to the WQCP than the proposed project or Alternative B
would. It would not improve the facility’s process efficiency as much or provide the same degree
of redundancy or secondary treatment capacity.
The construction-related environmental impacts under the Reduced Impacts Alternative would be
less than the construction-related impacts of the proposed project. This alternative would involve
less construction, and would therefore have less impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas
emissions, noise, biological resources, hydrology and water quality, and traffic. The decrease in
severity of impacts is largely due to the project construction schedule being approximately six
months shorter than the proposed project. This alternative would require approximately 30%
fewer trucks and truck trips and less earth moving, with a total of about 9,300 cubic yards.
Operational impacts related to hydrology and water quality may be more significant due to having
only one wet weather pump station, thereby leaving a portion of the site stormwater runoff
passing off the plant boundaries untreated. All other impacts are likely to remain the same as or
similar to those identified for the proposed project. This alternative would not result in any
cumulatively considerable impacts.
Alternative D: Alternate Technology
Description of Alternative
Alternative D is composed of several different technological components identified in the Facility
Plan Update 4 and subsequently considered for implementation. Advanced digestion technologies,
which break down sludge using chemicals and/or heat prior to digestion, could be used in the
improved digesters. The advantage of this process is that more of the energy from the sludge can
be captured, and depending on the selected technology, fewer digesters are needed. However,
these advanced digestion technologies are usually not economically viable due to the long
payback period. They also require more site space and require handling of chemicals, high
pressure high temperature steam, and sludge which can be unsafe and is not operationally
desirable. An advanced digestion system would have approximately the same site area,
construction trips and noise as the proposed project. While it may be possible to decrease the size
of the digester, a separate sludge processing facility would need to be built to treat the sludge.
This component would have greater greenhouse gas emissions during operation, as additional
4 Carollo Engineers, South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant, Final Facility Plan Update, April
2011.
EXHIBIT A
Page 122 of 148
Environmental Alternatives Analysis
Technical Memorandum
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 7 ESA / 120473.02
Environmental Alternatives Analysis June 2017
energy is required to provide the heat to treat the sludge beyond the heat that is required for
conventional anaerobic digestion.
An equalization storage pond, in lieu of a new clarifier, could be built to store all of the water that
exceeds the existing secondary treatment capacity of 30 MGD. Once a storm had passed, the
excess water could be sent back through the existing processes. This would require a large tank or
pond sized to hold 3-7 million gallons. There is no space on-site for another tank or pond of this
size. The proposed location for another storage basin is the ship locks on the south and east side
of the plant. The area was initially considered, but it was found to be infeasible from a regulatory
standpoint since the alternative would require adding fill to San Francisco Bay. During
discussions between the City and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission (BCDC), BCDC biologist Bob Batha indicated that the agency would only issue a
permit for this type of fill if there were no other technically feasible option.5
Instead of building new storm water pump stations, site drainage piping could be routed to the
existing site drainage pump station located in the Old Sludge Control Building. This element was
not selected since it would be very disruptive to the site and require deep trenches for new pipes
through congested utility corridors. Additionally, this component was not feasible since the Old
Sludge Control Building was constructed in 1949 and is not seismically sound. The electrical
infrastructure supporting the existing pumps would need to be upgraded as well. This component
would remain within the previously analyzed project footprint, and would not materially change
the volume of dirt moving, or change the greenhouse gas emissions during construction or
operation.
Ability to Meet Project Objectives
Alternative D, the Alternate Technology Alternative was not selected because it would fail to
meet all of the project objectives. Because there is no room on the site for an equalization storage
pond, the WQCP would not be able to store the water that exceeds the existing secondary
treatment capacity of 30 MDG. Therefore, this would not satisfy the WQCP's effluent discharge
permit requirements and future requirements for increasing secondary treatment capacity and
minimizing blending of primary and secondary effluents. The reliability of the treatment process
would be improved with advanced digestion, but this technology is not economically feasible.
Environmental Impacts
The environmental impacts under the Alternate Technology Alternative would be slightly greater
than the proposed project. Although the advanced digestion system would require approximately
the same site area as the proposed project’s digesters, the equalization storage basin would add an
additional 17,000 cubic yards of project footprint and earthmoving to the project. Overall, this
alternative would result in greater construction related impacts related to air quality, greenhouse
gas emissions, noise, biological resources, hydrology and water quality, and traffic. Other
5 Notes from City of South San Francisco and Carollo Engineers meeting with BCDC; February 28, 2012.
EXHIBIT A
Page 123 of 148
Environmental Alternatives Analysis
Technical Memorandum
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 8 ESA / 120473.02
Environmental Alternatives Analysis June 2017
components in this alternative would have brought unacceptable environmental impacts, such as
adding fill to San Francisco Bay.
The advanced digestion technology would have greater greenhouse gas emissions during
operation as additional energy is required to provide the heat to treat the sludge. Routing site
drainage piping to the Old Sludge Control Building could result in an increase in adverse
environmental impacts to geology, soils, and seismicity since the building is not seismically
sound. Alternative D would not result in any cumulatively considerable impacts.
Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
Though potential impacts related to socioeconomics and environmental justice were not analyzed
in either of the CEQA documents prepared for this WQCP project, clear consideration of
potential effects on minority and low-income populations is required in NEPA documents. For
this CEQA-Plus Alternatives Analysis, that requirement is being addressed here.
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low Income Populations (1994), directs Federal agencies to take the appropriate
and necessary steps to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse effects of Federal
projects on the health or environment of minority and low-income populations to the greatest
extent practicable and permitted by law.
Setting
The socioeconomic analysis describes the potential impacts of the project on population growth,
employment, and housing in the counties, cities, and census tracts within 1 mile of the edge of the
WQCP. Impacts to the socioeconomic climate are also covered to the extent that the project
relates to the businesses in the surrounding communities. Those communities include portions of
the City of South San Francisco (in which the WQCP is located) and of the City of San Bruno,
which is nearby to the south. The environmental justice (EJ) analysis provides an overview of
minority and low-income populations in the vicinity. Specifically, data from the 2011–2015
American Community Survey are presented to demonstrate the difference, if any, between
percentage of minority and low-income populations in census tracts within 1 mile of the WQCP.
Table 1 summarizes the demographics and economic characteristics in the two cities bordering
the WQCP, South San Francisco (SSF) and San Bruno (SB). Small population increases (less
than 3,400 in SSF and less than 2,000 in SB), were seen in the two cities in recent years.
Employment declined with a 5% decrease in South San Francisco from 2011 to 2015, and a 1%
decrease in San Bruno from 2011 to 2015. Table 1 also compares the percentage of non-white
residents living in South San Francisco and San Bruno in 2011 and 2015. For the purposes of this
analysis, an area with a non-white population exceeding 50 percent considered to have a minority
population. The percentage of individuals living below the poverty level (according to the 2011–
2015 American Community Survey) is also shown in Table 1.
EXHIBIT A
Page 124 of 148
Environmental Alternatives Analysis
Technical Memorandum
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 9 ESA / 120473.02
Environmental Alternatives Analysis June 2017
Given the WQCP’s location in an almost entirely industrial/commercial area, surrounded by San
Francisco International Airport, business parks, light industrial uses (e.g., auto body shops), U.S.
Highway 101, and San Francisco Bay, very small percentages of the local citywide populations
are within 1 mile of the WQCP. A one-mile radius around the WQCP does include small portions
of each city’s residential base.
TABLE 1
CITY DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
City
Population
Employed Population
Percent of Citywide
Population that is
Non-White
Percent of Citywide
Population that is
Below Poverty Line
2011 2015 2011 2015 2011 2015 2011 2015
South San Francisco 62,822 66,217 68% 63% 58% 63% 5.6% 7.8%
San Bruno 40,677 42,506 72% 71% 47% 48% 6.5% 6.2%
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates, 2007-2011 American
Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, South San Francisco city and San Bruno city, California. ; U.S. Census Bureau,
American Fact Finder, ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates, South San Francisco city and San Bruno city, California.; U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder,
Economic Characteristics, 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, South San Francisco city and San
Bruno city, California.; U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, Economic Characteristics, 2011-2015 American
Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, South San Francisco city and San Bruno city, California.
Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low Income Populations (1994), directs Federal agencies to take the appropriate
and necessary steps to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse effects of Federal
projects on the health or environment of minority and low-income populations to the greatest
extent practicable and permitted by law.
State Regulations
There are no specific requirements for the analysis of socioeconomic and environmental justice
issues under state law. CEQA Guidelines Section 15131(a) through (c) provides guidance on the
discussion of economic and social effects in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (AEP 2017).
Specifically, such effects may be included in an EIR but “shall not be treated as significant effects
on the environment.” However, economic and social effects may be used to determine the
significance of physical changes caused by a project, but these changes “need not be analyzed in
any detail greater than necessary to trace the chain of cause and effect.” CEQA Guidelines
provide for the consideration of economic, social, and particularly housing factors, together with
technological and environmental factors, to determine whether changes in a project are feasible to
reduce or avoid the significant effects on the environment identified in the EIR.
EXHIBIT A
Page 125 of 148
Environmental Alternatives Analysis
Technical Memorandum
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 10 ESA / 120473.02
Environmental Alternatives Analysis June 2017
Regional/Local Regulations
This section discusses the policies and goals relevant to socioeconomics and environmental
justice in the cities surrounding the WQCP.
City of South San Francisco
The City of South San Francisco General Plan (1999) and its 2015 Housing Element
Update include the following policies and goals:
• 2-G-2 Maintain a balanced land use program that provides opportunities for
continued economic growth, and building intensities that reflect South San
Francisco’s prominent inner bay location and excellent regional access.
• 2-G-4 Provide for continued operation of older industrial and service commercial
businesses at specific locations.
• 6-G-5 Establish land use priorities based on economic criteria and sound fiscal
planning; reserve sites for designated uses rather than accepting any development.
• 6.6 Assure Equal Access to Housing
City of San Bruno
The Economic Development section of the 2009 City of San Bruno General Plan includes
the following goals:
• ED-B Provide development opportunities that allow for establishment of jobs
within San Bruno, commensurate with local residents’ education and skills.
• ED-9 Coordinate with the Redevelopment Agency and Public Works Department
on strategic improvements—infrastructure upgrade and extension, environmental
remediation, land acquisition and/or assembly—as necessary to provide for orderly
development of commercial, industrial, and mixed-use sites.
• ED-11 Improve environmental quality by coordinating the remediation of sites that
have been identified as having leaking underground storage tanks or Spills, Leaks,
Investigations, and Cleanup (SLIC), particularly where upfront private sector
investment is unlikely due to perceived or actual environmental constraints or
liabilities.
The Public Facilities and Services section of the 2009 City of San Bruno General Plan
includes the following goal:
• PFS-D Ensure that the City’s wastewater collection and treatment systems are
adequate to serve the city’s present and anticipated needs, are safe, and are
environmentally sound.
EXHIBIT A
Page 126 of 148
Environmental Alternatives Analysis
Technical Memorandum
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 11 ESA / 120473.02
Environmental Alternatives Analysis June 2017
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Significance Criteria
For the purposes of this CEQA-Plus Alternatives Analysis, the project would have a significant
impact if it would result in any of the following:
• Displace, relocate, or increase area businesses;
• Change local employment opportunities or community tax bases;
• Disproportionately affect minority communities or low-income communities;
• Change the ethnic or racial composition in the community; or
• Change lifestyles and social interactions.
These significance criteria were developed from Executive Order 12898, described above, and a
combination of guidance and significance standards used by various federal agencies.
Alternative A: No Project/No Action Alternative
No Impact. Under the No Project/No Action Alternative, no new activities would occur at the
WQCP, which would continue to be operated and maintained according to its current practices.
Wastewater treatment activities and other facility operations would remain similar to existing
conditions, and would not be expected to change business conditions in the long term. Therefore,
no impact to area businesses would occur, and there would be no changes in the local
employment opportunities, community tax bases, or other aspects of the socioeconomic character
of the nearby communities. Similarly, because the WQCP would remain functioning as it has,
there would be no changes to the ethnic or racial composition or the lifestyles or social
interactions of the community. Since there would be no project action, there could be no
disproportionate effects on minority or low-income communities. Alternative A would have no
impact on socioeconomics or environmental justice.
Proposed Project Alternative
No Impact. Under the proposed project the infrastructure and operating systems at the WQCP
would be upgraded and made more resilient and more efficient. The operation and maintenance
would be adjusted from the current practices to be appropriate to the new systems; however, these
changes would be minimal and would not substantially change the employment opportunities or
tax bases of the surrounding communities. Similarly, no impact to other area businesses would
occur, and neither the socioeconomic character of the nearby communities nor the ethnic or racial
compositions or the lifestyles or social interactions would change.
The IS/MND and the Addendum to it showed that under the proposed project, the potential for
adverse effects to people in the surrounding communities – from things like air quality emissions,
water quality releases, increases in flood risk, hazardous materials mobilization, noise levels, and
EXHIBIT A
Page 127 of 148
Environmental Alternatives Analysis
Technical Memorandum
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 12 ESA / 120473.02
Environmental Alternatives Analysis June 2017
so on – was not found to be significant. In addition, there would be earthmoving and other
construction activities, such as noise or traffic that might have a short-term and temporary
potential to affect local residents if they were located near the WQCP. However, these actions
would occur at some distance from residents and be similarly experienced by non-residents in the
business parks and on public roads and trails. Users of these facilities are drawn from the general
population. These actions would not take place exclusively in minority and low-income areas,
and would not disproportionately affect minority or low-income communities.
Following construction, the WQCP would remain functioning as it has with improvements in
efficiency and energy and water use – and would not bring adverse impacts to the local residents.
There would be no disproportionate effects on minority or low-income communities. The
Proposed Project would have no impact on socioeconomics or environmental justice.
Other Alternatives Considered
No Impact. Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the impacts relating to socioeconomics and
environmental justice would be the same as the proposed project: no impact. Under all of these
alternatives, the infrastructure and operating systems at the WQCP would be upgraded and made
more efficient. No impact to other area businesses would occur, and neither the socioeconomic
character of the nearby communities nor the ethnic or racial compositions or the lifestyles or
social interactions would change.
Similar to the proposed project, the potential for adverse effects to people in the surrounding
communities – from things like air quality emissions, water quality releases, increases in flood
risk, hazardous materials mobilization, noise levels, and so on – would not be significant under
Alternatives B, C, and D. In addition, there would be earthmoving and other construction
activities, such as noise or traffic that might have a short-term and temporary potential to affect
local residents if they were located near the WQCP. However, these actions would occur at some
distance from residents and be similarly experienced by non-residents in the business parks and
on public roads and trails. Users of these facilities are drawn from the general population. These
actions would not take place exclusively in minority and low-income areas, and would not
disproportionately affect minority or low-income communities. Alternatives B, C, and D would
have no impact on socioeconomics or environmental justice.
EXHIBIT A
Page 128 of 148
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 13 ESA / 120473.02
Environmental Alternatives Analysis June 2017
TABLE 2
COMPARISON OF PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES
Project Element Project Component Proposed Project
Alternative A:
No Project/No Action
Alternative B: Original
Design
Alternative C:
Reduced Impact
Alternative D: Alternate
Technology
Digester
Improvements
Number of Digesters
Improved
2 0 3 1 2
Types of Digesters 1conventional; 1 HSD N/A 3 conventional 1 HSD Advanced digestion,
such as thermos-
chemical processing of
sludge prior to digestion
Wet Weather
Improvements
Increase in
Treatment Capacity
10 MGD increase (40
MGD total)
0 MGD increase (30
MGD total)
10 MGD increase (40
MGD Total)
5 MGD increase (35
MGD total)
Increase equalization
storage at the
wastewater treatment
plant
Stormwater
Improvements
2 underground pump
stations and associated
facilities
None 2 underground pump
stations and associated
facilities
1 underground pump
stations and
associated facilities
Improve site drainage
pump station and route
all pipes to that pump
station
NOTES:
MGD= million gallons per day
HSD= High-Solids Digester
EXHIBIT A
Page 129 of 148
Environmental Alternatives Analysis
Technical Memorandum
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 14 ESA / 120473.02
Environmental Alternatives Analysis June 2017
TABLE 3
COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT TO IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES
Environmental
Resource Proposed Project
Alternative A:
No Action
Alternative B:
Original Design
Alternative C:
Reduced Impacts
Alternative D:
Alternate Technology
Aesthetics Impact 1.a: The project would not have a substantial adverse effect
on a scenic resource. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 1.b: The project would not substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 1.c: The project would not substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 1.d: The project would not create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely affect daytime or nighttime
views in the area. (NI)
Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI)
Agricultural and
Forest Resources
Impact 2.a: The project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown
on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use. (NI)
Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI)
Impact 2.b: The project would not conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (NI)
Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI)
Impact 2.c: The project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined
by Government Code section 51104(g)). (NI)
Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI)
Impact 2.d: The project would not result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use. (NI)
Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI)
Impact 2.e: The project would not involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use. (NI)
Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI)
Air Quality Impact 3.a: The project would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air quality plan. (NI)
Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI)
Impact 3.b: Project construction could violate an air quality standard
or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation. (LSM)
No impact. Impact and mitigation would be similar to the proposed
project. (LSM)
This alternative would involve less construction, resulting
in less of possibility to violate an air quality standard, but
the impact and mitigation would remain similar to the
project. (LSM)
This alternative would involve more construction,
resulting in a greater possibility to violate an air quality
standard, but the impact and mitigation would remain
similar to the project. (LSM)
Impact 3.c: The project would not result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 3.d: The project would not expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 3.e: The project would not create objectionable odors affecting
a substantial number of people. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Biological
Resources
Impact 4.a: The project could have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans,
No impact. Impact and mitigation would be similar to the proposed
project. (LSM)
Impact and mitigation would be similar to the proposed
project. (LSM)
Impact and mitigation would be similar to the proposed
project. (LSM)
EXHIBIT A
Page 130 of 148
Environmental Alternatives Analysis
Technical Memorandum
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 15 ESA / 120473.02
Environmental Alternatives Analysis June 2017
Environmental
Resource Proposed Project
Alternative A:
No Action
Alternative B:
Original Design
Alternative C:
Reduced Impacts
Alternative D:
Alternate Technology
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (LSM)
Impact 4.b: The project could have a substantial adverse effect on
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (LSM)
No impact. Impact and mitigation would be similar to the proposed
project. (LSM)
Impact and mitigation would be similar to the proposed
project. (LSM)
Impact and mitigation would be similar to the proposed
project. (LSM)
Impact 4.c: The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 4.d: The project would not interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 4.e: The project would not conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 4.f: The project would not conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan. (NI)
Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI)
Cultural Resources Impact 5.a: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5. (NI)
Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI)
Impact 5.b: The project could cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5.
(LSM)
No impact. Impact and mitigation would be similar to the proposed
project. (LSM)
Impact and mitigation would be similar to the proposed
project. (LSM)
Impact and mitigation would be similar to the proposed
project. (LSM)
Impact 5.c: The project would not directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 5.d: The project could disturb human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries. (LSM)
No impact. Impact and mitigation would be similar to the proposed
project. (LSM)
Impact and mitigation would be similar to the proposed
project. (LSM)
Impact and mitigation would be similar to the proposed
project. (LSM)
Energy Impact 6.a: The project would not result in a substantial increase in
overall or per capita energy consumption. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 6.b: The project would not result in wasteful or unnecessary
consumption of energy. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 6.c: The project would not require or result in the construction
of new sources of energy supplies or additional energy infrastructure
capacity the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 6.d: The project would not conflict with applicable energy
efficiency policies or standards. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Geology, Soils, and
Seismicity
Impact 7.a: The project would not expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) (NI)
Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI)
EXHIBIT A
Page 131 of 148
Environmental Alternatives Analysis
Technical Memorandum
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 16 ESA / 120473.02
Environmental Alternatives Analysis June 2017
Environmental
Resource Proposed Project
Alternative A:
No Action
Alternative B:
Original Design
Alternative C:
Reduced Impacts
Alternative D:
Alternate Technology
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (LS) No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
The Old Sludge Control Building was constructed in 1949
and is not seismically sound. Impact would be greater than
that of the proposed project and mitigation measures
including seismic retrofits may be necessary. (LSM)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction (LS) No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
The Old Sludge Control Building was constructed in 1949
and is not seismically sound. Impact would be greater than
that of the proposed project and mitigation including
seismic retrofits may be necessary. (LSM)
iv) Landslides (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI)
Impact 7.b: The project would not result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 7.c: The project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 7.d: The project would not be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994)6,
creating substantial risks to life or property. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 7.e: The project would not have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water.
(NI)
Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI)
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Impact 8.a: The project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
This alternative would involve less construction, resulting
in less of possibility to generate greenhouse gas emissions,
and the impact would remain similar to the project. (LS)
This alternative would involve slightly more construction,
resulting in greater greenhouse gas emissions during that
phase of the project. The advanced digestion technology
would also have greater greenhouse gas emissions during
operation. Overall, emissions would slightly increase
relative to the proposed project, but would remain less
than significant. (LS)
Impact 8.b: The project would not conflict with an applicable plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project
and would thus not conflict with a plan, policy, or
regulation regarding emissions. (LS)
This alternative would involve less construction, resulting
in reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and the impact
would remain similar to the project. It would thus not
conflict with a plan, policy, or regulation regarding
emissions. (LS)
This alternative would involve slightly more construction,
resulting in greater greenhouse gas emissions during that
phase of the project. The advanced digestion technology
would also have greater greenhouse gas emissions during
operation. Emissions increases would be slight and would
not conflict with policies, plans, or regulations. Impacts
would remain less than significant. (LS)
Hazards and
Hazardous
Materials
Impact 9.a: The project could create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials. (LSM)
No impact. Impact and mitigation would be similar to the proposed
project. (LSM)
Impact and mitigation would be similar to the proposed
project. (LSM)
Impact and mitigation would be similar to the proposed
project. (LSM)
Impact 9.b: The project could 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. (LSM)
No impact. Impact and mitigation would be similar to the proposed
project. (LSM)
Impact and mitigation would be similar to the proposed
project. (LSM)
Impact and mitigation would be similar to the proposed
project. (LSM)
Impact 9.c: The project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. (NI)
Same as the project (NI) Same as the project (NI) Same as the project (NI) Same as the project (NI)
6 The 2016 California Building Code (CBC), based on the International Building Code and the now defunct Uniform Building Code, no longer includes a Table 18-1-B. Instead, Section 1803.5.3 of the CBC describes the criteria for analyzing expansive soils.
EXHIBIT A
Page 132 of 148
Environmental Alternatives Analysis
Technical Memorandum
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 17 ESA / 120473.02
Environmental Alternatives Analysis June 2017
Environmental
Resource Proposed Project
Alternative A:
No Action
Alternative B:
Original Design
Alternative C:
Reduced Impacts
Alternative D:
Alternate Technology
Impact 9.d: The project would not be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 9.e: For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, the project would not result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area. (NI)
Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI)
Impact 9.f: For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, the
project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (NI)
Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI)
Impact 9.g: The project would not impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 9.h: The project would not expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands. (NI)
Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI)
Hydrology and
Water Quality
Impact 10.a: The project would not violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements. (LS)
Without implementation of the proposed project, the
WQCP would continue to discharge stormwater into
Colma Creek and would not comply with the NPDES
Industrial Storm Water Permit. (PS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Only building one pump station would leave a portion of
the site with stormwater runoff passing off the plant
boundaries untreated, which would be a violation of the
stormwater management permit requirements unless
additional mitigation measures were developed and
implemented. Impact would be more significant that of the
proposed project, and may require mitigation. (PS) or
(LSM)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 10.b: The project would not substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses
or planned uses for which permits have been granted). (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 10.c: The project would not substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 10.d. The project would not substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on-
or off-site. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 10.e: The project would not create or contribute runoff water
that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 10.f: The project would not otherwise substantially degrade
water quality. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 10.g: The project would not place housing within a 100-year
flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. (NI)
Same as the project (NI) Same as the project (NI) Same as the project (NI) Same as the project (NI)
Impact 10.h: The project would not place within a 100-year flood
hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
EXHIBIT A
Page 133 of 148
Environmental Alternatives Analysis
Technical Memorandum
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 18 ESA / 120473.02
Environmental Alternatives Analysis June 2017
Environmental
Resource Proposed Project
Alternative A:
No Action
Alternative B:
Original Design
Alternative C:
Reduced Impacts
Alternative D:
Alternate Technology
Impact 10.i: The project would not expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 10.j: The project would not cause inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Land Use and Land
Use Planning
Impact 11.a: The project would not physically divide an established
community. (NI)
Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI)
Impact 11.b: The project would not 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,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (NI)
Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI)
Impact 11.c: The project would not conflict with any applicable
habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. (NI)
Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI)
Mineral Resources Impact 12.a: The project would not 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. (NI)
Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI)
Impact 12.b: The project would not result in the loss of availability of
a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. (NI)
Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI)
Noise Impact 13.a: The project would not result in exposure of persons to or
generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
The duration of construction would be shorter in this
alternative, therefore reducing the duration of noise
impacts. Daily construction noise levels would remain
below standards. Impact would be similar to that of the
proposed project. (LS)
The duration of construction would be longer in this
alternative, therefore increasing the overall duration of
noise impacts. Daily construction noise levels would
remain below standards. Impact would be similar to that of
the proposed project. (LS)
Impact 13.b: The project would not result in exposure of persons to or
generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
The duration of construction would be shorter in this
alternative, therefore reducing the duration of noise
impacts. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed
project. (LS)
The duration of construction would be longer in this
alternative, therefore increasing the overall duration of
noise impacts. Project construction would not result in the
exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Impact
would be similar to that of the proposed project. (LS)
Impact 13.c: The project would not result in a substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 13.d: The project could result in a substantial temporary or
periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project. (LSM)
No impact. Impact and mitigation would be similar to the proposed
project. (LSM)
Impact and mitigation would be similar to the proposed
project. (LSM)
Impact and mitigation would be similar to the proposed
project. (LSM)
Impact 13.e: For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, the project would not expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 13.f: For a project located in the vicinity of a private airstrip,
the project would not expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels. (NI)
Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI)
Population and
Housing
Impact 14.a: The project would not induce substantial population
growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure). (NI)
Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI)
EXHIBIT A
Page 134 of 148
Environmental Alternatives Analysis
Technical Memorandum
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 19 ESA / 120473.02
Environmental Alternatives Analysis June 2017
Environmental
Resource Proposed Project
Alternative A:
No Action
Alternative B:
Original Design
Alternative C:
Reduced Impacts
Alternative D:
Alternate Technology
Impact 14.b: The project would not displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere. (NI)
Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI)
Impact 14.c: The project would not displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere. (NI)
Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI)
Public Services Impact 15.a: The project would not result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance objectives for any of the
following public services:
i) Fire protection (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
ii) Police protection (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
iii) Schools (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
iv) Parks (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
v) Other public facilities (LS) No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Recreation Impact 16.a: The project would not increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated. (NI)
Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI)
Impact 16.b: The project would not include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. (NI)
Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI)
Transportation and
Traffic
Impact 17.a: The project would not conflict with an applicable plan,
ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and
relevant components of the circulation system, including but not
limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and
bicycle paths, and mass transit. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 17.b: The project would not conflict with an applicable
congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of
service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 17.c: The project would not result in a change in air traffic
patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks. (NI)
Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI)
Impact 17.d: The project would not substantially increase hazards due
to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 17.e: The project would not result in inadequate emergency
access. (NI)
Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI)
EXHIBIT A
Page 135 of 148
Environmental Alternatives Analysis
Technical Memorandum
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 20 ESA / 120473.02
Environmental Alternatives Analysis June 2017
Environmental
Resource Proposed Project
Alternative A:
No Action
Alternative B:
Original Design
Alternative C:
Reduced Impacts
Alternative D:
Alternate Technology
Impact 17.f: The project would not conflict with adopted policies,
plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Utilities and Service
Systems
Impact 18.a: The project would not exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board.
(LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 18.b: The project would not require or result in the
construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 18.c: The project would not require or result in the construction
of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 18.d: The project would have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources.
(LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 18.e: The project would not 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 provider’s existing commitments. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 18.f: The project would be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal
needs. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 18.g: The project would comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid waste. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Mandatory Findings
of Significance
Impact 19.a: The project could 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 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. (LSM)
No impact. Impact and mitigation would be similar to the proposed
project. (LSM)
Impact and mitigation would be similar to the proposed
project. (LSM)
Impact and mitigation would be similar to the proposed
project. (LSM)
Impact 19.b: The project does not have impacts that are individually
limited but cumulatively considerable. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact 19.c: The project does not have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly
or indirectly. (LS)
No impact. Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
(LS)
Socioeconomics and
Environmental
Justice
New Impact – Adverse impacts that disproportionately affect
minority or low-income populations: The proposed project would not
bring adverse socioeconomic or environmental impacts to surrounding
communities or disproportionately affect minority or low-income
communities. (NI)
Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI) Same as the proposed project (NI)
LEGEND: NI =No Impact LS = Less than Significant LSM = Less than Significant with Mitigation PS =Potentially Significant
EXHIBIT A
Page 136 of 148
Environmental Alternatives Analysis
Technical Memorandum
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 21 ESA / 120473.02
Environmental Alternatives Analysis June 2017
This page intentionally left blank
EXHIBIT A
Page 137 of 148
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project 22 ESA / 120473.02
Environmental Alternatives Analysis June 2017
Summary of Selection
To understand the basis of selection of the proposed project, it is important to recognize that the
proposed project would upgrade and improve technologies at an existing wastewater treatment
plant, and it would do so within the existing footprint. Given the existing use of the site and the
rigid space constraints on the site, the alternatives that were developed and investigated for
possible implementation tend to be alternative technologies and/or design-related changes in
capacity and plant processes. Many of those possible alternate concepts are not feasible on the
site or would not meet the project goals. Thus, there are relatively minor differences between
many of the assessments of the alternatives, including those of long-term or future impacts,
beneficial outcomes, or cumulative impacts.
The proposed project would improve the efficiency and reliability of the WQCP’s operations and
maintenance with relatively few impacts from construction or ongoing operation. The proposed
project would not change the current land use or bring a substantial adverse environmental
change to the WQCP or to the built or natural environments around it. As Table 3 indicates, in
almost all cases, the long-term impacts to the environment from the proposed project would be
reduced relative to the existing conditions as well as to the other action alternatives, including the
one initially studied and analyzed in the adopted IS/MND. The proposed alternative provides
similar or improved benefits while reducing construction impacts and decreasing long-term
operations impacts. Further, the nature of the project itself is to reduce the risks of adverse
environmental impacts from failures or disruptions in services provided by the WQCP, by
increasing the energy- and water-use efficiencies, and by modernizing the facility as a whole.
EXHIBIT A
Page 138 of 148
E-1 ESA / 120473.02 South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project
Addendum June 2017
APPENDIX E
Comment Letters
•Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and
Planning Unit - May 23, 2017
•State Water Resources Control Board - May 22, 2017
•Comment and Response Summary Table for the Addendum to the IS/MND
EXHIBIT A
Page 139 of 148
This page intentionally left blank
E-2
EXHIBIT A
Page 140 of 148
Agency #Content of Comment Response
State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB)
5/22/17
1 This comment expresses the SWRCB's understanding that the City is
also applying for a loan from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(CWSRF) and explains the SWRCB's role in that program. It also
clarifies the application processes and points to three enclosurs to
assist the City in that application.
The City appreciates this clarification and will follow the
application procedures.
SWRCB
5/22/17
2 This comment notes that CWSRF projects are subject to provisions of
the ESA, and must obtain Section 7 clearance from US Department of
the Interior, USFWS and/or NOAA, NMFS for any potential effects to
special-status species. City will need to identify project effects from
construction activities, or other indirect effects, and identify
applicable conservation measures to reduce such effects.
The City has performed the analyses necessary to comply
with these provisions. The proposed project would not
affect any endangered species. Any significant impacts to
biological resources would be reduce to less than significant
with the implementation of mitigation measures included in
the IS/MND and the Addendum.
SWRCB
5/22/17
3 CWSRF projects must comply with Section 106 of the NHPA. The State
Water Board is responsible for ensuring compliance with Section 106,
and must consult directly with the CA SHPO. SHPO consultation is
initiated when sufficient information is provided by the CWSRF
application. City will need to identify APE, including construction and
staging areas, and the depth of any excavation.
Text has been added to the Cultural Resources section of the
Addendum to summarize the updated records search that
was conducted in ssupport of the origanlly adopted IS/MND.
The revised 2017 project is entirely within the original Area
of Potential Effects (APE) and therefore there are no
changes to the previous finding of No Historic Properties
Affected. The added text also clarifies that the IS/MND and
Addendum identify the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the
project, which did include the subterranean portion of the
project footprint down to the planned excavation depth.
SWRCB
5/22/17
4 The comment lists Federal environmental requirements pertinent to
the Project under the CWSRF Program and also notes that a complete
list of federal requirements that are included on the CWSRF
Application.
The City has prepared an application for the CWSRF loan
program that includes evaluations and demonstrates
compliance with these requirements.
SWRCB
5/22/17
5 The comment requests a copy of the FEMA flood zone map for the
Project area.
The Final Addendum to the IS/MND includes an updated
FEMA map and additional text to explain what has changd
since that update was completed.
SWRCB
5/22/17
6 The comment requests that the analysis addresses any changes
between the October 2012 FEMA FIRM and the September 2013
FEMA FIRM in regards to Project area.
The Final Addendum to the IS/MND includes an updated
FEMA map and additional text to explain what has changd
since that update was completed. The revised map shows
that the WQCP is no longer designated as a special flood
hazard area (SFHA) subject to inundation by the 100-year
flood (i.e., the 1% annual flood risk). The north side of the
WQCP, where Colma Creek runs adjacent to the site, and the
east side of the site, adjacent to the San Francisco Bay,
remain the same category of SFHA as in the previous version
of the FIRM.
SWRCB
5/22/17
7 CWSRF projects must undergo an alternatives analysis except for
projects that are statutorilly or categorically exempt. The State Water
Board must ensure that the applicant has evalutaion criteria and
processes which allow for several criteria to be met.
An alternatives analsyis was written for the SRF Application
for the Project. The Final Addendum to the IS/MND includes
the alternatives analysis as an appendix.
SWRCB
5/22/17
8 Comment requests a list of documents that will be necessary for the
SWRCB to complete its reconsideration of the application for the
CWSRF loan. These included the Draft and Final IS/MND (and
presumably also this Addendum to it, as well as comments and
responses, noticies, and the adopted MMRP. It also reqeusts that
notices of hearings or meetings to be held regarding of environmental
review of any projects to be funded by the State Water Board.
The City will provide these documents to the SWRCB as
requested.
Comment and Response Summary Table for the Addendum to the IS/MND
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Project
Addendum
1 ESA / 120473.02
June 2017
EXHIBIT A
Page 141 of 148
EXHIBIT A
Page 142 of 148
EXHIBIT A
Page 143 of 148
EXHIBIT A
Page 144 of 148
EXHIBIT A
Page 145 of 148
EXHIBIT A
Page 146 of 148
EXHIBIT A
Page 147 of 148
EXHIBIT A
Page 148 of 148
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvement Project June 2017
CEQA ATTACHMENT B
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP
Capital Improvements Project
Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program for the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
CEQA Attachment B
Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvement Project June 2017
This page intentionally left blank
South San Francisco / San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Projects 1 ESA / 120473
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program August 2013
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO / SAN BRUNO
WQCP CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECTS
Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program
This document summarizes the mitigation measures that would be integrated into the proposed
project to reduce the potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level. The
document provides a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) organized in a
tabular format, keyed to each mitigation measure incorporated into the project. The tables
following each measure provide a breakdown of how the mitigation measure would be
implemented, who would be responsible, and when it would occur. The tables consist of four
column headings which are defined as follows:
Implementation Procedure: If needed, this column provides additional information on how
the mitigation measures would be implemented.
Monitoring and Reporting Actions: This column contains an outline of the appropriate
steps to verify compliance with the mitigation measure.
Monitoring Responsibility: This column contains an assignment of responsibility for the
monitoring and reporting tasks.
Monitoring Schedule: The general schedule for conducting each monitoring and reporting
task, identifying where appropriate both the timing and the frequency of the action.
3.1 Air Quality
Mitigation Measure AIR-1a
During construction activities, the City shall require the construction contractor(s) to implement a
dust abatement program that includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the following BAAQMD-
recommended measures as needed to control dust:
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
South San Francisco / San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Projects 2 ESA / 120473
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program August 2013
All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet
power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is
prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil
binders are used.
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne
toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]).
Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at
the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective
action within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure
compliance with applicable regulations.
Implementation Procedure
Monitoring and
Reporting Actions
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule
1. City includes dust
abatement requirements in
construction specifications.
1. City reviews dust
abatement program.
1. City 1. Prior to construction
2. Contractor implements
measures in the program.
2. City documents that
measures are being
implemented.
2. City 2. During construction
and final inspection
Mitigation Measure AIR-1b
During construction activities, the City shall ensure that the construction contractor(s) implement
the following measures:
On-road construction vehicle idling time shall not exceed five minutes. Additionally, off-
road equipment engines shall not idle for longer than five minutes per Section 2449(d)(3)
of Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9 of the California Code of Regulations.
Implementation Procedure
Monitoring and
Reporting Actions
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule
1. City includes vehicle idling
requirements in
construction specifications.
1. City reviews contract. 1. City 1. Prior to construction
2. Contractor implements
measures in the program.
2. City documents that
measures are being
implemented.
2. City 2. During construction
and final inspection
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
South San Francisco / San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Projects 3 ESA / 120473
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program August 2013
3.2 Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO-1a
The City will implement the following measure prior to construction:
No more than two weeks in advance of any ground-disturbing activity, or other
construction activity that would commence during the bird breeding season (February 1
through August 31), a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys of
potential nesting habitat in the vicinity of the planned activity. If surveys indicate presence
of nests, Mitigation Measure BIO-1b will be implemented.
Implementation Procedure
Monitoring and
Reporting Actions
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule
1. City shall contract with a
qualified biologist to
conduct a worker education
program.
1. City executes contract. 1. Onsite foreman, City 1. No more than 2 weeks
prior to construction,
and prior to the
removal of any
vegetation
2. City shall contract with a
qualified biologist to
conduct a pre-construction
survey for California
clapper rail.
2. City executes contract. 2. Qualified biologist,
City
2. Between two and four
weeks prior to
construction, and prior
to the removal of any
vegetation
Mitigation Measure BIO-1b
The City will implement the following measure if pre-construction surveys conducted under
Mitigation Measure BIO-1a indicate presence of nests:
If active nests are found during pre-construction surveys, the results of the surveys shall be
discussed with California Department of Fish and Wildlife and avoidance procedures
would be adopted, if necessary, on a case-by-case basis and construction in the vicinity
would be initiated only after avoidance measures are adopted. Avoidance measures shall
include maintaining construction buffer areas (up to several hundred feet in the case of
raptors) or seasonal avoidance, as needed. If buffers are created, a no-disturbance zone shall
be created around active nests for the remainder of the breeding season, or until a qualified
biologist determines that all young have fledged. The size of the buffer zones and types of
construction activities restricted shall take into account factors such as the following:
- Noise and human disturbance levels at the proposed project site and the nesting site
at the time of the survey and the noise and disturbance expected during the
construction activity;
- Distance, line of sight, and amount of vegetation or other screening between the
proposed project site and the nest; and
- Sensitivity of individual nesting species and behaviors of the nesting birds.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
South San Francisco / San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Projects 4 ESA / 120473
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program August 2013
Implementation Procedure
Monitoring and
Reporting Actions
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule
1. City shall contract with a
qualified biologist to
conduct a pre-construction
survey if during the nesting
season.
1. City executes contract. 1. City 1. No more than 14 days
prior to construction
2. City shall include potential
work limitations in
construction specifications.
2. City reviews construction
specifications.
2. City 2. Prior to construction
3. If nesting raptors are found
biologist shall identify
appropriate actions to
avoid effects.
3. Sign-off by City that
measures are being
implemented.
3. City 3. During construction
Mitigation Measure BIO-2
The City shall implement the following measures during excavation for Stormwater Pump
Stations Nos. 4 and 5 and demolition of the digesters:
Project construction activities shall take place between September and January, i.e., in the
months outside of the clapper rail breeding season (February 1 through August 31); or
Noise reduction measures, including solid plywood fences, sound blankets, or other barriers
with noise-dampening materials shall be constructed along the northwest, north, and
northeast-facing edges of the project site prior to initiation of construction to serve as noise
attenuation barriers. Noise barriers shall be installed in all locations along the exterior fence
of the project boundary to minimize any direct or reflected noise above current ambient
levels in salt marsh habitats outside the project site. The noise attenuation barrier shall be a
minimum of eight feet in height, but sufficient in height to reduce any noise from construction
on upper stories or building rooftops. The fences shall shield the marshes from major noise
generating phases of construction to attenuate noise emanating from the project site.
Implementation Procedure
Monitoring and
Reporting Actions
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule
1. City shall obtain required
permits and include work
limitations such as
exclusionary fencing in
construction specifications.
1. City reviews construction
specifications.
1. City 1. Prior to construction
2. Contractor shall
implement required
measures including
fencing.
2. Periodic inspections
during construction
along the drainage ditch.
Sign-off by City that
measures are being
implemented.
2. City 2. During construction
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
South San Francisco / San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Projects 5 ESA / 120473
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program August 2013
3.3 Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CUL-1
The City shall implement the following measure:
Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources. If prehistoric or historic-period
cultural materials are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, halt all work within
100 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative can
assess the significance of the find. Prehistoric materials might include obsidian and chert
flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally
darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks and artifacts; stone milling
equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered-stone tools,
such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include stone,
concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass,
and/or ceramic refuse. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the
archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American representative, will develop a
treatment plan that could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery.
Implementation Procedure
Monitoring and
Reporting Actions
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule
1. City shall contract with an
archaeologist meeting the
Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for professional
archaeology to monitor all
ground-disturbing activities.
1. City executes contract. 1. City, qualified
archaeologist
1. Prior to and during
construction
2. City shall review construction
specifications to ensure
procedures for cultural
resources discovery are
included.
2. City reviews construction
specifications.
2. City 2. Prior to construction
3. In the event subsurface cultural
resources are discovered,
construction within 100 feet of
the find shall be halted and the
qualified archaeologist shall be
notified
3. City shall notify the
County of the discovery.
3. City 3. During construction
4. The archaeologist shall
complete a final monitoring
report
4. Archaeologist completes
report
4. Qualified
archaeologist
4. Following construction
Mitigation Measure CUL-2
The City shall implement the following measure:
Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. If human remains are encountered during
ground disturbing activities, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no
further disturbance will occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as
to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98. If the
remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
South San Francisco / San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Projects 6 ESA / 120473
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program August 2013
notify the Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American Heritage
Commission will then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent of
the deceased Native American, who will make recommendations for the treatment of any
human remains.
Implementation Procedure
Monitoring and
Reporting Actions
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule
1. City shall retain a Native
American monitor to monitor
all ground-disturbing activities
1. City executes contract 1. City Native
American Monitor
1. Prior to and during
construction
2. City shall review construction
specifications to ensure
procedures for human remains
discovery are included.
2. City reviews
construction
specifications.
2. City 2. Prior to construction
3. In the event human remains
are discovered, construction in
the area shall be halted and
City shall consult the County
Coroner.
3. The contractor shall
notify City of the
discovery.
3. City 3. During construction
4. City shall review construction
specifications to ensure
procedures for human remains
discovery are included.
4. City reviews
construction
specifications.
4. City 4. Prior to construction
3.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1
The City shall implement the following measure:
Prior to commencement of demolition activities, the City shall contract with a licensed
professional to conduct hazardous building material surveys for asbestos containing
materials and lead-based paint for all structures proposed for demolition. Any subsequently
identified hazardous building materials shall be removed and abated in accordance with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) rule “Lead: Renovation, Repair and
Painting Activities that Disturb Lead-Based Paint”, 40 CFR 745; California Code of
Regulations 1529, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and any local requirements
that govern the protection, collection, transport, and disposal of hazardous building
materials including asbestos containing materials and lead-based paint.
Implementation Procedure
Monitoring and
Reporting Actions
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule
1. City incorporates
requirements in
construction specifications.
1. City reviews construction
specifications.
1. City 1. Prior to construction
2. Contractor implements
measures in the program.
2. City documents that
measures are being
implemented.
2. City 2. During construction
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
South San Francisco / San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Projects 7 ESA / 120473
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program August 2013
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2
The City shall implement the following measure:
Prior to commencement of construction activities, the City shall prepare and implement a
Soil Management Plan as approved by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB). The Soil Management Plan shall be prepared by a qualified
environmental consulting firm and shall include protocols for all earthwork activities that
might encounter suspected contamination, emergency contact information, and minimum
personal protective equipment requirements for onsite construction workers. Any suspected
contaminated subsurface materials shall be segregated, covered, and profiled for appropriate
offsite disposal in accordance with CalOSHA requirements and the receiving facilities
requirements. The RWQCB shall be notified of any suspected contamination and the City
shall only proceed with earthwork activities following direction from the RWQCB or local
Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Any required further excavation as directed by
the overseeing agency shall be completed prior to recommencement of construction.
Implementation Procedure
Monitoring and
Reporting Actions
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule
1. City includes procedures in
the event that contaminated
soils are identified in
construction specifications.
1. City reviews construction
specifications.
1. City 1. Prior to construction
2. Contractor implements
measures in the program.
2. City documents that
measures are being
implemented.
2. City 2. During construction
3.5 Noise
Mitigation Measure NOI-1
Construction Noise Reduction Measures. The City shall require the contractor to implement the
following measures:
All sandblasting activities shall be fully contained with appropriate tenting.
Limit demolition and construction activities to daytime hours between 8:00 AM and
8:00 PM on weekdays and 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Saturdays.
Use “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology
exists.
Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers that are in good
condition and appropriate for the equipment.
Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.
Prohibit construction worker radios from being audible beyond the limits of the
construction site.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
South San Francisco / San Bruno WQCP Capital Improvements Projects 8 ESA / 120473
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program August 2013
Implementation Procedure
Monitoring and
Reporting Actions
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule
1. City incorporates the noise
control measures and
requirements in
construction specifications.
1. City reviews construction
specifications.
1. City 1. Prior to construction
2. The contractor implements
measures.
2. City documents that
measures are being
implemented.
2. City 2. During construction